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

[voyager]

I've already shown you a video of top down demolition in post 1842:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

yes, with squibs clearly visible.
you don't see that in the live footage of WTC 1 and 2 collapse.

 

[Headspin]

yes, with squibs clearly visible.
you don't see that in the live footage of WTC 1 and 2 collapse.

by squibs, i'll take you to mean the flashes of light rather than the debris ejecta often referred to as "puffs of dust" clearly vivible in many videos. with regard to flashes (squibs), I have shown the flashes in the last umpteen posts. what live footage are you talking about? you mean the footage filmed 5 miles from ground zero? that footage? or are you referring to the footage where the outer core columns obscure any vision into the core of the structure. why would you think that squibs would be visible through the tight spacing that was the outer core columns?

 

[psikeyhackr]

What's ridiculous is your knowledge of physics. There's no need to explode any explosives after the collapse has begun...good old inertia and gravity will do the job. You do realize how much inertia and potential energy that a 30-story chunk of building has right? Buildings are designed for static loads where F=M. You add any movement at all and you have to add the big "x A" to the formula. F=MA. Once those millions of pounds were in motion, brother, nothing was stopping them.

Sorry dude, conservation of momentum says you are wrong.

The formula for kinetic energy is k = m v**2 / 2. The moving mass hitting a stationary mass will be slowed down by the increased mass but since the velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation the total energy is reduced more by the change in velocity than increased by the change in mass.

Every level of the lower intact portion would further slow down the falling portion.

'til is STOPPED or fell off the side.

The calculations for conservation of momentum and gravitational acceleration of a "sample" fall are here:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

And that excludes structural resistance.

psik

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

You guys tend not to read my direct links either; post excerpts, with the link below it if I want to read more.

You mentioned this idea that no one saw a plane fly over a while back as well as some other criticisms on the pentagon issue. I quoted your post (it wasn't that long, I'm hoping fair use covers it) and one of the creators of www.thepentacon.com, Aldo Marquis responded in kind. But to specifically address the point you mentioned:
************************************************
Wrong. Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane banking away AFTER the explosion...

Ah so they actually claim to have a relevant witness now. When did he come out of the woodwork? Does Robert’s testimony match what he said in 2001?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...36&postcount=3

Does his testimony even support what they are saying? Or are they just taking their own interpretation just as they did with all the people who claim to have seen it hit the pentagon?

I have posted the numbers of people who actually saw the plane hitting poles and hitting the pentagon. There are many of them and the testimony was taken straight away. If you think that is somehow invalidated by one questionable interpretation taken years later then you are leaning on your faith again.

Can I quote your post on Loose Change again? Aldo Marquis may respond once more (he told me he tried to get an account here but couldn't; the admins told me that it may have been that he didn't have javascript on or something but I haven't heard from him since).

Sure you may quote me.

Ok, after seeing their latest video, it seems that no one has actually said they saw the light poles being clipped by a plane, only that it happened. As to the witnesses themselves, that's an interesting story in and of itself. There's a long thread about it here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg1

Anyway, I intend to link this post over to the CIT forum to see if they'd like to add anything.

 

[voyager]

by squibs, i'll take you to mean the flashes of light rather than the debris ejecta often referred to as "puffs of dust" clearly vivible in many videos. with regard to flashes (squibs), I have shown the flashes in the last umpteen posts.

the sparkling? those aren't squibs.

what live footage are you talking about? you mean the footage filmed 5 miles from ground zero?

plus the one that was taken practically looking straight up.
the camera crew had to run to escape the debris.

or are you referring to the footage where the outer core columns obscure any vision into the core of the structure. why would you think that squibs would be visible through the tight spacing that was the outer core columns?

there were quite a few videos shot that day.
NONE of them show any sign of squibs.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I'm not sure what his thoughts were on the matter. Perhaps you are afraid to face the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in "A few good men": "You can't handle the truth!" ;-).

The possibility that radical Muslims could do that is no less scary. In fact I would be comforted if I was ruled by a government capable off pulling off the ridiculous conspiracy you believe in.

I certainly don't find it comforting at all.

Has Bush done anything anywhere near that competent in his time in office?

To tell you the honest truth, I'm not sure W. had anything to do with it. If he did, he was probably kept out as much as possible because of his blundering ways. When he testified, he did so only with Cheney at his elbow, perhaps to try to ensure that he didn't screw things up. His father, who was formerly CIA director, or his brother, Marvin Bush, who was a principal in the security company of the WTC towers, are another matter entirely.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

They went there with the belief that the plane might not have come -at- all or if it did, to have been a much smaller one. They had no idea that the witnesses would say that there was a plane, but that it's flight path didn't comform to the official one and that, therefore, it couldn't have crashed into the pentagon because the damage would have had to have been different.

They went out sure there was a conspiracy and they took the interpretations they wanted.

They took witness statements, which can clearly be seen in the video. The conclusions they drew up seem quite logical to me.

They interviewed people who thought they saw the plane hit the pentagon, ignored that and decided the plane didn’t hit the pentagon.

They didn't ignore it. They simply stated that if people see a plane almost level with the pentagon, then they see an explosion soon after, then they hear the news reports stating that a plane hit the pentagon, it would be very easy for them to assume that the plane did, indeed, hit the pentagon. The other incredibly important point is that the plane -could not- have hit the pentagon from the angle they all describe. Do you understand how important that is? There were no light poles knocked down from that angle. The -only- angle that would have worked if they flew in from the south side; and this is -precisely- what they all say -didn't- happen.

 

[Headspin]

the sparkling? those aren't squibs.

right, because you know exactly what the flashes are don't you, and the flashes aren't squibs, right? well i guess next time a crime is committed we should not bother with a jury trial, we should just ask you who did it, because you don't need to explain the why of something using logic or evidence, you just state what is true and what is false. all hail for the oracle is here!

plus the one that was taken practically looking straight up.
the camera crew had to run to escape the debris.

practically looking straight up is the last place you are likely to see any squib flashes. you have to see through the external columns which were tightly packed together to provide strength to the towers, and you would have to see into the core 20 or so meters, and you have to see through all the office partitions and other furniture in the offices, and you have to see through 70 floors, each one of which is a solid mass of steel and concrete with no windows or way of seeing through it because eyes do not see through concrete and steel!

there were quite a few videos shot that day.
NONE of them show any sign of squibs.

I have shown you TWO in this thread. or do we not count the ones I link to?

 

[scott3x]

My comments weren’t only directed at you. "No plane hit this building” is like a stupid troother catchcry.

I prefer the alternate theory supporters who have links to people who have been published in peer reviewed journals myself:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

After digging a bit further, it appears I mistook your "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse" to mean that you -agreed- with the stated reason for the collapse, something which now seems clear you didn't. My apologies. But don't you find it... interesting that the recently released report makes "no mention of evaporating steel or temperatures even remotely near what would be needed to evaporate steel"?

Yes it is interesting it confirms that the temperatures did not in fact reach that high.

Are you saying that the fact that the report makes no mention of evaporated steel means that it did not, in fact, reach those temperatures? If so, what evidence do you have that this is the case?

 

[scott3x]

You guys do remember that there was a subway station under the towers, that could produce some of these irregularities.

What irregularities?

 

[scott3x]

Yes, but objects also follow the path of least resistance; my understanding of this is that when one of the floors collapsed, it would have been easier the debris to have fallen off the side of the building into the air, instead of breaking the floors below it. I remember seeing a buliding collapsing on its own (poor construction I imagine, not a problem that the WTC towers had) and it definitely collapsed in a certain direction and it wasn't a complete collapse either.

You are imagining incorrectly. The floors in the vicinity of the collision were structurally weakened by the intense heat and explosion itself and the floors fell straight down.

Even NIST never gets its computer model to collapse; even with its tweaking, it doesn't go beyond 'poised for collapse'. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[scott3x]

To add to that i dont think you know how the joints were fastened at the floors anyway. Do you think it was a complete steel shell?

You're right, I don't know. Don't think it's all that relevant either. If you want to get an in depth report on the failings of the various official theories regarding the WTC collapse, I'd advise that you read the 'Inconsistencies in “Official” Models' section of Steven Jones' "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
Collapse?", which starts on page 41 and ends on page 43 of the PDF version of the article:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

 

[scott3x]

You need to bone up on your Newtonian physics. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. The only force involved is the downward force of gravity.

How about the force that held the buildings up to begin with? You may (wrongly) argue that the fires took down a floor or 2, but that doesn't account for the rest of them.

Objects don't "look for a path of least resistance"..That is a term used with electricity and fluids. It's like dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards. It just tears right through it.

Are you really comparing a collapsed floor or 2 hitting the rest of the WTC to a bowling ball hitting a house of cards?

Anyway, you may want to read the following article by David Ray Griffin, debunking Ryan Mackey's supposed debunkings:
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

 

[scott3x]

ae911 is led by a complete idiot in the cardboard box guy Richard Gage. He provides amusement to debunkers.

The fact that you call him an 'idiot' doesn't make him so. I have found his comments to be most informative.

Like the ‘scholars’ that list is padded out with people with irrelevant qualifications such as ‘Urban Activist’ and computer related professions.

Yes, there are lots of people on the site who aren't architects or engineers. However, there are also more then 520 architects and engineers.

It only requires a petition to be signed; there is no actual verification of these people’s qualifications.

Not if you're not an architect or engineer, no. However, if you -are- one of these, then yes there is. Take a look:
http://www.ae911truth.org/signnow.php

I also encourage you to look at the credentials and information of all the architects and engineers that have signed the petition:
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php (just scroll down a bit)

If they truly believe this and are behind the troothers then why don’t they submit some papers for peer review?

I think that's more a scientist thing. Steven Jones, who has been published in the past in Nature and Scientific American for his work on muon catalyzed fusion, has certainly submitted papers to peer reviewed journals and has recently gotten one published as well.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

As I have mentioned before, Steven Jones has dealt with NIST's deplorable 'evidence' as to the sagging floors. Once again:
***********************************
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf , page 36

What do criticisms of computer models have to do with anything? The floors were seen sagging! There are photos and video that confirm this. Can you not understand this?

The point is the computer models were completely discredited. Anyway, let's see the evidence of these sagging floors, and evidence that the fires caused the sagging (as opposed to things like thermite) while you're at it.

 

[scott3x]

Based on what? A steel-and-concrete building is massive in a way a Lego building simply is not. If the top part of a Lego building suddenly loses its support ( you say demolition, I say failed construction), does it ride the remainder of the edifice all the way to the ground? No.

Exactly

That's because of the issues of scale.

David Ray Griffin has this to say about the issue of scale:
*************************************
If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.
*************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

Ryan Mackey said much the same thing. David Ray Griffin explained it thusly:
****************************************
The Relevance of Erector Sets

I have to assume (in the absence of an explanation) that if Ryan Mackey thinks he has a bona fide reason for dismissing my Erector Set illustration as "not worthy of discussion" it must be based on a tacit assertion that the strength of a structure doesn't scale proportionally to its size — that a large steel framework is somehow significantly weaker relative to its own weight than a smaller one, all aspects being proportional. But is this really true?

One of the reasons steel is used in the construction of high-rise buildings is its relatively LIGHT weight in proportion to its strength and flexibility, particularly when formed into I-beams, H-beams and box columns. Large steel frame buildings are obviously very heavy, but they are also VERY strong.

If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.

The difficulty involved in crushing either structure with pressure applied from above, especially when compared to the downward force of its own weight, should yield an appreciation of the difficulty that would likewise be encountered in crushing one of the Towers.
****************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

But, of course they are wrong.

Not at all.

Even if it were an issue of the lightness of the beams (lighter than plastic, Scott? Really?)

Who said they were lighter than plastic?

they cleverly omit the massive additional weight those beams were carrying - concrete, filler, office equipment, and so forth, not to mention airplane parts. So not only is their speculation on scale incorrect - Lego, I ask you; is this what Troof is down to? - but they avoid the additional load.

I see no implication that additional load was avoided. I did find some more good articles on the absurdity of the official story, however:
"Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!" by J. McMichael,
Part 1: http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
Part 2: http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_2.htm

Then why did the plates fail? You seem to be at something of a theological impasse.

Why do you feel that way? As to why the plates failed, I imagine the thermate sliced through them handily. In any case, if you want to see the progression of the official story regarding the WTC collapses along with their refutations, feel free to take a look at Steven Jones 'Inconsistencies in “Official” Models' section in his 'Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?' article:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 41-43

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

That's a very big 'if'. Essentially, the problem is this:
No one can investigate -every- claim. So we tend to investigate the claims that are drawing the most attention; there are mainstream alternate theories just as there are mainstream official theories.

So why criticize NIST for missing out on some tests, then? No one can investigate every claim.

NIST isn't some lone poster or debunking site. It's the National Institute for Standards and Technology. They are the backbone of the official theory regaring the WTC collapses. Given this, we should definitely criticize anything NIST misses and demand that the many flaws in their research be investigated.

That's the way science works. I think it's the official story that has changed more often in regards to the WTC collapses then the alternate story, however.

I regret to tell you this, but it doesn't.

What you are confused about here is the refutation of hypothesis, mixed with the avoidance of Type I error (false positive).

Not sure what you're trying to say there.

You have already concluded the demolition of the WTC - as you have stated many times already - and are seeking evidence to bolster your position.

Sure. You, in contrast, have concluded that the official storyline is correct and are attempting to bolster your position that the WTC collapses follow the official storyline.

You have alluded numerous times to your fervent belief in the demolition; thus, your "hypothesis" is no longer falsifiable.

Actually, you're mistaken there. If you could provide credible evidence that it wasn't a demolition, I'd believe it. The problem is that you haven't been able to do so.

When we illustrate one problem after another to you, your tactic is to switch sub-hypotheses, not to question whether or not it could actually have been a demolition.

True to a point; I'm not sure exactly how the buildings were demolished; neither are many people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, the one thing that most 9/11 Truth Movement people -do- agree on is that the buildings were demolished; in my view, and in the view of most truthers, the evidence for controlled demolitions is quite compelling.

I believe that the hologram believers were always on the fringe. And yes, I do believe there may be some misinformation agent(s) in their ranks.

See, this is also the problem: fringes and ranks. It's a movement, which one could uncharitably call a cult, rather than a scientific panel.

The 9/11 truth movement has a variety of adherents, amoung which is the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven:
"PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven."
http://physics911.ca/members/

 

[scott3x]

I would argue that the demolition theory not only derives from sound science; it's also the most plausible theory, far more plausible then the ever changing government theory on the cause of the WTC collapses.

But the facts of the government position are not in doubt: the temperature was enough to drop the steel strength, the aircraft hit all three buildings, the collapse wasn't free fall.

The official storyline's theory regarding the the cause of the WTC collapse has changed many times, with one exception: they have never allowed for anything other then the jets and the fires to have been the cause of the collapse. In any case, I assume that by the 3 buildings, you mean the twin towers and the pentagon, but for the purposes of our audience, I will ask for the record if that's what you meant?

Anyway, NIST's work on the temperatures in the WTC buildings and issues relating to steel strength in jet initiated office fires have been refuted. The government itself at first claimed that one of the towers fell at around 10 seconds, which is about free fall speed; this was apparently later revised to 15 seconds. The difference is inconsequential, since the towers should -never- have collapsed if jet initiated fires were the only thing affecting them.

Well I say that if you -can- prove to me that 9/11 follows the official story line that I'll change my tune.

I'm sorry, Scott, but I really don't think this is true.

Why not? I personally would like to believe that if -I- can prove to you that 9/11 was an inside job, -you- would change your tune. I think it's good to be optimistic .

As I've mentioned, I've now seen 12 minutes of the 'not freakin' again' edition. I share the director's frustration, but my frustration is focused on SLC, not LC. Forcing myself to view more might be considered cruel and unusual punishment and I'm against torture ;-).

I'm sorry you're frustrated by it, but we must all examine evidence with an open mind.

There's only so much 'evidence' I have time for. Frankly, this forum is consuming -tons- of my time; haven't played World of Warcraft in days .

 

[scott3x]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2062278&postcount=1641

You are trying to imply that either that NIST report is contradictory or that the temperatures never went over 600, or something I’m not sure what your point is here anymore.

Actually, I'm not implying anything in that article; I'm quoting someone (Jim Hoffman) who is outright declaring that the NIST report is contradictory in certain regards. If anyone is cherry picking, it'd be the author of the quote in question, but I would argue that far from doing so, he's legitimately pointing out a contradiction in the NIST report. The article in question does need a little mental sleuthing. I'll break it down. First, let's start with the opening statement made by Jim Hoffman:
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.

This could be said to be his thesis.

Next, he goes about making his case. First, he quotes a section of NIST's report:
"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)

He quotes that section to make it clear that what he states next is coming from NIST's own report:
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).

Then, he comes in for the uppercut:
How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF)., he tells us, and then proceeds to show us that NIST does just that:
"A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward." (p 98/148)

He further hammers it in, saying:
Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.

Someone here has argued that clearly, there were pieces of the WTC building that got hotter then 250C. And that's certainly true. The problem is how very -unlikely- those temperatures could have been reached due to fire. I have a very strong feeling that some if not all within NIST were well aware of this and were trying to tiptoe around this fact. Perhaps I'm mistaken and the issue here is that they were speaking only of a certain part of the WTC towers and these were the only samples they knew to be from that section. In any case, the samples they took for this part of their report only show indications of being heated to 250C. Good if you want to suppress evidence that anything but office fires took place, but absolutely awful if you want to prove that the fires took the building down.

What to do? Simply heat up the test steel to temperatures that mean business. Perhaps they felt that the report was huge and no one important would notice. Just how much fire was poured on to get the desired effects? Jim Hoffman gets the relevant quote from NIST:
"A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC." (p 123/173)

Jim Hoffman now closes in for the kill:
1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!

He then sets NIST up, quoting the following section:
"The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. "(p 125-6/175-6)

He now delivers the coup de gras:
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.

The article goes on regarding other NIST report flaws, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

As pointed out there were steel columns which were so soft that they were described like licorice. Clearly the temperatures did go over 450C.

Sigh. Yes, clearly. The point is that there's no evidence that jet fuel initiated office fires could have gotten it much higher then about 500C. Explosives, on the other hand, could, and apparently did, go way beyond 500C, to reach temperatures that vaporize steel.