The truth about 911

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

Couldn't agree more. These are column loads. Take a straw and push straight down on it; it will hold quite a force. Kink the straw, reduce it's compressive strength (by burning part of it away) or apply the load at just a very slight angle to vertical, and the straw collapses easily. Columns have to be held exactly vertical to work, once the column is compromised, or the lateral support holding it in place is compromised, it's bye, bye structure.

Yes sir, but that straw will not drop neatly into its own footprint, it will bend.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

that's two movements headed by professionals wanting a full scale independent investigation. what do they say about smoke and fire?

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

patriots question 911

140+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials

520+ Engineers and Architects

120+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals

270+ Professors Question 9/11

210+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

160+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

First, the WTC buildings, like most skyscrapers, were built on a central steel column with the floors hanging from suspended beams off said column. Specifically 47 columns of steel - 14 inches per side - and composed of steel plates. I.e. NOT a solid column of steel. It is notable that the steel in the upper floors was definitely thinner and weaker steel than at the base.

Good point, so why would the building collapse into a relatively neat pile at the bottom? It would seem to me that the top of the building would melt and fall apart, and the bottom with the thicker stronger steel (that wasn't hit by an airplane and had no fires) would stay intact.

1) 747 fuel load: 500,000 pounds of jet fuel
2) Energy content of jet fuel: 43.5 MJ/kg = 19.77 MJ/lb, or 18,700 BTU/lb

Total energy available from 747 fuel: about 9 billion BTUs or about 9.5 trillion joules (assuming some fuel was used to fly to New York)

Specific heat of iron (assume same for steel): 0.72 (i.e. % of energy applied to a material which raises its temperature)

Melting point of steel: around 1500 degrees C

Energy needed to raise steel from room temperature (20 degrees C) to melting point: ~1500 * .72 * 1000 (g/kg) = ~ 1 million J

So there was something on the order of 1 billion times the energy needed melt 1 kg of steel in each 747, or 1 million times the energy needed to melt 1000 kg of steel.

The 9/11 debunkers I've seen so far argue that the normal burning temperature of jet fuel is under 300 degrees C, therefore the jet fuel could not have melted the structural members of the WTC.

However, I don't know if said numbers apply to 500,000 lbs of jet fuel crashed into a building at hundreds of miles per hour.

There are numerous possible ways the fuel could have increased its destructive potential: the fuel air bomb being one example.

Let's give this the benefit of the doubt and say that somehow the fire managed find enough oxygen in the cloud of smoke to attain a burning temperature above the melting point of steel. Explain the abundance of steel spheres present in the dust all over the city of New York. Melting is much different than burning at such a high temperature and so quickly that the steel is literally ejected as liquid, forms spheres and cools as it is projected away from the blast. This type of evidence is signature of thermite.

Another mechanism would be the firestorm: normal fuel burning is limited by air supply. In a firestorm, the initial burn is sufficient to raise a column of heated air (and burn byproducts) which moves so fast that it causes a region of lower pressure at its base. This in turn sucks in air from the sides and also increases air supply and the heat column.

I won't argue that hypothetically this could have happened, however I want to take it back to the basics again. We know that a fire that is burning hot and strong doesn't put out much smoke. Look at the aftermath, there is smoke billowing out of the towers like a coal plant. That is not conducive to a firestorm, it suffocates the fire.
Like you said

Thus this is one way the destruction could have occurred. Note that even jet fuel won't burn much without a sufficient supply of air; the 500K lbs would not have ignited all at once.

All in all I don't see the 2 largest WTC buildings being destroyed by a crashing 747 as being impossible. The scale of effects there simply has never been seen before.

This is not a true statement. There are several example of high rise fires (including large airplane crashes) which burned significantly longer, larger and hotter than these. We're talking days of burning here and the top floors where the fires roared were completely destroyed. The bottom floors were intact.

The debunkers noting the curiously neat collapse of the building do have a point, but then again there is the possibility of substandard materials, poor design, or even a deliberate destruction once it was clear the building was damaged and could collapse and damage other buildings.

Do just a little research into the amount of time it takes to plan and execute a controlled demolition of a building that size. Weeks of collecting data, measurements, setting up the thermite in a safe manner etc. If the objective was to promote safety and by some act of god they managed to contact a group who specializes in this, who arrived immediately and started setting thermite charges right away, in order to pull the building in a manner of hours, what part of this "on the fly" operation seems safe?

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

Thank you! I was looking for that.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

here's some hard hitting science from some of the professors who think this is BS

Dr Steven Jones' paper

abstract

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the
Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use
of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11
Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all
three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been

analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.


Co-author of Journal of 9/11 Studies peer reviewed paper, Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction 1/08: "In an effort to better understand the conditions that led to complete collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC 7, we apply scanning-electron- microscope and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy methods to analyze the dust generated, with an emphasis on observed micro-spheres in the WTC dust. The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories. The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings. …

The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings. The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C). We wish to call attention to this discrepancy: the official view implicating fires as the main cause for the ultimate collapses of the WTC Towers and WTC 7 is inadequate to explain this temperature gap and is therefore incomplete at best. …

Thus, a thorough investigation which considers these data, showing extremely high temperatures and severe fragmentation in the formation of small metal-rich spheres during the WTC Towers destruction, is highly motivated. In particular, the repeatedly- delayed report on the destruction of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 should address these striking facts."


Also another professor who backs up some of the claims made by the pilots in the video Rajiv posted.

Mary Schiavo, JD

Mary Schiavo, JD – Former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University. Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation 1990 - 1996. 1997 inductee into the Smithsonian Institution Aviation Laurel Hall of Fame. Currently, an attorney with Motley Rice LLC. Served as an on-air aviation consultant for NBC and ABC News and frequently appears on Fox, CNN, CBS and the BBC. Private pilot. Author of Flying Blind, Flying Safe (1998). Article The New York Observer 2/15/04: "Ms. Schiavo sat in on the commission's hearing on aviation security on 9/11 and was disgusted by what it left out. "In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission," she told this writer. "There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything." ... The timeline that is most disturbing belongs to the last of the four suicide missions -- United Airlines Flight 93, later presumed destined for the U.S. Capitol, if not the White House. Huge discrepancies persist in basic facts, such as when it crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside near Shanksville. The official impact time according to NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, is 10:03 a.m. Later, U.S. Army seismograph data gave the impact time as 10:06:05. The FAA gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. And The New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one FAA facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m. Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air-traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. But as Mary Schiavo points out, "We don't have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second." http://www.observer.com/node/48805 Press conference statement 6/10/02: "First of all, the question is not 'What they should have known?' And I believe I can show you in just a few seconds the question is, 'What did they know?' And believe me, they knew a lot. The second thing to emphasize is that in every single aviation disaster, whether there was intervening criminal activity or not, in every single one in the course of modern aviation history it has been followed by, not only were it necessary, a criminal investigation, but also a National Transportation Safety investigation into what went wrong in the aviation system. And the reason for that is so that it never happens again. [Editor's Note: The NTSB never conducted full investigations of the four plane crashes on 9/11. The NTSB's official position for each plane involved on 9/11 is, "The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."] This is the first time, and this is the worst disaster, but this is the first time that families have been attempted to be silenced through a special fund, which I believe is about silence more so than about money. Why? ... And from my rounds on the Hill to find these facts and others, I found that the airlines approached members of Congress and the Senate to get their bailout and their immunity and their protection starting on 9/11. They sent their first lobbyist up to the Hill on 9/11. And this has been confirmed to me personally by Senators and members of Congress. Now to me that's very shocking but to me it raises another question, why? Why did they have to rush to the Hill to change the law? ... So in the wake of September 11, 2001, when we heard the carriers and governments alike saying, “Oh, no one could have foreseen this. No one knew that this was coming. No one knew that there was any risk like this in the world,” is absolutely false. ... In the last thirty years we have had 682 hijackings. 682. Here's an interesting statistic. When we had the United States saying, 'Oh, we couldn't have known this.' In the Q&A section: "We did have another plot in the United States to hijack a plane and crash it into a building. And, by the way, we had a government cost/benefit analysis of this very same scenario. The only problem with this government cost/benefit analysis was they used a 737 and figured it would be one plane crashed into a building. So I do believe that the government certainly knew that these things were possible. In fact it had been attempted before and the information was out there. But we do tend to get, as a government, tend to get bogged down in the cost/benefit analysis. And I, for one, happen to agree that the warnings were very fairly specific. June 22nd FAA issued a bulletin that had concerns about terrorism. July 2nd FAA told the airlines the man involved in the millennium plot had intention of using explosives in terminal buildings. July 18th the FAA issued a bulletin that said there are terrorist threats and we urge you to use caution. July 31 that there are going to be terror groups planning and training for hijacking. Use caution. And finally August 16th disguised weapons. So I think the warning signs were not only ample but specific and there was previous attacks where planes were going to be used to crash into buildings. So only the government can probably answer now at this point why they didn't take them seriously."

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

I'd hate to say it but i'm actually getting quite emotional about this. The lack of investigation and obvious cover up is what gets me. I don't know for sure what exactly they are covering up and why, I can guess though, but it's pretty obvious there is one.

They're hiding from normal investigative routes behind the FBI and the need to protect national security and therefore no independent inestigation.

Completely (insert expletive)

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

GRG55,

Awesome a pilot!

I'm glad you brought up the Pentagon because this is another smoking gun for me. I think you might agree that the heaviest, strongest part of a commercial airliner is the jet engines. Take another look at the damage at the Pentagon and then think about the damage that one would expect from a large jet impact. Think about the wingspan and the distance the engines are apart.

What I would expect is that the engines would have caused the most damage and would have penetrated farthest. I would expect perhaps wide horizontal damage not a nice round hole.

I would also expect that camera footage from dozens of government and private security cameras that we're confiscated by the FBI within hours of the incident would be released to the 911 comission and the public if there was nothing to hide. To date only one altered part of one clip has been released, but that's another story.

This little page might spark your interest, maybe not.
http://www.911swindle.info/pentagon-photos.html

On a lighter note, I like your new avatar. If you really are building a bunker I'm jealous. I've been contimplating Gillette WY for some time now. Solid coal industry, low taxes, low population far from large population centers, less intrusive government, close to home. What's not to like?

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

I've gone through the emotions trust me.

I was in boot camp when this shit happened. I helped kill thousands of innocent people because of this, and gave up tens of thousands of dollars in college money to get the hell away from it. Emotional doesn't even begin to describe what I felt when it really sunk in, and the roller coaster ride I put my wife through afterwards.

All that far too revealing information aside, a person eventually just integrates the new information in with the old and moves on with their life like everybody else.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

I'm sorry you've had to go through what you have, but applaud you for having the moral integrity and backbone to make your own decision and stick by it.

There's not much else you can do to address this which is a massive reflection on the US democracy. Put your name down on one of these petetions that these professors and men of science are putting forth to get a real investigation done at great risk to their own reputations.

Professor Steven Jones has already had to retire from his position and is now devoting his time to try and give the movement a bit of momentum. Hard to do when the MSM just laughs at you when you point out contradiction after contradiction between the explanation of what happened and the evidence of what happened, and laughable ommissions from the official investigation, such as an entire failure to address the fall of WTC7.

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

From The Pentacon

Also to go along with the previous video is this

Opening text:

We bring you the following presentation as concerned citizens who simply gathered the information for research purposes and had no intentions of ever producing a documentary. To this day we have no aspirations to be filmmakers; but after obtaining this extremely important testimony we have determined that a documentary would be the best way to present this information of critical importance to the public. However there was no film crew, expensive equipment, or budget involved.

The video and audio quality is inferior so we are releasing this updated version with subtitles added when necessary. The testimony you are about to view is of historical significance and is not presented for entertainment purposes. It has been edited as little as possible to maintain the integrity of the witness claims in complete context. Because of this the interviews may seem longer than typical for a produced documentary so we do not recommend viewing for those with short attention spans.

Since the internet release of this data in February of 2007 critics have been quick to point out the fact that all 3 witnesses at the gas station believed the plane impacted the building despite our claim that their testimony proves it did not. We understand how this may be confusing for some people but the fact remains that it is physically impossible for the witnesses to be correct in their placement of the plane while also being correct in their belief that it hit the building.

As a viewer of this testimony who is or will soon be aware of the trajectory of the perfectly aligned physical damage beginning with the light poles and ending with the alleged C ring exit hole; you must decide which claim you choose to believe because it is clear that both claims can not be simultaneously correct.

Pay special attention to this testimony with this question in mind. This movie gives you the necessary data to make an educated decision. Try to forget about the implications in order to remove yourself from any biases when considering the answer to this critical question. Think of yourself as a member of a jury whose responsibility it is to determine which part of the testimony you determine to be correct. Are the witnesses correct in their placement of the plane on the north side of the station or in their belief that it hit the building?

Also two videos - The North Side Flyover

[c1ue]

Re: The truth about 911

Good point, so why would the building collapse into a relatively neat pile at the bottom? It would seem to me that the top of the building would melt and fall apart, and the bottom with the thicker stronger steel (that wasn't hit by an airplane and had no fires) would stay intact.

According to this link:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc6.htm

the WTC1 and WTC2 towers collapsed due to a combination of support columns being broken (over 35 in each tower) combined with the jet fuel weakening the remaining supports.

Once the reduced numbers of supports were also broken, the floors at and above the crash levels then fell more or less straight down and caused the catastrophic final collapse.

As for the fire damage in other examples - this article notes that most typical building fires start as a small source and spread relatively slowly.

In the 9/11 incident, the crash likely knocked fireproofing off the structure and also spread the jet fuel very quickly and evenly throughout the building, thus the fires would have been pretty much simultaneous through the crash area.

Again, not saying the conspiracy is impossible, but the general events of 9/11 and the WTC1 & WTC2 collapses don't seem ridiculous.

As for the metal globes and melt temperatures and what not - again note that the collapse of thousands, if not tens of thousands of tons of material from a height of hundreds of feet, encompass a huge amount of potential energy release.

A large enough force on metal and with the strong likelihood of compression, could itself be enough to cause liquefaction.

I posit as an example the shaped charge: explosives in a certain pattern around a uranium slug is sufficient to convert said slug into a plasma. Plasma which then bores a tiny hole through main battle tank armor and flash fries the crew and sets off ammunition.

I'm not going to go through the calculations, but I'm pretty sure the energies released when 101 stories of skyscraper hit the ground after falling several hundred feet (on average) are comparable.

As I mentioned before: there is not much prior art to discuss catastrophic failure of a skyscraper.

There have been tall buildings destroyed to date, but the videos I have seen thus far show that these buildings are significantly smaller and of fundamentally different design than a skyscraper.

The closest example is the dallas skyscraper demolition - but that one was a typical controlled demolition where every floor's support was blown serially from the ground up.

In that video, the top floors visibly tilt, but upon reflection this is reasonable since the floors below were blown clear of support first and could not provide any stabilization.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

In that video, the top floors visibly tilt, but upon reflection this is reasonable since the floors below were blown clear of support first and could not provide any stabilization.

If the bottom floors were providing stabilization and preventing tilting, then why did the collapse happen at the speed of gravity.

Is it possible that the demolition was done in reverse with the supports in each floor being blown from top to bottom? Seems to me that the building could fall at the speed of gravity this way. On the video of the collapses you can see blast material coming out horizontally just below where it starts collapsing when it starts collapsing, there's name for it demolishers use but I can't remember starts with s. Almost looks like material has been fired out of a cannon or something. If demolishers have a name for such a plume of material caused by their explosives, then its probably a unique thing to what explosives do. There was only 30 floors or so falling at this stage. The only thing I can think of that may make a little sense is that pressure from the collapse above forced material into the elevator shaft and some of it shot out horizontally through an elevator opening.

Anyway the fact the building fell at the speed of gravity makes no sense if there was any level of support, and it appears there has to have been some support unless it was all precisely blown away. This is the major piece of evidence I think.

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

I think all of these statements really help my arguement.

According to this link:
the WTC1 and WTC2 towers collapsed due to a combination of support columns being broken (over 35 in each tower) combined with the jet fuel weakening the remaining supports.

1st: support collumns damaged in a certain area several floors up
2nd: fires damaged remaining supports
Why would this produce a straight down collapse? This would produce a sideways collapse in the direction of the original impact damage.

Back to the basics, objects travel in the path of least resistance.

Once the reduced numbers of supports were also broken, the floors at and above the crash levels then fell more or less straight down and caused the catastrophic final collapse.

The floors below were not damaged, so why did they offer zero resistance to the weight of those floors which they had been supporting for decades previous? Floor after floor of perfectly intact structure offered no resistance.

I posit as an example the shaped charge: explosives in a certain pattern around a uranium slug is sufficient to convert said slug into a plasma.

Your helping me out here.

As I mentioned before: there is not much prior art to discuss catastrophic failure of a skyscraper.

EXACTLY!;)

[c1ue]

Re: The truth about 911

1st: support collumns damaged in a certain area several floors up
2nd: fires damaged remaining supports
Why would this produce a straight down collapse? This would produce a sideways collapse in the direction of the original impact damage.

Back to the basics, objects travel in the path of least resistance.

Because the World Trade Center buildings weighed 500,000 tons, EACH.

1/3 of this, even assuming unequal weight distribution top to bottom, still gives you 100,000 tons or so.

That much weight, once support is removed, goes STRAIGHT down its center of gravity. Planes crashing, etc don't impart enough momentum to do squat.

Try tipping over a 60 lb dumbell off a table, or in my case occasionally onto my foot. It doesn't swing away from the table hardly at all.

The floors below were not damaged, so why did they offer zero resistance to the weight of those floors which they had been supporting for decades previous? Floor after floor of perfectly intact structure offered no resistance.

Because potential energy unleashed by falling down the gravity well imparts more force than a standing object. If potential energy = mass times gravity times height, and mass = 100,000 tons, that's plenty enough to collapse any number of steel beams I think.

Those floors aren't meant to catch falling objects, they're meant to sit on their steel support columns.

To further illustrate this point, take previously mentioned 60 lb dumbell.

Support it on your head.

Then drop dumbell from 10 feet onto your head.

The results are different.

Your helping me out here.

Hardly. Again I whip out the handy 100,000 tons and the dumbell example.

Take dumbell and place pencil underneath it. Observe.

Then drop dumbell from 3 feet above pencil lying on ground. Observe.

Now consider a 100,000 ton dumbell falling onto 50-ish squares of 14" steel plates. The steel is thick, but we're talking 100,000 tons here.

As for the shaped charges - the point is that with sufficient compression, the metal core of the shaped charge becomes a liquid.

100,000 tons is a lot of potential compression.