9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[scott3x]

TS=truth seeker

If you like, you can call people who question the official story Truth Seekers. However, I have at times avoided doing this, for one reason:
I would like to believe that atleast some if not most of the official story believers are -also- seeking the truth. The fact that someone is wrong doesn't mean they don't want to know the truth.

 

[shaman_]

I've been doing some thinking and realized that there is indeed room for some confusion. I think it's high time we establish a few things. First, what Kevin Ryan said in his initial letter/email to Frank Gayle, director of the government team that had spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell when at the time of his letter. In his original letter, he first states the following, which is a clear defense of the steel's capacity to deal with fairly high temperatures:
***********************************
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
***********************************



He then goes into the findings that NIST had apparently made up until that point in time; that is, that NIST had not found any evidence of steel that had gone beyond about 250C:
*************************************
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
*************************************

Finally, he lowers the boom:
*************************************
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".
*************************************


He ends by thanking Frank Gayle as well as speaking on the dangers of speaking out against the prevailing viewpoints at the time:
*************************************
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
*************************************

From the above letter, one may indeed surmise that Kevin Ryan feels that the temperatures of the steel did not exceed 250C/500F. However, one must realize that Kevin was basing his views on the heat of the steel on NIST's own findings at the time. Since them, it seems that NIST has upgraded its views on how hot the metal got, and Kevin's placed the top possible temperatures even higher. Kevin Ryan frequents the same circle as Steven Jones and Steven Jones believes that FEMA's David Barnett's claim that their was evidence of evaporated steel was no mistake. That temperature is -way- beyond 250C (atleast 10 times more I believe).

However, while Kevin Ryan now believes that steel temperatures got much higher then 250C, he has never to my knowledge claimed that jet fuel initiated fires were the cause of it. Instead, like physicist Steven Jones, authors David Ray Griffin, Jim Marrs and many others, they have come to the conclusion that explosives were involved in creating such temperatures.

Undoubtedly there were temperatures over 250C so only the dishonest or poorly informed would keep pointing to the steel samples in the NIST report as evidence for a conspiracy. It has been fairly conclusively proven that such a fire could easily get the temperature over 500C. There have been several fire tests quoted to you where the temperature was up near 1000C.

The temperature needed to evaporate steel is rediculously high. If there were temperatures that high then there would have been some evidence. However there isn’t evidence that the temperatures went much over 1000C.

Once again, explosives explode. They shatter and break things with force. They don’t just heat up steel.

Feel free to peruse Kevin Ryan's letter and many other articles of his at his site:
http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm




The risk of being fired from one's post, as was Kevin, or essentially being booted from his position, as was Steven Jones (he retired, perhaps in order to continue to do research instead of being left in limbo). It appears that David Ray Griffin may have also retired for similiar reasons, although all I know is that he retired from his career as a full time academic in 2004. Jim Marrs has been an author for quite some time now, but when he wished to publish one of his books on 9/11, one of his publishers suddenly decided they didn't wish to publish it for reasons that I believe strain credulity.

I think you mean strain credibility, anyway we know what happened to Ryan and Jones. The reality is that when you do stupid things that compromise the reputation of an organization there is often repercussions. The fate of the others is speculation on your part.

Not all believers in alternate theories carry the same weight. It's one thing for a relative unknown to disagree with the official story by pecking away at a keyboard. It's quite another for recognized academics and authors to do so.

Are they in danger? No has assassinated Jones have they? You are in a fantasy land.

Yes, I knew that, which is why I made it clear that Kevin Ryan denied that accusation.

A lot of disgruntled ex employees deny the accusations that lead to their employment termination.

 

[shaman_]

Your entire post seems to be mainly dedicated to the CIT guys, which is understandable, since I rely on them heavily in regards to the witnesses. I could attempt to try to respond myself, but I think it'd be akin to reinventing the wheel; I think that they already -know- the answers whereas I'd have to go hunting for them. For this reason, I have asked them if one of them could respond to you via proxy (they respond in another forum and I relay the information, complete with link to their forum). We'll see how it goes.

That's okay scott but I think the real situation here is that you cannot defend the position you have chosen to take. It's a matter of faith not evidence.

 

[scott3x]

That's okay scott but I think the real situation here is that you cannot defend the position you have chosen to take. It's a matter of faith not evidence.

I checked out the definition of faith on wikipedia; I really liked the first sentence at any rate. It is this:
"Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea."

I thought, why not extend it to the trustworthiness of a theory, a person, a group of people? I can't think of any other word that comes close to these types of concepts. I find this ironic because I used to have a rather lousy view of faith in general.

You must realize one thing, however: while I may believe certain individuals, I -also- wish to hear from the other side. If I simply wanted to believe in the alternate theory and dismiss everyone who believed in the official story, I wouldn't be here; I'd be solely in the alternate theory forums discussing the finer points of the theory.

I'm not, however, because I don't think it makes that much sense to discuss the finer points when many people don't even believe in the basic premises of the mainstream alternate theories. I believe that, without a doubt, official story believers are hands down the best at pointing out the weaknesses of the alternate theories. I also think that alternate theorists are the best people to point out the weaknesses in the official story.

Anyway, I've created a partial response to your previous response to me here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2080501&postcount=2138

 

[scott3x]

Undoubtedly there were temperatures over 250C so only the dishonest or poorly informed would keep pointing to the steel samples in the NIST report as evidence for a conspiracy.

You sure about that? I mean, ofcourse there were temperatures above 250C; as early as November 2001, there was evidence of -evaporated- steel; since steel evaporates at around 2860C, clearly steel had gotten -much- hotter then 250C. And yet in Frank Gayle's report, he apparently dismissed any sample that had evidence of reaching temperatures above 250C. So tell me then, why did he dismiss all evidence of any steel sample evidence that was above 250C? After looking at Frank Gayle's report, I believe I see the answer:
*********************************
Fire model
•Detailed comparison with paint results underway•Model predicts temperature in Plate 3 (inner web) to be
maximum of 200-350 °C when fire proofing (1 3/16”) intact; Spandrels, with 0.5”fire proofing, maximum 450 °C
*********************************
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

So, if fire proofing was intact, the 'inner web' shouldn't have gotten much higher then 250C, 100C more at the most, with some spandrels getting up to 450. Temperatures of 3000C+ simply wouldn't have fit in with that model.

It has been fairly conclusively proven that such a fire could easily get the temperature over 500C. There have been several fire tests quoted to you where the temperature was up near 1000C.

Not sure what tests you were talking of. NIST believes that the -air- might have been heated to 1000C, but not the steel itself.
Steven Jones puts it well in the following quote:
******************************************
"At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500C or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
******************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

The temperature needed to evaporate steel is ridiculously high.

For office fires, yes, but not for a thermate induced demolition. Surely you realize that if evaporated steel were truly found, it would be fatal to the official story?

If there were temperatures that high then there would have been some evidence.

There was, as I have already mentioned; the fact that NIST didn't include it in their report should be something you should consider deeply.

Once again, explosives explode. They shatter and break things with force. They don’t just heat up steel.

Exactly:

 

[John99]

Aside from the fact that planting charges to go off, which would have to include embedding them into the structure and being synced to go off at the right time, the images and the video's dont look like a controlled demolition. But of course the most compelling argument against this is the physical impossibility of doing this entirely undetected.

Insisting on this, in spite of overwhelming evidence against it just makes the person look ignorant and also very annoying. Your only redeeming quality here is that you are somewhat personable but in real life i am sure you are a major pain in the ass.

And really, no one arguing against this stupidity has a personal stake in this aside from the fact that you are insisting on something that is just not physically possible or the theory itself does not have a modicum of intelligence to associate it with. Therefore you are an anti-intellectual.

 

[scott3x]

Aside from the fact that planting charges to go off, which would have to include embedding them into the structure and being synced to go off at the right time, the images and the video's dont look like a controlled demolition.

They do according to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth web site. Their reasoning can be seen on their home page, on the right hand side:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

But of course the most compelling argument against this is the physical impossibility of doing this entirely undetected.

Who said they went 'entirely undetected'? There is definitely evidence suggesting that people went into the building for just such a purpose:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042304explosivesplaced.htm

 

[John99]

And there you go with the links. You are not revealing anything new to me with these links. All you really do is post links. Maybe you are just a spammer.

 

[John99]

Frankly, i am done with you and this thread.

 

[fedr808]

Actually, I responded to your notion of black holes a bit ago ;-). But reading further along your post, it seems you know this.. which makes me wonder why you felt you were getting ignored .

Okay you guys i didn't say black holes to exaggerate, or make fun of (but this is kinda a by product) his cdlaim of 5 stories disappearing. What i meant by it is that the only thing that would do it is a black hole, and that is impossible. I meant for it to be understood that no explosive could do it.

I meant that he is right that a plane cannot remove 5 stories instantaneously, nor could any sort of explosive. But since we know that those 5 stories were not instantaneously gone in one second we can all assume that none of the above happened.


Also once more, the pilots would have had to aimed at exactly the right spot on the world trade center in order for the explosives to look as concealed as possible. Quite frankly by the time they can get within range to count the levels, they would have 1/4-1/8 of a second to change the planes angle.

 

[fedr808]

Also you guys i have to make an honest point in Scoth's favor, as much as i hate it but it must be considered. Several years ago a supposedly bomb proof reinforced building somewhere in Europe was demolished by an explosive filled truck. Yet it was not the steel reinforcing that failed. The explosive shockwave was so massive that it lifted up and cracked the solid ceilings and floors, and they tumbled down and the building fell. So theoretically a large enough explosion could do this in the world trade center where instead of blowing up the steel it just cracked the floor and shattered it enough to cause it to fail.

 

[psikeyhackr]

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence available makes it impossible for the WTC building collapses to be anything but demolitions. As to engineering schools and 'experts' in general- there are certainly some engineers who have protested the official story; they can be seen on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth page. Their number stands at 525 and it continues to grow:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

As to why schools haven't done more research on all of this, I think it might be handy to remember that it's one thing to have the capability of figuring something out, but quite another to actually figure it out.

Physics is not about consensus or degrees but often there are easier and more difficult ways to solve a problem.

Grade school kids should be able to understand that skyscrapers must hold themselves up and more steel would be required to hold more weight farther down. I emailed Richard Gage in June of 2007 about Frank Greening, explaining the childish error in his paper about potential energy. He had divided the total mass of the building by 110. That would mean an equal distribution of mass and the building had 6 basement levels so he should have divided by 116 anyway. So his calculations for potential energy would put too much mass high up in the building so his calculations had to be far off the mark.

AE911 should be emphasizing the need to know the distribution of mass and explain why that should make the collapse impossible. It would also make the NIST look really stupid for not bringing up the obvious.

psik

 

[fedr808]

Theres a huge problem with the thermate theory. Thermate would have to cut through steel bars horizantally. Now does anyone here know why this is an enormous problem?

Ill give you a hint, gravity.

 

[Headspin]

Details of Thermite Demolition Charges have been brought up constantly!
Why do people keep bringing up the bogus "thermite lateral cuts are impossible" argument?
It's as though acknowledgement of thermite demolition devices will destroy their reality paradigm.

Thermite charge

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0266204.html

"The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

The thermite reaction is an exothermic reaction that can produce temperatures of more than 4,000° F. These temperatures are well above the melting point of most metals. Boosting the rate of the thermite reaction by flowing a stream of oxygen through the materials can raise the reaction temperature from the normal 4,000° F. to the range of 10,000° F. to 16,000° F. Boosting the temperature to this level greatly reduces the time associated with cutting through a material. In addition, directing the burning particles and gases into a jet through a nozzle allows improved removal of molten metal and deeper penetration into the material.

Until this time, one-shot thermite-based devices have been used primarily to make point like, circular holes in materials. Sustained thermite cutting technologies, such as burning bars, achieve linear-shaped cuts by expanding on the initial penetrated area and moving away from the initial point of penetration in a line (similar to a conventional cutting torch). By configuring a single-use apparatus and its associated nozzle into a linear or curvilinear arrangement, the shape of the penetration would be lengthened dramatically. Connecting segments of these devices into a desired shape would allow users to determine the dimensions of a breach area or linear cut.

This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A “preconditioning” process involves removing overlapped plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning. The thermite charge's sustained jet also affords a greater assurance in cutting plates of varying thickness, layered plate configurations, and any supporting or reinforcing members that may exist in the middle or on the backside of a material. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of an explosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds."

 

[scott3x]

Theres a huge problem with the thermate theory. Thermate would have to cut through steel bars horizantally. Now does anyone here know why this is an enormous problem?

Ill give you a hint, gravity.

Thermate is not thermite. From Steven Jones' "What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice?" article:
********************************

Above: In a fraction of a second, thermate cuts horizontally through a steel cup. Notice the high-temperature corrosion which occurred.
********************************

The main thrust of the article is actually on asking 9/11 ASBers (Alternate Story Believers) to let go of theories that have a low likelihood of being true. He puts it in the form of a question that he then answers:
******************************
How do we determine if ray-beams from space or mini-nuclear bombs were responsible for bringing down the WTC Towers? How do we know whether jets actually hit the Towers?

While it is admittedly exciting to come up with fascinating new theories about 9/11, if we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert discretion and discipline by ferreting out those ideas repudiated by the physical evidence. We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not need to endlessly debate all such issues. We can move on and focus on the solid forensic evidence which lends a hope of attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor and of holding up in court or before Congress.

As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform experiments, and apply the Scientific Method...
******************************
http://stj911.org/jones/focus_on_goal.html


I quote the above even though I'm still not completely sure that mini nukes couldn't have been involved. However, I acknowledge that he's done more research then myself and perhaps has seen evidence that conclusively refutes this possibility. Most importantly, there is plenty of evidence that most ABSers agree on, such as the controlled demolition theory. I think we can work out exactly what explosives were used -after- the battle is won to have a serious government sponsored investigation on the possibility of explosives being used on the WTC buildings.

 

[scott3x]

Details of Thermite Demolition Charges have been brought up constantly!
Why do people keep bringing up the bogus "thermite lateral cuts are impossible" argument?
It's as though acknowledgement of thermite demolition devices will destroy their reality paradigm.

From what I remember, MacGyver wanted proof that the patent could actually do what it claimed; I think the picture I displayed in the post below yours does this nicely in terms of the 'horizontal cutting' at any rate. As to fedr, he may not have seen that discussion.

Perhaps it's hopeless to once again ask the powers that be that a conspiracy sub forum be created. If we had that, we would be able to cut up the 9/11 thread without making 9/11 discussions overshadow other topics in this forum. This, in turn, would make it -much- easier to go through a given thread, instead of going through this 'mighty tangle' of all the various 9/11 theories. Stryder seems to have this idea that "there can be only one!" as if the pentagon flyover theory could be melded with the controlled demolition theory of the WTC buildings, the theories concerning the various aircraft used in the attacks on 9/11 and others.

 

[scott3x]

And there you go with the links. You are not revealing anything new to me with these links. All you really do is post links.

Actually, it isn't. In that post, however, the bottom line is, why repeat what I've said before? If you want to hear the arguments I believe in, go to those sites. If you don't, don't.

 

[scott3x]

Physics is not about consensus or degrees but often there are easier and more difficult ways to solve a problem.

Grade school kids should be able to understand that skyscrapers must hold themselves up and more steel would be required to hold more weight farther down. I emailed Richard Gage in June of 2007 about Frank Greening, explaining the childish error in his paper about potential energy. He had divided the total mass of the building by 110. That would mean an equal distribution of mass and the building had 6 basement levels so he should have divided by 116 anyway. So his calculations for potential energy would put too much mass high up in the building so his calculations had to be far off the mark.

AE911 should be emphasizing the need to know the distribution of mass and explain why that should make the collapse impossible. It would also make the NIST look really stupid for not bringing up the obvious.

psik

I personally don't find it necessary although it certainly would be nice to have such information; if it would convince one more person that a controlled demolition took place, it would have been worthwhile to find out.

I personally believe that when it comes to the architects of the 9/11 reports, it's not that they were stupid; far from it. It's more that they were cunning. They figured that -most- americans would find it very hard to see that they were lying so long as they could woo them with reports in the thousands of pages. And so it was.

In a way, time is not on their side. All it takes is an open mind and a certain amount of time to see how lacking their arguments are. On the other hand, some people have now gotten to the point where they simply don't care who was responsible. The world has moved on, they say. To them, I will repeat the old adage:
"Those who forget [or never know] history
are bound to repeat it"

This is something I fervently want to avoid, and it's why I've spent so much time trying to persuade others as to what truly happened on 9/11.

 

[scott3x]

Also you guys i have to make an honest point in Scoth's favor, as much as i hate it but it must be considered. Several years ago a supposedly bomb proof reinforced building somewhere in Europe was demolished by an explosive filled truck. Yet it was not the steel reinforcing that failed. The explosive shockwave was so massive that it lifted up and cracked the solid ceilings and floors, and they tumbled down and the building fell. So theoretically a large enough explosion could do this in the world trade center where instead of blowing up the steel it just cracked the floor and shattered it enough to cause it to fail.

It tended to eject the steel, although it apparently evaporated some as well. Here's what Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth had to say:
******************************************

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders
3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure
12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
******************************************

http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[psikeyhackr]

Sci-fi Physics

I personally don't find it necessary although it certainly would be nice to have such information; if it would convince one more person that a controlled demolition took place, it would have been worthwhile to find out.

On the other hand, some people have now gotten to the point where they simply don't care who was responsible. .

But engineering schools still have to teach physics. That is what I don't get about the so called Truth Movement. Why stand on the street trying to convince regular people? Why not embarass the engineering schools in front of their students that scored in the top 5% on the SAT?

I have to wonder what those kids think of this stuff. Ever heard about the MIT students and Ringworld in 1971?

psik