Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site

[Nielsio]

Any science-buffs care to comment on this?

[ QUOTE ]

Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.

The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.

The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3933508807350233932


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm


[/ QUOTE ]

The important bit is at 48 minutes.



If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere.

[arahant]

I'll be interested to see where this goes, but am not qualified to give an intelligent commentary on the evidence per se. My confession: I take the fact that the majority of scientists see no problem with what happened as evidence that what happened is physically possible. I don't believe we live in a country of 10's of thousands of metalurgists, all of whom actually KNOW that "fire can't melt steel", but only 2 of whom are willing to mention that publicly. I don't believe we live in a country where the leaders are devious enough to construct such an elaborate plot, actually fly jets in to buildings, but the plot is so stupid that they need to add thermite. I don't believe we live in a country where 100's of people would give testimony that supports some secret government lie. I guess what I'm saying is: any notion of conspiracy is so grotesquely absurd, so arrantly false, and so pathetic, that you are going to need a lot more than something like this to even get anyone half-way intelligent to give this a second thought. It shocks me the abilities that some people ascribe to our leaders.

[SNOWBALL]

Nielso,

What % confidence do you have that the towers were brought down with explosives and not by the airplanes?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso,

What % confidence do you have that the towers were brought down with explosives and not by the airplanes?

[/ QUOTE ]


ATM there is no such sequential mechanism theory that 'airplanes brought down the towers'; so it's pretty hard to get behind non-existent scientific theories.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the other evidence, but this is just silly. Any number of pigments or lighting conditions can cause that color, and to claim "therefore the material cannot be aliminium" means the guy is probably an idiot.

[surftheiop]

Molten Aluminum can be orange/glow, i would not trust any information that claims it has to be silver in color.
Google Images:
http://www.world-aluminium.org/media/molten.jpg

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326AR_b.jpg

http://www.thermix.com/images/aluminum-melter-side-well.jpg


Research project from Clemson:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...%3D10%26hl%3Den (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.westyorkssteel.com/images/htchar1.gif&imgrefurl=http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Aluminum_Glows.html&h=397&w=355&sz=32&hl=en&start= 10&tbnid=CS9eedtsqYcmvM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmolten%2Baluminum%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3 D10%26hl%3Den)

[PairTheBoard]

I figure if there's anything to the science of this stuff it'll be on the discovery channel one of these days. I'll take a look at it then when I can have some small confidence in the fairness of the presentation.

PairTheBoard

[kerowo]

It's the grassy knoll of the oughts.

[m_the0ry]

Thermite alone gets plenty hot enough to melt through steel and collapse the tower. It also would leave nothing behind but small traces of magnesium, iron and aluminum which would completely blend in with the aftermath of the building's collapse. Which begs the question - why incriminate yourself with military grade pyrotechnics when a garage grade device works just as well?

[Duke]

Aluminum is indeed very orange when it's molten.

This is on par with the guy who burned some [censored] inside some chicken wire to prove that the burning couldn't have brought the towers down.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Aluminum is indeed very orange when it's molten.



[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.matus1976.com/akira_bike/al_pour.JPG

[kerowo]

I guess that proves it.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aluminum is indeed very orange when it's molten.



[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.matus1976.com/akira_bike/al_pour.JPG

[/ QUOTE ]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c299/krizazy/Oranges_and_orange_juice.jpg

[surftheiop]

did you look at the links in my post or not????

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aluminum is indeed very orange when it's molten.



[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.matus1976.com/akira_bike/al_pour.JPG

[/ QUOTE ]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c299/krizazy/Oranges_and_orange_juice.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

I got an excellent chuckle out of this. nh sir.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aluminum is indeed very orange when it's molten.



[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.matus1976.com/akira_bike/al_pour.JPG

[/ QUOTE ]
And lava is BLACK when it's MOLTEN!!

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8984/lava15b8bw9.jpg

Next week in Nielsio's science class, we'll reveal that molten H2O is actually HARD!

[MrMon]

More than anyone could possibly want to read on the subject, but undoubtedly some good info:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

[SNOWBALL]

Nielso,

you think it's like 100% that it wasn't airplanes?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso,

you think it's like 100% that it wasn't airplanes?

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
ATM there is no such sequential mechanism theory that 'airplanes brought down the towers'; so it's pretty hard to get behind non-existent scientific theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kerowo]

So when the Discovery Channel (America's Scientific Channel of Record) said the impact from the jets knocked off the fire retardant and the av-gas heated the steel enough for it to sag and pull away from the exterior walls trasfering the load they had been carrying to the structure below resulting in the buildings pancaking you say what?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
So when the Discovery Channel (America's Scientific Channel of Record) said the impact from the jets knocked off the fire retardant and the av-gas heated the steel enough for it to sag and pull away from the exterior walls trasfering the load they had been carrying to the structure below resulting in the buildings pancaking you say what?

[/ QUOTE ]


To quote it more exactly, the government report says 'and global collapse ensued'. That's it; it describes nothing and it explains nothing. Notice that I am calling for a sequential mechanism.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
To quote it more exactly, the government report says 'and global collapse ensued'. That's it; it describes nothing and it explains nothing. Notice that I am calling for a sequential mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much did a WTC floor weigh?
What is the impulse/momentum generated by a block this weight dropping 3 meters?
How does this compare to the typical load on the steel structure from say the 50 floors it would normally have to support?

Answer these three questions (it's very, very simple physics) and you'll realize that global collapse is indeed inevitable once the first floor goes.

There are legitimate questions to be raised about the collapse but it seems like you've picked the worst possible points. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To quote it more exactly, the government report says 'and global collapse ensued'. That's it; it describes nothing and it explains nothing. Notice that I am calling for a sequential mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much did a WTC floor weigh?
What is the impulse/momentum generated by a block this weight dropping 3 meters?
How does this compare to the typical load on the steel structure from say the 50 floors it would normally have to support?

Answer these three questions (it's very, very simple physics) and you'll realize that global collapse is indeed inevitable once the first floor goes.

There are legitimate questions to be raised about the collapse but it seems like you've picked the worst possible points. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


You have not described a sequential mechanism, or pointed to a source that does describe it.

It would be very interesting if you would actually give that a try. Then we can see if that mechanism matches with what we see on the videotapes and the photographs, with the speed of the collapse, things like amount of thick dust, and so on.

NIST has not dared to do it.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone try to "talk science" with you? From previous threads, it's pretty obvious that you REALLY want to believe in a conspiracy, and nothing anybody posts to the contrary will convince you otherwise. It's like trying to debate the existence of god with a NotReady, or the theory of evolution with Sharkey.

You're not creating these threads to start a debate, you're starting these threads to push your agenda.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
did you look at the links in my post or not????

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have and the issue isn't clear to me. On the one hand we have images of clear silver-looking molton metal, and then we have images of clear orange-looking materials. So that doesn't settle the issue, and I'd like to know what the science behind it is.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone try to "talk science" with you? From previous threads, it's pretty obvious that you REALLY want to believe in a conspiracy, and nothing anybody posts to the contrary will convince you otherwise. It's like trying to debate the existence of god with a NotReady, or the theory of evolution with Sharkey.

You're not creating these threads to start a debate, you're starting these threads to push your agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying you don't want to talk science? Why are you posting then?

[kerowo]

If the President was involved in this plot why was he so stunned when he heard about the first plane?

Also, do you not understand what a sequence is?
1. Plane hits tower, impact knocks off fire retardant material from beams.
2. Resulting fire from av-gas heats beams enough to cause sagging.
3. Sagging causes beams to pull away from external walls.
4. When support of external walls is removed floor collapses to floor underneath.
5. Weight of floors above causes floor to collapse onto floor underneath.
6. Pancake

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's like trying to debate the existence of god with a NotReady


[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting for someone to do that. Unless you consider "You're irrational and dishonest" debating.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's like trying to debate the existence of god with a NotReady


[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting for someone to do that. Unless you consider "You're irrational and dishonest" debating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give an example of the sort of post which you would see as a good-faith attempt to debate the existence of God.

[mjkidd]

Er, molten aluminium will be orange at certain temperatures and silver at others, just like the heating element of your stove will be orange at certain temperatures and black at others. Black-body radiation and whatnot.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone try to "talk science" with you? From previous threads, it's pretty obvious that you REALLY want to believe in a conspiracy, and nothing anybody posts to the contrary will convince you otherwise. It's like trying to debate the existence of god with a NotReady, or the theory of evolution with Sharkey.

You're not creating these threads to start a debate, you're starting these threads to push your agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying you don't want to talk science? Why are you posting then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the issue here is that you seem to have a lack of scientific training. You also could never be convinced of anything other than the current position you hold. No matter how much information given to you that contradicts your position.

One point of yours was completely refuted, about the color of the molten metal. Yet you just chose to say, 'oh look here is a picture of it in silvery form as well, I guess we will never know'. Guess what It can exist in both states. You seem to want to ignore this fact, but thats ok YOU HAVE MORE HASTY GENERALIZATIONS AND IDEAS BACKED UP BY VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE. OMG SULFUR WAS FOUND.

Sulfur is a common element found in aluminum and steel alloys. So it would be logical to find traces of sulfur in any sort of spectroscopic analysis. I imagine if we took a sample of aluminum from the siding of your house, or from any metal beams inside we would find sulfur. I guess that means you have your building laced with thermite ready to make it go BOOM.

[ QUOTE ]
NIST has since noted that sulfur is present in gypsum drywall and other construction materials used in the towers.

[/ QUOTE ] from Wikipedia.

[Duke]

I'm pretty sure that this thread is meant to point out the futility of arguing with someone about anything after they've rejected the key evidence. Well done.

Person A: Gravity exits.

Person B: Not everywhere.

Person A: What?

Person B: Not on Pluto.

Person A: What the hell are you talking about?

Person B: Have you ever been to Pluto? I didn't think so! We have no idea if there's gravity there or not.

Person A: Well, it still orbits the sun.

Person B: You haven't even seen Pluto.

Person A: Well, it's pretty obvious that we have gravity here.

Person B: Who cares if we experience some local phenomenon? They don't have it in Antarctica.

Person A: You gotta be [censored] me.

Person B: How else do you explain penguins?

Person A: What the hell do they have to do with gravity?

Person B: That's exactly the question that I'm raising with the Pluto example!

Person A: So you're trying to use penguins as another Pluto. I've seen penguins, and they obey gravity.

Person B: Please provide me with a mechanism for showing why a penguin that you've seen has anything to do with a penguin in Antarctica.

Person A: Ok. Now you're just being retarded. Why are you so smug?

Person B: Why shouldn't I be? You're the one who can't back up your unscientific beliefs.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
If the President was involved in this plot why was he so stunned when he heard about the first plane?

[/ QUOTE ]

The presidency is generally regarded as a puppet.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, do you not understand what a sequence is?
1. Plane hits tower, impact knocks off fire retardant material from beams.
2. Resulting fire from av-gas heats beams enough to cause sagging.
3. Sagging causes beams to pull away from external walls.
4. When support of external walls is removed floor collapses to floor underneath.
5. Weight of floors above causes floor to collapse onto floor underneath.
6. Pancake

[/ QUOTE ]


Is this something you came up with yourself, or can we find a more detailed description of this?


Given your above (very undetailed) mechanism; can you describe to me what exactly is happening here?:

Can you include: 1. dust, 2. outward energies, 3. inside steel structure, 4. outside steel structure?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/sor11000.jpg

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Er, molten aluminium will be orange at certain temperatures and silver at others, just like the heating element of your stove will be orange at certain temperatures and black at others. Black-body radiation and whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are there different colors for different temperatures of *liguid* aluminium? Do you have any sources?

[kerowo]

Yes I can. One way pratically and one way visually.

Visually: Look at any film of a high rise being demolished, don't get hung up on them using explosives to kick out the support columns in the building it doesn't prove your point. Notice that as the building collapses under it's own weight, or pancakes, that a bunch of crap is blown out from the building. This is air pressure blowing debris away from the building.

Practically: Find two boxes such that one fits into the other one with a small gap. Fill the outer box half full of flower, fill the inner box with phone books to give it weight, drop the inner box into the outer box. Enjoy!

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I can. One way pratically and one way visually.

Visually: Look at any film of a high rise being demolished, don't get hung up on them using explosives to kick out the support columns in the building it doesn't prove your point. Notice that as the building collapses under it's own weight, or pancakes, that a bunch of crap is blown out from the building. This is air pressure blowing debris away from the building.

[/ QUOTE ]


Those videos are not a good representative because through the charges used, a whole lot of concrete is turned into dust.


But basically what you are saying is that all we see here is 'a bunch of crap' or 'debris' being blown outward through air pressure.

Can you then explain to me how we get this extreme high volume of it? I would also like to know exactly what kind of 'debris' it is.


http://www.donaldedavis.com/WTC91101/collapse.jpg

http://www.donaldedavis.com/WTC91101/smok1.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/markyannone/Album9/wtc.jpg

http://www.donaldedavis.com/WTC91101/plume3.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/nt_dust_aerial2c.jpg



Notice how you didn't address the following:

2. outward energies, 3. inside steel structure, 4. outside steel structure. Nor have you explained how the (enormous volume of) dust is created.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Er, molten aluminium will be orange at certain temperatures and silver at others, just like the heating element of your stove will be orange at certain temperatures and black at others. Black-body radiation and whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are there different colors for different temperatures of *liguid* aluminium? Do you have any sources?

[/ QUOTE ]

Planck, Max (1901). "On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". Annalen der Physik 4: 553.

http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Er, molten aluminium will be orange at certain temperatures and silver at others, just like the heating element of your stove will be orange at certain temperatures and black at others. Black-body radiation and whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are there different colors for different temperatures of *liguid* aluminium? Do you have any sources?

[/ QUOTE ]
You post 30 minute videos with no transcripts but don't even bother to read the links of others which directly answer your question. WTF is wrong with you?

As for the debris/pulverization of concrete, the force and energy available in this fall is incredible. You simply have no comprehension how much kinetic energy is contained in a 4 million kg block of concrete (the weight of a single floor) accelerated by gravity. In fact, regular explosive charges could not account for the amount of debris you're seeing and they way they're blown out. Read this link for a calculation of the energy available in this fall - hundreds of times the largest convential weapons, equivalent to a small nuclear device.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

[kerowo]

To add to what Phil said, I also don't think you realize just how big these buildings are or how much different it looks because instead of all the dust being blown out at ground level, where everything usually lands, and having it basically demolised from the top floor down. There where probably literally tons of non-steal material in the towers that was destroyed when they fell, being torn upart and turned to dust to be blown out of the building by the force of the collapsing floors. Try putting some of the flower from the previous experiment in your hand and clapping.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso,

you think it's like 100% that it wasn't airplanes?

[/ QUOTE ]

MS Paint of WTC being attacked by giant bears would KILL here.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that this thread is meant to point out the futility of arguing with someone about anything after they've rejected the key evidence. Well done.

Person A: Gravity exits.

Person B: Not everywhere.

Person A: What?

Person B: Not on Pluto.

Person A: What the hell are you talking about?

Person B: Have you ever been to Pluto? I didn't think so! We have no idea if there's gravity there or not.

Person A: Well, it still orbits the sun.

Person B: You haven't even seen Pluto.

Person A: Well, it's pretty obvious that we have gravity here.

Person B: Who cares if we experience some local phenomenon? They don't have it in Antarctica.

Person A: You gotta be [censored] me.

Person B: How else do you explain penguins?

Person A: What the hell do they have to do with gravity?

Person B: That's exactly the question that I'm raising with the Pluto example!

Person A: So you're trying to use penguins as another Pluto. I've seen penguins, and they obey gravity.

Person B: Please provide me with a mechanism for showing why a penguin that you've seen has anything to do with a penguin in Antarctica.

Person A: Ok. Now you're just being retarded. Why are you so smug?

Person B: Why shouldn't I be? You're the one who can't back up your unscientific beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what you are saying is penguins are to blame for gravity? Or that pluto caused 9/11?

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that I am calling for a sequential mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you mean by that?

After the initial floor collapses, the next floor underneath is hit by many times the weight of what it previously supported. It gives way and drops to the next with even more weight and momentum. So the floors rapidly collapse in sequence. This was explained in detail by the link I provided you sometime back featuring the guy from Lawrence Livermore labs. The analyst indicated the collapse would be so quick as to approach the speed of freefall. Films clearly show the floors collapsing in sequence as the collapse front drives downward. There is no universal, instant collapse as expected with planned demolitions.

[MrMon]

There are many pictures of tall vertical steel columns still standing for many seconds after the collapse. Try explaining those without using a sequential collapse - you can't. A planned demolition would have brought them all down together, floors pancaking leave behind the vertical steel.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many pictures of tall vertical steel columns still standing for many seconds after the collapse. Try explaining those without using a sequential collapse - you can't. A planned demolition would have brought them all down together, floors pancaking leave behind the vertical steel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why they only blew CERTAIN columns. They wanted us to think that it was a sequential collapse.

Come on, man. This is Conspiracy 101.

[Bill Haywood]

Nielso, notice something important about this photo you provided.

As I understand you, the arrow points to a puff caused by an explosion that helped bring the tower down. But if you watch the film of it, there is NO COLLAPSE at the point where you see the puff. The "explosion" point does not join in the collapse until the pancaking front reaches that point.

Further, if we see that one "detonation," why don't we see similar puffs all the way down the structure? The standard explanation -- that the puff was caused by thousands of tons of material forcing air down through stairwells and elevator shafts -- is entirely credible to me.

And why are we seeing an explosion at all if it was done with thermite? And how could thermite, which is a slow burn, not an explosion, be minutely timed on all the floors, as conspiracy theories demand?
http://usera.imagecave.com/markyannone/Album9/wtc.jpg

[FNG]

My apologies if this has been mentioned already, but:
[ QUOTE ]
Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange

[/ QUOTE ]
black body radiation FTW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation)

Can you afford to take someone who makes such patently idiotic statements about seriously about anything?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are many pictures of tall vertical steel columns still standing for many seconds after the collapse. Try explaining those without using a sequential collapse - you can't. A planned demolition would have brought them all down together, floors pancaking leave behind the vertical steel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why they only blew CERTAIN columns. They wanted us to think that it was a sequential collapse.

Come on, man. This is Conspiracy 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. It's sort of like how all those dinosaur bones were buried by God and He made the universe APPEAR to be 13.2 billion years old to test our faith. Gotcha ya! I won't be fooled again.

[Taraz]

Why would someone want to fly a plane into a building AND blow it up with explosives? It seems like one or the other would accomplish the same task.

[kerowo]

You've obviously never had a tragic belt snap incident saved at the last moment by your pair of suspenders have you?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would someone want to fly a plane into a building AND blow it up with explosives? It seems like one or the other would accomplish the same task.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conspiracy nuts refuse to believe that flying a fully-fueled jet arliner into a building would be sufficient to cause it to collapse. Supposedly, the jets crashing into the building were to distract us from the *real* cause of the collapse.

[Ron Paul]

This is Borodog here. I believe I will be using this account for the forseeable future. If some kindly mod could give this account the undertitle of Borodog I would appreciate it.

Anyway, I wanted to put this AIM conversation that I had with Nielsio on the record, as I think it was a good, if ultimately futile, discussion. The screen names have been changed by the way.

[15:50] Borodog: Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you understand the physics of the WTC collapses.
[15:50] Nielsio: That doesn't really help me
[15:50] Borodog: Do you know how much energy was stored in each tower, available for demolition was the collapse began?
[15:50] Borodog: *once
[15:51] Nielsio: There is a problem when you a combination of a number of factors
[15:51] Nielsio: *have
[15:51] Borodog: I'm not talking about that
[15:51] Borodog: I'm talking about the energy avaliable for demolition
[15:52] Nielsio: If you say that gravity was enough for the collapse, then you cannot account for either the speed of the collapse OR the dust
[15:52] Borodog: it's about a trillion joules per tower.
[15:52] Borodog: whoever told you that is simply wrong
[15:52] Borodog: the dust is solely from drywall
[15:52] Borodog: do know how much drywall was in that building?
[15:52] Borodog: millions of pounds
[15:53] Nielsio: It doesn't just hop up in the air and turn to micro-dust
[15:53] Borodog: it get's crushed instantaneously, yes
[15:53] Borodog: as the higheer floors plow into any individual floor like a freight train
[15:53] Borodog: take a peice of drywall, and strike it with a hammer
[15:54] Borodog: it is immediately pulverized and turned to dust; which explodes in every direction
[15:54] Borodog: try it
[15:54] Borodog: a trillion joules
[15:55] Nielsio: What about the floors
[15:55] Nielsio: Do they also explode instantly?
[15:56] Borodog: when hundreds of thousands of tons slam into them at a hundred miles per hour?
[15:56] Borodog: Yes.
[15:57] Nielsio: So do the floors offer resistance or no?
[15:58] Borodog: You know the answer is yes, but you also know that the resistance offered is completely ne igable.
[15:58] Nielsio: (floors+inner and outer steel frame)
[15:58] Borodog: Dude, its THOUSANDS OF TONS MOVING AT HIGH SPEED. You have no intuitive understanding of an impact like that.
[15:59] Nielsio: Ok, so let's say we have this big mass of body moving straight down
[16:00] Nielsio: Breaking through everything it comes upon
[16:00] Nielsio: Which offers almost no resistance
[16:00] Nielsio: Then it would seem to me that I would not expect this much dust
[16:00] Nielsio: Because in order to have that, you need resistance
[16:01] Borodog: dude, there was millions of pounds of drywall, which is little more than compressed dust
[16:01] Nielsio: On the other hand, I would then also not expect such a massive energy outwards
[16:01] Borodog: come on. You know it doesn't work like that. When a dump truck runs into a fly, does the truck notice the fly? No. But the fly sure as hell notices the truck.
[16:02] Borodog: What, exactly, does "energy outwards" mean?
[16:02] Borodog: I'll give you a hint; it has no meaning. Energy does not have direction.
[16:02] Nielsio: http://usera.imagecave.com/markyannone/Album9/wtc.jpg
[16:02] Nielsio: That kind of outward energy
[16:02] Borodog: There is no such thing
[16:02] Nielsio: Outward force
[16:02] Nielsio: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/sor11000.jpg
[16:03] Nielsio: Also, I would be interested in a detailed sequential mechanism
[16:03] Nielsio: Which you seem to be hinting at
[16:03] Borodog: This is just silly dude. The building is full of air. As the building collapses, the drywall is instantaneously pulverized into dust and blown out by air pressure.
[16:06] Borodog: Do you really find it so hard to believe that dust from a building collapse can be blown out to a distance of X from a building that is X wide and almost 9X tall?
[16:06] Borodog: I mean, honestly?
[16:06] Nielsio: Yes
[16:06] Nielsio: http://www.columbia.edu/~rr91/images/world%20trade%20center%20collapse.jpg
[16:06] Nielsio: Usually, buildings behave much much more like objects
[16:07] Nielsio: With structural integrity
[16:07] Borodog: Most building are dropped from the bottom down when they are demolished, not from the top down.
[16:08] Borodog: The whole building falls in free fall. In this case the collapse started at the top; the upper floors acted like a snowplow, building up mass and momentum as they fell.
[16:08] Nielsio: If that is the case, it should be pretty easy to turn that into a model
[16:08] Borodog: People have.
[16:08] Nielsio: Into something that predicts what happens
[16:09] Nielsio: And makes it understandable
[16:09] Nielsio: No, not really
[16:09] Borodog: It's perfectly understanable.
[16:09] Nielsio: You cannot get the blueprints; it's illegal
[16:09] Nielsio: The Discovery Channel models are not even funny
[16:10] Nielsio: Also:
[16:10] Nielsio: NIST has not described any such sequential mechanism
[16:10] Nielsio: It does not go further than ' obal collapse ensued'
[16:11] Nielsio: I would be seriously interested in that
[16:12] Nielsio: Do you have a gmail address? I have some pictures of strucural failures and fires
[16:12] Nielsio: They're pretty interesting
[16:12] Borodog: Dude. I have no idea what to say to you. The energy avaible for those collapse was 5% of the energy of an ATOMIC BOMB. If you don't think you can knock down a skyscraper with that, or eject some dust a few hundred feet, then you just simply want the conspiracy more.
[16:13] Nielsio: Energy != sequential mechanism that takes into account all structural elements
[16:17] Borodog: You want the conspiracy more.
[16:18] Nielsio: What do you mean
[16:18] Nielsio: ' obal collapse ensued' is not a sufficient explanation
[16:18] Nielsio: In fact, it's not an explanation
[16:18] Nielsio: It's god of the gaps
[16:18] Nielsio: And I don't accept that
[16:19] Borodog: No, it isn't.. The building burned for 7 hours or something until the structural steel failed.
[16:19] Borodog: It was already damaged by being STRUCK BY A JUMBO JET FUEL OF JET FUEL.
[16:20] Borodog: A bomb indeed went off in each tower. THEY HAD WINGS.
[16:20] Nielsio: Actually, the north tower burned for less than an hour
[16:20] Borodog: After being struck by a JUMBO JET FULL OF JET FUEL
[16:20] Nielsio: So
[16:20] Borodog: The fireballs blew out through the far side of the building.
[16:20] Nielsio: These buildings were designed to take airplane hits
[16:21] Borodog: Do you honestly think there's no possibility that the structure was damaged?
[16:21] Nielsio: You're avoiding the issue
[16:21] Borodog: no, I'm not
[16:21] Nielsio: Is ' obal collapse ensued' a sufficient explanation or not?
[16:21] Borodog: you're avoiding the bleedin y obvious
[16:23] Borodog: I think the JUMBO JETS FULL OF JET FUEL and the ensuing GIANT EXPLOSIONS IN THE BUILDING STRUCTURES is a sufficient explanation.
[16:23] Nielsio: If you think it's so obvious then it should be quite easy to give a detailed description of everything that happens during those 12-15 seconds that they come down
[16:23] Nielsio: A description that explains what we see on the tapes
[16:24] Nielsio: That explains the physical evidence (dust, speed, etc)
[16:24] Nielsio: That would shut the whole 9-11 thing up
[16:24] Nielsio: Completely
[16:24] Nielsio: It would shut me up
[16:24] Borodog: No, it wouldn't.
[16:27] Nielsio: Try me
[16:27] Borodog: Dude, a plane full of jet fuel exploding in the middle of a building doesn't shut you up. Some model filled with assumptions you would just claim were wrong or unjustifiable would not help.
[16:27] Nielsio: I would also like to note that NIST would be extremely interested in such a description
[16:28] Nielsio: You could probably get a whole bunch of money for that
[16:29] Borodog: sigh
[16:29] Nielsio: You're assuming your conclusions sir
[16:30] Borodog: I wish you would just step back and listen to the way you sound. This is what I hear when you talk about this: "How could a plane full of jet fuel slamming into a building and exploding cause it to collapse?"
[16:32] Nielsio: So no sequential mechanism from you?
[16:32] Borodog: So. Which is greater? Probability that a plane full of jet fuel slamming into a bilding and exploding could make it collapse, or, a giant, well organized conspiracy was undertaken by the incompetents in government.
[16:32] Nielsio: That's a pity
[16:32] Borodog: I have a sequential mechanism
[16:33] Borodog: It starts with a jumbo jet full of jet fuel slamming into the building, exploding in the heart of the structure and blowing out the far side, burning for hours, and then the steel failing.
[16:33] Borodog: How incredibly impossible!
[16:35] Nielsio: It's up to you: you claim what happens after is easy and comprehensible. So why don't you or why doesn't anybody?
[16:35] Borodog: I just did.
[16:35] Nielsio: Describe/model it for the rest of us
[16:35] Nielsio: Make it a school project
[16:36] Borodog: Why don't you show that an explosion in the midst of the steel structure of the WTC couldn't damage it to the point of failure?
[16:36] Nielsio: Get on Discovery Channel
[16:37] Borodog: Why bother? What good would it do? P(structural failure) is already >> P(giant conspiracy), and it doesn't phase you.
[16:37] Borodog: What could would shifting those numbers another order of magnitude do?
[16:38] Nielsio: Structural failure (which hasn't been proven btw) != sequential mechanism of disintegration/collapse
[16:38] Nielsio: NIST did a test with a life-size model
[16:38] Borodog: I gave you a sequential mechanism.
[16:39] Nielsio: They couldn't reproduce it
[16:39] Borodog: a life sized model? Of the WTC towers?
[16:39] Borodog: Uh, not?
[16:39] Nielsio: No, of columns
[16:39] Borodog: They slammed a jumbo jet full of jet fuel into some steel collumns and didn't damage them?
[16:39] Borodog: LINK?
[16:40] Borodog: And those columns were supporting tens of thousands of tons at the time?
[16:42] Nielsio: It's mentioned in here:
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/03/nist-ul-sequential-mechanisms-of.html
[16:42] Nielsio: I'll ttyl
[16:43] Borodog: later
[16:43] Borodog: no hard feelings
[16:43] Borodog: good argument
[16:43] Nielsio: Meh, a bit too much cynicism
[16:47] Borodog: He is TOTALLY NE ECTING THE IMPACT AND EXPLOSION. All he's talking about is fire. He's also ne ecting the fact that those structural members had a hundred thousands tons sitting on top of them stressing them during the fire, after they'd already been damaged by the impact.
[16:48] Borodog: and explosion

[TomCollins]

Nielsio is batshit insane? I guess the Palestinians hate the Jews and the sky is blue today too. Nice Pwnage, Boro. But you cannot reason with someone who believes in something with this religiousness. Neilsio will believe anything that helps his cause, and deny anything that does not. The opinion of someone with intensive studies in physics is far greater than a nut with a Youtube station.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would someone want to fly a plane into a building AND blow it up with explosives? It seems like one or the other would accomplish the same task.

[/ QUOTE ]

The conspiracy nuts refuse to believe that flying a fully-fueled jet arliner into a building would be sufficient to cause it to collapse. Supposedly, the jets crashing into the building were to distract us from the *real* cause of the collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant to say is that do you get that much more out of the building collapsing rather than having a plane flown into it? If the purpose of the attack was to cause terror, either plan works. I just don't see why anyone would go through the trouble of also rigging explosives if they are already flying the planes.

What added benefit do you get if the towers collapse compared to the case where they are just really messed up by planes?

[Duke]

That was an interesting chat log. You have a lot of patience, Borodog.

EDIT: It's actually pretty similar to my Pluto/penguin conversation.

[Ron Paul]

I want to apologize for posting this without Nielsio's permission, which I thoughtlessly did not consider asking for.

[arahant]

See...this is the kind of thing I'm talking about in my persistence of belief thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Nielso: I'm SURE you've already read the entire report, and probably just missed the section on the collapse mechanics. I understand...It's 1000's of pages of very technical material, and it probably took you a long time to read. By the time you got to the 4th volume, you may have been dozing off.

But here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf) You can probably start reading around page 300 or 310, and get what you want.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
See...this is the kind of thing I'm talking about in my persistence of belief thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Nielso: I'm SURE you've already read the entire report, and probably just missed the section on the collapse mechanics. I understand...It's 1000's of pages of very technical material, and it probably took you a long time to read. By the time you got to the 4th volume, you may have been dozing off.

But here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf) You can probably start reading around page 300 or 310, and get what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]


I just read through Chapter 5 and it does not describe a sequential mechanism of the *collapses* (as I call for a number times in this thread).

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to apologize for posting this without Nielsio's permission, which I thoughtlessly did not consider asking for.

[/ QUOTE ]


I won't vote for Ron Paul in the elections, but I will vote for him as mod.

[mjkidd]

WTF do you mean when you say "sequential mechanism?" How does the NIST model for the events not qualify?

Oh, and did you read Mr. Plank's paper on blackbody radiation that I linked to? I assume you're satisfied that aluminium can, in fact, be orange if it is of an appropriate temperature.

[tomdemaine]

Neilso this is a serious question I'm not trying to be snarky here. What do you think would change in the world if tomorrow it was proven 100% certain that the American government blew up the twin towers on 9/11? A mood shift? Something ethereal? A revolution? Nothing?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Neilso this is a serious question I'm not trying to be snarky here. What do you think would change in the world if tomorrow it was proven 100% certain that the American government blew up the twin towers on 9/11? A mood shift? Something ethereal? A revolution? Nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]


The importance of 9/11 in relation to freedom
http://img.youtube.com/vi/lG7MFjsaS0k/1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7MFjsaS0k

Enjoy!

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[16:03] Nielsio: Also, I would be interested in a detailed sequential mechanism
[16:10] Nielsio: NIST has not described any such sequential mechanism
[16:10] Nielsio: It does not go further than ' obal collapse ensued'
[16:13] Nielsio: Energy != sequential mechanism that takes into account all structural elements
[16:17] Borodog: You want the conspiracy more.
[16:18] Nielsio: What do you mean
[16:18] Nielsio: ' obal collapse ensued' is not a sufficient explanation
[16:21] Nielsio: Is ' obal collapse ensued' a sufficient explanation or not?
[16:32] Nielsio: So no sequential mechanism from you?
[16:38] Nielsio: Structural failure (which hasn't been proven btw) != sequential mechanism of disintegration/collapse

[/ QUOTE ]

Nielsio: you keep demanding this "sequential mechanism." What exactly do you mean?

[Ron Paul]

Nice tuque.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neilso this is a serious question I'm not trying to be snarky here. What do you think would change in the world if tomorrow it was proven 100% certain that the American government blew up the twin towers on 9/11? A mood shift? Something ethereal? A revolution? Nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]


The importance of 9/11 in relation to freedom
http://img.youtube.com/vi/lG7MFjsaS0k/1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7MFjsaS0k

Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with very little of that, if any (I didn't watch it all). We just disagree immensely when it comes to the analysis of what happened.

[Woolygimp]

Nielso, watch less 24. Speaking of you remind me of the retarded chick that slit her wrists in season 4.

If you're gonna read a pre-written thing that's on your computer screen try talking a little bit faster.

It took you 30 seconds to say, "people........like....9/11.....are.....underestimating...the....ummm....im portance....of......"
by that time i had no idea wtf you were saying.

Anyway too bad Jack Bauer wasn't around to stop the middle eastern terrorists funded by a mock corporation controlled by a CEO paid off by ranking members of the President's administration who were manipulated by the Wizard of Oz who told them to use a contingency plan of thermite explosives to bring down the towers just in case the initial plot was stopped by rogue government agents...or penguins who defy gravity from Antarctica.

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See...this is the kind of thing I'm talking about in my persistence of belief thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Nielso: I'm SURE you've already read the entire report, and probably just missed the section on the collapse mechanics. I understand...It's 1000's of pages of very technical material, and it probably took you a long time to read. By the time you got to the 4th volume, you may have been dozing off.

But here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf) You can probably start reading around page 300 or 310, and get what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]


I just read through Chapter 5 and it does not describe a sequential mechanism of the *collapses* (as I call for a number times in this thread).

[/ QUOTE ]

OMFG dude.

This report contains detailed time dependent finite element models of both tower collapses. It provides what you have been asking for, and you skim it in a few minutes and dismiss it out of hand? Page 179, pdf page 243, the bloody details are in the Appendix.

Let it go.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neilso this is a serious question I'm not trying to be snarky here. What do you think would change in the world if tomorrow it was proven 100% certain that the American government blew up the twin towers on 9/11? A mood shift? Something ethereal? A revolution? Nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]


The importance of 9/11 in relation to freedom
http://img.youtube.com/vi/lG7MFjsaS0k/1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7MFjsaS0k

Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies. I can't run youtube videos on this PC could you give a quick explanation? Or a long one if that's what it requires.

[doucy]

is it just me or is nelsio trying to ask questions that he knows nobody here is knowledgeable enough to answer with 100% certainty.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
is it just me or is nelsio trying to ask questions that he knows nobody here is knowledgeable enough to answer with 100% certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, thats the tactic, see the Dinosaurs on Mars thread. Its extremely unlikely the person you are talking to can answer EVERY question you have to extreme clarity, and even if they do, just ask more questions. Eventually they will run out of knowledge, and you can declare victory.

[mjkidd]

And when you ask him a question he can't answer, he just ignores you.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
And when you ask him a question he can't answer, he just ignores you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thats not really a failing of the denier, its just the beauty of internet message boards.

[MrMon]

To give Nielso a small amount of credit (very small), there actually is no 3-D finite element analysis model of the whole collapse for the simple reason that it's just too damn complex to calculate one. We're talking so many elements and factors and assumptions that even if you could develop one that could produce a result like that seen on 9/11, the conspiracy theorists would immediately poke holes in it because it made so many assumptions about things which we simply cannot know. So they develop small elements that they can calculate and assume they all fit together. Unfortunately, the real world is not like Hollywood, computers do have limitations, things take time to develop, and people have better things to do than solve problems that have already been solved.

Borodog is right about one thing, he wants the conspiracy more than he wants an answer, because the conspiracy fits in with his worldview. Bad science works that way, real science does not.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog is right about one thing, he wants the conspiracy more than he wants an answer, because the conspiracy fits in with his worldview.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Nielsio has invested too much time and energy convincing himself of the conspiracy. Finally admitting to himself that he might be wrong would be admitting that he has wasted A LOT of time that he could have otherwise spent more constructively...and would also be an admission that he may very well be insane.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See...this is the kind of thing I'm talking about in my persistence of belief thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Nielso: I'm SURE you've already read the entire report, and probably just missed the section on the collapse mechanics. I understand...It's 1000's of pages of very technical material, and it probably took you a long time to read. By the time you got to the 4th volume, you may have been dozing off.

But here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf) You can probably start reading around page 300 or 310, and get what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]


I just read through Chapter 5 and it does not describe a sequential mechanism of the *collapses* (as I call for a number times in this thread).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry...You want us to believe that you read over 400 pages of highly technical material in the 17 minutes between my post and yours? STFU and go away.

[CORed]

Here's the sequential mechanism. One floor collapses 70 or 80 floors up, The entire weight of the part of the building above that floor falls into the floor below, then the floor below that one, etc. until the whole thing is a pile of rubble on the ground.

Regarding the claim that the fire couldn't have caused the collapse: Remember the gas truck that burned under the bridge in Oakland a few weeds ago, resulting in the collapse of the (at least partly steel) bridge? The people on these silly-ass web sites telling you that the fire couldn't cause the building to collapse (especially after it was damaged by the impact of the plane) are full of crap. No, I didn't read the site your linked to, and I'm going to. However, on similar sites that I have read, it usually takes only a few paragraphs to tell that they have no clue what they are talking about. They will spout a lot of gobbledygook that looks impressive to people lacking in scientific training and critical thinking skills, but which is obviously [censored] to anybody who has them.

The world trade center collapsed because two planes hit the towers and caught fire inside them. Probability 99.9999999%.

Was there a cover up? Most likely. Cover up is the Bush administration's natural mode of operation, even when there is nothing to cover up, or (most commonly) nothing to cover up except their incompetence, which they inevitably fail to cover up, because they're too incompetent to conduct a cover up. See U.S. attorney firings: Only the Bush administration could turn something they had every right to do into a scandal. All they had to say is "We fired them because we didn't like them". Instead, they had Gonzalez claiming he knew nothing about why his own employees were fired, and changed their story 7 or 8 times. Now, do you really think think Larry, Moe and Curly -- Oops! I mean Dubbaya, Dick and Rummy, were smart enough to stage a fake terrorist attack and get away with it? I don't

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the gas truck that burned under the bridge in Oakland a few weeds ago, resulting in the collapse of the (at least partly steel) bridge?

[/ QUOTE ]

What a tool you are. That was even lamer than 9/11!
http://www.429truth.com/

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See...this is the kind of thing I'm talking about in my persistence of belief thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Nielso: I'm SURE you've already read the entire report, and probably just missed the section on the collapse mechanics. I understand...It's 1000's of pages of very technical material, and it probably took you a long time to read. By the time you got to the 4th volume, you may have been dozing off.

But here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf) You can probably start reading around page 300 or 310, and get what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]


I just read through Chapter 5 and it does not describe a sequential mechanism of the *collapses* (as I call for a number times in this thread).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry...You want us to believe that you read over 400 pages of highly technical material in the 17 minutes between my post and yours? STFU and go away.

[/ QUOTE ]


I say "I read through chapter 5", then you say that I claim that I read over 400 pages, and then you tell me to STFU and go away. Chapter 5 is 20 pages with lots of white space and diagrams.


Maybe you can read a little more carefully next time before you start yelling.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the sequential mechanism. One floor collapses 70 or 80 floors up, The entire weight of the part of the building above that floor falls into the floor below,

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me stop you there, as I think this doesn't match with the video footage. The video footage shows that the part above the impact zone collapses in on itself whereby the impact zone 'stays put'. Only after the part above the impact zone has collapsed halfway to 2/3rds does the whole thing start moving down from the impact zone.

http://sumitbhatnagar.multiply.com/video/item/4

[kerowo]

OMG a month ago no one cared about this and you brought it back? What did you just get a refill on your kook pills?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG a month ago no one cared about this and you brought it back? What did you just get a refill on your kook pills?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing he spent the interim spamming every other message board on the internet with his conspiracy nonsense.

[Nielsio]

The poo flinging peanut gallery is not scaring me away; so it may benefit you to realize what it is you're doing and cease to embarres yourselves.

The louder you yell while not entering into thoughtful debate, the clearer it becomes who is more comfortable with his ideas and who isn't.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

The louder you yell while not entering into thoughtful debate, the clearer it becomes who is more comfortable with his ideas and who isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many posters attempted to enter into "thoughtful debate" with you earlier on in the thread, and you either ignored their points or dismissed them out of hand. No amount of evidence that contradicts your twisted worldview will ever satisfy you.

(If anyone wants proof of this, check out this thread: "There's no sound so you can hardly make anything out from it. - Nielsio" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10798604&an=0&page=0#Pos t10798604)

You have displayed time and again that your only intention on here is to push your agenda and to get more hits to your anarchist website. You are wasting everyone's time by pretending to want to debate.

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The louder you yell while not entering into thoughtful debate, the clearer it becomes who is more comfortable with his ideas and who isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many posters attempted to enter into "thoughtful debate" with you earlier on in the thread, and you either ignored their points or dismissed them out of hand. No amount of evidence that contradicts your twisted worldview will ever satisfy you.

(If anyone wants proof of this, check out this thread: "There's no sound so you can hardly make anything out from it. - Nielsio" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10798604&an=0&page=0#Pos t10798604)

You have displayed time and again that your only intention on here is to push your agenda and to get more hits to your anarchist website. You are wasting everyone's time by pretending to want to debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can he have a thoughtful debate when everyone refuses to give him a sequential mechanism for the collapse?? duh!!

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The louder you yell while not entering into thoughtful debate, the clearer it becomes who is more comfortable with his ideas and who isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many posters attempted to enter into "thoughtful debate" with you earlier on in the thread, and you either ignored their points or dismissed them out of hand. No amount of evidence that contradicts your twisted worldview will ever satisfy you.

(If anyone wants proof of this, check out this thread: "There's no sound so you can hardly make anything out from it. - Nielsio" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10798604&an=0&page=0#Pos t10798604)

You have displayed time and again that your only intention on here is to push your agenda and to get more hits to your anarchist website. You are wasting everyone's time by pretending to want to debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can he have a thoughtful debate when everyone refuses to give him a sequential mechanism for the collapse?? duh!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. How silly of me.

[iversonian]

Re: aluminum being silver:

Melting point of aluminum: 933 K
Melting point of iron (steel is an iron alloy): 1811 K

Steel glows red-orange because of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation

Just about anything, when you get it up to those temperatures, will start giving off radiation at the appropriate frequencies. The picture you had of molten aluminum is meaningless, as it could just be at a low enough temperature that nothing registers when casually observing it.

[SmokeyRidesAgain]

I don't get why people give such a [censored] about this. Does it really matter? Really?

People are going to believe whatever the hell they want when it comes to this.. whether you can prove 100% otherwise to them or not. Especially tin foil nut jobs, naturally.

[iversonian]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why people give such a [censored] about this. Does it really matter? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

People will read this stuff and then vote like idiots. That's one reason.

[The Truth]

Neilsio,


I am not sure what http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf fails to explain.


At which point, sequentially speaking, does this break down for you?

It may be that you don't understand some of the technical jargon. If you can explain what you dont understand, or disagree with, then we can explain it to you.


This gives an extremely detailed sequential analysis of the collapse.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Neilsio,


I am not sure what http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf fails to explain.


At which point, sequentially speaking, does this break down for you?

It may be that you don't understand some of the technical jargon. If you can explain what you dont understand, or disagree with, then we can explain it to you.


This gives an extremely detailed sequential analysis of the collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

No dude, a sequential MECHANISM. Not ANALYSIS. COME ON!

[oe39]

in a similar vein, some al-qaeda apologists debate that 9/11 never happened at all.

[Justin A]

"[16:20] Nielsio: These buildings were designed to take airplane hits"

This was my favorite part of the chat log.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
"[16:20] Nielsio: These buildings were designed to take airplane hits"

This was my favorite part of the chat log.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frank A DeMartini, manager of WTC construction and project management on airplane impacts and structural integrity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhWkRAR1Vc
(44s clip)

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"[16:20] Nielsio: These buildings were designed to take airplane hits"

This was my favorite part of the chat log.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frank A DeMartini, manager of WTC construction and project management on airplane impacts and structural integrity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhWkRAR1Vc
(44s clip)

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that settles it.

Do you really think the construction manager of a building project has the ultimate say in a plane collision situation? Is he really qualified to comment on the structural mechanics of the fundamental building design?

The thing that kills me about 9/11 conspiracy nuts is that they claim random physics professors know more about the situation than anyone. While they usually are brilliant, they are not structural engineers who deal with the requisite continuum solid mechanics regularly.

Have you read the report by the world's leading demolition company yet?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"[16:20] Nielsio: These buildings were designed to take airplane hits"

This was my favorite part of the chat log.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frank A DeMartini, manager of WTC construction and project management on airplane impacts and structural integrity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhWkRAR1Vc
(44s clip)

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that settles it.

Do you really think the construction manager of a building project has the ultimate say in a plane collision situation? Is he really qualified to comment on the structural mechanics of the fundamental building design?

The thing that kills me about 9/11 conspiracy nuts is that they claim random physics professors know more about the situation than anyone. While they usually are brilliant, they are not structural engineers who deal with the requisite continuum solid mechanics regularly.

Have you read the report by the world's leading demolition company yet?

[/ QUOTE ]


Were they or were they not designed to take a large Boeing impact?

Someone thought it was a joke, then I pointed him towards this fact and then you start making a lot of noise. Do you have anything to say on the stated fact or not?

[Phil153]

Nielsio,

They were indeed designed to take a low speed 707 impact. However, the point is totally irrelevant, since THEY DID SURVIVE the full impact of a 767.

The structure didn't fail until an hour after impact, which the overwhelming expert opinion attributes to structural failure of the steel from the heat of a raging fire. If you want to debate that, do

How can you miss the point so spectacularly?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio,

They were indeed designed to take a low speed 707 impact. However, the point is totally irrelevant, since THEY DID SURVIVE the full impact of a 767.

The structure didn't fail until an hour after impact, which the overwhelming expert opinion attributes to structural failure of the steel from the heat of a raging fire. If you want to debate that, do

How can you miss the point so spectacularly?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty obvious that this is exactly the kind of stuff that he routinely intentionally ignores. Any evidence that doesn't fit with his conspiracy theory is immediately discarded. All that's left is a bunch of disjointed "evidence" that supports his crackpot theories.

[MelchyBeau]

The big reason the twin towers were meant to withstand a plane crash was because of a previous experience where a military plane (I believe a B-17) crashed into the empire state building in dense fog. Also because of the proximity of airports a danger would certainly be planes landing or taking off. These planes would not be flying at high speeds however they may be flying at low altitudes such as to potentially be a hazard to the twin towers.

A plane flying at the speeds of those that did hit the twin towers would most certainly be violating FAA regulations by flying that low at those speeds.

Even so the towers were built to be able to withstand a hit enough to the point to be able to evacuate the people out of the tower. If it wasn't for the fire we would have seen many more survivors. The fire trapped the people in the upper levels of the towers. The fire is what also caused the towers to topple, as they weakened the structure. Yes the plane impact did weaken the structure, but without the major fire the structure would be standing for a good amount of time to come.

[wacki]

here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

and here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__thermite_and_the_wtc.html

and more here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=thermite+...lient=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=thermite+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.911myths .com%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

ok I'm bored.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the sequential mechanism. One floor collapses 70 or 80 floors up, The entire weight of the part of the building above that floor falls into the floor below,

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me stop you there, as I think this doesn't match with the video footage. The video footage shows that the part above the impact zone collapses in on itself whereby the impact zone 'stays put'. Only after the part above the impact zone has collapsed halfway to 2/3rds does the whole thing start moving down from the impact zone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you assume the collapse must initiate at the impact point? It was a huge fire. The collapse begins in a region that is on fire. Is that not strongly suggestive of fire-induced collapse? Where on that video do you define as the impact point, anyway?

The portion of the building below the distinct fire line clearly stays intact longer, until it is overwhelmed by the falling weight. This is not consistent with sequential explosives going off all the way down. It is consistent with pancaking.

Have you dropped the claim that explosives went off all the way down, and are you now saying explosives only initiated the pancaking that destroyed the building? We need a detailed sequential explanation FROM YOU.

Remember also that the outside shell of the building is structural (load bearing). So a collapse can begin inside the building, with the outer shell lagging behind because it is stronger. That can throw off our visual interpretation.

You've picked one tiny thing to respond to, while people carefully made many points the month or so ago when you were last active.

[PokeReader]

A couple of quick points.

1. The building absorbed the initial plane hit well. The Towers were a perimeter tube design, was one of the most structural redundant buildings ever designed. So when some of the columns were destroyed by the impact the adjacent columns absorbed the load.

2. The jet fuel burns at enough heat to burn steel inside a jet engine, but that is a very specific and completely different type of fire. In the conditions that were existing that day the fire probably reached about 750-800C. Not hot enough to burn steel, but steel softens at 425C and loses half its strength at 650C.

3. The day in question was a low wind day, and thus even with the fire and loss of some of the columns, the building was still capable of handling 2 to 3 times this load of stress. The problem was that the fire was not evenly spread thoughout the building. The variability in temperature of at least 150C in some of the long columns from the side facing the fire and the side facing away from the fire caused buckling failures.

4. The building collasped at a speed of about 200kmh, but not in freefall.

5. The fire retardant systems were operational, but not a significant impact against this type of fire, nor were they designed to be.

6. Neither aluminum, nor did any other metal reach liquid state. It would have been OVERWHELMINGLY visible through the fire. What was seen was probably just burning jet fuel.

Link to Journal of Minerals, Metals, and Material Engineering on 9/11.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

P.S. As someone who was there, questions on dust and smoke coming out of windows too stupid to answer.

[Reef]

[Neuge]

Passively with active knowledge of the plot, or passively by incompetence to recognize and respond to the threat?

[Reef]

active knowledge of the plot

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Question 1:

In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Question 2:

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.

Question 3:

Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm.

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."

[/ QUOTE ]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel.

--------------------------------

I'm really looking for all the scientific data I can to prove this thing one way or another .. but for now I think the US govt played a passive role in 9/11 happening.

[Reef]

Also, what about Motives?

$2.2 billion insurance payout to the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein who obtained the lease of the buildings from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey seven weeks before the buildings were destroyed. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history the complex had changed ownership.

====
The president himself declared that the attacks provide "a great opportunity." Donald Rumsfeld stated that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world." Condoleeza Rice had said the same thing in mind, telling senior members of the National Security Council to "think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundamentally change...the shape of the world." The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: "The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities."

====
The war on Taliban

Bush administrations desire to attack Afghanistan so as to replace the Taliban with a US-friendly government in order to further US economic and geopolitical aims. The US war in Afghanistan began less than a month after 9/11

====
The Plan To Attack Iraq

The Bush administration's attack on Iraq in 2003 is probably the issue on which the 9/11 Commission has been regarded as the most critical, stating that it found no evidence of "collaborative operational relationship" between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's Iraq and no evidence, in particular, "that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States"

Given the fact that Bush and Cheney continued to insist on the existence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the Commission did in this case report something contrary to the public position of the White House.

==
In the fall of 2000, a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses was published by an organization calling itself the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This organization was formed by individuals who were members or at least supporters of the Reagan and Bush I administration, some of whom would go on to be central figures in the Bush II administration.

This PNAC document, argues that it is necessary for defense spending to be greatly increased if the "American peace is to be maintained, and expanded," because this Pax Americana "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence."

From the article, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.”

====

benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries

---

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush's surge in political popularity

---

Halliburton's defense contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
---

<font color="red"> anyone up for some False Flag Terrorism? </font>

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not certain of the explosives.. trying to be as objective as possible. I really dont like the "global collapse ensued" line. I'd really like to see studies on this from a neutral 3rd party that says A caused B that caused C with supporting facts (maybe with tests on the exact same graded steel and burning fuel, etc)

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not certain of the explosives.. trying to be as objective as possible. I really dont like the "global collapse ensued" line. I'd really like to see studies on this from a neutral 3rd party that says A caused B that caused C with supporting facts (maybe with tests on the exact same graded steel and burning fuel, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but that is stupid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far none has been provided that gets this out of the kook realm. We've already spent too much tax money on this and spending more for stupid studies to prove that the current story is correct or not is a waste.

An interesting question may be why people believe there is something sinister here, but basically you've joined the new Holocaust deniers club.

[AquaSwing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand about the explosives theory is why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

On the morning of 9/11 before the towers fell I was looking at the destruction and told the others that were watching around me, "Man, NY's gonna have to look at that for weeks before they can bring the buildings down." I would think they would WANT the buildings to stand as a reminder. Once they fell there was a giant pile of crap and they erected those two lights and that was it.

[CORed]

I'm going to take the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To me, the claim that people in the US government conspired to demolish the WTC towers and staged a plane hijacking and flew those planes into the towers to cover up the demolition is an extraordinary claim. For me to even begin to take such a claim seriously, I would need significant affirmative evidence that such a thing happened. Since the collapses quickly followed the crashes and fires, I'm satisfied, unless shown convincing evidence that something different happened, that the crashes and fires were the cause of the collapses. When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses before zebras (well, unless your in the Serengeti, anyway).

I find hand-waving arguments about how the crash and fire couldn't possibly have caused the buildings to collapse entirely unconvincing. Blobs of orange liquid dripping in the building similarly don't mean much. "It couldn't have been aluminum, so it had to be steel." Oh rly? Not jet fuel? Not burning plastic on fire? Not an optical illusion caused by smoke and flame?. Reports of "explosions" before the collapse are similarly unconvincing. There were some loud noises before the building collapsed. What a shock! Could you really tell the difference between a girder breaking and a carefully placed charge of C-4 going off?

Then of course we have the photographs with the little puffs of dust or smoke coming out the windows. Proof! Proof I tell you! that there were explosives going off. Or that the collapsing building pushed some air out the windows. Take your pick. But remove your tinfoil hat first, pleas.

[CORed]

It's a hell of a leap from "The Bush administration exploited the 9/11 attacks to advance their agenda. " To "The Bush administration deliberately arranged for the 9/11 attacks to advance their agenda".

I think they were entirely correct to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, although I have serious doubts about whether our continuing occupation is accomplishing anything useful.

Going into Iran was unnecessary. Going into Iran with absolutely no understanding of the consequences and no contingency plans for if their absurdly optimistic beliefs about the aftermath were incorrect was criminally incompetent.

I think the Bush administration is is corrupt, incompetent and arrogant, but I don't think they're the kind of monsters that would deliberately murder 3000 of etheir own citizens.

I also think it is almost impossible that those bumbling idiots could have done it and gotten away with it.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]


Going into Iran was unnecessary. Going into Iran with absolutely no understanding of the consequences and no contingency plans for if their absurdly optimistic beliefs about the aftermath were incorrect was criminally incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how rumors get started.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand about the explosives theory is why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's hilarious. They can fly planes into building without revealing a conspiracy, so why would they take the risk of spending weeks rigging up that massive steel structure with explosives on each level (I don't even know how that's possible without being detected), and leaving easily detectable traces of explosive and other evidence. Why not just pack the cargo hold of the plane with explosives if you want them to collapse? Or do a massive truck bombing such as the one in 1993?

Bottom line is that Nielsio is merely providing perfect fodder for the right to silence legitimate critics. I daresay he helps the Bush cause more than your average fundamentalist voter.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Any science-buffs care to comment on this?

[ QUOTE ]

Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.

The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.

The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3933508807350233932


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507controlleddemolition.htm


[/ QUOTE ]

The important bit is at 48 minutes.



If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]



Latest update &amp; findings here:

Prof. Steven Jones summarizes Vancouver keynote address
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6psgCNFm6g
(9m32s, Jun 26)


Basically: we have different independent researches of multiple dust samples having the same conclusions (based on the findings of these iron-rich spheres), namely the temperatures reached throughout the buildings, being as high as 1750 C, whereas with the aided help of jet fuel the fires only caused a theoretical maximum air temperature of 1150 C.

This is a huge enomaly to the fire-collapse theory.

On the other hand, explosives and incendiaries produce exactly such temperatures and by-products.


Check out the video for Prof. Jones elaborating on the findings.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand about the explosives theory is why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]


If you want a more broader understanding of the events and everything surrounding it (all the way to policy, laws, foreign policy, banking, and so on), see this documentary

Zeitgeist
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=2&amp;vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=10775439&amp;an=0&amp;page=2 &amp;vc=1)

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]


An interesting question may be why people believe there is something sinister here, but basically you've joined the new Holocaust deniers club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not see the motives I posted above?

Also great job with the ad hominem

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]

why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]

$2.2 billion insurance payout ?

Even more support behind the false flag terrorism since more lives lost?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]

$2.2 billion insurance payout ?

Even more support behind the false flag terrorism since more lives lost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. And since Larry Silverstein had paid $3.2 billion for the WTC complex only a few months earlier, he would have only lost $1 billion in the deal. The opportunity to lose $1 billion is clearly motivation enough for someone to participate in a needlessly complicated plot to kill 3000 Americans!

It all makes sense now. My tinfoil hat is finally starting to fit.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


An interesting question may be why people believe there is something sinister here, but basically you've joined the new Holocaust deniers club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not see the motives I posted above?

Also great job with the ad homonym

[/ QUOTE ]

Some theories only deserve ad homonym attacks and this is one of them.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a problem with the thermate claims. It burns through steal, it is not an explosive.

But as I understand the conspiracy claims, artificial means were used to cause a minutely timed series of breaks in the beams all the way down the structure. These gave the appearance of a pancaking collapse, but it was actually caused by artificial means.

I find it hard to believe thermate could be used to create an effect that precise -- a near free-fall.

And Nielsio, you are continuing the pattern of flitting off to make new claims without finishing with the previous challenges. This is a symptom of the soft spot in an infant's skull failing to grow shut.

[PokeReader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Question 1:

In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Question 2:

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.

Question 3:

Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm.

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."

[/ QUOTE ]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel.

--------------------------------

I'm really looking for all the scientific data I can to prove this thing one way or another .. but for now I think the US govt played a passive role in 9/11 happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you folks even read any of the other posts? This is not acurite information. The steel numbers are off, partially because you are using information from Corus, a extremely modern European steel producer whose quality is not the same as mid-1960's era steel. The numbers cited in my post, and from the SCIENTIFIC paper publiblished, are on the actual steel from the WTC building. Steel is not an excellent heat conductor. That is why it is so difficult to have it reach a liquid state, unlike copper. Long steel pieces that have segments are facing toward a fire or are in a fire, and have other segments that are facing away from the fire are well know to face buckling failures due to inability to share load evenly over the structural member, i.e. the collapse of the furniture store in Charleston. Why don't you read the paper, it completely answers these questions.

[kerowo]

You are under the impression that they care about facts.

[AquaSwing]

Post deleted by Rduke55

Don't post stuff like this again.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I love these threads.

BTW, what does everyone think of this theory?

[/ QUOTE ]
ZOMG!!! The JEWS did it! I knew it. First they kill Jesus, then fake the holocaust, and now this....


Antisemitic link deleted by Rduke55

[CORed]

The whole issue of whether the buildings were "designed to withstand and airplane impact" is kind of silly anyway. The people who designed and built the towers may well have intended them to withstand an airplane impact, but engineering is not as exact a science as some people seem to believe. Engineering is actually a mixture of science, experience , a fair amount of guesswork, and usually trying to err on the side of making it stronger than it needs to be, but not by so much that you bankrupt the company. When trying to design a structure to withstand an extreme event, be it a hurricane, force 8 earthquake, or plane crash, there really isn't all that much data to go on, it's not practical to test it, and there may be things happening that you forgot to put in your model. As just one example, your theoretical calculations and wind tunnel tests on models may show you that a building is more than strong enough to survive a 120 mph wind. But, in an actual hurricane, tornado, or other high wind event, there is usually a lot of debris flying around, and this debris is what actually causes the damage, or at least breaks windows or knocks holes in the walls and lets the wind inside.

Once in awhile, the engineers just plain screw up. I'm sure the designers of the Tacoma Narrows bridge built in the '30's though it could withstand a 50 mph wind, but they were wrong, and the bridge shook itself to pieces and collapsed on a windy day just a few months after it opened.

The collapse of the towers was an unexpected event, at least to the firefighters trapped inside. That doesn't mean it was a conspiracy.

[Nielsio]

Just a little food for thought:



People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

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

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]

$2.2 billion insurance payout ?

Even more support behind the false flag terrorism since more lives lost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. And since Larry Silverstein had paid $3.2 billion for the WTC complex only a few months earlier, he would have only lost $1 billion in the deal. The opportunity to lose $1 billion is clearly motivation enough for someone to participate in a needlessly complicated plot to kill 3000 Americans!

It all makes sense now. My tinfoil hat is finally starting to fit.

[/ QUOTE ]




Well obv he doesn't pay the full amount.. $124M down payment. These sources says it was a $7B insurance policy which would make more sense

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q...amp;btnG=Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=how+much+was+larry+silversteins+ins urance+policy%3F&amp;btnG=Search)

[Bill Haywood]

My. What an impressive mass of critics. But despite all the info they provide, Nielsio is unable to stay on track with an argument.


[ QUOTE ]
Just a little food for thought:

People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

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

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

[/ QUOTE ]

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a little food for thought:



People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

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

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is that, like less than 1%? Less than .1%? I am glad you are singling out actors and talking heads because lord knows I always turn to an actor for my technical information.

You are a kook.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a little food for thought:



People who openly question the official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

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

140+ Engineers and Architects

130+ Professors

100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is that, like less than 1%? Less than .1%? I am glad you are singling out actors and talking heads because lord knows I always turn to an actor for my technical information.

You are a kook.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the fact that stating "I have questions about the official story" is MUCH different than agreeing with all of Nielsio's loony conspiracy theories.

I mean, *I* have questions about the "official" story. That doesn't mean that I believe there was a conspiracy.

[PokeReader]

Actually some of the insurers are still in lawsuits over payouts. With the cost of the the lawsuits and the loss of income for around ten years, the owners of all the total loss buildings will have huge financial losses, even with a best case scenario with the lawsuits, which may take 25 years to completely resolve. Meanwhile, most of the companies that used to occupy those buildings have moved entirely out of the city, and are very unlikely to come back. It will be years after opening before this building is fully occupied, and it will take years after that before it is profitable.

If you want to argue your conspriracy, fine. Just stop arguing it makes logically sense. It doesn't. I work for Democrats, and God's knows am no Bush fan. I was working that day as it was Election Day in NYC in Manhattan, and we lost people in the towers. However, this was not the U.S. government planning this. They didn't need to plan it to get it to happen. They just needed to be their normal incompetent selves.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually some of the insurers are still in lawsuits over payouts. With the cost of the the lawsuits and the loss of income for around ten years, the owners of all the total loss buildings will have huge financial losses, even with a best case scenario with the lawsuits, which may take 25 years to completely resolve. Meanwhile, most of the companies that used to occupy those buildings have moved entirely out of the city, and are very unlikely to come back. It will be years after opening before this building is fully occupied, and it will take years after that before it is profitable.

If you want to argue your conspriracy, fine. Just stop arguing it makes logically sense. It doesn't. I work for Democrats, and God's knows am no Bush fan. I was working that day as it was Election Day in NYC in Manhattan, and we lost people in the towers. However, this was not the U.S. government planning this. They didn't need to plan it to get it to happen. They just needed to be their normal incompetent selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well stated. Unfortunately, it's this kind of common sense thinking that is completely ignored by conspiracy nuts like Nielsio.

[BozMan82]

For Nielsio:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&amp;only

[BCPVP]

I've linked this article a few times when 9/11 conspiracies come up in Politics. Short and very readable from some demolition experts.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[AquaSwing]

[ QUOTE ]
I've linked this article a few times when 9/11 conspiracies come up in Politics. Short and very readable from some demolition experts.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives

[/ QUOTE ]
Finally some hard evidence on how the building was wired - suicide demolition experts!

LOL Middle-Eastern suicide bomberaments.

Thank you for waiting until response 133 to post this. If this had been the first response, the thread would have been over and I would have missed all the entertainment. What's next - the missile that hit the Pentagon?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've linked this article a few times when 9/11 conspiracies come up in Politics. Short and very readable from some demolition experts.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives

[/ QUOTE ]
Finally some hard evidence on how the building was wired - suicide demolition experts!

LOL Middle-Eastern suicide bomberaments.

Thank you for waiting until response 133 to post this. If this had been the first response, the thread would have been over and I would have missed all the entertainment. What's next - the missile that hit the Pentagon?

[/ QUOTE ]
From past experience with conspiracy theorists on this issue, I'm fairly sure this thread would have continued unabated.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
I've linked this article a few times when 9/11 conspiracies come up in Politics. Short and very readable from some demolition experts.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to see a new report written by someone better informed regarding titano-alloys that were indispensible in the "moon landing"

[djoyce003]

clearly this is what happened, illustrated by my mspaint

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8775/badjokexu2.th.png (http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=badjokexu2.png)

[octaveshift]

LOL at everyone in this thread.

Everyone is talking and nobody is listening.

Hahahahahhaha.

Oh, and FWIW, I used to use molten aluminum all the time in sand casting molds, and I will tell you, it glowed orange/red every damn time I ever worked with it.

[Nielsio]

Iraq war veteran and demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job.
Meet Torin Wolf. He has a broad and varied background in the US Army during Operation Iraqi Freedom, building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, experienced demolitions expert, teacher, radio show host, and well studied 9/11 truth activist.
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/inde...28&amp;Itemid=2 (http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=128&amp;Item id=2)

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq war veteran and demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job.
Meet Torin Wolf. He has a broad and varied background in the US Army during Operation Iraqi Freedom, building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, experienced demolitions expert, teacher, radio show host, and well studied 9/11 truth activist.
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/inde...28&amp;Itemid=2 (http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=128&amp;Item id=2)

[/ QUOTE ]

Are those nipples or bullets tattood on his arm?

I also like how this Torin guy says that the "conspiracy theory" that fire brought down the WTC is crazier than the pterodactyl theory (paragraphs 8 and 9). Good thing he could easily debunk that pterodactyl theory, eh?

I liked the article.

[Bill Haywood]

Nielso, you are so credulous. Your link is full of wild, unproven assertions.

Let's take one statement from the article, and watch the evidence morphs:

[ QUOTE ]
New evidence has been released in the past month showing how the federal government allowed planes personally chartered by none other than Osama himself to get friends and family out of the country after 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the quote from the FBI document:

[ QUOTE ]
THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…

[/ QUOTE ]

This is characteristic of how the linked clown uses evidence. Further, there is no explanation of where that information came from, none of the surrounding context. If you are going to believe Osama chartered the planes, don't you want to know the source? The FBI investigator is just relaying things he's heard, we have no idea where he heard it, if its credible, if the FBI considered it accurate even one day after the report. It's crap.

Further, the article links, in a roundabout way, to a New York Post article reporting that it's been reported that Osama chartered the planes. But the FBI also is quoted in the Post arcticle saying: "There is no new information here. Osama bin Laden did not charter a flight out of the U.S." So when raw information collected from the field saying OSama MAY have chartered planes, it is credible and quotable. When when the FBI concludes there's nothing to it, suddenly the FBI is no longer credible. Post article Judicial Watch misuses: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06212007/news/nationalnews/osama_flight_shocker_nationalnews_.htm


Here's another misuse of evidence. Conspiracy nuts suggest Saudis were allowed to sneak out of the US. But if you actually read the pdf file the above quote is from, it documents intensive, intrusive scrutiny, interrogations, and delays that the Saudis were subjected to for days until they were allowed to leave.

But there's more. The Torin clown in the article:

[ QUOTE ]
explains how the White House, in violation of the law, has bought 28 billion, “Billion with a B” in fake news.

[/ QUOTE ]

A link is included to make it look credible: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/161205fake_news.htm

You follow the link and get not a source on the 28 billion, but a list of 28 articles on the general subject of government manipulation of news. Might the figure 28 billion occur somewhere in all that? Researchers are trying to find out.

Here's another good one. The subject of the article, conspiracy nut Torin Wolf, who saved "over 120 lives" as an Army nurse, is claimed to to have won a bronze star for valor in combat, while serving at a hospital. There's a link to support this claim, it takes us to.... a Wiki piece explaining what the medal is. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the authors provide no checkable evidence, as usual.

Nielso, you give us links, links, links, links, but no analysis yourself. You cannot be doing serious reasoning about the credibility of these claims because you cannot even recount them.

Let's recall one towering issue you've been avoiding. Torin claims that each floor would have taken .5 seconds to collapse, a claim you belief and have linked to in one form or another. In several places in this very thread, there are links to qualified sources saying that is not true, the floors could snap very, very fast with all that falling weight on them.

Explain to us in your own words why Torin (or anybody) makes a better case than say the physicist and engineer Manuel Garcia. http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

[jono]

part 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNskClIyGfY)

part 2 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG4TzCtljHQ)

part 3 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qNouhEo4V0)

part 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB0uxfnwgm0)

Did not want a new thread so bumped this one. Can people who watch these videos comment on them?

[jono]

cliffnotes

<u>Part 1</u>
-The building of the World Trade Center
-President George Bush claims to have seen the plane crash into the South Tower at the time in which in happened--even though the first crash wasn't televised at the time
-Les Robertson (WTC structural engineer) and Frank A. DeMartini (Manager, WTC Construction &amp; Project Management) tell how they built the WTC with plane crashes in mind
-Jonathan R. Barnett, Ph.D. (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) says that he had never seen a protected steel structure collapse in a fire
-James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Deluth) and Jeff King (MIT engineer/research scientist) give their synopsis of the WTC collapses.

Also:
-The melting point of steel
-Properties of the WTC steel
-Burning temperatures of kerosene-based jet fuel
-Temperatures in the WTC on 9-11
-Black smoke as an indicator of an oxygen-poor fire.

<u>Part 2</u>
-Eyewitnesses recall multiple "explosions"
-NBC's Pat Dawson relates that FDNY's Fire Safety Chief, Albert Turi thought that there were "devices planted in the building"
-William Rodriguez (20+ year WTC employee, and last survivor to exit the WTC) gives his statement of multiple explosions from "lower floors"
-James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Deluth) and Jeff King (MIT engineer/research scientist) tell why the WTC collapses had to be the result of demolitions
-Morgan Reynolds (ex-labor department economist during President George W. Bush's first term) tells why he thinks that the WTC was the result of a controlled demolition
-Larry Silverstein recalls the orders to "Pull" WTC #7 on a PBS documentary

Also:
-Information about CDI, (Controlled Demolition, Inc.) the company which was hired to remove the remains of the WTC
-Actual demolition footage
-WTC explosions recorded by Columbia University's seismographs
-Evidence of squibs
-Only known footage of the first plane hitting the first tower
-Pre-positioned explosives would have been necessary
-Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.

<u>Part 3</u>
-CNN reporter discusses the possibility of explosives at the base of the towers
-Dallas Landmark Tower Demolition
-Scott Forbes (IT Specialist - Fiduciary Trust employee, WTC) and William Rodriguez (20+ year WTC employee, and last survivor to exit the WTC) recall strange happenings at the WTC during the weeks prior to 9-11
-William Rodriguez shares what he heard on the 34th floor on 9-11
-Brian Clark (Volunteer Fire Marshall) and Stanley Praimnath (survivor - 81st floor) share their experiences after exiting the south tower.

Also:
-Evidence of blast damage in the WTC lobby
-Power downs and evacuation drills at the WTC prior to 9-11

<u>Part 4</u>
-BBC news update that WTC #7 has collapsed (this footage aired BEFORE #7 actually collapsed)
-Larry Silverstein (WTC leaseholder) recalls the orders to "Pull" WTC #7 on a PBS documentary
-Rudy Giuliani reveals that he had been given advanced warning that "the World Trade Center was going to collapse"
-video of a woman in uniform announcing to the crowd that the tower was "about to collapse"
-video of the ground shaking just seconds before the collapse
-Danny Jowenko (Dutch professional demolitions expert) reaffirms his statement that he believes that the WTC had to have been brought down by demolition
-Thermal hot spots of ground zero--taken on September 16th and September 23rd, 2001
-Evidence of thermite having been used to bring down the WTC
-footage of the red-hot rubbel at Ground Zero
-Photos of steel buildings which have burned (and never collapsed), including:
Caracas, Venezeula: A 56-story office tower burned for 17 hours
Taiwan: Building burned for an hour and a half
Los Angeles: 62-story Interstate Bank Building burned for four hours
Madrid, Spain: 32-story Windsor Building burned for two days
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The 38-story One Meridian Plaza building burned for 18 hours.

[kerowo]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/sneaky-cat.jpg

Now the bump has meaning.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
part 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNskClIyGfY)

part 2 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG4TzCtljHQ)

part 3 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qNouhEo4V0)

part 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB0uxfnwgm0)

Did not want a new thread so bumped this one. Can people who watch these videos comment on them?

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite part from Video 3. They show some random dude on camera speculating that there may have been bombs at the base of the towers, then they show a controlled demo of a Dallas tower and say something like: "Notice the billowing dust clouds from the controlled demolition?"

Ummm, yeah, I noticed that! I think its because a huge freaking building fell down, not unlike the WTC towers! What I didn't notice however, was a single camera shot of huge explosions at the base of the WTC towers like I saw during the controlled demo. And there were only like, what, every freaking news camera in the world trained on the WTC towers when they fell...

[jono]

[ QUOTE ]
They show some random dude on camera speculating that there may have been bombs at the base of the towers

[/ QUOTE ]

There was one random dude speculating. But many experts giving testimony. Are you discounting this?

[jono]

the temperature of burning jet fuel (kerosene) is about a thousand degrees below the melting point of steel.

the fires were producing rich black smoke, indicative of fuel-rich, oxygen starved, cool burning flames.

the fires burned for only 56 min, and 1:23 minutes in WTC2 and WTC1 respectively, while the steel was certified to withstand 2000 degree fires for 6 hours.

in the history of high-rise buildings, number that have went down due to fire aside from 9/11: 0

both WTC building were designed to withstand a jumbo jet crashing into it - yet they went down at freefall speeds.

*please point out if any of these above are wrong

[jono]

Washington Post: 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new)

[jono]

is nothing wrong with the above 5 statements?

[kerowo]

Something must be wrong with them because your conclusion is wrong. Unless your conclusion is "I'm a kook."

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
is nothing wrong with the above 5 statements?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, people are just tired of wankers and have better things to spend their time on. The people who believe in the conspiracy are never going to have any impact on the world anyway (since they're mostly morons), so it's not worth anyone's time.

But I'll humor you this time...

[ QUOTE ]
the temperature of burning jet fuel (kerosene) is about a thousand degrees below the melting point of steel.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does that have to do with anything? The melting point of steel is irrelevant, it's the weakening point which matters. If you want to see how heat weakens steel, try this:

Get a piece of wire, grab both ends, and vigorously bend it back and forth. The bend point will heat up to a couple of hundred of degrees C, and the wire will snap easily after a minute of so. Now try the same thing with the bend point immersed in water. You'll never snap the wire. Even low temperature weakens steel immensely.

[ QUOTE ]
the fires were producing rich black smoke, indicative of fuel-rich, oxygen starved, cool burning flames.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool burning? I invite all conspiracy believers to jump into a "cool burning" fuel rich fire. The fires were many hundreds of degrees, and most importantly high heat (which is not the same as temperature). As for the black smoke, that can be caused by burning around the edges, by office furniture, and so on. Black smoke proves nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
the fires burned for only 56 min, and 1:23 minutes in WTC2 and WTC1 respectively, while the steel was certified to withstand 2000 degree fires for 6 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]
Link to evidence please. I would like to see how steel can withstand 2000 degree temperatures for 6 hours. As evidence of fire weakening steel, have a look at this story about a bridge collapsing after a tanker fire weakened the steel:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/29/national/main2739222.shtml

This is a low temperature, low heat (do you know what the difference is?), open air fire, and it collapsed a steel bridge designed to take hundreds of tons.

[ QUOTE ]
in the history of high-rise buildings, number that have went down due to fire aside from 9/11: 0

[/ QUOTE ]
In the history of high rise buildings, number that remained standing after a 767 hit them at 500mph: 0

[ QUOTE ]
both WTC building were designed to withstand a jumbo jet crashing into it - yet they went down at freefall speeds.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. They DID withstand it, dummy, as evidenced by the fact that they remained standing for an hour after impact.
2. They did not fall at freefall speeds.


You're welcome.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
the temperature of burning jet fuel (kerosene) is about a thousand degrees below the melting point of steel.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not heard the response to this? It burns plenty hot to soften and expand the steel, which is all it took. There was something about floor supports sagging and coming out of their fixtures.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool burning? I invite all conspiracy believers to jump into a "cool burning" fuel rich fire.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
the temperature of burning jet fuel (kerosene) is about a thousand degrees below the melting point of steel.

...

*please point out if any of these above are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll easily refute this one (although Bill already did). Any documentary of 9/11 that is promoting this ridiculous argument is either produced by morons or those advancing an agenda by appealing to morons.

A 2 second Google on high-temperature material behavior reveals something like this for engineering metals:

http://www.sandmeyersteel.com/images/alloy625-graph3.gif

Notice the massive drop in strength starting at 1200 degrees? Well guess what -- the melting point of this alloy is 2300-2450 degrees. This is typical behavior. Do you really think steel is as "strong as steel" right up until its a melted pool of sludge? Knowledge of high-temp loss of strength of metals should be elementary to even an undergraduate in mechanical engineering. And yet I've heard it from 9/11 conspiracy theorists at least a half dozen times.

[jono]

According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%.

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

-this would still enable the towers to handle the load
-the fires did not reach these temperatures anyway
-Phil, your example is comparing apples and oranges. Find me an example with a skyscraper

[ QUOTE ]
Intense fires lasted only minutes

The NIST report states that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location." (NIST, 2005; p. 179.)

This is further corroborated by the fact that intense dark choking smoke was being emitted from the towers before they collapsed indicating the fires were oxygen starved and burning at low temperatures.

In addition NIST stated that of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… 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. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 C or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/nist_ULtestresults.gif
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm

What about all the other inferiorly built skyscrapers that burnt for much longer with hotter fires but did not fall?


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire6.jpg
20+ hours burning at 800 C and did not fall

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html (one of MANY examples)

[oe39]

are you trying to conclude that these buildings are still standing?

THAT would be a cover-up

[jono]

Your use of sarcasm to try to divert attention away from my post only strengthens my position. I am providing data and research, not weak humor.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
I am providing data and research, not weak humor.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's pretty funny how you think there was some conspiracy involved in this. Not always Ha Ha funny, but still funny.

Makes me feel better about myself that there are maroons like you out there.

[Kaj]

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
What about all the other inferiorly built skyscrapers that burnt for much longer with hotter fires but did not fall?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about all the other girls prettier than you that blew me? Why aren't you the same? (Not you you Jono, an imaginary babe.)

Why would you assume the situations are comparable? That takes intensive scrutiny and testing of the wreckage.

The other fires were not caused by explosive collision with an airborne freight train.

Here's why that is important, not just glib rhetoric:

Reports from the wreckage are that the fireproof insulation coating the load bearing members was blown off (surprise, surprise). So the beams were much more exposed than in other fires. (And about six months ago, there was a freeway that fell down after a gas tanker went up under it.)

So Jono, what do you make of three things that have been raised to you:

1. Failure can occur well before melting point.

2. The fuel was burned off anyway in ten minutes, so hotter, paper and furniture fire kept going.

3. The fireproofing was blown off, exposing steal.

Finally, please tell us you will think about and engage THESE THREE points, before flitting off to a new argument like the stupid people do.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
Your use of sarcasm to try to divert attention away from my post only strengthens my position. I am providing data and research, not weak humor.

[/ QUOTE ]

then, with the posting of this image, let me declare to the world:

the government fooled most of the people this time, but not jono. his all-encompassing mastery of science and engineering combined with cold hard logic have exposed the truth, and his gripping argument will stand forever as a testament to his towering intellect.

http://www.xerratus.com/content/binary/head-up-ass.jpg

[jono]

Kaj, I just addressed all the issues you posted. Namely

how hot the fires burned at
how much load rating the steel had
how weak the steel was at this temperature

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj, I just addressed all the issues you posted. Namely

how hot the fires burned at
how much load rating the steel had
how weak the steel was at this temperature

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the issue is...the extent of the structural damage when the big, [censored], plane hit the building.

But I digress, I'm working on an Internet discussion board approach consisting mainly of: "Never argue with a fool" (on accounta what the audience thinks).

What I really wanted to say is this thread might be better than "Dinosaurs on Mars" which inevitably lead posts detailing Noah's bestseller (twenty-four weeks as number 1) "The Capture and Care of Baby Dinos". That thread made me laugh though.

But this one gets props for:
<ul type="square"> Captain Insano arguing strategies.
The use of my uber-uncommon name in at least four different posts (not in reference to something I said though).
The fact that, if you believe Noah packed baby dinos on his ark (or in Noah for that matter) I can think you're an idiot but...you might be right. Whereas, if you believe the government actually put this together, I know you're an idiot.
I get to use bullets.[/list]

Anyway, thanks guys, I always appreciate it. Need to get some sleep now (I'll be exposing the Oprah/Jennifer Tilly/Rush Limbaugh cover-up of James Brown's death tomorrow...gotta get my ducks in a row).

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj, I just addressed all the issues you posted. Namely

how hot the fires burned at
how much load rating the steel had
how weak the steel was at this temperature

[/ QUOTE ]

No you didn't at all.

The steel engineer just said in my post that steel has about 10% of its original strength at 1800F, which is about where they figured the fire was at with exposed steel members (no fire-proof insulation). Your retort is a 6x safety factor? Do some quick math.

[Nielsio]

Zelikow background
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuoQZkBFj9A

Zelikow confronted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XQWBQKsqBU

[kemystery]

I have my opinions on the subject, but the only thing really in depth I've watched on it is 9-11 Mysteries (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003)

just thought I'd share the link

[CallMeIshmael]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post11431587 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=politics&amp;Number=11431587&amp; Searchpage=1&amp;Main=11431587&amp;Words=-re%3A+%2Bpaul&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post11431587)


Clearly Nielsio isnt above buying into conspiracy theories that fit his agenda, without evidence

(Im not saying thats necessarily the case in this thread, though)

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Zelikow background
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuoQZkBFj9A


[/ QUOTE ]

Nielsio, what in that vid demonstrates that steel isn't weakened by building fires sufficiently for failure??? This is more smokescreen CRAP. Stick to the f-ing topic.

You say, "fires can't melt steal."
We say, "fires can weaken it enough to bend, and every metallurgist in the world knows it."
And you respond, "there's this guy that headed the 911 commission, and here's a vid showing he's got a really shady background..." It's just infuriating that you demand to be taken seriously on this board, but ALWAYS switch subjects when you get jacked up. Which is the whole method of conspiracies... you are trapped inside circles inside circles of thought.

But thanks for an amusing link. My favorite line: In 1998, Zelikow wrote for Foreign Affairs the article "Catastrophic Terrorism, Imagining the Transformative Event," "and the Pearl Harbor like event [911] occurred just three years later."

[Nielsio]

Interview with Colonel David Hunt on 9/11

"Everyone seems to want to pick on Bin Laden. I think he's an easy target. I'm not too sure yet, that it is. We still have to answer the question who's supporting these people...<font color="red">But we've got state sponsored terrorism. This was such a well planned deal, I would find it difficult to believe that this was done by just a terrorist organisation. This takes inside information. This takes a lot of planning and pin point execution.</font>"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1990673692843308164&amp;hl=nl
http://www.archive.org/details/fox5200109112348-0030



Colonel David Hunt has over 29 years of military experience, including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations. Most recently, Colonel Hunt served as Tactical Advisor in Bosnia where he facilitated all national intelligence matters for the Commander in Chief, as well as coordinating a $350,000,000 national security program for the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency in 1997.

Prior to this, he served as counter terrorism coordinator to the Summer Olympic Games in Seoul, Korea. In this capacity, David Hunt planned, choreographed and implemented the first United States national response for an Olympic event in Korea in conjunction with Korean National Intelligence and the Korean Crisis Response Agency as the counter-terrorist coordinator.

His role as a leader began with a Special Forces Operational Detachment of 12 soldiers, expanding to command a brigade of over 1,000 personnel. He received his Master's degree in English from Norwich University in 1981, and later graduated from the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University in 1991.

David Hunt has lectured for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and several other high profile agencies, as well as state and local police officials.

Recently, he has shared his expertise in over 200 televised interviews on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bill O'Reilly of the "O'Reilly Factor" called David Hunt the "Best Military Analyst in the Business" and Fox's "Go to Guy on the War.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37309,00.html

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Interview with Colonel David Hunt on 9/11

"Everyone seems to want to pick on Bin Laden. I think he's an easy target. I'm not too sure yet, that it is. We still have to answer the question who's supporting these people...<font color="red">But we've got state sponsored terrorism. This was such a well planned deal, I would find it difficult to believe that this was done by just a terrorist organisation. This takes inside information. This takes a lot of planning and pin point execution.</font>"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1990673692843308164&amp;hl=nl
http://www.archive.org/details/fox5200109112348-0030



Colonel David Hunt has over 29 years of military experience, including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations. Most recently, Colonel Hunt served as Tactical Advisor in Bosnia where he facilitated all national intelligence matters for the Commander in Chief, as well as coordinating a $350,000,000 national security program for the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency in 1997.

Prior to this, he served as counter terrorism coordinator to the Summer Olympic Games in Seoul, Korea. In this capacity, David Hunt planned, choreographed and implemented the first United States national response for an Olympic event in Korea in conjunction with Korean National Intelligence and the Korean Crisis Response Agency as the counter-terrorist coordinator.

His role as a leader began with a Special Forces Operational Detachment of 12 soldiers, expanding to command a brigade of over 1,000 personnel. He received his Master's degree in English from Norwich University in 1981, and later graduated from the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University in 1991.

David Hunt has lectured for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and several other high profile agencies, as well as state and local police officials.

Recently, he has shared his expertise in over 200 televised interviews on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bill O'Reilly of the "O'Reilly Factor" called David Hunt the "Best Military Analyst in the Business" and Fox's "Go to Guy on the War.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37309,00.html

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nice. Now please post some quotes from the thousands of experts who disagree with this one man's opinion.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
This takes inside information. This takes a lot of planning and pin point execution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm convinced, Because a bunch of very well educated Saudis who spent months if not years planning this could not pull it off. Why? Ummm, because it takes a lot of planning. Oh, ok.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Interview with Colonel David Hunt on 9/11

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you one thing Nielso, you are impervious to embarrassment. I bust your chops for "ALWAYS" changing the subject when challenged, and in the very next post, you change the subject!

[ QUOTE ]
You say, "fires can't melt steal."

We say, "fires can weaken it enough to bend, and every metallurgist in the world knows it."

And you respond, "there's this guy that headed the 911 commission, and here's a vid showing he's got a really shady background..."

[/ QUOTE ]

We respond, "you always change the subject."

And you say, "but here's an army man who says it's just gotta be a conspiracy. And he's army, ya know."

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interview with Colonel David Hunt on 9/11

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you one thing Nielso, you are impervious to embarrassment. I bust your chops for "ALWAYS" changing the subject when challenged, and in the very next post, you change the subject!

[ QUOTE ]
You say, "fires can't melt steal."

We say, "fires can weaken it enough to bend, and every metallurgist in the world knows it."

And you respond, "there's this guy that headed the 911 commission, and here's a vid showing he's got a really shady background..."

[/ QUOTE ]

We respond, "you always change the subject."

And you say, "but here's an army man who says it's just gotta be a conspiracy. And he's army, ya know."

[/ QUOTE ]

The best part, Bill, is this from Nielsio's OP: "If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere."

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The best part, Bill, is this from Nielsio's OP: "If you don't want to talk science, take your cynicism elsewhere."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, personality disorder is the only reason for rejecting 911 conspiracy.

[jono]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kaj, I just addressed all the issues you posted. Namely

how hot the fires burned at
how much load rating the steel had
how weak the steel was at this temperature

[/ QUOTE ]

No you didn't at all.

The steel engineer just said in my post that steel has about 10% of its original strength at 1800F, which is about where they figured the fire was at with exposed steel members (no fire-proof insulation). Your retort is a 6x safety factor? Do some quick math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sources for your 1800 F figure?

How many high rise buildings have gone down due to fire in the history of high rise buildings besides 9/11?

How hot do you believe jet fuel to burn at?

[Nielsio]

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

August 21st 2007

[kerowo]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/ded.jpg

More informative than your post.

[Nielsio]

[x] Peanut gallery flings poo

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


[/ QUOTE ]

And there were 500 credentialed people there who are satisfied with the investigation.

Now what do you do?

You weigh the actual evidence -- which you steadfastly refuse to do.

[Bill Haywood]

Ooh wait, Nielso. Here's a couple quotes from the ex-NIST guy you forgot:

[ QUOTE ]
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact.

[/ QUOTE ]

[FractalTheorem]

The twin towers could not have been brought down by pre-planted explosives. Look at the video. Where in the building was the start of the structural failure? Indeed, it started on the floors that were hit by the planes! Go figure!

Had pre-planted explosives been placed in these locations, then the pilots of the planes would have had to hit those exact locations on each tower, a very difficult task.

The fact of the matter is that sufficient damage occurred to the support beams of the buildings by the impact of the planes that even a lower temperature fire could sufficiently weaken the steel enough to finish it off, as the steel beams were required to support far more than their standard load.

Any other conclusion is ludicrous.

[Bill Haywood]

[/ QUOTE ]Had pre-planted explosives been placed in these locations, then the pilots of the planes would have had to hit those exact locations on each tower, a very difficult task.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they could have specified that the the explosions begin on the floors where the planes hit. Weren't there some reports of curtains being open on nearby buildings, like somebody was watching?

One plane made a severe, last second course correction. Why then?? He obviously had to hit precise floors.

So it was failsafe, they hit the correct floors, and the guys with the detonators could vary the order of explosions.

[FractalTheorem]

Specified that the explosions begin on the floors where the planes hit? Huh? Are you saying that the explosives were all though the building, and that they could choose whatever floor they wanted to blow? Ridiculous, and that would be terrible planning. The impact would sever the electrical connections.

The last second course correction was either due to being off course or flinching at the last second, a natural reaction.

The floors were different in each building. Your argument makes no sense at all.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The impact would sever the electrical connections.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naw, I heard they can hook radio receivers up to dynamite now.

Dude, I'm kidding.

[FractalTheorem]

Lol, good point.

However, wouldn't the impact and fire set off the explosives?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
The twin towers could not have been brought down by pre-planted explosives. Look at the video. Where in the building was the start of the structural failure? Indeed, it started on the floors that were hit by the planes! Go figure!

Had pre-planted explosives been placed in these locations, then the pilots of the planes would have had to hit those exact locations on each tower, a very difficult task.

[/ QUOTE ]


1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
However, wouldn't the impact and fire set off the explosives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I think Occam's razor would suggest the whole building was not wired. The explosives were in an "out of service" elevator, which could then be moved to whichever floor was directly below the flames.

This solves so many problems, like the massive wiring job required, the difficulty of the planes hitting their mark, the crash setting off premature explosions. I think all those advantages alone point very strongly to the Otis theory. Even the conspiracy "critics" admit that the buildings collapsed by pancaking.

Probably a UPS guy visiting both towers can testify to elevators out of service. Their job performance depends on efficient delivery, so they would have noticed. I'll call the 800 number right now, and if they are uncooperative about researching this, then we'll know.

Hmm, I think the Otis theory may have legs, but, YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[hexag1]

what makes them think that this glowing stuff is liquid flowing at all? couldnt it just be a big crack in the building, with a fire behind it?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
what makes them think that this glowing stuff is liquid flowing at all? couldnt it just be a big crack in the building, with a fire behind it?

[/ QUOTE ]


Take a good look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

[Nielsio]

Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/060907Ebersole.htm

Listen to the recording @ 22minutes.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/050907ebersole.mp3

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


[/ QUOTE ]

So why didn't the collapse begin then? Anyone with eyes can see the collapse begin where the planes hit.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


[/ QUOTE ]

So why didn't the collapse begin then? Anyone with eyes can see the collapse begin where the planes hit.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's an unusual way to deal with facts that require investigations (which have been previously completely handwaved and put away in the memoryhole).

[Kaj]

Nielsio, instead of posting more links or making sweepingly non-specific retorts, it would be nice if you directly addressed some of the points being made in this thread. That is, if you want to have a real discussion on this issue. If you don't that's fine, but then what's the point? To try and lure some impressionable kid into buying into this conspiracy without a meaningful discussion?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
To try and lure some impressionable kid into buying into this conspiracy without a meaningful discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that is entirely the point.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid YOU are mistaking the burden of proof. If you dispute what all the major news outlets claim (no, they're not 100% accurate), then you need more than "RC planes are accurate", you need some evidence or at least some plausible hypothetical scenario to explain an RC plane theory.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid YOU are mistaking the burden of proof. If you dispute what all the major news outlets claim (no, they're not 100% accurate), then you need more than "RC planes are accurate", you need some evidence or at least some plausible hypothetical scenario to explain an RC plane theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


wow lol. Since when are news outlets the default position??!?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Remote controlled airplanes can fly very accurate.

2. Electronically charged and remote controlled charges are easily configurable. You can do this in 5 minutes let alone an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you provide us with a sequential explanation? Who installed the robo pilots, and who was flying them? Were the guys who broke into the cockpit also robots? And can you provide the sequential events of the remote charges being set? Which janitor let them into the crawl spaces, stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid YOU are mistaking the burden of proof. If you dispute what all the major news outlets claim (no, they're not 100% accurate), then you need more than "RC planes are accurate", you need some evidence or at least some plausible hypothetical scenario to explain an RC plane theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


wow lol. Since when are news outlets the default position??!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any evidence or a plausible scenario? If so, present it. If not, the news reporters (who appear unanimous) are the default position. Once again, you provide zero substance with your claim other than "don't believe what you hear", but give us no reason to believe what we hear from you.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another witness who reports of bombs going off in the basement of a WTC tower before the planes had hit:


[/ QUOTE ]

So why didn't the collapse begin then? Anyone with eyes can see the collapse begin where the planes hit.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's an unusual way to deal with facts that require investigations (which have been previously completely handwaved and put away in the memoryhole).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an entirely appropriate way to consider the plausibility of bombs in the basement. People make mistakes, make things up, so we examine if the report fits. It does not. The buildings did not collapse from bottom up, therefore your unsourced claim is not plausible.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to mistake the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Demonstrate why I must explain every piece of crushed concrete to disprove a conspiracy, but you don't have to prove the existence of remote control equipment installed in the planes for your collapse theory to work. You are a pseudointellectual.

[kerowo]

Maybe these were involved:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/128298209783126250invisiblejetpl.jpg

[Nielsio]

I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?

"Count-down heard"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g

"Get back, the building is about to explode"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?

"Count-down heard"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g

"Get back, the building is about to explode"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

[/ QUOTE ]
The first one is silly. There are thousands of people who swear they've had sex with UFOs. And they genuinely believe it. This guy is merely talking about some count down he's supposed to have heard - lol? They wire up all the buildings without detection in the greatest secrecy, but then stand in the street among onlookers counting down to zero. el-oh-el. As for the second, you are aware there were massive fuel reserves under WTC7, aren't you? Of course people are going to expect it to blow.

Besides, I could possibly accept a WTC7 demolition scenario if there was more evidence of it. There could be many reasons for doing it. But I hope you have the logic to realize that most of those potential reasons have nothing to do with 911 being an inside job.

[Nielsio]

I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?


Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3606159506368831731&amp;hl=en-GB
59s

Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 &amp; 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory... RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... <font color="red">I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it.</font>"

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking to get this debunked; can you guys give it a try?


Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3606159506368831731&amp;hl=en-GB
59s

Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 &amp; 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory... RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really starting to give me the [censored] man. Firstly, you make no attempt to address the substantive debunkings given by others. Secondly, you post total drivel without the most basic fact checking. Third, you actually hurt the cause of those who care about the real crimes of the government.

You really are a fool about this stuff, and overall a pretty worthless human being while you're on this insane crusade.

To answer the points in your latest idiot post:

[ QUOTE ]
and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots

[/ QUOTE ]
The 767 hit the towers at around 470mph. According to the impartial site below, this its ECONOMICAL crusing speed. Similarly for the 707, which has a faster crusinging speed.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103
[ QUOTE ]
Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt)

[/ QUOTE ]
You can find these very figures on the sites of conspiracy theorists who argue that the building was designed to take these speeds, as the impact speeds were below the max cruising speeds of these jets.

I won't even bother addressing the rest of this stupid crap.

Aren't you in your late 20s? You'd think someone your age would be starting to get a bit more sense.

[Mr_Moore]

at this site, http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm, why don't they debunk the theories against the pentagon?

[Nielsio]

I believe he is most specifically talking about Flight 77, the one that allegedly hit the Pentagon, and it's high speed, high precision manouvres.

American 77 Final Maneuver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0


More here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

[Mr_Moore]

"But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7."

How could the tower tilt over when it collapsed on itself?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
at this site, http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm, why don't they debunk the theories against the pentagon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding the dust cloud:

[ QUOTE ]
Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

National hero William Rodriguez
"It burned my face, it burned my skin"
@ 6m21s
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6397746163648527211&amp;hl=nl


[/ QUOTE ]

[spyderracing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To quote it more exactly, the government report says 'and global collapse ensued'. That's it; it describes nothing and it explains nothing. Notice that I am calling for a sequential mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much did a WTC floor weigh?
What is the impulse/momentum generated by a block this weight dropping 3 meters?
How does this compare to the typical load on the steel structure from say the 50 floors it would normally have to support?

Answer these three questions (it's very, very simple physics) and you'll realize that global collapse is indeed inevitable once the first floor goes.

There are legitimate questions to be raised about the collapse but it seems like you've picked the worst possible points. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


You have not described a sequential mechanism, or pointed to a source that does describe it.

It would be very interesting if you would actually give that a try. Then we can see if that mechanism matches with what we see on the videotapes and the photographs, with the speed of the collapse, things like amount of thick dust, and so on.

NIST has not dared to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how what he described isn't a sequential mechanism. First floor collapses triggering the next floor to collapse, so on and so forth until all floors have collapsed.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how what he described isn't a sequential mechanism. First floor collapses triggering the next floor to collapse, so on and so forth until all floors have collapsed.

[/ QUOTE ]


The mechanism ought to involve all major structural elements. For example, one ought to describe what happens with the inner and outer steel structure. When you say that the floors fall on top of each other, then we expect the inner steel structure (40+ massive columns) to remain standing.

Also; if floors fall on floors, where does the energy come from that moves incredible amounts of steel outward?



So the idea is that if we have a detailed account of actions and reactions, then we can start to fit the facts together and see how well it fits (facts include all videographic footage, but also pools of molton metal, micro spheres in the dust, etc, etc). That's how you build a scientific theory that attemps to gain knowledge about the event.

[evil twin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

Oh and I agree with Phil.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, you make no attempt to address the substantive debunkings given by others. Secondly, you post total drivel without the most basic fact checking. Third, you actually hurt the cause of those who care about the real crimes of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

Nielsio,

The sequential mechanism is blindingly obvious to those who have studied mechanical stress and also understand the energy contained in a large objects moving at velocity.

If you truly wish to understand the phenomena that occurred, I suggest you read these salient points from the journal of TMS, a professional publication that represents a large body of metallurgists and engineers. The important points to understand are in bold:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

------------------
" It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

---------

This last point should be even clearer when you consider the self containing nature of the steel columns.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

[/ QUOTE ]


Well..

This article is nothing but assertions.

Like:

[ QUOTE ]
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.

The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP
Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation"
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.

[/ QUOTE ]



So just redefine what happened as 'ordinary' and voila, problem solved.

Note how his blatant contradiction (undamaged massive structure offers litte more resistance than air) isn't addressed in any way.

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
This article is nothing but assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is. It's a news story about a paper someone has written. You have to read the actual paper if you want more than that.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This article is nothing but assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is. It's a news story about a paper someone has written. You have to read the actual paper if you want more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]


If the actual paper contained anything substantial I would expect them at least hinting at it. As it is, this is just a hit-piece.

But that's ok; I didn't actually expect anything else.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This article is nothing but assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is. It's a news story about a paper someone has written. You have to read the actual paper if you want more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]


Also, why did you link to it if you knew it was just a bunch of blank assertions?

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why did you link to it if you knew it was just a bunch of blank assertions?

[/ QUOTE ]
Without the word "blank", that's what news stories about scientific papers are.

[kerowo]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/the-iraq-2.jpg

[tame_deuces]

This thread has convinced me that conspiracy theorist and religious fanatics use much of the same rhetorics and logic.

And like Phil said earlier, this drivel is useless. Governments and states all over the world perform easily provable transgressions over their inhabitants every day, and people care about some farfetched crap like this.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread has convinced me that conspiracy theorist and religious fanatics use much of the same rhetorics and logic.

And like Phil said earlier, this drivel is useless. Governments and states all over the world perform easily provable transgressions over their inhabitants every day, and people care about some farfetched crap like this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just a reminder for ya'll:

Making posts that are intended to stiffle and frighten ('drivel', 'crap'), will accomplish the exact opposite.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
This article is nothing but assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to the articles supporting the 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are um, nothing but assertions, and mostly blatantly incorrect ones at that.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a reminder for ya'll:

Making posts that are intended to stiffle and frighten ('drivel', 'crap'), will
accomplish the exact opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]


OMG! He's figured out that we're all part of the conspiracy and that we're calling his drivel and crap drivel and crap not because it is drivel and crap, but because we're trying to intimidate him and all the brave truth-seekers from spreading the truth. What are we gonna do now?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
What are we gonna do now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Send out the black helicopters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopters) obviously. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a reminder for ya'll:

Making posts that are intended to stiffle and frighten ('drivel', 'crap'), will
accomplish the exact opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]


OMG! He's figured out that we're all part of the conspiracy and that we're calling his drivel and crap drivel and crap not because it is drivel and crap, but because we're trying to intimidate him and all the brave truth-seekers from spreading the truth. What are we gonna do now?

[/ QUOTE ]


Doing something besides bullying is hard, I understand.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread has convinced me that conspiracy theorist and religious fanatics use much of the same rhetorics and logic.

And like Phil said earlier, this drivel is useless. Governments and states all over the world perform easily provable transgressions over their inhabitants every day, and people care about some farfetched crap like this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just a reminder for ya'll:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/wormtowne/internethat.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Nielsio]

Top-down, bottom-up; it's all possible..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

[winningfish]

BAN Nielsio and his moronic conspiracy crap.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
BAN Nielsio and his moronic conspiracy crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

if only people could get banned for being morons.

[winningfish]

Bush sucks, tick.
CIA sucks, tick maybe.
FBI sucks, tick.

Bush or CIA or FBI brought down the WTC... if you tick this you deserve to be in the asylum.

That's really all there needs to be said.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush sucks, tick.
CIA sucks, tick maybe.
FBI sucks, tick.

Bush or CIA or FBI brought down the WTC... if you tick this you deserve to be in the asylum.

That's really all there needs to be said.

[/ QUOTE ]


It is public knowledge that the FBI had infiltrated and financially and otherwise supported both the 1993 WTC bombing terrorists as well as the 2001 WTC bombing terrorists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.shtml

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


I suggest you have a listen to a recording of a conversation between an FBI agent and one of the double agents:

http://nwo.media.xs2.net/tape/SalemWBAI.mp3

[tame_deuces]

It isn't public knowledge, it is what you and some likeminded individuals make out of some minor 'evidence'. And when it isn't enough, as is shown throughout this thread, supporting facts and 'science' is fabricated to fit the story at hand. If anything, if there is some truth in it, it is clogged up by conspiracy theorists drowning it in half-truth and falsehoods - so you would be helping the conspiracy badguys (if any) to get away with it.

And yes, I am angry and annoyed, because you people are devoting so much time and energy on this, and a lot of people are listening to you and effort and energy which could have been used to focus on real and tangible mis-use of power is vasted on a case resting on the idea that some ten thousand people keeps a billion dollar secret about a genocide of its own populace in the world's 20th most politically transparent country (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html). Seriously, the US seems unable to even keep cosmic top secret documents away from the press.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't public knowledge, it is what you and some likeminded individuals make out of some minor 'evidence'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you listen to the tape?

[kerowo]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/128338541320625000dismaitomcrew.jpg

Thread saved, again.

[Nielsio]

9/11/2001: USA Today Reveals FBI Theory That World Trade Center Towers Destroyed By Explosives

Lauren Ashburn: "Joining me is Jack Kelley, now he is a foreign correspondent - war correspondent - and just came back from Israel. He has some information about these attacks. Jack, what can you tell us happened, first in New York."

Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that <font color="red">the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.</font>"

Lauren Ashburn: "Now that's the first time were hearing that, so 2 planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?"

Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11712

edit: youtube link of the vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npAbNl2ihY .



This 'working theory' was quickly buried and never to be heard of again. The 9/11 commission report does not even mention is as a theory and uses it's own proposed theory and then starts to adjust and only mention facts trying to support that theory.

For example like the inside trading situation: "we couldn't like the trading back to the terrorists and therefore this information is of no value".

[kerowo]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/128340786327968750ihasasystem.jpg

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

Its funny how if you use the word "buried" instead of "dismissed as wrong" it makes it sound more like a conspiracy.

[Mempho]

Why does there have to be a conspiracy theory to prove your point. Everything you need to know is already proven:

1) THEY KNEW about the threat
2) THEY KNEW that it would involve airplanes
3) THEY KNEW that the trade centers were likely targets
4) THEY KNEW that it was from Al Queda
5) THEY KNEW that the organization had the ability to pull it off
6) THEREFORE, THEY KNEW the threat was credible
7) THEY ALSO KNEW the threat was imminent

8) AND YET, they did absolutely nothing to mitigate the threat because THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPEN.

All of that is proven and yet the public is so stupid that they don't realize that their government implicitly, through inaction, agreed to this attack and desired for it to happen.

[blufish]

Why does there have to be a conspiracy theory to prove your point. Everything you need to know is already proven:

1) THEY KNEW about the threat <font color="blue">yeah? and? fanatical crazy muslims have been around decades </font> .

2) THEY KNEW that it would involve airplanes again, <font color="blue"> so what. i'm on a team that builds airports. you obviously have no clue regarding the volume of air traffic there is. </font>

3) THEY KNEW that the trade centers were likely targets <font color="blue"> maybe because they were BOMBED before? so what?? your smart. everyone on the planet knew that one.</font>

4) THEY KNEW that it was from Al Queda <font color="blue"> and? </font>

5) THEY KNEW that the organization had the ability to pull it off <font color="blue"> and? it wasn't all that hard, was it? this means nothing. you are on a roll. </font>

6) THEREFORE, THEY KNEW the threat was credible <font color="blue"> and? how many threats do you think the FBI, CIA, or what have you, get a day, a month a year? another clueless point. do you live in a shell or something ?</font>

7) THEY ALSO KNEW the threat was imminent <font color="blue"> and? imminent is relative. imminent as in within the next 30 seconds, within the year, or decade? thanks for the clear up.</font>

8) AND YET, they did absolutely nothing to mitigate the threat because THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPEN. <font color="blue"> oh, i guess we should have had an all ground stop across the planet. wait. what flight, out of what airport, going where, at what time, which "middle eastern" looking guys to catch? </font>

All of that is proven and yet the public is so stupid that they don't realize that their government implicitly, through inaction, agreed to this attack and desired for it to happen. <font color="blue"> ridiculous. you haven't stated anything, but nutbag conspiracy theories. idiotic. bad things happen and the government is not going to save you, man. same with the whole katrina "fiasco". grow up.</font>

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does there have to be a conspiracy theory to prove your point. Everything you need to know is already proven:

1) THEY KNEW about the threat <font color="blue">yeah? and? fanatical crazy muslims have been around decades </font> .

2) THEY KNEW that it would involve airplanes again, <font color="blue"> so what. i'm on a team that builds airports. you obviously have no clue regarding the volume of air traffic there is. </font>

3) THEY KNEW that the trade centers were likely targets <font color="blue"> maybe because they were BOMBED before? so what?? your smart. everyone on the planet knew that one.</font>

4) THEY KNEW that it was from Al Queda <font color="blue"> and? </font>

5) THEY KNEW that the organization had the ability to pull it off <font color="blue"> and? it wasn't all that hard, was it? this means nothing. you are on a roll. </font>

6) THEREFORE, THEY KNEW the threat was credible <font color="blue"> and? how many threats do you think the FBI, CIA, or what have you, get a day, a month a year? another clueless point. do you live in a shell or something ?</font>

7) THEY ALSO KNEW the threat was imminent <font color="blue"> and? imminent is relative. imminent as in within the next 30 seconds, within the year, or decade? thanks for the clear up.</font>

8) AND YET, they did absolutely nothing to mitigate the threat because THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPEN. <font color="blue"> oh, i guess we should have had an all ground stop across the planet. wait. what flight, out of what airport, going where, at what time, which "middle eastern" looking guys to catch? </font>

All of that is proven and yet the public is so stupid that they don't realize that their government implicitly, through inaction, agreed to this attack and desired for it to happen. <font color="blue"> ridiculous. you haven't stated anything, but nutbag conspiracy theories. idiotic. bad things happen and the government is not going to save you, man. same with the whole katrina "fiasco". grow up.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

When intelligence indicates that Al Queda plans to do something, you don't just ignore it. It is proven that they had foreknowledge of almost every facet of the attack except for the exact timing of it. Your rebuttal is merely spin.

Further, there is no conspiracy theory to it. There was no need for the government to plan and execute the attacks because we had people (our enemies) who were more than willing to do it. All of points 1-7 are proven. They did nothing to mitigate it and, thus, point #8 is a reasonably intelligent conclusion.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
bad things happen and the government is not going to save you, man. same with the whole katrina "fiasco". grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. This becomes problematic, however, when the government claims it can save you and asks you to give up a lot of your liberty to accomplish that end. Oh, and also outlaws competition on the "saving you" front.

[tame_deuces]

Yep, a set of largely unrelated events lead to something catastrophic and people wants to see some sort of pattern, and the whole thing the big ugly truth is probably that there is no damn pattern. It's just a bunch of people leading their lives, doing their thing, and through some flux of events some fanatical idiots crash a plane into an office building. And there are probably some idiots who should have seen it coming but didn't, there are probably idiots who saw it coming and didn't do anything, and there is probably a score of idiots who had the faintest idea of what him them.

I guess maybe that's the scariest thing of all for some people, that there isn't some damn big unified truth that binds all together in a clue of logic and can explain why person b got shot in the chest or why 6 million jews got killed in the holocaust or why 3000 unlucky people died on 9/11. It is all too complex, people enjoy too much freedom to have any control and we let it go that way because the alternative is so much worse anyway and people will go on binding together the unbindable into their little magical versions of truth in this whoe big mess. Because how is your little life supposed to have any meaning whatsoever if anything can happen to you for no reason whatsoever?

Yeah, it's all so simple and some people can state in 20 lines why something like this happened. Right. 20 lines. Because that is how easy the world is. Uhuh.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bad things happen and the government is not going to save you, man. same with the whole katrina "fiasco". grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. This becomes problematic, however, when the government claims it can save you and asks you to give up a lot of your liberty to accomplish that end. Oh, and also outlaws competition on the "saving you" front.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, a set of largely unrelated events lead to something catastrophic and people wants to see some sort of pattern, and the whole thing the big ugly truth is probably that there is no damn pattern. It's just a bunch of people leading their lives, doing their thing, and through some flux of events some fanatical idiots crash a plane into an office building. And there are probably some idiots who should have seen it coming but didn't, there are probably idiots who saw it coming and didn't do anything, and there is probably a score of idiots who had the faintest idea of what him them.

I guess maybe that's the scariest thing of all for some people, that there isn't some damn big unified truth that binds all together in a clue of logic and can explain why person b got shot in the chest or why 6 million jews got killed in the holocaust or why 3000 unlucky people died on 9/11. It is all too complex, people enjoy too much freedom to have any control and we let it go that way because the alternative is so much worse anyway and people will go on binding together the unbindable into their little magical versions of truth in this whoe big mess. Because how is your little life supposed to have any meaning whatsoever if anything can happen to you for no reason whatsoever?

Yeah, it's all so simple and some people can state in 20 lines why something like this happened. Right. 20 lines. Because that is how easy the world is. Uhuh.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the government is so disorganized that they can't protect us even with the intelligence in hand (as you say), then why even have a government?

[BCPVP]

Nielso, will you ever address this report? I know you must have seen this as I've posted it in several of the 9/11 conspiracy threads that crop up.

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC 1, 2, &amp; 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Point of View (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso, will you ever address this report? I know you must have seen this as I've posted it in several of the 9/11 conspiracy threads that crop up.

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC 1, 2, &amp; 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Point of View (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can prepare a more elaborate response later, but IIRC that thing is nothing more than "we didn't find any evidence to support x".

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
IIRC that thing is nothing more than "we didn't find any evidence to support x".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's supposed to refute it? I mean, elaborate on the points and methodology, but as a summary "we didn't find any evidence to support x" is pretty damning for x.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

If the government is so disorganized that they can't protect us even with the intelligence in hand (as you say), then why even have a government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why indeed? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about in the first place. Monarchy, anarchy, democracy, despotism, feudalism, communism, kleptocracism, capitalism, theocracy, oligarchy - take your pick, I really don't care - large complex, unrelated events - sometimes coincidental, sometimes not and the human nature is going to blow up your face at some point nomatter what you do. And people are still going to construct their little magical truths which simplifies everything into 'them' and 'I' (or 'us') and neat little point-by-point solutions that boils the actions of millions down to single sentences.