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

[shaman_]

This is your personal belief. Trading opinions and beliefs are not going to move this forward. they did not have access to the steel that was no longer at the scrap yards.

If they were so efficient that steel was recycled in the first seven days it would have been a very, small percentage of the steel from the building. It's a non issue.

it is a fact that steel had been recycled before Astaneh-asl and his small team were ready to start their inspections.

Could you show me some evidence of this please. It is certainly possible I would just like a source.

it "sounds like" you want to dismiss this data in order to protect your belief.

Hilarious. By actually looking at the context and not just cherry picking a couple of words you accuse me of dismissing data. How about the fact that Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings, found no evidence for explosives and believes that the fire caused the collapse. Are you dismissing that?

He actually looked over 40,000 tons of scrap. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47357

So your attempts to imply that all the important steel was gone in seven days are absurd.

There are many witnessess to molten iron in the basements and in the cleanup operations. molten iron thermite residue was found in abundance in the dust - the molten iron in the dust was a major marker used to identify wtc dust from background dust.

he says this too:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''"
(add 3 w's)query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Would you agree that if traces of explosives are found, then there is no need to speculate which columns were cut, how the explosives were detonated etc, if our intention is to determinte whether explosives were used?
If you find traces of gunpowder or traces of RDX it is not necessary to find out what gun was used, what columns were cut, what detonator was used. A discovery of explosives is enough to know that explosives were used, do you agree?

Were traces of explosives found?

 

[scott3x]

Were traces of explosives found?

"molten iron thermite residue was found in abundance in the dust - the molten iron in the dust was a major marker used to identify wtc dust from background dust.":

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2045982&postcount=1319

"Thermate, C4, Nukes Prove 911 Was An Inside Job":

http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

This last link is something I have heard before (the mini nukes thing) but that I hadn't seriously considered. I'm still not sure, but the possibility frightens me. Nukes are radioactive. This might help explain what has happened to some of the first responders and firemen..

Here's a quote from the site:
"3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of 'traces' and 'of no human concern'. See us gov (DOE report) proof: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141"

 

[scott3x]

He actually looked over 40,000 tons of scrap. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/10/47357

Apparently, he had to examine 1,500 tons of steel each day. How meticulous of an investigation can you do when you have to do it so fast?

I got a little quote from the following web site. I have seen no evidence for a 'quid pro quo' for Rudy, but I think it's worth looking into.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/was-911-truth-giulianis-demise/2346/

*************************************************
Evidence suggests that a quid pro quo may have begun Rudy’s ascendance, whereby Rudy would help destroy the WTC steel BEFORE A FORENSIC 9/11 INVESTIGATION COULD OCCUR (by sending it to India and China to be melted down) . . . and in exchange the powers made him President.

Of course that didn’t work out quite the way Rudy wanted. Rudy even began using remains of WTC victims to fill pot holes because he was in such a rabid hurry to get rid of evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4fNPnQ
*************************************************

I haven't seen any evidence that WTC victim remains being used in pot holes. However, I did find this choice quote from 9/11 Research:
*************************************************
From Heroes to Landfill

As the "cleanup operation" geared up in late October of 2001, then Mayor Giuliani reduced the number of FDNY personnel allowed to do recovery work to a mere 24. Of the 343 firefighters killed in the attack, just 74 had been recovered. The Mayor's barricading of firefighters from Ground Zero came to a head on November 2, when altercations erupted during a protest march by firefighters. 2 Union official Edward Burke said:

They'll be scooping up our fallen brothers, putting them in a dump truck, and taking them out to the landfill in Staten Island. I'll be damned if I'm going to go out with a rake to a garbage dump and try to find the bones and return them to their families. They deserve to be removed with dignity.
*************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/index.html

The "heroes to landfill" story they quoted is from the publication "The People":
http://www.slp.org/pdf/thepeople/DEC_01TP.pdf

 

[Read-Only]

Apparently, he had to examine 1,500 tons of steel each day. How meticulous of an investigation can you do when you have to do it so fast?

I got a little quote from the following web site. I have seen no evidence for a 'quid pro quo' for Rudy, but I think it's worth looking into.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/was-911-truth-giulianis-demise/2346/

*************************************************
Evidence suggests that a quid pro quo may have begun Rudy’s ascendance, whereby Rudy would help destroy the WTC steel BEFORE A FORENSIC 9/11 INVESTIGATION COULD OCCUR (by sending it to India and China to be melted down) . . . and in exchange the powers made him President.

Of course that didn’t work out quite the way Rudy wanted. Rudy even began using remains of WTC victims to fill pot holes because he was in such a rabid hurry to get rid of evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4fNPnQ
*************************************************

I haven't seen any evidence that WTC victim remains being used in pot holes. However, I did find this choice quote from 9/11 Research:
*************************************************
From Heroes to Landfill

As the "cleanup operation" geared up in late October of 2001, then Mayor Giuliani reduced the number of FDNY personnel allowed to do recovery work to a mere 24. Of the 343 firefighters killed in the attack, just 74 had been recovered. The Mayor's barricading of firefighters from Ground Zero came to a head on November 2, when altercations erupted during a protest march by firefighters. 2 Union official Edward Burke said:

They'll be scooping up our fallen brothers, putting them in a dump truck, and taking them out to the landfill in Staten Island. I'll be damned if I'm going to go out with a rake to a garbage dump and try to find the bones and return them to their families. They deserve to be removed with dignity.
*************************************************

Wow - you sure can come up with some nonsense!!! Surely you realize that if you keep going to those idiotic sites you can find ANY kind of garbage you want? Just keep looking and you'll find some "evidence" that it was all done by ETs.

 

[scott3x]

Wow - you sure can come up with some nonsense!!! Surely you realize that if you keep going to those idiotic sites you can find ANY kind of garbage you want?

While the first site I mentioned is new to me, I believe that its claims deserve serious warrant. As the second site I mention makes clear, they are not alone in making them. The second site, 9/11 Research, is hardly an 'idiotic' site. Time and again it clearly points out the flaws in the official story and reveals many things the mainstream media seems to miss. In any case, I've now added the source of the second quote I mentioned in my last post, as well as the source of the original publication it quoted.

Even CNN mentions the firefighter protest, although it chooses to quote slightly calmer firefighter statements:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/03/smn.21.html

 

[MacGyver1968]

"Thermate, C4, Nukes Prove 911 Was An Inside Job":

http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

This last link is something I have heard before (the mini nukes thing) but that I hadn't seriously considered. I'm still not sure, but the possibility frightens me. Nukes are radioactive. This might help explain what has happened to some of the first responders and firemen..

Here's a quote from the site:
"3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of 'traces' and 'of no human concern'. See us gov (DOE report) proof: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141"

Mini nuke? Dude...you got to be kidding me. Everyone in the world was watching...you couldn't hide something like that going off...plus the entire area would have set off radiation detectors big time. Pure foolishness.

 

[GeoffP]

Sigh. The building couldn't have fallen due to the small fires seen before the collapse at all. This quibbling over a few seconds is tedious. In any case, alternate story supporters were relying on official government documents, as witnessed here (search for 'ten seconds'):

But it was all the difference in the world a while back, before it began to be realized that it wasn't a free fall. "Close to" only matters if there's some reason it shouldn't have been.

The airplane did minimal damage to the support columns (I believe about 1%. The fires also did little damage and realistic NIST models show this.

But what 1%? The fire insulation, apparently.

Expected by whom? As mentioned, it came close to free falling. Why it took a bit longer probably has to do with the timing of the explosives as well as such things such as air friction.

Supposition.

Did not. But feel free to wade through the mighty tangle to attempt to prove me wrong.

You said I "worked for the government. Your allusion was clear. "Conscious", you said.

And who, exactly, would -he- be working for?

Well, the government, naturally! He has the cubicle next to mine.

If you want to get paid for espousing conspiracy movement views, I think you'd better be a successful book author. Because you better believe that we're not getting 16 million dollar contracts to come up with government approved stuff.

Oh? Have a contract, have you?

Small fires? Have you watched the videos?

Over two hundred people decided to jump rather than be painfully burned to death.

To Scott's mind, they could have just turned up the AC, apparently.

Steven Jones never said that nano-thermite/thermate had to do it alone.

And the story changes again.

In any case, you may want to take a look at this link I just found:
http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

No, I regret to say I specifically don't want to take a look at your newfound link.

Scott, you have refused to examine Screw Loose Change, even though I've already seen Loose Change. There is simply no reason for me to continue examining your presentation of one absurd theory after another in the hope that I will be magically "converted". This isn't Nicky Nicky Nine-Doors with the JWs where you can continually try to refer me to some higher authority that will impress me with its diligence. So: when you have successfully reviewed SLC, I will examine your link. You may post from your link if you like, but it must be a summary in your own words.

Until then,

Geoff

 

[KennyJC]

See, this is the difference between you and people like me and EndLightEnd. When I believe that someone honestly believes what they're saying (as opposed to simply lying), I believe that the key is not to insult them but rather to show them the error of their ways.

I'm not here to show you the error of your ways, I just flat out tell you that you are a moron, and that you will never succeed in bringing everyone down to your level. I can't make a dishonest person change their mind, so instead my purpose is to meet bullshit and call them on it. You and your fellow troofers are relegated out of the scientific process. You will never get beyond YouTube or late night pseudoscience programs. You can't say there is a mountain of evidence and then explain the reason why intelligent people don't believe it is because they are "patriotic".

Do you have any evidence for this claim of yours? I certainly haven't seen any.

You probably have at least one lie in every paragraph you write. My favorite one was when you lied about steel not being able to reach the temperature of office fires and I and others quickly and emphatically debunked you on this. If you were an honest person you would have admitted your error.

I disagree with your version of events and yet I don't find your views 'thoroughly distateful'. I simply see them as flawed and have made many attempts to get you to see those flaws.

Being patronized by a kook is about as insulting as any ridicule I have ever heaped upon you.

Kenny, are you saying that you don't have a belief system?

Exactly. I don't just say that steel can be melted by office fires; I do my research and find tests that confirm that to be the case.

Perhaps I missed something here, but has someone said it had to be horizontal? I thought the melting/cutting was done at an angle.

”
You are looking at pictures of beams that were cut at an angle by clean up workers AFTER the buildings had collapse. This is another lie you are repeating. Please admit to your error to earn the respect of everyone here. If you don't, that can only mean you are a liar.

Anyway, it seems everyone's dodging this 'evidence for explosives' used question. I'm guessing people suspect that Headspin has evidence that it was indeed used and people don't want to feel 'caught' into admitting that a demolition was done. I certainly do.

You can't dodge evidence that doesn't exist. Demolition experts around the world are unanimous in saying that there were no signs of explosives in any of the buildings that collapsed that day.

Demolition workers were involved in the clean up operation and they described no signs of a demolition taking place.

"Thermate, C4, Nukes Prove 911 Was An Inside Job":

http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

This last link is something I have heard before (the mini nukes thing) but that I hadn't seriously considered. I'm still not sure, but the possibility frightens me. Nukes are radioactive. This might help explain what has happened to some of the first responders and firemen.

Here's a quote from the site:
"3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of 'traces' and 'of no human concern'. See us gov (DOE report) proof: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141"

Wow. You will just say anything, won't you?

Nukes would do more than just give people breathing difficulties. They would blind people, send shockwaves and intense heat throughout lower Manhattan. It would leave behind massive amounts of radiation which would be easily detected.

I have no idea how a nuke could be used to demolish a tower on a floor by floor pancake fashion in any case even if we ignore the stupidities of how obvious it would be.

Can't you at least stick to one thing when describing what brought down the tower? Was it standard demolition explosives? Was it thermite? Thermate? Nanothermite? Nukes? Star Wars death rays? Gremlins?

Pick one, and stick to it. And then do something no truther has ever done and not be vague in describing its feasibility.

 

[scott3x]

But it was all the difference in the world a while back, before it began to be realized that it wasn't a free fall.

Can you cite a source that, as you put it, would believe that it made "all the difference in the world" if the collapse took 5 seconds longer then they thought?

"Close to" only matters if there's some reason it shouldn't have been.

The buildings shouldn't have collapsed at all if all the buildings suffered were airliner collisions and their relatively insignificant fires (insignificant to the building structures, not to the people who were exposed to them).

The airplane did minimal damage to the support columns (I believe about 1%. The fires also did little damage and realistic NIST models show this.

But what 1%? The fire insulation, apparently.

Highly unlikely from what I've heard. Even if it magically took off all the fire insulation it came across, there is significant evidence that it would have made little difference. But I wasn't talking about the fire insulation. I was talking about the following:

**************************************************
According to the final reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the collapse of the North Tower, began on floor 98.[1] NIST also reproduces photographs said to be taken at the time of the collapse showing fire and debris being expelled from floor 98, and showing the section of the building above this floor tilting.[2] Although some aspects of NIST's work on the WTC have been questioned, the author is not aware of any reliable claims giving the collapse initiation floor for WTC1 as anything other than 98. In addition, a review of video sequences appeared to confirm NIST’s view.[3]

Floor 98 was not in the centre of the impact area, but was struck by a portion of the aircraft. The fuselage and the engines hit floors 95 and 96, whereas floor 98 was only hit by the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing. Five of the perimeter columns on floor 98 were severed. If 50% of the building’s gravity load is assumed to be carried by the columns in the building's core and 50% by the 236 perimeter columns, the five severed perimeter columns would have degraded floor 98’s ability to bear the gravity load it supported by slightly more than 1%.
**************************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf

As mentioned, it came close to free falling. Why it took a bit longer probably has to do with the timing of the explosives as well as such things such as air friction.

Supposition.

Fine, it's supposition. But it sounds like a reasonable one.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Did not. But feel free to wade through the mighty tangle to attempt to prove me wrong.

You said I "worked for the government. Your allusion was clear. "Conscious", you said.

This is what I said exactly
"1- You seem to be working for the government. As such, I believe you may have an impulse, be it unconscious or conscious or some mix of the 2, to want to see all of it in a good light."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2043816&postcount=1260

And who, exactly, would -he- be working for?

Well, the government, naturally! He has the cubicle next to mine.

Very funny .

If you want to get paid for espousing conspiracy movement views, I think you'd better be a successful book author. Because you better believe that we're not getting 16 million dollar contracts to come up with government approved stuff.

Oh? Have a contract, have you?

I wish . I'm unemployed again, but tomorrow I'm going up to my mother's farm and hopefully manage to do some work up there.

Steven Jones never said that nano-thermite/thermate had to do it alone.

And the story changes again.

Or atleast that's what you believe. Can you cite where Steven Jones said that nano-thermite was the only demolition tool used? I'm certain I can find a quote where he says otherwise.

In any case, you may want to take a look at this link I just found:
http://www.rense.com/general80/dprah.htm

No, I regret to say I specifically don't want to take a look at your newfound link.

Scott, you have refused to examine Screw Loose Change, even though I've already seen Loose Change. There is simply no reason for me to continue examining your presentation of one absurd theory after another in the hope that I will be magically "converted".

If the theories I support (I certainly am in good company in supporting them) were so absurd, you would have been to knock them out long ago.

This isn't Nicky Nicky Nine-Doors with the JWs where you can continually try to refer me to some higher authority that will impress me with its diligence. So: when you have successfully reviewed SLC, I will examine your link. You may post from your link if you like, but it must be a summary in your own words.

If you don't want to review the links I send you, so be it. I have only once asked you to review a movie, and only a few minutes worth of it, since I have only done this with your SLC. The rest has been text. I also will not review every link sent to me but I have never made it a condition that people have to summarize something they have read; a simple excerpt from the link in question is fine (I also appreciate having a link to the source so that I can check that out as well if I wish to).

 

[MacGyver1968]

Floor 98 was not in the centre of the impact area, but was struck by a portion of the aircraft. The fuselage and the engines hit floors 95 and 96, whereas floor 98 was only hit by the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing. Five of the perimeter columns on floor 98 were severed. If 50% of the building’s gravity load is assumed to be carried by the columns in the building's core and 50% by the 236 perimeter columns, the five severed perimeter columns would have degraded floor 98’s ability to bear the gravity load it supported by slightly more than 1%.[/i]
**************************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf

That looks like a lot more than 5 perimeter columns severed:

 

[scott3x]

Kenny, I believe your emotions have been getting the better of you for a while, making it so that you seem to favor personal attacks over a discussion of the relevant issues. I suggest you attempt to stick to the issues. With that in mind...

I don't just say that steel can be melted by office fires; I do my research and find tests that confirm that to be the case.

I do my research to. In the case of what happened on the WTC buildings itself, for example:
*************************************************
Imagined Heat

The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)

The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).
*************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

Nukes would do more than just give people breathing difficulties. They would blind people, send shockwaves and intense heat throughout lower Manhattan. It would leave behind massive amounts of radiation which would be easily detected.

Mini nukes is the claim. They offer the tritium as the evidence. This is something I have only recently seriously looked into, but, as has happened in the case of the pentagon missile theory, it may be off. There is just so much information and it is at times hard to know the truth from the wishful thinking.

Can't you at least stick to one thing when describing what brought down the tower? Was it standard demolition explosives? Was it thermite? Thermate? Nanothermite? Nukes? Star Wars death rays? Gremlins?

Pick one, and stick to it. And then do something no truther has ever done and not be vague in describing its feasibility.

There is no need to just 'pick one' as you say, although I think we can safely rule out gremlins . Star Wars death rays also doesn't sound very probable. And no one as far as I know have thought that it was full fledged nukes. I really know very little about this 'mini nuke' theory as I have already said. In any case, other then thermate, this is what Steven Jones has speculated in the past:
********************************************
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored — but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
********************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

[John99]

There is just so much information and it is at times hard to know the truth from the wishful thinking.

So give your little marble a rest and put down the pipe.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Floor 98 was not in the centre of the impact area, but was struck by a portion of the aircraft. The fuselage and the engines hit floors 95 and 96, whereas floor 98 was only hit by the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing. Five of the perimeter columns on floor 98 were severed. If 50% of the building’s gravity load is assumed to be carried by the columns in the building's core and 50% by the 236 perimeter columns, the five severed perimeter columns would have degraded floor 98’s ability to bear the gravity load it supported by slightly more than 1%.[/i]
**************************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf

That looks like a lot more than 5 perimeter columns severed:

My memory had been a bit foggy on the 1% claim. After having re-read what I originally quoted on it in this forum a while back, I now realize that it only applied to the North Tower. The picture you have is from the south tower. Another point is that they're only talking about floor 98, which was "only hit by the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing". More significant damage apparently occured on floors 95 and 96, where the "fuselage and the engines hit". The reason floor 98 was so important to the collapse of the north tower is made clear at the beginning of the above linked article:

"According to the final reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the collapse of the North Tower, began on floor 98."

 

[scott3x]

You can't dodge evidence that doesn't exist. Demolition experts around the world are unanimous in saying that there were no signs of explosives in any of the buildings that collapsed that day.

Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3_mmGvfQQ


Also:
**************************************************
Collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions...

Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. Romero told the Albequerque Journal that he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
**************************************************
http://911exposed.org/WTC1.htm

Romero later retracts his story. 9/11 Research comments on his retraction:
**************************************************
PM [Popular Mechanics] quotes Romero denying that his retraction was bought:
"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

PM fails to mention that Van Romero was named chairman of the Domestic Preparedness Consortium in January 2001, that his Institute received $15 million for an anti-terrorism program in 2002, or that Influence Magazine tapped him as one of six top lobbyists in 2003, having secured $56 million for New Mexico Tech. [19] [20] [21] [22]
**************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

 

[John99]

There is just so much information and it is at times hard to know the truth from the wishful thinking.

So give your little marble a rest and put down the pipe.

 

[scott3x]

More demolition experts

The video link doesn't work, but the excerpt is still quite informative:
**********************************
Demolition Experts Speak out against 9/11 cover up

The video is nearly 2 hours long, but the details start early. Physicists,engineers,fire and demolition experts, explain how some of the official versions contradict the laws of Physics. The Third WTC building WTC 7 is not mentioned much. 7 hours after the first two towers collapsed, this building 48 stories high collapsed in 6.8 seconds. an apple dropped from that height takes 6. It was reinforced, and there was insufficient damage to cause such a collapse...
**********************************
http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/E260C5B3-FA9A-41A6-BF4C-784ADC8741C8/


People with demolition expertise questioning 9/11:

http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/

 

[MacGyver1968]

The picture shows the holes in both towers, as clearly marked.

Clearly...both towers had much more than 5 columns severed.

Here is a pic of the North Tower:

 

[scott3x]

The picture shows the holes in both towers, as clearly marked.

Clearly...both towers had much more than 5 columns severed.

Here is a pic of the North Tower:

Certainly. Both towers had much more then 5 columns severed. But 9/11 research (where you got the above picture) is only saying that on floor 98 of the north tower, the floor that NIST believes was first to collapse, only 5 perimeter columns were severed.

 

[MacGyver1968]

How is that relevant? look at the huge gapping hole....all of the exterior support for at least half of the side of the building is gone...obviously more than one floor was affected...so parsing data to only one floor 98...and then quoting a number like %1 is misleading. Clearly the structure was weakened by more than one percent.

 

[scott3x]

How is that relevant?

It's relevant because virtually everyone agrees that floor 98 was the first to collapse in the North Tower. But if there was so little damage to the 98th floor from the plane (only about 1% of gravity load bearing capability for that floor) , why did it collapse first? Why not the more heavily damaged 95th or 96th floor, where the fuselage and the engines hit? The 98th floor was only hit by "the outer section of the plane’s starboard wing".