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

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Nietzschefan seems to have pointed out a case where that's not the case:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=170

Whether or not that is related is certainly debatable as Cooper said many things.

The fact that Cooper said many things doesn't take away from what he said about 9/11.

However it is irrelevant because what Cooper achieved is nothing when compared to what has been released in recent years. No one is getting killed are they?

Aside from cooper, around 3000 on 9/11, 4000 US soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis? I guess you could chalk it all up to coincidence..

I'm not even going to bother looking that guy up as the numbers there are stupid. The steel only needed to lose it's strength. Steel loses half it's strength at 1100 degrees and jet fuel gets hotter than that.

Losing strength is not the same thing as giving way. In any case, Ryan wasn't arguing that the steel didn't lose its strength, only that it didn't melt, something that Dr. Brown, the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers, stated on 9/11 (This is stated in the following link: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html , search for brown). So much for some of these 'experts'.

Footage from every angle of the buildings showing a collapse unlike a controlled demolition and with no evidence of bombs at all.

You clearly haven't seen the videos that have been annotated by conspiracy theorists who believe the government played a part. Zeitgeist's video would show you a thing or 2, you may consider watching it.

Scott I have seen plenty of them.

Ah, I get it. You don't consider it evidence. But I do.

Cite me one source that states that it's "generally accepted by all".

It makes perfect sense and I have seen it in many articles and wasn't aware that CTers denied it happened. I shouldn't be surprised though.

From popular mechanics -

"The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser.

What you seem to have established is that NIST members espouse this point of view. NIST has been challenged in the past and continues to be challenged, however. Here is a report from almost a year ago regarding a challenge by 2 professors of one of NIST's reports:
"Professors Make Legal Challenges to NIST 9/11 World Trade Centre Report"
http://www.prleap.com/pr/92756/

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
Yes, this is exactly what is claimed by some people. Having seen the videos, with highlights to direct my gaze at certain parts, I myself feel I have seen this. Again, from "The Terror Conspiracy", page 41:
"Ross Milanyth watched the horror at the WTC from his office window on the 22nd floor of a building a couple of blocks away. "[I saw] small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure was just completely gone", he said.

Show me the footage of what he is describing.

From what I understand, it was Ross's eyewitness account. However, I have seen footage where I believe I can see the bombs going off like this as well. If I come across some and remember your request, I'll link it.

So the explosives were on the floors hit by the plane? Then they detonated each one in perfect timing with the collapse just to give the impression of a natural collapse? Is that what you are saying?

Essentially, yes.

It's discredited now because a professor of theology said so?

He's certainly not the only one to discredit the pancake theory. Today I posted some information on others who discredit the pancake theory in a response to Sock Puppy (search for 'pancake'):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1990739&postcount=187 .

If you are capable of pulling off this amazingly implausible super conspiracy surely you could just plant the bombs in the building and get away with it. Think about what you are suggesting.

If the people responsible for 9/11 wanted to get caught, I can certainly agree with you. However, since I don't believe this, I believe they used the planes to misdirect people's attention.

Because the behavior of buildings is more the field of structural engineers not professors of religion.

As I post in the link above, many of the people who built the towers believe the pancake theory is impossible.

What do you mean entrusted? All they had to do was sneak in and blow up the building. If they could sneak on to four planes it is entirely plausible that they could do this.

KennyJC, who is actually on your side, believes that it would have been much more complex then that. I was discussing this with him over in this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1990240&postcount=223

... sooo it was there for a while wasn't it.?...

Not very long considering the amount, but 'being there' for a few months doesn't mean that it was meaningfully analyzed.

Or are you implying that trying to clean up New York quickly was somehow suspicious?

What was suspicious is that they wanted to remove it so quickly without first properly analyzing it.

Yes they should have just relaxed and taken their time, a bit of rubble doesn't matter. If you could really plan this massive conspiracy why would you do so in a way that the evidence was just lying around afterward and required a suspicious clean up?

If you knew that the people allowed to analyze the debris were on your side, you could breathe more easily now, couldn't you?

Originally Posted by scott3x

I highly respect Michael Ruppert, as do the directors from Zeitgeist and I would think that Jim Marrs does as well. As I've mentioned before, Jim isn't infallible and it may well be that he was fooled in this particular case. Are you saying that you're a fan of Michael Ruppert as well?

What is the relevance to the point being contended - that your main source of information is full of mistakes?

No, rather that I respect Michael Ruppert and for this reason I will withhold judgement on who is right here. Now could you answer my question?

The steel was taken to a scrapyard where it was analyzed further.

I would think it would have made more sense to analyze it where it had fallen. I also imagine that only government officials were allowed to analyze it. Also, could you cite a source showing me that it was analyzed further at a scrapyard?

The location was not a secret so I don't know what you are talking about.

So what if the location wasn't a secret? The original location of all the scrap certainly wasn't a secret. The point is that so long as only certain government officials were permitted to analyze it, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Apparently a little of the debris was spirited away, however, or Dr. Steven Jones would never have been able to get his hands on some of the metal and dust..

So what if someone got fired. Maybe his boss was a jerk I don't know.

Or maybe they were worried that someone would take a piece of debris while he was taking his break. Maybe it even happened.

I don't know the number of people. It doesn't matter who or how many analyzed it as the CTer will always say that it wasn't enough and those who did just have government links anyway....

Just answer me this: there was -so- much debris. Why couldn't a little have been given to people who weren't so closely linked to the government?

Should it have been left there or in the worlds largest pile of scrap so that every conspiracy nut in the world can come and have a look?

Not much was needed. And apparently on non government agent managed to get some anyway. But he may never be able to prove it, since he was never officially given anything.

Originally Posted by scott3x

I advise that you take a look at the movie zeitgeist, at 54:40.

Is it going provide me with evidence as rock solid as the links you have posted?

Knowing you, you'll probably say it's no good as well. But you may want to take a look; perhaps you'll find some flaw you can point out ;-). Here's a link with english subtitles:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924

I prefer it when it has subtitles myself, but you can always go to the main site itself which doesn't have them:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

If that were so, you wouldn't still be debating things with me.

Is this your first internet forum?

Not by a long shot.

This isn't the first 911 debate I have been in but I don't save my links.

I tend to save content, not links; I probably should, but for some reason my web browser keeps on erasing new bookmarks. Anyway, my previous posts here where I've used links are actually helping me a lot .

There are a lot more conspiracy websites than there are skeptical ones just as there are more religious people than atheists but fortunately the truth is not a popularity contest.

I suppose you could say that I'm religious, although I don't belong to any religious institution. I like to believe that God is everything. No one argues whether everything exists; the argument would essentially start when we get to how conscious we believe everything to be.

But your point is typical of CTers. You have seen lots of sites (and a book) that appear to have a large quantity of evidence so you are sure that you have the truth on your side. Quantity evidence is not a substitute for quality. If the best you have is the references to Zeitgeist, a book you read once, a professor of religion and cherry picked testimony then no you don't have quality.

I have cited more than this. I also have my own logical reasoning to guide me along.

You bring up stuff which has been debunked before but you don't seem to realize that. Instead of posting it here do a search for the skeptical response and them decide which sounds more plausible.

I think I could tell you to do the same in some cases. But I myself am perfectly content to present you with evidence counter to your claims. If you wish, however, you can give up trying to persuade me that your views are infallible .

 

[Sock Puppy]

He doesn't churn out a conspiracy theory a day; he does believe in a fair amount, but he backs them up with copious amounts of gathered evidence.

He churns out plenty; there's a reason people get into so much conspiracy area, and it's not sanity. No, let us debate WTC 7 on the basis of the evidence alone.

From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 51-52:
*****
Firefighters thought the fires were controllable

And? They were wrong, apparently. None of them had ever seen such a fire following the crash of an airplane into the Towers. Where is this audiotape? Who is cited on it?

It means that the initial explosives may have been used to soften up the structure, so that the secondary explosives wouldn't need to be so loud to get the job done.

How would they have "softened up" the structure? Why would this have been necessary? The top part of the towers was an unstoppable mass. What was it - thirty stories or so of building? How is the support of any given floor going to resist that?

You spend a great deal of time debunking the pancake theory, but let me position your arguments in context: so, without the debated 'softening up', what do you expect would have happened? The collapse would have...stopped? And why exactly would the evil Bushites have demolished the building anyway? Wouldn't the use of such charges, resulting in what is widely misinterpreted as a freefall - but which was not a freefall - have raised suspicion? Did the conspiracy not think of this? What if the building had not collapsed all the way? Wouldn't the investigation have located the charges that didn't go off then?

You're going for the 'boulderist theory', one I have never even heard before, by anyone but you.

I know, and it's brilliant, even if I do say so myself. Don't be awed, though: I actually do this kind of thing all the time.

I imagine you're alluding to a statement I made in another post:
"They must find it hard,
those who see the authority as truth
rather then truth as the authority"

No, I was referring to your dismissal of "boulderism" as argument from authority. Argument from popularity would also be very relevant.

I'm not an engineer, but there are a lot of non governmental sources who claim that the idea of the planes getting their buildings to collapse just doesn't fly. Your theory isn't that far off from the pancake theory, so I'll roll with that one for now.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what I'm arguing. Is your engineer actually saying the core was made of a single piece of steel? I think he would be mistaken anyway.

Lots of evidence exists that explosives were used.

And then there's the 2000F molten metal that was found, 500F hotter then jet fuel even burns. Thermite, on the other hand, can.

You have a pick of several explanations for that, actually: i) cooking steel in the rubble pile with the pack above it, ii) melted steel on the bridge after the truck crash a few months ago, iii) melted aluminum from the airplane. Can you explain why it can be none of these? If so, I might lend your thesis some support.

I operate on a scientific one. If your belief stood muster against people who actually know of these things, I could believe it. But so far, you seem to be the only one to even come up with it, which gets me to believe that your idea was long ago discarded as impossible.

Having worked with many people of government departments, I can tell you you expect too much of them.

By which you seem to be implying that I don't work in the area of logical inquiry. Well, whatever floats your boat.

Well, you don't provide any realistic evidence of your thesis.

What are you talking about? What pile, what bridge, what gas truck, what aluminum?

The pile of rubble on the burning remnants of the building, which might have melted the steel.

Steel melted in a gas truck crash:

Tanker fire destroys part of MacArthur Maze
2 freeways closed near Bay Bridge
Demian Bulwa and Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, April 29, 2007

(04-29) 18:03 PDT OAKLAND -- Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.

...

Rodriguez said he regretted not thinking to send a vehicle up to get the injured man. He and a coworker stood for some 40 minutes watching the freeway burn.

"It looked like a big slab of plastic because it was melted. It's made of steel and concrete and it was bent at both angles of the pillar. It really looked fake. ... It was an event last night that I'm not going to forget for a long time. It was incredible because it was a roar.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

It's not the only example, I think. Now personally, I just think the steel was weakened (as you'll know, steel loses 50% of its support strength at 500C or so). I recommend this link also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

The aluminium comes from the airplane itself, and melts at a much lower temperature. The orangy glow observed probably represents molten aluminium mixed with office materials such as carpet.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.[10]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Controlled_demolition#Molten_metal

I would argue that the 'truthers' as you call them, are the ones succeeding in debunking the government's official story, but you are ofcourse free to believe that it's the anti-truthers who are debunking the truthers.

Rather, I call the 9/11 crowd "Troofers" and the debunkers just debunkers or "truthers".

You'd probably have a field day if I told you more then a bit. Suffice it to say that my father has been a skeptic on religious institituations since I was born and my own religious beliefs are now eclectic. How about you?

So do you feel that you're more or less susceptible to wild stories?

I don't recall having asked a question. You seem to be implying, however, that Kevin was fired for speaking without authorization from his company. I never argued otherwise.

Then there we are.

Bob Dylan?

The Messiah Dylan Avery. All hail the lipless wonder. May the glory of his light cure all forms of acne, present and future.

SP

 

[Sock Puppy]

Also, if the planes were just a distraction, why didn't they just blow the thing out from the bottom, as had already been tried? It would have been far more believable.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I thought this thread would feature photos of a jew having his pants pulled down, and perhaps his crack thumbed open.

 

[scott3x]

He churns out plenty; there's a reason people get into so much conspiracy area, and it's not sanity.

Or atleast that's what you believe.

No, let us debate WTC 7 on the basis of the evidence alone.

As if I'd been trying to do otherwise.

From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 51-52:
*****
Firefighters thought the fires were controllable

And? They were wrong, apparently.

Or they were right; problem being that they weren't expecting explosives.

None of them had ever seen such a fire following the crash of an airplane into the Towers.

Airplanes have crashed in steel structured buildings before; but such a building has never collapsed because of it. I'll cite a bit more to show you reliable the government is on these types of things:
****
As noted by reporter Christopher Bollyn, "The fact that veteran firefighters had a 'coherent plan for putting out' the 'two pockets of fire', indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government's claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower's collapse.
****

Where is this audiotape?

The audiofile in 2 formats can be found here:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Excerpts of the tape can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/firefighters.htm

Who is cited on it?

I've already mentioned 2:
Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca. I'm assuming there's more but haven't checked all of the transcript excerpts yet.

How would they have "softened up" the structure?

By making the basement brittle, it would have been softened up, just as military targets are softened up via air power before using ground forces.

Why would this have been necessary?

I theorize it was done so that the secondary explosions that would finish the job wouldn't have to be as loud.

The top part of the towers was an unstoppable mass. What was it - thirty stories or so of building? How is the support of any given floor going to resist that?

First of all, the real question is, why did the top floors begin to collapse from the top to begin with? Shaman brought up the Windsor tower of spain in a previous point, and I brought up a very good point; here's the exchange:
****

Apparently when the Windsor tower burned in Spain many explosions could be heard. There were no aircraft or jet fuel involved there either.

Apparently the Windsor tower was taken down by arson; I wouldn't be surprised if a few explosives were added into the mix. However, I think the most interesting thing about the Windsor tower is that, despite the fire being -much- bigger then the ones on 9/11 and firefighters needing almost 24 hours to put it out, the only thing that collapsed were the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors.

I'll respond to the rest in another post...

 

[scott3x]

You spend a great deal of time debunking the pancake theory, but let me position your arguments in context: so, without the debated 'softening up', what do you expect would have happened? The collapse would have...stopped?

Possibly, atleast on floors above the basement. As to the basement itself, I myself am puzzled on that one. I can easily imagine that a web site has a good theory, but I don't have one.

And why exactly would the evil Bushites have demolished the building anyway? Wouldn't the use of such charges, resulting in what is widely misinterpreted as a freefall - but which was not a freefall - have raised suspicion?

Not if people believed (and a great many still do) that the buildings were knocked down by the planes.

Did the conspiracy not think of this? What if the building had not collapsed all the way? Wouldn't the investigation have located the charges that didn't go off then?

Perhaps, but I assume that they were not so unprofessional as to let that happen. However, even if it hadn't, they'd probably get FEMA to cart away the evidence anyway, all the while pretending to properly investigate.

You're going for the 'boulderist theory', one I have never even heard before, by anyone but you.

I know, and it's brilliant, even if I do say so myself. Don't be awed, though: I actually do this kind of thing all the time.

Lol .

I imagine you're alluding to a statement I made in another post:
"They must find it hard,
those who see the authority as truth
rather then truth as the authority"

No, I was referring to your dismissal of "boulderism" as argument from authority. Argument from popularity would also be very relevant.

Actually I've been doing some thinking; perhaps your boulderist theory is in fact the pancake theory? I mean, the building -did- start collapsing from the top then? And the pancake theory has been discredited.. so therefore your theory has been discredited ;-). At this point, you will say (someone already has anyway) that a theologist doesn't have the credentials to discredit the theory and that's when I'll point out that the WTC architect and other experts who built the towers have stated that the World Trade tower was designed to withstand plane crashes.

I'm not an engineer, but there are a lot of non governmental sources who claim that the idea of the planes getting their buildings to collapse just doesn't fly. Your theory isn't that far off from the pancake theory, so I'll roll with that one for now.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what I'm arguing. Is your engineer actually saying the core was made of a single piece of steel? I think he would be mistaken anyway.[/quote]

From Zeitgeist:
****
Pancake theory, according to which the fires, while not melting the steel, heated it up sufficiently to cause the floors weakened by the airplane strikes to break loose from the steel columns, and this started a chain reaction.
"So, you would expect then, from that theory, which is the official theory, to see a whole stack of floors, piled up on top of each other, and then a spindle of core columns standing too."
The core of the twin towers consisted of 47 massive steel columns. If the floors had broken loose from them, these columns would have still been sticking up into the air a thousand feet. The plane did not cut all those core columns..
****

Lots of evidence exists that explosives were used.

It'd be nice to believe that you've suddenly had a change of heart, but I'm guessing you just forgot to snip that bit of text away from my own post .

You have a pick of several explanations for that, actually: i) cooking steel in the rubble pile with the pack above it, ii) melted steel on the bridge after the truck crash a few months ago, iii) melted aluminum from the airplane. Can you explain why it can be none of these? If so, I might lend your thesis some support.

I hadn't heard of this truck thing. Must be a new twist. Anyway, the truck must have been able to displace itself in multiple locations, including WTC 7. Another excerpt from Zeitgeist:
****
Dr. Steven Jones:
"I started looking at the molten metal. All 3 buildings, both towers, in the rubble, in the basement areas, and building 7, there's these pools of molten metal."
For well over 6 weeks after the collapse, hot spots of over 2000F were documented in the debris. That is 500F hotter then jet fuel even burns.
Dr. Steven Jones:
"So I'm looking through the official reports, what do they say about the molten metal. They say nothing. Now wait a minute. This is important evidence. So where'd that come from?"
****

I operate on a scientific one. If your belief stood muster against people who actually know of these things, I could believe it. But so far, you seem to be the only one to even come up with it, which gets me to believe that your idea was long ago discarded as impossible.

Having worked with many people of government departments, I can tell you you expect too much of them.

I can both agree and disagree with that statement . I know that the government can at times move sloth-like but I am rather impressed that they've been able to have so many people still believing the official story regarding 9/11. I guess in the ending that you can only get people to believe what they want to believe. And I think a lot of people aren't so keen on believing that dark elements of their own government could do such things.

By which you seem to be implying that I don't work in the area of logical inquiry. Well, whatever floats your boat.

Well, you don't provide any realistic evidence of your thesis.

Pish tosh, my dear man, can you not see that I provide copious amounts ;-)?

What are you talking about? What pile, what bridge, what gas truck, what aluminum?

The pile of rubble on the burning remnants of the building, which might have melted the steel.

Steel melted in a gas truck crash:

You're citing a truck that crashed on April 29, 2007 in Oakland. What on earth does that have to do with the WTC collapses in 2001?

It's not the only example, I think. Now personally, I just think the steel was weakened (as you'll know, steel loses 50% of its support strength at 500C or so).

The evidence is clear that there were molten pools of metal. Not weakened. The government agents in charge did the best they could to cover up this embarrassing fact by simply ignoring it completely as I've mentioned above.

I recommend this link also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

I find the following line amusing:
"3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. "

They expect their readers to not even ask -why- they believe it would 'present insurmountable challenges'.

The aluminum comes from the airplane itself, and melts at a much lower temperature. The orangy glow observed probably represents molten aluminum mixed with office materials such as carpet.

Well, we know that NIST concluded this. But from what I've heard, NIST is hardly to be trusted.

Rather, I call the 9/11 crowd "Troofers" and the debunkers just debunkers or "truthers".

I see.

So do you feel that you're more or less susceptible to wild stories?

Much less, which is why I essentially got out of a certain religion before my mother did, at the age of 17. My mother and my sister got out of all of that a fair amount later. I believe my father's skepticism helped a lot.

I don't recall having asked a question. You seem to be implying, however, that Kevin was fired for speaking without authorization from his company. I never argued otherwise.

Then there we are.

Yes, yes, very clever of you. I think it would be best for me to put it to you in a way that makes it a little more clear. This is what the paper said about his firing:
"South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe".

In other words, don't question a federal probe; not if you value your job anyway. Even if you're not even working for the government. Big Brother isn't something to question.

The Messiah Dylan Avery. All hail the lipless wonder. May the glory of his light cure all forms of acne, present and future.

SP

Until I googled his name, I hadn't known he was the director of loose change. Anyway, I really liked the parts of his film that I've seen.

 

[scott3x]

Also, if the planes were just a distraction, why didn't they just blow the thing out from the bottom, as had already been tried? It would have been far more believable.

If my knowledge of demolition is good enough here (someone correct me if I'm mistaken), I believe that in order to destroy the building without destroying a lot of other things as well, it really had to be done carefully, and the charges placed throughout the building.

 

[shaman_]

Yes, people on lower floors were injured as well before the fall. This all suggests explosives, though

Not necessarily. The collision and subsequent explosions affected the whole building, not just the top few floors. As I said earlier people below thought there was an earthquake. The building is solid. When it takes a hit like that up the top the lower floors will still feel it and that isn't even taking into account crashing lifts or jet fuel down the elevators. That's why I wanted clairification on what was reported. Are we talking about someone's monitor falling on their head or was the whole floor an inferno?

Yes. So I guess your case is that the explosions were from things other then explosives, which I would consider a weak argument to make before the building started to collapse.

Planes loaded with thousands of liters of jet fuel had smashed into the building and ignited many floors. These things certainly could have happened before the collapse – “In the towers there were partial floor collapses, falling elevators, likely debris falling down elevator shafts, fuel vapors igniting, bursting pipes, and perhaps steel failing, electrical systems shorting, and pressurized containers from the buildings and aircraft exploding."
The explosions at the Madrid Tower were before the collapse as well. You are kidding yourself if you think the banging noises had to be bombs.

I just told you, but once more:
******
Auxiliary Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr., also mentioned bombs, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. "Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings", he said, "but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of the fact." Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings", Isaac added.
******

I thought we were talking about testimony on the day where the firemen convinced themselves it couldn’t have been bombs for fear of losing their jobs.

As far as losing jobs goes, it is now seven years later. You don’t think one fireman has retired or left his job since then? Are they still scared? Are you going to suggest that someone will kill them? Although no one has killed Isaac….

In terms of the partial floor collapses, before the collapse of this building, this would point to explosives. As to the rest, why should it happen on the 27th floor, so many floors below the crash, or in the basement of all places? Not to mention that the type of damage done was way more then the things you mention could have done.

The whole building shook when the planes hit. Why are you so shocked that the lower floors were damaged?

Apparently the Windsor tower was taken down by arson; I wouldn't be surprised if a few explosives were added into the mix. However, I think the most interesting thing about the Windsor tower is that, despite the fire being -much- bigger then the ones on 9/11 and firefighters needing almost 24 hours to put it out, the only thing that collapsed were the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors.

That’s right the steel parts collapsed. Interesting point huh? The Windsor tower had a concrete core. WTC did not.

I rest my case .

You mean, why are firemen afraid of the likes of former CIA director James Woolsey? The guy was trying to connect 9/11 to Iraq -on- 9/11 and he has certainly profited from the US going into Iraq. From The Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000775.php):
****
Woolsey was the first person on national television on September 11, 2001 to allege the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda without disclosing on these shows his legal relationship representing Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.

He is also someone who seems to see no conflict between being a pro-war pundit pretending to be on objective commentator and a war profiteer who is pocketing a lot of money from contracting related to war activities.
****

Will respond to the rest in a bit.


The fact that Cooper said many things doesn't take away from what he said about 9/11.

But many people have said so much more. There are productions on a much grander scale now and the people behind them are well known and no one is dying. It is fantasy.

Aside from cooper, around 3000 on 9/11, 4000 US soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis? I guess you could chalk it all up to coincidence..

A dodge, a tenuous link and an appeal to emotion all in one….

Losing strength is not the same thing as giving way. In any case, Ryan wasn't arguing that the steel didn't lose its strength, only that it didn't melt, something that Dr. Brown, the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers, stated on 9/11 (This is stated in the following link: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html , search for brown). So much for some of these 'experts'.

So someone incorrectly said the steel melted. Not exactly a smoking gun. I’m not going to discuss melted steel because it is up there with “pull it” as the most stupid and regularly debunked argument.

Ah, I get it. You don't consider it evidence. But I do.

What you seem to have established is that NIST members espouse this point of view. NIST has been challenged in the past and continues to be challenged, however. Here is a report from almost a year ago regarding a challenge by 2 professors of one of NIST's reports:
"Professors Make Legal Challenges to NIST 9/11 World Trade Centre Report"
http://www.prleap.com/pr/92756/

Okay, do you think that fuel would shoot down the elevator shafts? If no, then why not?

From what I understand, it was Ross's eyewitness account. However, I have seen footage where I believe I can see the bombs going off like this as well. If I come across some and remember your request, I'll link it.

Essentially, yes.

So you do think it appeared like it was pancaking? To do that the floors would have to be loaded with explosives that no one saw installed, the explosives would have to go unnoticed by the 50, 000 odd people what work there, they would not be affected by the impact of the planes or the jet fuel, then they would need to be set off almost to the millisecond to create an illusion of pancaking, while not looking like explosives were going off and then nothing was found afterwards. All to create the illusion that planes could bring a building down because it had to be done with planes. Does that really sound plausible to you? If you are the government trying to plan a conspiracy so you can attack Iraq would you really go that degree? Why not plan a conspiracy that is less likely to be found out?

Can’t you accept that a building could fall without all that imaginative planning? If you say ‘no’ my next question would be – Based on what?

Yes we are looking at motives not evidence but when you have shaky evidence, and I’m being generous there, to support an unlikely theory I think need to rethink what you are supporting.

If the people responsible for 9/11 wanted to get caught, I can certainly agree with you. However, since I don't believe this, I believe they used the planes to misdirect people's attention.

Why would they get caught? If you are capable of rigging the WTC with explosives on nearly every floor which no one found before or afterwards then you could get away with planting a couple of really big bombs at the bottom.

It seems you could rationalize any absurd, needlessly complex conspiracy theory with ‘misdirection’. Don’t you agree?

As I post in the link above, many of the people who built the towers believe the pancake theory is impossible.

The core columns were damaged by the impacts and then weakened by the steel. So no they would not stick out while the floors collapsed around them.

The comments after that, which are form one person, are not about the pancake theory but whether the tower could withstand the impact of a plane. They did. So saying “many of the people who built the towers believe the pancake theory is impossible.”, is an exaggeration isn’t it?

KennyJC, who is actually on your side, believes that it would have been much more complex then that. I was discussing this with him over in this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1990240&postcount=223

Not very long considering the amount, but 'being there' for a few months doesn't mean that it was meaningfully analyzed.

It was there for months, thousands of people were walking around the rubble and it yes was analyzed. Nothing suspicious here.

What was suspicious is that they wanted to remove it so quickly without first properly analyzing it.

Oh please. This is definitely one of the more stupid parts of the conspiracy theory.

If you knew that the people allowed to analyze the debris were on your side, you could breathe more easily now, couldn't you?

So if it was analyzed properly it doesn’t matter because it was done by the conspiracy people. When you have these preconceived ideas it doesn’t matter what evidence would be presented because you can apply post hoc rationalization.

No, rather that I respect Michael Ruppert and for this reason I will withhold judgement on who is right here. Now could you answer my question?

While I know of him, I don’t know much about him so no I wouldn’t say that I’m a fan.

I would think it would have made more sense to analyze it where it had fallen. I also imagine that only government officials were allowed to analyze it. Also, could you cite a source showing me that it was analyzed further at a scrapyard?

It was from 911 myths although the original link is now dead.
http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

So what if the location wasn't a secret? The original location of all the scrap certainly wasn't a secret. The point is that so long as only certain government officials were permitted to analyze it, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Apparently a little of the debris was spirited away, however, or Dr. Steven Jones would never have been able to get his hands on some of the metal and dust..

Or maybe they were worried that someone would take a piece of debris while he was taking his break. Maybe it even happened.

Stop being dramatic. Thousands of people had access to the area for many months.

Just answer me this: there was -so- much debris. Why couldn't a little have been given to people who weren't so closely linked to the government?

”A team was quickly assembled by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. It also involved the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.[29] ASCE ultimately invited FEMA to join the investigation, which was completed under the auspices of the latter”
In the eyes of a Cter any organization with the right qualifications would probably be linked to the government somehow.

Perhaps the steel should have been given to all professors of theology for a once over as well.

Not much was needed. And apparently on non government agent managed to get some anyway. But he may never be able to prove it, since he was never officially given anything.

Many NGOs still rely on the government for funding so … you know ..

Knowing you, you'll probably say it's no good as well. But you may want to take a look; perhaps you'll find some flaw you can point out ;-). Here's a link with english subtitles:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924

I prefer it when it has subtitles myself, but you can always go to the main site itself which doesn't have them:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Is there anything in particular that Zeitgeist brings up that is new?

Not by a long shot.

My point being that discussions on nearly anything can go for many pages.

In the case of 911 there are so many claims. As I said, quantity not quality. With conspiracies, particularly these days with internet and youtube, there can be smoke with no fire.

 

[KennyJC]

If this forum is any example, even within the truth movement, Alex Jones is regarded as off base. nietzschefan says that William Cooper, who died under controversial circumstances, exposed him for a CIA for misinformation (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1989038&postcount=170). Wikipedia gives quite an interesting story as to Cooper's life; apparently Cooper knew 3 months before 9/11 what was going to happen. nietzschefan has more to say about this in the link I provided above. Anyway, the wiki link to Cooper is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Milton_Cooper

So what? Alex Jones also “predicted” 9/11 just a few months before it happened, and he is still free to shout his lies with a megaphone at ground zero.

So now you seem to believe that I'm being dishonest. Look, I can believe that when you hear the tower fall, you believe the only sound is coming from the tower collapsing. Why can't you believe that I believe that that same noise includes explosions? The fact that no steel structure has ever collapsed due to the collision of planes or fires before 9/11 doesn't help the case that that's what happened either.

Or atleast that's what you believe to hear.

Which I and others believe we can hear.

I believe there were plenty of explosives used..

All of the above relates to your comments about the sound of the tower collapsing could also include demolition explosives. Basically, if you can cite on any video featuring the collapse any sound of a bomb, state the minute and second of the video and I will listen. You will fail in this, because there was no bomb to be heard over the top of the collapse, which would have definitely been the case since explosives required would be heard for miles and the collapse wouldn’t.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, but many people believe otherwise. In case anyone else is reading, he writes books classified as non fiction.

There are several words I use for people who read these kinds of books: credulous, gullible, fantasists, paranoid, delusional etc. etc.

Actually, they found demolition material there, as I've mentioned in an earlier post.

Wow! Hold the front page: Remind me of this proof of demolition materials as it must have escaped me? You are going to mention Steven Jones aren’t you?

I don't believe so. Anyway, if you can't or don't want to cite a source, fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Why don’t you watch the same video of the 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire? Notice how it is totally destroyed and no large pieces remain. That’s what happens when a building falls apart. Explosives are not what are responsible for the total break up of a building, they merely destroy the important columns and gravity does the rest. I’m shocked that you even need me to cite a source on this as its common sense.

The pancake collapse has been discredited:
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

Well my 10 story apartment building video completely debunks the following quote: “Even Concrete Buildings Don't Disintegrate in Mid-air”. The apartment building was destroyed almost completely even before it hit the ground.

I think it does if they don't all go off at the same time.

Well, atleast you're not sure.

NIST says that to destroy a column, you need a minimum blast power to get the job done. So you’ve tried to avoid this bullet by saying lots of smaller blasts were used instead of one big one, which I am pretty sure would do only superficial damage to the columns, and not only that, it would further complicate the whole “demolition” beyond more than it would have to. This does not even make sense as far as conspiracy theories go. If I was in charge of the conspiracy I would just say that crashing the planes into the building would be enough to do whatever it is we wanted to do.

I've already mentioned that some firemen have been intimidated into not speaking up.

Firefighters lost so many colleagues that day, and they were in the thick of it. If anybody knows it was a conspiracy, it is these guys. And that you say that all of them are easily persuaded to stay silent is a disgusting allegation. If I had explicit knowledge, I would not keep silent for anyone, and if so many of my colleagues had the same knowledge I did, then threats could not quell such a large group.

Search for "Kevin"). A newspaper article even went out about it, titled "South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe"

And what was his expertise? “Kevin Ryan is a former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water testing.”

And he was not fired for “whistle blowing”… Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.”

Kevin Ryan didn't take this sitting down, however. He's pursuing legal action against his Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) and has set up a site speaking of his ordeal:
http://www.ultruth.com/index.htm

Good for him.

Anyway, don't you think these types of things would discourage others who disagree with the official findings from speaking up?

The problem is, that there is no evidence (despite what you may claim) of any controlled demolition in any tower, this is why people’s credibility are shot when they speak out about such things. They are morons.

Assuming bombs were in fact used, the conspirators had 2 choices; misdirect the public into thinking that the planes alone brought the towers down or make it obvious that bombs were used. If it were obvious that bombs were used, the next step would be to look for who planted the bombs. From what I have stated in the past, it seems clear that the most likely suspects were in charge of security on the towers. I speak of it at length here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988341&postcount=214 (search for "unnoticed"). I think it's clear that it would make more sense to take a little more risk in the planting of the bombs then get a lot of people thinking it was bombed from the start.

Or else there were no “bombs”.

I agree that it doesn't sound like the demolition example that someone (perhaps you) showed me in this forum. But it's clear that this isn't a typical demolition, because if it had been, it would have collapsed from the bottom up. Clearly, if this was a demolition, it was done in such a way that would make it appear as if the planes might have been responsible.

Or perhaps the fact that it didn’t resemble a controlled demolition is because it simply wasn’t one.

Or it could be aluminum oxide. I'd advise you check out Zeitgeist, from minutes 52 to 56 approximately. Anyway, for the purposes of explaining the dust:
"Thermite is so hot, that it'll just cut through steel; through structural steel, for example, like a knife through butter. The products are molten iron and aluminum oxide, which goes off primarily as a dust. You know those enormous dust clouds? You can imagine when you assemble these chemicals on a large scale."

Wait a minute… I thought you were saying bombs brought down the tower? Now you say it was thermite? Thermite is a slow incendiary (slow compared to explosive devices). Violent as it may be, it would certainly not be capable of destroying each floor in milliseconds.

And I already explained the dust clouds. For fuck sake, conspiracy theorists must be the only people on the planet who expect a building to collapse without mass amounts of dust being blown into the surrounding area.

You claim that Dr. Jones refuses to have his findings of Thermate peer refused. Considering the behaviour of certain peers (perhaps some from NIST?), I think I may understand why. I'm assuming they would require him to say where he got a sample of the closely guarded debris and he might not want to put his source in jeopardy. Anyway, I think I'll take a break from responding to this for now..

This is Dr. Jones responding to a question about peer review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRfCAaEyLk

Stop making excuses for him, Just submit it to a civil engineering journal. Until then, he has nothing.

Noted. I must admit I'm impressed. However, while this proves that a fair amount of dust can occur even in a building wherein explosives aren't used, there is plenty of evidence which shows that explosives were used on 9/11.

I’m still waiting. CT’s have never put a cohesive theory together explaining how such a thing would be possible.

When dealing with such a complex topic, one can say something that might appear to mean something one didn't intend. Jim Marrs says what I was trying to say:
"These drills could have provided a perfect cover for persons planting explosives".

Maybe if the drills lasted about a year.

The first WTO bombing didn't affect things enough. Perhaps they felt that a couple planes crashing into some buildings just wouldn't do it. You must also remember that there were potential motivations for taking out WTC 7; but if only a plane had crashed in the World Trade towers, it would probably have been a very hard sell to have people believe that WTC 7 would have collapsed as a result.

Notice how you are just making all this up from no evidence whatsoever.

Do you know how long the security drills were?

I was hoping you would tell me.

Why did he feel that way?

Just read firefighter quotes regarding WTC7. I won’t post firefighter quotes again as I did that multiple times with Ganymede. Check them yourself or read my previous posts.

Well, after the collapses of the 2 towers, I can understand they'd be somewhat jittery. I can also imagine that it's possible a little preliminary explosive softening up of the building might have been done as I believe happened to the towers.

Baseless.

*****
Auxiliary Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr., also mentioned bombs, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. "Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings", he said, "but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of the fact." Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings", Isaac added.
******

I find this very strange. He states this to a conspiracy writer, then never mentions it again? I can not find any other publication on this guy other than these same comments from the same source. Why doesn’t he take a more public stance and reiterate these comments? Oh, he fears for his life, right… Well that answers that.

You would think so, wouldn't you? And yet, Dr. Brown of NIST implies that it does.

No member of NIST says the steel melted. It is even on their FAQ on their website.

Alright, but weakening something is not the same thing as melting it.

Right.

The collapse wasn't silently initiated.

How so? All cameras reveal that the top of the building begins to fall without a single sound being heard. This is just a blatant lie on your part.

I've already stated that most truth movement people believe that the demolition was made to look like the planes were the reason it collapsed. It was done badly to anyone who knows enough about this type of thing, but to someone who hasn't read up on such things, it could definitely fool them.

So all the construction engineers and demolition experts around the world have been fooled, except for fans of Jim Marr and Alex Jones and Loose Change? Please...

Can you give a citation to this?

Do a search on you tube for “Hardfire Mark Roberts Loose Change”, in the debate, Mark Roberts gets Loose Change to admit that the collapse initiated from fire damage. However Loose Change went on to say that the top of the building that collapsed should have slid off on to the street below leaving the rest of the building intact.

I would argue that it's a mountain of fallacious arguments, arguments that have been countered by the truth movement...

That’s simply not true. That’s like saying Creationism has debunked evolution. No matter how big their confidence is, it’s still lies and falsehoods. You are not a rational person, and you have revealed that to me in this debate.

Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the buildsings. One such witness was the head of WTC security, John O'Neill, who stated shortly before he himself became a victim that he helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapse. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor, what heavily damaged the 27th floor?

This is probably ignored of its context, something truthers do a lot. I’m aware that there was ignited jet fuel exploding through elevator shafts on the lower floors. NIST interviewed people describing this. So this is my best guess at the moment.

Another of those mentioning bombs was Louie Cacchioli, a fifty-one-year-old fireman assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck", recalled Cacchioli. "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." The fireman became trapped in the elevator but managed to escape with the use of tools.

More quote abuse from 9/11 truthers. Cacchioli had this to say about this quote:
Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html

Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but fout it "gone." There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"

..the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”...
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm

Proof that jet fuel exploded all the way down to the basement level.

I keep on repeating that the pancake scenario has been discredited, but you seem to ignore this. Since the pancaking scenario has been discredited, your argument doesn't hold up.

Discredited by truthers? Pardon me for being underwhelmed. Anyway, I use the term pancaking loosely. I don’t know what the experts say about it or even if it was an actual ‘pancake’ effect. What is clear though is that the general mass of materials representing the hundreds or thousands of tons hitting the floor below results in that floor giving way. Simple to understand for intelligent people.

I'd advise against breaking the rules/guidelines there Kenny. Perhaps you haven't read them, so I'll excerpt the relevant portion:
***No Cat fighting (Hairpulling, scratching and biting is not permitted);
[Cat fighting can also be translated as "No Personal Attacks"]***

Fuck you. You are a lying scumbag.

A lot of experts have voiced the fact that they don't believe the pancake theory and supported the demolition theory. And yet you keep on stating the pancake theory as if it were accomplished fact. Now, I will grant you one thing: in general, figures close to the government seem to go with the pancake theory. I ask you to think of the following quote, taken from zeitgeist:
"They must find it hard,
those who see authority as the truth
rather then truth as the authority."

The consensus among genuine experts massively outweigh any “experts” in the truth movement. Again I point you to Richard Gage comparing the WTC to cardboard boxes.

 

[Sock Puppy]

Possibly, atleast on floors above the basement. As to the basement itself, I myself am puzzled on that one. I can easily imagine that a web site has a good theory, but I don't have one.

Well, if you can find a physical reason that any of the other floors would have held up thirty stories of building, please go ahead.

Not if people believed (and a great many still do) that the buildings were knocked down by the planes.

I think you mean to say "the vast majority of people", supported by the unambigous part of the evidence.

Perhaps, but I assume that they were not so unprofessional as to let that happen. However, even if it hadn't, they'd probably get FEMA to cart away the evidence anyway, all the while pretending to properly investigate.

But they were so unprofessional as to let the building enter "free fall"?

Actually I've been doing some thinking; perhaps your boulderist theory is in fact the pancake theory? I mean, the building -did- start collapsing from the top then? And the pancake theory has been discredited.. so therefore your theory has been discredited ;-). At this point, you will say (someone already has anyway) that a theologist doesn't have the credentials to discredit the theory and that's when I'll point out that the WTC architect and other experts who built the towers have stated that the World Trade tower was designed to withstand plane crashes.

It's not the same thing at all, really, since I'm not arguing any sequential collapse, but the simple ignorance of resistance by the above mass, which makes far more sense. But let's examine your theory here: is it really a theologian who has "discredited" the pancake theory? Which individual would this be again? And the architect of WTC - did he also say that the building was built to survive both an impact and the ensuing fires? Even if the fire protection was scraped off? If he did, I guess that would be it. I mean, after all, engineers are never wrong, and their promises never exceed their claims. In particular, ships described as "unsinkable" are never, ever, actually very sinkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicoll_Highway_collapse
http://www.open2.net/forensic_engineering/riddle/riddle_01.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkenhead_Dock_Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_Creek_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Mine_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2008_Manhattan_construction_crane_collapse

This why there has never been a need for such a field as one, say, devoted to finding out why engineering thingies went wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_analysis

In fact, the prospect of engineering failure is such a non-topic that there is not a single journal on the issue.

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30190/description#description

And you'd never, moreover, find a list of failed mechanical artifacts on the web, say.

http://materials.open.ac.uk/mem/index.htm

Frankly, this issue is most clearly exemplified by commercial aircraft, which in true Vonnegutian equanimity, have never, ever just fallen from the sky (unless George Bush were at the helm, I mean).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_crashes_caused_by_mechanical_failure

Or bridges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bridge_disasters

And particularly not for something as critical as nuclear power plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_accidents

Why in fact, you'd never find a gaggle of four-eyed physicists gibbering in excitement at the prospect of hurling very tiny particles into other particles at relativistic speeds, never completely sure of whether or not the impact might cause, say, the entirely of creation to unravel just because they want to see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

In our perfect world, nothing ever goes wrong, thank Myuu.

From Zeitgeist:
****
Pancake theory, according to which the fires, while not melting the steel, heated it up sufficiently to cause the floors weakened by the airplane strikes to break loose from the steel columns, and this started a chain reaction.
"So, you would expect then, from that theory, which is the official theory, to see a whole stack of floors, piled up on top of each other, and then a spindle of core columns standing too."
The core of the twin towers consisted of 47 massive steel columns. If the floors had broken loose from them, these columns would have still been sticking up into the air a thousand feet. The plane did not cut all those core columns..
****

And, while falling, the debris couldn't have torn the columns down anyway? The majority of the weight was actually borne by the perimeter

The World Trade Center towers included many structural engineering innovations in skyscraper design and construction, which allowed the buildings to reach new heights and become the tallest in the world. Traditionally, skyscrapers used a skeleton of columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads, with interior columns disrupting the floor space. The tube-frame concept was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent. The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 59 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings. These were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns.[46] Structural analysis of major portions of the World Trade Center were computed on an IBM 1620.[47]

The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[48] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[48] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs.[50] From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart.[51] All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Construction

I'm not an engineer, but this does not sound like solid steel columns to me. It sounds like pieces welded together, as above.

I hadn't heard of this truck thing. Must be a new twist. Anyway, the truck must have been able to displace itself in multiple locations, including WTC 7. Another excerpt from Zeitgeist:

Are we now going to start this sort of quibbling? For shame. Either steel melts via petrol fire or it doesn't. Which is it then? You can't just ignore evidence because it doesn't suit you.

Dr. Steven Jones:
"I started looking at the molten metal. All 3 buildings, both towers, in the rubble, in the basement areas, and building 7, there's these pools of molten metal."

Which are what? Steel? Aluminium? What? What does the good Dr. Jones know?

For well over 6 weeks after the collapse, hot spots of over 2000F were documented in the debris. That is 500F hotter then jet fuel even burns.

And? Has Dr. Jones never been camping? I don't think I'm mistaken when I say that the embers are the hottest part of the fire. Ash and dirt are very good insulators, and I don't doubt for a second that a fire smouldering there might reach a couple thousand degrees. However, where is Dr. Jones' evidence, again?

And I think a lot of people aren't so keen on believing that dark elements of their own government could do such things.

Some may indeed be, but not I. I merely understand the evidence and the meaning of coincidence.

You're citing a truck that crashed on April 29, 2007 in Oakland. What on earth does that have to do with the WTC collapses in 2001?

Melted steel, silly Troofer. Melted steel. Melted by gasoline fire. Are you going to carry on like this then?

The evidence is clear that there were molten pools of metal. Not weakened. The government agents in charge did the best they could to cover up this embarrassing fact by simply ignoring it completely as I've mentioned above.

Supposition on all counts. First, demonstrate these foundry pools of simmering metal. Second, prove they were steel and not aluminum from the plane. Or the bloody building, even.

I find the following line amusing:
"3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. "

They expect their readers to not even ask -why- they believe it would 'present insurmountable challenges'.

You have missed the critical statement. I have bolded the text above. So you're really committed to your story, then, in the face of everything? Or did you honestly miss it? Because in conjunction with your willful attempt to dismiss the truck accident, I'm starting to seriously wonder.

Well, we know that NIST concluded this. But from what I've heard, NIST is hardly to be trusted.

Here we go - 'idle rumour suggests I shouldn't trust them'. They went around collecting all this evidence, see, and that bodes not well. Why can't they just weigh a witch like we used to do in the old days? Stephen Jones and that idiot radio announcer are like the most vociferous peasants in the mob, shaking their pitchforks and demanding the death of Mary the Apothecary because their sheep lost four lambs this spring, unknowing or uncaring about the existence of bacteria. It's sad.

Yes, yes, very clever of you. I think it would be best for me to put it to you in a way that makes it a little more clear. This is what the paper said about his firing:
"South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe".

That's their take on it, but you yourself suggested a simpler alternative.

Until I googled his name, I hadn't known he was the director of loose change. Anyway, I really liked the parts of his film that I've seen.

"Liked", not "found reasonable". I suggest you continue your internet education with this film:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

I've seen both. Will you now avail yourself of 'alternative' information, or stick to the official Troofer version of the facts?

Cheers

SP

 

[scott3x]

Molten metal

Originally Posted by scott3x

Yes, people on lower floors were injured as well before the fall. This all suggests explosives, though

Not necessarily.

Well atleast you admit the possibility.

The collision and subsequent explosions affected the whole building, not just the top few floors. As I said earlier people below thought there was an earthquake.

People below were treated to an explosion -before- the plane even hit. Almost immediately afterwards, the plane itself hit. I admit I don't know why the basement was bombed momentarily before the plane itself hit, but there are witnesses who will tell you this was the case.

The building is solid. When it takes a hit like that up the top the lower floors will still feel it and that isn't even taking into account crashing lifts or jet fuel down the elevators. That's why I wanted clarification on what was reported. Are we talking about someone's monitor falling on their head or was the whole floor an inferno?

No fireball could have done this:
*************************************************************
"Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but found it "gone." There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
*************************************************************

The explosions at the Madrid Tower were before the collapse as well. You are kidding yourself if you think the banging noises had to be bombs.

If the Madrid Tower burned because of arson, who's to say they didn't add some explosives? In any case, that building didn't collapse, despite a bona fide raging inferno that was only put out after 16 hours, not the paltry 1 or 2 weak fires from 9/11. There's one thing you seem to be forgetting with all your ideas of so much internal fires; fires need a lot of air. They didn't have much in the case of 9/11.

Originally Posted by scott3x

I just told you, but once more:
******
Auxiliary Fire Lt. Paul Isaac, Jr., also mentioned bombs, telling internet reporter Randy Lavello that New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. "Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings", he said, "but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of the fact." Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD's antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. "There were definitely bombs in those buildings", Isaac added.

I thought we were talking about testimony on the day where the firemen convinced themselves it couldn’t have been bombs for fear of losing their jobs.

There was no specific day that I'm aware of when they were afraid of losing their jobs. I definitely think -someone- should be investigating why it is that Isaac and other firemen believe that James Woolsey might have their jobs if they speak up.

As far as losing jobs goes, it is now seven years later. You don’t think one fireman has retired or left his job since then?

Sure. But what I'm talking about is being dismissed from the job for daring to speak out. Apparently, though, they've kept quiet enough.

Are they still scared? Are you going to suggest that someone will kill them? Although no one has killed Isaac….

Who knows, maybe. But perhaps the threat of losing their jobs was enough.

The whole building shook when the planes hit. Why are you so shocked that the lower floors were damaged?

It's the extent of the damage. Not to mention the difference between one shake and multiple explosions.

That’s right the steel parts collapsed. Interesting point huh? The Windsor tower had a concrete core. WTC did not.

Steel is stronger then concrete.

The fact that Cooper said many things doesn't take away from what he said about 9/11.

But many people have said so much more. There are productions on a much grander scale now and the people behind them are well known and no one is dying. It is fantasy.

I just listened to William Cooper's broadcast. He doesn't seem to say much beyond the fact that Osama wanted to commit more terrorist acts. But a lot of people knew that. I have heard of people who knew much more then this before the event.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Aside from cooper, around 3000 on 9/11, 4000 US soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis? I guess you could chalk it all up to coincidence..

A dodge, a tenuous link and an appeal to emotion all in one….

Ok, forget the Cooper bit, but my point is that a lot of people have died as a result of what happened on 9/11.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Losing strength is not the same thing as giving way. In any case, Ryan wasn't arguing that the steel didn't lose its strength, only that it didn't melt, something that Dr. Brown, the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers, stated on 9/11 (This is stated in the following link: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html, search for brown). So much for some of these 'experts'.

So someone incorrectly said the steel melted. Not exactly a smoking gun.

If it had just been some nameless type, it'd be one thing. But it was the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers. I wonder if he has ever explained how he came to such a faulty conclusion.

I’m not going to discuss melted steel because it is up there with “pull it” as the most stupid and regularly debunked argument.

Alright, I've heard that in the twin towers, the argument is that the metal is from the planes. I have seen no evidence that the metal was even aluminium (and this is important, because jet fires can't melt steel), but there it is. But no plane crashed into WTC 7. How did the molten metal get there?

Okay, do you think that fuel would shoot down the elevator shafts? If no, then why not?

For starters, I'd think most if not all of the jet fuel exploded on impact. Isn't that what usually happens when a plane (or car for that matter) crashes?

(to be continued)

 

[John99]

I’m not going to discuss melted steel because it is up there with “pull it” as the most stupid and regularly debunked argument.

scott3x "pulls" something all the time.

 

[Sock Puppy]

*************************************************************
"Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but found it "gone." There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
*************************************************************

So your impression is that there must be a bomb? Why would they have planted one there? To what end? "Hey, this machine looks important...let's blow it up?" Where was it in relation to the columns?

If the Madrid Tower burned because of arson, who's to say they didn't add some explosives?

This is complete and utter supposition.

In any case, that building didn't collapse, despite a bona fide raging inferno that was only put out after 16 hours, not the paltry 1 or 2 weak fires from 9/11. There's one thing you seem to be forgetting with all your ideas of so much internal fires; fires need a lot of air. They didn't have much in the case of 9/11.

Proof please.

I just listened to William Cooper's broadcast. He doesn't seem to say much beyond the fact that Osama wanted to commit more terrorist acts. But a lot of people knew that. I have heard of people who knew much more then this before the event.

Ok, forget the Cooper bit, but my point is that a lot of people have died as a result of what happened on 9/11.

Which you prefer to think is the American's fault, because the alternative is unacceptable to you.

If it had just been some nameless type, it'd be one thing. But it was the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers. I wonder if he has ever explained how he came to such a faulty conclusion.

He probably said "Plane yes, fire and plane no."

Alright, I've heard that in the twin towers, the argument is that the metal is from the planes. I have seen no evidence that the metal was even aluminium (and this is important, because jet fires can't melt steel), but there it is. But no plane crashed into WTC 7. How did the molten metal get there?

Was there any molten metal in WTC 7 at all? Please provide a link.

 

[Sock Puppy]

Oh, and a final thing to put the nails in the coffin of the "molten conspiracy":

Thermite burns out very quickly. It doesn't smoulder for weeks and weeks.

 

[Sock Puppy]

Oh, what the heck. How about this then?

When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

So there's the "kiln theory" for Troofers to deal with now also.

 

[shaman_]

Well atleast you admit the possibility.


People below were treated to an explosion -before- the plane even hit. Almost immediately afterwards, the plane itself hit. I admit I don't know why the basement was bombed momentarily before the plane itself hit, but there are witnesses who will tell you this was the case.

Firstly how would people on the bottom floors know that the explosion was before the plane hit? Were they watching the plane? The ones in the basement weren't.

When the plane hit there was an initial bang from the collision and then a subsequent explosion. It is possible that there were two bangs from the first collision as the sound travels faster down the steel than it does through air. CTers desperate to shoehorn evidence to fit their beliefs will only interpret more than one bang as evidence as bombs.

Once again, the collapse started up the top at the point of impact, so if bombs went off they had no effect on the lower levels.

No fireball could have done this:
*************************************************************
"Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but found it "gone." There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
*************************************************************
.

http://www.911myths.com/html/mike_pecoraro.html

If the Madrid Tower burned because of arson, who's to say they didn't add some explosives? In any case, that building didn't collapse, despite a bona fide raging inferno that was only put out after 16 hours, not the paltry 1 or 2 weak fires from 9/11. There's one thing you seem to be forgetting with all your ideas of so much internal fires; fires need a lot of air. They didn't have much in the case of 9/11.

What? Where was all the air then?

A couple of hundred people dived to their deaths on 911. They hung out the windows as long as they could and then they dived so they wouldn't burn to death. Perhaps you should rethink that comment about the paltry 1 or 2 weak fires.

There was no specific day that I'm aware of when they were afraid of losing their jobs. I definitely think -someone- should be investigating why it is that Isaac and other firemen believe that James Woolsey might have their jobs if they speak up. .

They have been speaking up though haven't they?

Sure. But what I'm talking about is being dismissed from the job for daring to speak out. Apparently, though, they've kept quiet enough.

Something would have come out by now. In fact no one at all has come forward to give details of the conspiracy seven years later which is amazing considering that thousands of people must have been involved. Not one has come forward.

Who knows, maybe. But perhaps the threat of losing their jobs was enough.

It's the extent of the damage. Not to mention the difference between one shake and multiple explosions.

Steel is stronger then concrete.

Scott, Steel with lose it's strength in a fire while concrete will not. That is why the Madrid tower held even though the steel supports fell.

It's pretty funny that CTers bring this up all the time but it only reinforces the official story.

I just listened to William Cooper's broadcast. He doesn't seem to say much beyond the fact that Osama wanted to commit more terrorist acts. But a lot of people knew that. I have heard of people who knew much more then this before the event.

Ok, forget the Cooper bit, but my point is that a lot of people have died as a result of what happened on 9/11.

If it had just been some nameless type, it'd be one thing. But it was the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers. I wonder if he has ever explained how he came to such a faulty conclusion.

Alright, I've heard that in the twin towers, the argument is that the metal is from the planes. I have seen no evidence that the metal was even aluminium (and this is important, because jet fires can't melt steel), but there it is. But no plane crashed into WTC 7. How did the molten metal get there?

What does molten metal have to do with bombs? A bomb detonates in a second and wouldn't explain fires later on.

Source for molten metal at WTC7? There were hot spots for many weeks after the collapse and remember glowing metal is not molten metal.

But this is how 911 discussions go. When the WTC 1 and 2 stuff gets silly we move to WTC7...

For starters, I'd think most if not all of the jet fuel exploded on impact. Isn't that what usually happens when a plane (or car for that matter) crashes?
(to be continued)

Cars don't carry 10, 000 gallons.

From NIST

"Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors."

The elevator shafts were the point of least resistance, a conduit for the fuel to funnel down.

 

[Sock Puppy]

Hmm, good point.

 

[scott3x]

So you do think it appeared like it was pancaking? To do that the floors would have to be loaded with explosives that no one saw installed, the explosives would have to go unnoticed by the 50, 000 odd people what work there, they would not be affected by the impact of the planes or the jet fuel, then they would need to be set off almost to the millisecond to create an illusion of pancaking, while not looking like explosives were going off and then nothing was found afterwards.

Well, as far as I and others are concerned, they failed when it came to the bit about not looking like explosives were going off. But it takes someone who knows what to look for. Same thing, I believe, for the sounds made when the buildings were collapsing. I have already explained how the explosives were probably placed in another post, but will be happy to do so again if you missed it.

All to create the illusion that planes could bring a building down because it had to be done with planes.

It had to be done in such a way that the real culprits could get away with it. I imagine they felt that planes were the best way for this to happen.

Does that really sound plausible to you? If you are the government trying to plan a conspiracy so you can attack Iraq would you really go that degree? Why not plan a conspiracy that is less likely to be found out?

Because a smaller event would probably not have triggered the amount of anger needed to wage war in 2 countries and curtail american freedoms, supposedly to get these types of terrorists.

Can’t you accept that a building could fall without all that imaginative planning? If you say ‘no’ my next question would be – Based on what?

There's lots of evidence that the buildings couldn't have fallen based on the pancake theory. If you want, I can post it again..

Yes we are looking at motives not evidence but when you have shaky evidence, and I’m being generous there, to support an unlikely theory I think need to rethink what you are supporting.

I would argue that the evidence for a demolition is much stronger then evidence for anything else.

Why would they get caught? If you are capable of rigging the WTC with explosives on nearly every floor which no one found before or afterwards then you could get away with planting a couple of really big bombs at the bottom.

What if the people who placed the bombs were from a security firm in charge of installing some upgrades and doing a few drills a few weeks before the event? You see, it would have taken time to do all of this and it's much harder to sneak into a building and do this much work then it is to simply hijack a few planes. Especially if even the security at the airport and one of the airlines used is apparently on your side (I read some info on this but I don't know where I read it from at present).

It seems you could rationalize any absurd, needlessly complex conspiracy theory with ‘misdirection’. Don’t you agree?

Sure. But I don't think this theory is absurd or needlessly complex, but rather the theory that best fits the evidence.

The core columns were damaged by the impacts and then weakened by the steel. So no they would not stick out while the floors collapsed around them.

Weakened by the steel? You mean by the alleged 'inferno', don't you? Anyway, I'm not sure who decided the columns would stick out, it's something that was said on Zeitgeist. Anyway, I can give you some quotes from some notables. Again, from Zeitgeist:
************************************************************
Les Robertson, WTC Structural Engineer:
"We designed the buildings to take the impact of the boeing 707, ah, hitting the building at any location."

Frank A. Demartini, Manager, WTC Construction:
"The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners."

Interviewer questioning Aaron Swirsky, WTC Architect:
"Interviewer: So you're saying that the plane was actually designed to cope with a hole like that?
Mr. Swirsky: Yeah, it was..."
************************************************************

The comments after that, which are from one person, are not about the pancake theory but whether the tower could withstand the impact of a plane. They did. So saying “many of the people who built the towers believe the pancake theory is impossible.”, is an exaggeration isn’t it?

No, it's not, because the people who built the towers -know- that they fell down on 9/11 and yet they still claimed this. If they had felt that the buildings would have pancaked after a while, they would have said so. Clearly, they believe that the official explanation is absurd.

It was there for months, thousands of people were walking around the rubble and yes, it was analyzed. Nothing suspicious here.

Let's take a look at the real story. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 62-63:
*******************************************
The public might know more of what really happened to the WTC if the New York Police Department and New York Fire Department had been allowed to do their jobs. But, as with the JFK assassination, their work was taken from them by federal officials, who immediately closed doors and shut out the public from their consultations. People were even arrested for taking photographs of Ground Zero.

The FBi took charge of the criminal investigation while the little-understood Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) took responsibility for determining what happened to cause the collapse of the twin towers. FEMA seemed determined to haul away the evidence, even before a full and impartial investigation could be made. Such premature destruction of evidence was called into question by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old firemen's publication Fire Engineering in its January 2002 issue.

"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap.", wrote Manning. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car."

Challenging the theory that the twin towers collapsed as a result of crashed airplanes and fires, Manning added, "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, like far afield of full disclosure.

"Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by the ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a 'tourist trip'- no one's checking the evidence for anything.

"The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately", Manning declared.
***********************************

(further response to be continued)

 

[Sock Puppy]

No, it's not, because the people who built the towers -know- that they fell down on 9/11 and yet they still claimed this. If they had felt that the buildings would have pancaked after a while, they would have said so. Clearly, they believe that the official explanation is absurd.

Actually all they said was "the towers should have withstood multiple hits from airliners". I don't recall them saying the towers wouldn't "pancake" necessarily. And what else would they say about multiple hits? "Oh, hell, no. No, they shouldn't really have stood up to a light breeze. Don't know what we were on about, building them like that. We really ought to be sued for eleventy billion dollars and burned in effigy."

See above points about the complete dearth of engineering failures in the entirety of human history.