The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

aidan24326

IMO, anyone who cannot see that there are serious problems with the official version of events is even stupider than the very worst of the conspiracy theorists i.e the 'no plane at pentagon' and 'planes armed with missiles' goons. Problem is, some posters here are arrogantly dismissing all 'conspiracy' theories under the one umbrella, and those of you who are have for the most part offered no credible explanation for the glaring problems that exist in the official 9/11 report. If the whole thing had been conducted in a more transparent manner the 'conspiracy theorists' wouldn't have so much ammunition to work with in the first place. The onus of proof is on the US authorities, the government, FBI, 9/11 commission etc., and thus far they've proved nothing as far as I can see.

Diogenes

aidan24326 wrote:

IMO, anyone who cannot see that there are serious problems with the official version of events is even stupider than the very worst of the conspiracy theorists i.e the 'no plane at pentagon' and 'planes armed with missiles' goons. Problem is, some posters here are arrogantly dismissing all 'conspiracy' theories under the one umbrella,

I think you've got it completely wrong. I would consider myself, definetly bonkey as well as people who have issues with the offical story. I would suspect oscarbravo and civdef would also be in the same boat as well. My concerns are about intelligence failures in the years and months leading up to 9/11, and the behaviour of the US government in the direct aftermath. I feel that delusional conspiracy theorists, make it difficult for people in search of the truth, by mudding the waters with this nonsense about no planes and holographic missiles.

and those of you who are have for the most part offered no credible explanation for the glaring problems that exist in the official 9/11 report.

And what are these glaring problems?

If the whole thing had been conducted in a more transparent manner the 'conspiracy theorists' wouldn't have so much ammunition to work with in the first place.

Agreed.

The onus of proof is on the US authorities, the government, FBI, 9/11 commission etc., and thus far they've proved nothing as far as I can see.

Not proved what exactly? They've presented the NIST findings, (which is what I assume you mean by the 9/11 report), if you disagree with it please explain what they have failed to prove.

bonkey

aidan24326 wrote:

IMO, anyone who cannot see that there are serious problems with the official version of events is even stupider than the very worst of the conspiracy theorists i.e the 'no plane at pentagon' and 'planes armed with missiles' goons.

Its your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Until you can clarify what the problems actually are that you believe people are stupid not to see, however, I wouldn't like to comment further.

Problem is, some posters here are arrogantly dismissing all 'conspiracy' theories under the one umbrella,

Who? Where?

The problem you describe is one of the known weaknesses of generalisations. Ironically, the comment itself is just such a generalisation.

you who are have for the most part offered no credible explanation for the glaring problems that exist in the official 9/11 report.

You point them out, and what your thoughts on them are, and I'll be happy to discuss them. I'm not going to second-guess what you see as the problems. The official documentation regarding 911 runs into the tens of thousands of pages. To write a meaningful critique of such a body of work would take at least a comparable amount of space. So until you narrow the field down and tell me what you have an issue with that hasn't already been discussed to death here, as well as why you have an issue with it, then I'm not biting.

Again - I speak for myself only. Maybe someone else will rise to the challenge of second-guessing whatever it is that you're referring to. I, however, take the position that if you're not willing to put the time and effort in to staking out your position, I'm not willing to put the time and effort in to responding to it in any greater detail.

If the whole thing had been conducted in a more transparent manner the 'conspiracy theorists' wouldn't have so much ammunition to work with in the first place.

I would argue you are giving the "conspiracy theorists" too much credibility. In fact, I can't think of a single conspiracy theory regarding 911 that would have been avoided through transparency. I'd be grateful if you could educate me in this regard.

Regardless, I wasn't aware that the standard for criminal investigations was transparency. I was rather under the opposite impression - that standard practice is one of refusing to disclose details about ongoing cases. Perhaps you could clarify what transparency was missing that you would have liked to see?

The onus of proof is on the US authorities, the government, FBI, 9/11 commission etc.,

The onus of proof is on anyone making claims. The US government have provided, via the NIST report, their proof for why the towers collapsed. They will provide in the near future a similar report on why WTC7 collapsed.

They have met their onus until such times as someone can mount an effective challenge to their proof. Despite much handwaving, noise, insistence that certain events not covered in teh report are significant, etc. not one of the counter-claims has come close to meeting its own burden of proof.

Thus, while one can argue that the government has not proven its case, it has made a far better case than anyone else has either in terms of criticising the offered research or in terms of offering alternate scenarios.

and thus far they've proved nothing as far as I can see.

Would you care to comment on why NISTs studies count as nothing from what you can see in this regard?

tunaman

civdef wrote:

They got to him at last!

I was at that seminar today where Dr. Shyam Sunder from NIST delivered a keynote address on the WTC investigation. For the record, he didn't reckon it was a demolition job, but he did a very good of summarising his findings.

Somebody from NIST told you it wasn't a demolition job?

I hope you kept it quiet.

Did you ask him about building 7?

NIST are still trying to play dumb on that building disaster...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/wtc7-demolitionlg.gif

One thing he pointed out that was interesting was the broadcasting masts on top of the two towers - if anyone is bothered, might be worth having a look at some videos of the collapses to see how they behaved.

He wants people to ignore how the massive steel-framed buildings were completely destroyed in seconds, but instead watch how the masts behaved...

Here is a slow motion animation, where the behaviour of the mast can be observed...

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/1199/ntower8gc.gif

There was me thinking the buildings were demolished, when all along it was the weight of the masts, that must have caused them to collapse.

A small newspaper in the US recently had the balls to call for the truth to be told about 9/11...

http://www.dailytidings.com/2006/1111/stories/1111_editorial.php

It will no doubt fall on deaf ears, as people either think they already know what happened, or just don't really want to know...

Nick_oliveri

tunaman wrote:

Somebody from NIST told you it wasn't a demolition job?

I hope you kept it quiet.

Did you ask him about building 7?

NIST are still trying to play dumb on that building disaster...

Well not really. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

"Hypothetical Blast Analysis"

I'd really like to know how that investigation is going.

As for the masts, weren't they discussed a long few posts beforehand?

Edit: Spotted this:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Judge_orders_FBI_to_correct_disclosures_1120.html

A U.S. district court judge has ordered the FBI to correct disclosures regarding the US government's evacuation of Saudi royals and bin Laden family members after the September 11 attacks in 2001, a conservative watchdog organization announced today.

According to Judicial Watch, US government documents reveal that 160 Saudis flew from the US between September 11 and September 15, 2001.

civdef

Did you ask him about building 7?

NIST are still trying to play dumb on that building disaster...

Didn't have to, he explicily stated it in his lecture. All of NIST's resources and manpower were focused on the WTC 1 & 2 collapse report first, so the WTC 7investigation had to wait till the others were finished, they're running at full tilt on it now, and expect to have a report out early next year.

bonkey

In other news, Fetzer and Jones appear to be having a bit of a falling out.

It seems to be over Jones' "adoption" of an energy-beam-weapons-did-it theory, and Fetzer pointing out the holes in such a notion.

I'll see if I can dig up links, but I think they posted some open letters at each other over on Scholars.

oscarBravo

I had a quick gander over there. One thing caught my eye:

Lets say you drop a billiard ball in a vacuum, no air resistance, so that it can rush up to speed as fast as possible. Then, when it reaches the speed of terminal velocity, it remains that speed from thereafter.

Ok - I'm not a physicist, but if you drop something in a vacuum, why would it have a terminal velocity? Isn't TV - by definition - the velocity at which the air drag matches the acceleration due to gravity?

bonkey

Terminal Velocity, to my understanding, is defined as a drag-related effect. No drag, no TV.

In a vacuum, one could maybe argue that c is TV, or that somewhere before c, relativistic effects would cause a TV to exist, but thats really stretching things.

I just think the whole thing is funny. After Scholars being held up as the finest of the fine (by its supporters) they descend into a spat because they disagree over what constitutes good science, good theories, good practice, etc. Way to inspire confidence.

Diogenes

Nearly a month and no sign of tunaman posting new "evidence"

I'm about ready to call this thread done and in favour of the forces of rationality and common sense.

The conspiracists simultaneously credit their targets--the Bush-Cheney "conspirators" -- with superhuman ingenuity and grotesque carelessness. In Webster Griffin Tarpley's book 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA he writes that "in an interview with Parade magazine, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld also referred to the object which hit the Pentagon as a 'missile'. Was this a Freudian slip by the loquacious defense chief?"

The physicist and engineer Manuel Garcia Jr (whose explications furnish the bulk of our 9/11 file) reminds us that if the evidence allows for several explanations to a given problem then the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is most probably correct. This principle is called Occam's Razor, named after the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Occam.

There is not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to explain why the towers collapsed at near free fall speeds. Engineer Pierre Sprey--who designed the F-16 and A-10 -- points out a few practical aspects of explosive demolitions that make the explosive charge hypothesis improbable to the point of absurdity:

"1. Any demolitions expert concocting a plan to hit a tall building with an airplane and then use pre-placed explosives to UNDETECTABLY ensure the collapse of the building would never place the explosives 20, 30 and 60 floors below the impact point. Obviously, he would put the explosives on one or more floors as close as possible to the planned impact level.

"2. It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert would time his surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the aircraft impact. He couldn't possibly be absolutely certain that the impact fires would even last an hour. Quite the opposite: to mask the booster explosions, he'd time them to follow right on the heels of the impact.

"3. To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges, charges that are large enough to do a lot more than emit the "puffs of smoke" cited as evidence for the explosives hypothesis. I've seen both live and filmed explosive building demolitions. Each explosion is accompanied by a very visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke and dust. Just that fact alone makes the explosives hypothesis untenable; no demolitions expert in the world would be willing to promise his client that he could bring down a tall building with explosions guaranteed to be indistinguishable from the effects of an aircraft impact."

Herman Soifer, a retired structural engineer, summarize the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly, in a letter to me, remarking that since he had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction he was able to explain the collapses to his wife a few hours after the buildings went down.

"The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow. Tubes can be very efficient structures, strong and economical. The Trade Center tubes effectively resisted vertical loads, wind loads and vibrations and could probably have done very well against earthquakes. However, the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength.

"For their interior bracing, the thin-walled tubes of the Trade Center towers depended primarily on the interior floors being tied to the outer wall shells. These floor beam structures were basically open web joists, adequate for the floor loads normally to be expected. These joist ends rested on steel angle clips attached to the outer walls.

"As the floors at the level of airplane impact caught fire, the open web joists, which could not be expected to resist such fires, softened under the heat, sagged and pulled away from their attachments to the walls. Their weight and the loads they were carrying, caused them to drop onto the next lower floor, which was then carrying double loads also becoming exposed to the heat. Then that floor collapsed, and so it went. But as the floors dropped, they no longer served as bracing for the thin-walled main tubes.

"This loss of bracing permitted the walls to buckle outward in successive sections and thus the house of cards effect.

"There was no other major bracing as would be encountered in a more conventional type of structure, or as might have been introduced in the design if one feared the potential loss of the floors. There were no stiff horizontal trusses in the perimeter to act as bracing ribs every few floors. There was no system of vertical trusses to provide any integrity, not was there anything that could be considered a frame or "skeleton" of columns and attached girders to keep the tube intact."

In our 9/11 file Manuel Garcia devastates with conspiracists' theories with patient explanations as to why their schemas flout scientific laws and the observed facts of the disasters of that day.

The conspiracists' last card is the collapse of WTC building number 7 some hours after the morning attacks. But here again, as with the other two buildings, the explanations offered by US government agencies (preeminently the National Institute of Standards and Technology and, for Building 7, FEMA) are more than adequate, as Manuel Garcia points out. The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse.

One of the building's major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon (diesel) fuel, pumped from the sub-basement by the back-up system and spraying through a torn pipe into the fire next to two of the building's three major structural truss. The types of steel used in the WTC Towers (plain carbon, and vanadium) lose steel lose half their strength when heated to about 570 C , and even more as temperatures rise, as they did in WTC 1 and 2, to 1100 C. In building 7, Garcia calculates that the diesel fuel spraying at a rate of 75 gallons a minute ultimately released energy equivalent to that of an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.

What is the goal of the 9/11 conspiracists? They ask questions, yes, but they never answer them. They never put forward an overall scenario of the alleged conspiracy. They say that's not up to them. So who is it up to? Who do they expect to answer their questions? When answers are put forward, they are dismissed as fabrications or they simply rebound with another question.

Of course the buildings didn't suddenly fall at a speed inexplicable in terms of physics unless caused by carefully pre-placed explosives, detonated by the ruthless Bush-Cheney operatives. High grade steel can bend disastrously under extreme heat. As discussed in Wayne Barrett and Dan Collin's excellent book Grand Illusion, about Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, helicopter pilots radioed warnings nine minutes before the final collapse that the South Tower might well go down and, repeatedly, as much as 25 minutes before the North Tower's fall.

What Barrett and Collins brilliantly show are the actual corrupt conspiracies on Giuliani's watch: the favoritism to Motorola which saddled the firemen with radios that didn't work; the ability of the Port Authority to skimp on fire protection, the mayor's catastrophic failure in the years before 9/11/2001 to organize an effective unified emergency command that would have meant that cops and firemen could have communicated; that many firemen wouldn't have unnecessarily entered the Towers; that people in the Towers wouldn't have been told by 911 emergency operators to stay in place; and that firemen could have heard the helicopter warnings and the final Mayday messages that prompted most of the NYPD men to flee the Towers.
That's the real political world, in which Giuliani and others have never been held accountable. The conspiracists disdain the real world because they have promoted Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire, a team of more than usual stupidity and incompetence (characteristics I personally favor in imperial leaders). The conspiracists have combined to produce a huge distraction, just as Danny Sheehan did with his Complaint, that mesmerized and distracted much of the Nicaraguan Solidarity Movement in the 1980s, and which finally collapsed in a Florida courtroom almost as quickly as the Towers.

Full article here.

also

It was like religion, and profoundly sad. At one point one of the black T-shirts confessed that there's nothing people can do in the face of such evil, because they killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and they'll have no compunction to kill their critics if they need to. What a starting point for politics, and the best argument for why people might as well go to their computer screens and just stay there. But the truth! We need to know the truth! It's a truth of fools, simple in the extreme, requiring no more than the memorization of the "unexplained" events of that day, the eye-witness anecdotes and quick-fire repetition of same to others. It's also the politics of the schoolroom, akin to the argument that if every American just sent in a dollar, we'd have $350 million to fight poverty. If every American just does the research, just demands the truth, the truth will come out, the columns will tremble, the temples fall.

How do you explain such perfect discipline and silence in the face of horror? "Look at the Manhattan Project; that was a really well kept secret that involved many, many people."

Apart from the fact that the Manhattan Project seems to have been kind of an open secret in international physics circles, and the secrets did get out, courtesy of spies who thought the US should not be the only nation on earth to have the Bomb, there is the matter of remorse. Most people don't like living with the memory that they have blood on their hands. Oppenheimer didn't. I'm sure scores of lower level scientists didn't once the Bomb wasn't a theoretical problem or a test in the desert but the consuming fire of Hiroshima and, especially, Nagasaki.

It's inconceivable that five years after September 11 no one involved in the incineration of thousands of people would have regrets, second thoughts -- or even towering self-interest. Imagine the book deal, the movie deal waiting for that whistle blower.

What happened to Flight 77, the one that, according to the conspiracy theory, didn't hit the Pentagon because a missile made that hole? Were all those people just taken somewhere and murdered? "Probably. Maybe, but that's not for us to answer, that's for them to answer."

Why use planes at all if you'd gone through all the trouble to place charges throughout the buildings? "They needed scapegoats. No one would have believed it was a terrorist attack."

But everyone believed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a terrorist attack. You think if the buildings had come down in a huge explosion people wouldn't think, 'terror'? "Not in the same way. They needed the spectacle."

Why is it so hard to believe that when you kick people around for so long, destroy their countries and kill their children, eventually someone will kick back? "Sure they'll want to, but they couldn't have done this. You've just got to do the research." There were lots of references to "people in caves" who couldn't possibly have pulled something like this off. Only America, only the most powerful nation on earth, could do something so big.

And here both articles taken from the profoundly leftwing counterpunch website.

miju

Diogenes wrote:

Nearly a month and no sign of tunaman posting new "evidence"

I'm about ready to call this thread done and in favour of the forces of rationality and common sense.

this for when/if you come back diogenes , stop baiting posters

secondly you might think this whole thing is done and dusted FORTUNATELY there's a massively daily growing ground swell in the US that begs to differ that increasingly becoming known as the 9/11 Truth Movement

Obviously, he would put the explosives on one or more floors as close as possible to the planned impact level

why? paying close attention to the whole tube reasoning below

"2. It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert would time his surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the aircraft impact. He couldn't possibly be absolutely certain that the impact fires would even last an hour. Quite the opposite: to mask the booster explosions, he'd time them to follow right on the heels of the impact.

i love the power of words and how they can be interpreted , jesus they should try get some facts straight if they are going refute something what weight does the rest of thir reasoning hold if they cant even understand it was 1 hour not hours after the airplane impact

"3. To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges, charges that are large enough to do a lot more than emit the "puffs of smoke" cited as evidence for the explosives hypothesis. I've seen both live and filmed explosive building demolitions. Each explosion is accompanied by a very visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke and dust. Just that fact alone makes the explosives hypothesis untenable; no demolitions expert in the world would be willing to promise his client that he could bring down a tall building with explosions guaranteed to be indistinguishable from the effects of an aircraft impact."

but yet this seems like a contradiction of the previous statement

"The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow. Tubes can be very efficient structures, strong and economical. The Trade Center tubes effectively resisted vertical loads, wind loads and vibrations and could probably have done very well against earthquakes. However, the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength.

cockmynut

bonkey wrote:

In other news, Fetzer and Jones appear to be having a bit of a falling out.

It seems to be over Jones' "adoption" of an energy-beam-weapons-did-it theory, and Fetzer pointing out the holes in such a notion.

I'll see if I can dig up links, but I think they posted some open letters at each other over on Scholars.

Actually it's the other way round. Jones does not want to consider any theories which cannot be explained scientifically, such as controlled demolition. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have been pushing the space-beam theory, which Fetzer has now jumped on the bandwagon of, so myself and I think most of the other members of Scholars have either left or support Jones.

whoever wrote:

"The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow. Tubes can be very efficient structures, strong and economical. The Trade Center tubes effectively resisted vertical loads, wind loads and vibrations and could probably have done very well against earthquakes. However, the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength.

Wrong. The layman's description is a "tube within a tube" but, conveniently enough, most official diagrams which purport to explain the collapses to the ignorant masses show the towers as either hollow or with a stack of concrete slabs for a core. This ignores the forty-seven steel core colums, intercrossing trusses, etc.

Diogenes wrote:

I think you've got it completely wrong. I would consider myself, definetly bonkey as well as people who have issues with the offical story. I would suspect oscarbravo and civdef would also be in the same boat as well. My concerns are about intelligence failures in the years and months leading up to 9/11, and the behaviour of the US government in the direct aftermath. I feel that delusional conspiracy theorists, make it difficult for people in search of the truth, by mudding the waters with this nonsense about no planes and holographic missiles.

Nice job on pulling a Popular Mechanics and lumping us all together. I know no-planers and people who believe in the holographic missiles theories. They're idiots. I also have serious problems with people who say that a missile hit the Pentagon. People like Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones are taking this whole thing seriously and trying to do a scientific investigation of what happened. Morgan Reynolds and the no-planers do nothing but magically create extra fuel to put on the "OMFG LOL INSANE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ROFLMAO1!11!!!" fire.

bonkey

cockmynut wrote:

Nice job on pulling a Popular Mechanics and lumping us all together.

Well, to be fair, I don't think there's a single pro-conspiracy poster in this entire thread who has made clear what exactly the conspiracy they believe in is.

On the contrary, there's been no shortage of people linking to multilpe "interesting" videos, all of which are inconsistent with each other.

The general consensus appears to be somewhere along the line of "I'm not enturely sure of the details, or who did what, but the Government did it and with more than just planes." Indeed, I've yet to encounter two dissenters who hold the same beliefs....but they will happily ignore that each is undermining the other and team up to denounce anything which they can agree is wrong.

People like Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones are taking this whole thing seriously and trying to do a scientific investigation of what happened.

I would argue that this is not the case, but I would agree that they are among the more credible of the dissenting voices.

May I also say that I'm glad you dismiss the more crazy-theory-supporters as idiots, rather than as "disinfo agents" or some such tosh.

Diogenes

secondly you might think this whole thing is done and dusted FORTUNATELY there's a massively daily growing ground swell in the US that begs to differ that increasingly becoming known as the 9/11 Truth Movement

The civil rights movement was a movement. Equal rights was a movment a bunch of guys squabbling on the internet isn't a movement.

Look at this movements leaders, Fetzer with his beam weapons. Avery constantly having to re-edit his documentary to remove yet another glaring factual inaccuarcy. Jones, forced into early retirement as other members of his own department ridiculed his paper, and Tarpley a sock puppet for anti semitic fascist La Rouche.

why? paying close attention to the whole tube reasoning below

Um because the collaspe has to start where the planes struck. It wouldn't make sense for the plane to hit the 55 floor but the collaspe to start on the 35th. Now would it?

i love the power of words and how they can be interpreted , jesus they should try get some facts straight if they are going refute something what weight does the rest of thir reasoning hold if they cant even understand it was 1 hour not hours after the airplane impact

Um Muji The North tower was hit at 9:03 am, but collasped at 10:28. Thats more than an hour, it's grammatically accuratte, and for breavity it can be shorted to "hours".

But way to nitpick and miss the point, that what the article is saying that it would be difficult or impossible to have uncontrolled fires raging across floor, and still ensure any explosives or charges would still work.

but yet this seems like a contradiction of the previous statement

How does one contradict the other? One is a description of the structure of the towers, the other is a statement that no Demolitions expert could pull off such a CD.

cockmynut wrote:

Nice job on pulling a Popular Mechanics and lumping us all together

In fairness not one CT has come onto this thread and explained "this is what I think happened" so lumping them all together seems pretty okay.

Diogenes

24 October 1998, the World Record was set for the tallest building ever brought down by controlled demolition.
It was the J L Hudson Building in Detroit, Michigan.

Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

J L Hudson Building:
439 feet high
2.2 million square feet

Preparation took seven months. The interior was completely gutted. The two basement levels had to be filled with dirt. The perimeter basement walls were bermed. The steel structural columns were torch-cut. Only then were they able to start setting the charges.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Sourced from the above link.

Now let's take a look at the WTC buildings:

WTC 1:
1,368 feet
3.8 million square feet

WTC 2:
1,362 feet
3.8 million square feet

WTC 7:
570 feet
1,868,000 square feet

WTC 1, 2 and 7 were occupied around the clock. There were walls, desks, chairs, filing cabinets, computers, people, etc. And to top it off, the majority of the structural steel was on the outside of the building. There was no way to access them with cutting torches without being seen. There was also no way to plant thermite or thermate or nanothermite devices unobserved. No one has ever come forward, claiming that in the days preceding 11 September, they saw climbers on the outsides of these buildings, and no mystery devices were ever reported being seen.

As noted in the J L Hudson demolition, over seven miles of detonation cord was used, to wire over 2,700 lbs of explosive, in over 4,100 separate charges, with over 4,500 delays.

- The combined height of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is over 7.5 times the height of the Hudson building.

- The combined area of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is over 4.3 times the area of the Hudson building.

So I ask anyone who promotes the 'controlled demolition' theory to provide some hard numbers:

- How much explosive was used to bring down those three buildings?

- How many separate charges were required?

- How many non-electric delays were required?

- Where was all this blasting equipment hidden, along with approximately 30 (4.3X) to 52 (7.5X) miles of detonation cord?

- How were charges set on the structural steel on the outsides of the buildings without being detected?

miju

personally , i'm undecided on the whole controlled demolition thing but for the sake of debate i'll counter your post

Diogenes wrote:

WTC 1, 2 and 7 were occupied around the clock. There were walls, desks, chairs, filing cabinets, computers, people, etc.

none of which added any structural integrity to WTC's 1+2 what so ever , don't forget of course that they was renovation work as well as the odd power cut in the WTC's 1+2 as well

Diogenes wrote:

- The combined height of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is over 7.5 times the height of the Hudson building.

- The combined area of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is over 4.3 times the area of the Hudson building.

both of which are completely irrelevant factoids as the WTC's were two completey seperate buildings apart from the fact that the Hudson buklding was built using a completely different construction process than WTC's 1+2.

for example the hudson building was built over a total period of 35 years and 12 seperate statges

and the reason it took them so long to blow the Hudson building was because they had no structural drawings available for that building so it took 21 people 3 months to complete a structural analysis and then another 4 months to "prep" the building due to

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807 wrote:

defied commercially available shaped charge technology.

hence the whole beam cutting , after which it took them only 24 days to plant the explosives with the reason for so many charges simply being

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807 wrote:

CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

so we compare a building

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807 wrote:

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs,

to one that was constructed in record time and was built to be flexible , hardly a fair comparison now is it.

so just to entertain other posters on this thread Diogenes i feel a good question at this point would be that given the official pancaking theory given by the investigation, how difficult would it be to place some well placed charges across say maybe 9 levels of the building knowing the pancaking would occur????????

Diogenes

miju wrote:

none of which added any structural integrity to WTC's 1+2 what so ever ,

Actually it does. The buildings were full of people and material, people who would have noticed the cutting and placing of charges.

don't forget of course that they was renovation work as well as the odd power cut in the WTC's 1+2 as well

Really? Muji I think we've offically laid that Scott Forbes nonsense to rest now on this thread already. In case you missed it one or two employee's have claimed there were power cuts, and these have never been substantiated.

both of which are completely irrelevant factoids as the WTC's were two completey seperate buildings apart from the fact that the Hudson buklding was built using a completely different construction process than WTC's 1+2.

Exactly a process which meant alot of the supports were on the exterior of the building, and there's no evidence of anyone cutting them.

for example the hudson building was built over a total period of 35 years and 12 seperate statges

Your point being?

and the reason it took them so long to blow the Hudson building was because they had no structural drawings available for that building so it took 21 people 3 months to complete a structural analysis

and then another 4 months to "prep" the building due to

Four months, four months of cutting. Think someone would have noticed that someone was doing at least what twice that amount of work, on the twin towers and WTC7?

hence the whole beam cutting , after which it took them only 24 days to plant the explosives with the reason for so many charges simply being

I would imagine the team who blew up the WTC would have been concerned about keeping the charges small, so y'know, no one would notice them.

Your point is moot, it would have taken months of cutting to prepare the three buildings, months of laying charges, and in that time, no one noticed?????

so we compare a building



to one that was constructed in record time and was built to be flexible , hardly a fair comparison now is it.

it's the best comparsion we have since its the largestbuilding ever CD'd.

Your claims that it would have been easier to set up the WTC for a CD fall flat when you consider the level of structural support on the exterior of the building. Seeing as there are no photos of 90 scaffolding and guys cutting the exterior supports, in the weeks preceding the attack, we can assume that they were intact.

so just to entertain other posters on this thread Diogenes i feel a good question at this point would be that given the official pancaking theory given by the investigation, how difficult would it be to place some well placed charges across say maybe 9 levels of the building knowing the pancaking would occur????????

I defy you to find a CD expert who would be confident that;

A) his charges would maintain integrity and wiring wouldn't be affected by a 500mph fireball striking where they are set up.

That such a limited amount of charges in the internal structure of a building that is primarily supported by exterior columns holding virtually all lateral loads would have any real effect.

miju

Diogenes wrote:

Actually it does. The buildings were full of people and material, people who would have noticed the cutting and placing of charges.

but that still doesnt change the fact they add nothing to the structural integreity of the building

Diogenes wrote:

Exactly a process which meant alot of the supports were on the exterior of the building, and there's no evidence of anyone cutting them.

Four months, four months of cutting. Think someone would have noticed that someone was doing at least what twice that amount of work, on the twin towers and WTC7?

how do you know it would have been twice the work , given the way the Hudson building was constructed in a way that was completely different to WTC's, they are different buildings and comparisons cannot be drawn between the two at all

Diogenes wrote:

Seeing as there are no photos of 90 scaffolding and guys cutting the exterior supports, in the weeks preceding the attack, we can assume that they were intact.

so the inner core did nothing for the over all structural itegrity of the building then? seems like they spent a whole load of money on steel for nothing then

Diogenes wrote:

Your point is moot, it would have taken months of cutting to prepare the three buildings, months of laying charges, and in that time, no one noticed?????

and your a demolition expert all of a sudden now?

Diogenes wrote:

it's the best comparsion we have since its the largestbuilding ever CD'd.

but yet comparisons to other buildings which have burned for much longer and remained structurally intact are rubbished :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote:

Your claims that it would have been easier to set up the WTC for a CD fall flat when you consider the level of structural support on the exterior of the building. Seeing as there are no photos of 90 scaffolding and guys cutting the exterior supports, in the weeks preceding the attack, we can assume that they were intact.

i didn't claim it would be easier , nor did I claim it was in the weeks leading up to the attack god knows how long any charges could have been sitting there.

Diogenes wrote:

I defy you to find a CD expert who would be confident that;

A) his charges would maintain integrity and wiring wouldn't be affected by a 500mph fireball striking where they are set up.

That such a limited amount of charges in the internal structure of a building that is primarily supported by exterior columns holding virtually all lateral loads would have any real effect.

that doesn't answer my question about the pancaking CD method , i asked you the question please prove otherwise

Diogenes

miju wrote:

but that still doesnt change the fact they add nothing to the structural integreity of the building

Again thats irrelvent, doing all this among thousands of people and no one noticing?

how do you know it would have been twice the work , given the way the Hudson building was constructed in a way that was completely different to WTC's, they are different buildings and comparisons cannot be drawn between the two at all

Well yes they can they're both large skyscrapers, with the twin towers over twice the size of the Hudson building. Logistically the task of bringing all that equipment, preparation etc, would take at least twice as much time, to carry set up etc. Saying it would take twice as long is an incredibly conservative estimate.

so the inner core did nothing for the over all structural itegrity of the building then? seems like they spent a whole load of money on steel for nothing then

There was also hortizontel load. Read any, credible, article on the WTC and you will see that the primary support for the vertical load was the exterior supports.

Seeing as you spend so much time listening and watching Alex Jones' guff perhaps you'd spend just a short while reading the flip side of the discussion.
Here's a credible layman's discussion on the CD theory
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

and your a demolition expert all of a sudden now?

hey show me a demolitions expert who believes in the CD theory. :rolleyes:

but yet comparisons to other buildings which have burned for much longer and remained structurally intact are rubbished :rolleyes:

And were any of those building hit by a speeding passenger jet travelling at 500mph?

i didn't claim it would be easier , nor did I claim it was in the weeks leading up to the attack god knows how long any charges could have been sitting there.

Again the longer you leave the charges and the miles of wiring hooking them up, the greater the probability they will be discovered. Not to mention the cutting that needs to take place, before the charges are put in place.

that doesn't answer my question about the pancaking CD method , i asked you the question please prove otherwise

Er, no. I'd suggest that you firstly come up with some evidence that charges were in place over 9 floors. Or Indeed that such a small set of charges over such a small proportion of the building could bring the rest of it down. Furthermore some credible evidence that such charges could remain intact after being hit with a fireball. Please.

See there's little point trying to prove something didn't happen, you may as well say "a giant invisible unicorn kicked down the towers", and demand I prove otherwise.

miju

for starters if you re-read my initial post i'm not saying the charges were or were not in the WTC as i'm undecided on that matter i was merely pointing out some obvious flaws in your post in the interests of debate

Diogenes wrote:

Er, no. I'd suggest that you firstly come up with some evidence that charges were in place over 9 floors. Or Indeed that such a small set of charges over such a small proportion of the building could bring the rest of it down. Furthermore some credible evidence that such charges could remain intact after being hit with a fireball. Please.

my point and question still stands that you are unable to answer , the demolition job (if it was that) is entirely plausible if the official pan caking theory slant is put on it , would be alot less work

Diogenes wrote:

See there's little point trying to prove something didn't happen, you may as well say "a giant invisible unicorn kicked down the towers", and demand I prove otherwise.

****e attempt at humor aside of course there is that's whole point of debunking in the first place which i assume your trying to do (and if your not then your just trolling),

i've given a plausible possible theory on how a CD of WTC 1+2 could have happened following the official explanation rather than create an entirely new one

Diogenes wrote:

Well yes they can they're both large skyscrapers, with the twin towers over twice the size of the Hudson building. Logistically the task of bringing all that equipment, preparation etc, would take at least twice as much time, to carry set up etc. Saying it would take twice as long is an incredibly conservative estimate.

no they can't , every building has different structural weaknesses and thus each is wired differently , so AGAIN if we're to go with the pancaking theory which could obviously bring down floors below it which were not damaged / weakened by fire why is it so impossible that a CD along the same line occured



especially when you bear in mind one of the golden rules of CD's it's not how or when the building fails but where it fails

while we're on this point though it's entirely plausible that IF thermite was used in WTC 1+2 it takes a temp of approx 4000 degrees to ignite it which is why they use magnesium to ignite it , what was the offical temp given that WTC 1+2 burned at again?

Diogenes wrote:

There was also hortizontel load. Read any, credible, article on the WTC and you will see that the primary support for the vertical load was the exterior supports.

something i'm not disputing but that wasn't my point in the first place

Diogenes wrote:

Seeing as you spend so much time listening and watching Alex Jones' guff perhaps you'd spend just a short while reading the flip side of the discussion.

so you know me personally now? in future keep personal assumptions out of the thread please

oscarBravo

miju wrote:

and your a demolition expert all of a sudden now?

civdef is (as I understand it) a civil engineer with specialist knowledge in the field of what causes buildings to fall down, and how to prevent them from collapsing due to fire damage (correct me if I've misrepresented you, civdef). He's completely rubbished the CD theory.

oscarBravo

miju wrote:

i've given a plausible possible theory on how a CD of WTC 1+2 could have happened following the official explanation rather than create an entirely new one

Your "plausible" theory omits the rather important question of who exactly wired the building for demolition, how they did it without being noticed, when it was done, and - probably most importantly - why.

As theories go, it's pretty thin.

miju

oscarbravo , just so we're clear on this i don't believe / nor disbelieve the official story nor the CT theory either i'm still trying to make up my mind on that one

the post was in reply to someone saying it would take twice the work while i was reasoning that it would not neccessarily

oscarBravo

Fair enough, but it's unreasonable to suggest that it would take less work, and I've yet to hear of how a CD of a massive skyscraper could be carried out covertly.

Diogenes

miju wrote:

for starters if you re-read my initial post i'm not saying the charges were or were not in the WTC as i'm undecided on that matter i was merely pointing out some obvious flaws in your post in the interests of debate

I really don't think you have.

my point and question still stands that you are unable to answer , the demolition job (if it was that) is entirely plausible if the official pan caking theory slant is put on it , would be alot less work

Sorry muji you've presented no evidence to support your claim. You've asked a question;

muji wrote:

so just to entertain other posters on this thread Diogenes i feel a good question at this point would be that given the official pancaking theory given by the investigation, how difficult would it be to place some well placed charges across say maybe 9 levels of the building knowing the pancaking would occur????????

You've offered no evidence that this would bring down the rest of the building, nor any evidence that the charges were in place.

****e attempt at humor aside of course there is that's whole point of debunking in the first place which i assume your trying to do (and if your not then your just trolling),

I'm sorry? I'm trolling? You're the one playing "devils advocate" and demanding I jump through your hoops, if anyone is trolling on this thread it's you.

You're asking me to debunk a question. I suggest you brush up on your critical thinking

i've given a plausible possible theory on how a CD of WTC 1+2 could have happened following the official explanation rather than create an entirely new one

Again no muji you've haven't offered a theory you've asked a question. You've presented at best, a guess, or hunch, you've offered nothing demostrable to support your assertion. My unicorn "****e attempt at humour" (or more accurately my unicorn analogy) still stands. Unless you offer some kind of evidence to back up your assertion.

no they can't , every building has different structural weaknesses and thus each is wired differently ,

What exactly do you mean by wired?

so AGAIN if we're to go with the pancaking theory which could obviously bring down floors below it which were not damaged / weakened by fire why is it so impossible that a CD along the same line occured

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just pointing out that you've not even attempted to prove it is possible.

especially when you bear in mind one of the golden rules of CD's it's not how or when the building fails but where it fails

However in this case it was absolutely necessary for it to fail where the planes it the building.

while we're on this point though it's entirely plausible that IF thermite was used in WTC 1+2 it takes a temp of approx 4000 degrees to ignite it which is why they use magnesium to ignite it , what was the offical temp given that WTC 1+2 burned at again?

The Temperature at what point?

You do also realise that thermite burns down not across, so it cannot be used to cut the columns, and has never been used in a demolition ever?

something i'm not disputing but that wasn't my point in the first place

What was your point? Again the majority of the load was the exterior columns, so again, why should I disprove that charges would have brought down nine floors when there's not a shred of evidence charges were in place on the vertical load bearing columns.

so you know me personally now? in future keep personal assumptions out of the thread please

Siryessir!

billy the squid

Again no muji you've haven't offered a theory you've asked a question. You've presented at best, a guess, or hunch, you've offered nothing demostrable to support your assertion. My unicorn "****e attempt at humour" (or more accurately my unicorn analogy) still stands. Unless you offer some kind of evidence to back up your assertion.

What is the difference between a theory and a guess?

Are not all theories guesses anyway? I mean, Einstein says we will never travel at the speed of light as it is physically impossible, but how does he know that, has he tried it? of course not. He is guessing,

bonkey

billy the squid wrote:

What is the difference between a theory and a guess?

Rather than answer that, may I instead suggest that anyone who cannot distinguish between the two is neither in a position to meaningfully criticise scientific research nor to expect their alternatives to be taken credibly by the scientific community.

Note - I realise fully that you are asking the question, but are not the one presenting explanations of what happened at the moment.

I am, rather, suggesting that the question you ask is a typical one used to undermine scientific research and/or blur the distinctions in the scientific quality of various explanations.

Are not all theories guesses anyway?

But all guesses are not theories.

I mean, Einstein says we will never travel at the speed of light as it is physically impossible, but how does he know that, has he tried it? of course not. He is guessing,

If Einstein said that, I'm reasonably sure that if pushed on the issue he would have said that it is theoretically impossible, not physically impossible.

He maintained his theories were correct, sure, but always admitted that they could be disproven by a single irrefutable counter-example.

oscarBravo

billy the squid wrote:

What is the difference between a theory and a guess?

That depends on whether it's a conspiracy theory or a scientific theory.

billy the squid wrote:

Are not all theories guesses anyway? I mean, Einstein says we will never travel at the speed of light as it is physically impossible, but how does he know that, has he tried it? of course not. He is guessing,

That's a scientific theory. Part of the process is to create a series of falsifiable hypotheses: if my theory is correct, then under a given set of circumstances the following observable and measurable conclusions should follow. If those conclusions are not observed, or are different from those predicted by the theory, then the theory is false.

A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is a guess. It does not rely on logic, science, or observable fact.

Diogenes

billy the squid wrote:

What is the difference between a theory and a guess?

Are not all theories guesses anyway? I mean, Einstein says we will never travel at the speed of light as it is physically impossible, but how does he know that, has he tried it? of course not. He is guessing,

Billy, Einstein didn't just one day decide, that we couldn't travel at the speed of light. He worked from a mathetical framework, from a series of provable hypotheses.

In scientific terms a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. Take your example. When an object (say a rocketship) is traveling at very large speeds (= a considerable fraction of the speed of light), then an additional expenditure of energy will not result in as large an increase in speed as it would have at lower speeds. In other words, we have to expend quite a bit of energy to increase the speed by only a little bit, if the rocket ship is already traveling fast. If the rocket ship is traveling at 95% of the speed of light, a trememdous amount of energy will be necessary to make it travel at 96% the speed of light. In trying to make it travel at the speed of light, we would need to expend an infinite amount of energy --- in other words, we can't make it travel at the speed of light.

This is a theory that is mathetically provable.

Now how does muji's guess differ from a theory. Well he presented no evidence to support his "guess". He offers no basis to support it. He merely demands that I debunk it. I cannot disprove what hasn't even been attempted to be proven. I can merely point out the general flaws in a such a loose guess.

It's as if I announced that "Dinosaurs spoke French" or "Juluis Caeser was a crossdresser" and rather than present anything to prove it, I merely expected you to disprove it. It's fantastically difficult.

The NIST has a theory. Conspiracy theorists on this forum don't have a theory, they just seem to have questions with the offical story, yet seem willing to ignore the problems that arise when you examine these questions.

But hey. I'm the one who's "trolling" here.

civdef

civdef is (as I understand it) a civil engineer with specialist knowledge in the field of what causes buildings to fall down, and how to prevent them from collapsing due to fire damage (correct me if I've misrepresented you, civdef).

I'm a fire safety engineer (it's one of the rarer types), our main area of interest is how fire spreads, kills people and causes buildings to collapse, with the intention of preventing or delaying this for as long as possible. Hence my interest in the WTC collapses.

oscarBravo

Thanks for the clarification. Would it be fair to say that you probably know more than anyone else on this thread what makes buildings fall down?

Diogenes

oscarBravo wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. Would it be fair to say that you probably know more than anyone else on this thread what makes buildings fall down?

Or would it be fair to say that civdef know's more than 99%* of all conspiracy theorists about what makes buildings fall down?


*1% margin of error in this made up statistic.

civdef

I'm not trying to paint myself as the pro from Dover here - I wouldn't be as well up on the mechanics of building collapse as a practicing structural engineer (though I have studied structural failure of buildings). There are also fire engineers with decades more of experience who I'd defer to. I've seen neither category posting here

I haven't heard of any credible engineers supporting controlled demolition as a theory either.

Diogenes

civdef wrote:

I'm not trying to paint myself as the pro from Dover here - I wouldn't be as well up on the mechanics of building collapse as a practicing structural engineer (though I have studied structural failure of buildings). There are also fire engineers with decades more of experience who I'd defer to. I've seen neither category posting here

I haven't heard of any credible engineers supporting controlled demolition as a theory either.

Well no civdef, but I think the way tunaman attacked you on this thread is incredibly offensive and insulting.

You're clearly more experienced and qualified than anyone else posting on this thread, so far, on the issues of structural damage and fire, and that should be respected. And your opinion on this should be respected. So would, their be any credence to muji's "guess".

miju

diogenes your thinly veiled attempts are not going un-noticed by me or billy the squid , if you still have an issue take it to feedback as instructed , back on topic

Diogenes

miju wrote:

diogenes your thinly veiled attempts are not going un-noticed by me or billy the squid , if you still have an issue take it to feedback as instructed , back on topic

Thinly veiled attempts...

My thinly veiled attempts at...what?

Could you please spell out what you are suggesting muji, please I'm tried of trying to figure out yourself and billy's inneundo.

This is the second time today I've recieved a warning, for, er, something, something that neither yourself or billy have bothered to elaborate on. If I'm being accused of something please spit it out and make the accusation, otherwise please stop making thinly veiled threats that I stop doing something that you both refuse to elaborate on.

It's intimidation, pure and simple, and I'm left having to guess, what I can, or cannot say, in case you ban me on whim again. So please, a little clarity. What am I being cautioned here for?

If it's the 99% claim, it's an exaggeration but not really by any significant degree. The amount of structural engineers, architects, pilots, physicists, etc that agree with the theories are a drop in the ocean in the scale of how vast their communities are. Hundreds of thousands of structural engineers, are out there, (yet what not, one?) Buy the CT. My statistic may be made up but that doesn't mean its not plausible yardstick of the weight of disbelieve among the proper scientific community.

Diogenes

miju, your claim that

miju wrote:

so just to entertain other posters on this thread Diogenes i feel a good question at this point would be that given the official pancaking theory given by the investigation, how difficult would it be to place some well placed charges across say maybe 9 levels of the building knowing the pancaking would occur????????

Is utterly false

NIST FAQ wrote:

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

Would it kill you to read the offical theory or at least the FAQ before telling us what the offical theory is.

So if we have your "potential probably theory" clear...

You've presented no evidence the charges were in place.

And the offical theory discredits your claim that they would bring down the rest of the structure, through "pancaking" so ipso facto, whats left to debunk?

miju

been a long while since reading that actually and i've obviously blended both official theory and ct from the myriad of sites i've visited (ct and debunker alike) over time.

anyways hands up , my theory falls flat on its face according to NIST thats the beauty of theories though i suppose

billy the squid

This is the second time today I've recieved a warning, for, er, something, something that neither yourself or billy have bothered to elaborate on. If I'm being accused of something please spit it out and make the accusation, otherwise please stop making thinly veiled threats that I stop doing something that you both refuse to elaborate on.

Let me spell it out for you. Continuing your gripe with the moderators of the forum and taking threads off topic in the process.

This is strike two

trust me, you will not like what happens after strike three. Now stay on topic and take your gripes to the more appropriate places, I have already told you were these places are.

UnHolyMoe

At the end of the day the only thing that verify what really collapsed the buildings would be to forensically test the debris. But unfortuantely the crime scene evidence was quickly gathered up and destroyed. I wonder why?

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

At the end of the day the only thing that verify what really collapsed the buildings would be to forensically test the debris. But unfortuantely the crime scene evidence was quickly gathered up and destroyed. I wonder why?

As of March 2006, there was still debry that needed cleaning up, so thats pretty slow by anyones standards.

Also what forensic tests would satisfy you, and what exactly are you looking for?

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

Also what forensic tests would satisfy you, and what exactly are you looking for?

Explosive residues.

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

Explosive residues.

And what would be the chemcial properties of such a residue?

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

And what would be the chemcial properties of such a residue?

Have some video with great info on that topic (see below - jump to 49 mins for specifics asked above)

I hope it's OK to post video links here? Does anyone know if this is a problem?
If it is a problem, please let me KNOW and I'll remove them immediately.

I was banned without ANY warning or email / PM etc from Politics.ie for posting - (reason given was using links to Google video) on the subject of 9/11 and particularly the question above about physical evidence. Other users at the computer Lab asking about it were also banned without ever posting any video links. The content was completely stripped from my posts.

The atmosphere here does seem a lot more open minded! Maybe I started in the wrong place. Anyway....

[Edited] copy " Steven E Jones " into Google Video - select first result

BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Steven E Jones presents his presentation on the collapse of WTC Buildings 1,2, ... all » and 7 on 9/11. A very informative and scientific presentation that raises serious questions about the official account of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7

Hoping for a civil, informed and intelligent debate about the subject
FlyingFish

Nick_oliveri

Flyingfish wrote:

I hope it's OK to post video links here? Does anyone know if this is a problem?

Oh it can be a problem alright!!

Flyingfish wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=Steven+E+Jones
Hoping for a civil, informed and intelligent debate about the subject
FlyingFish

Theres been plenty of debate about it. Heres hoping the link you posted isn't one has has been posted or linked to before.

Flyingfish

Thanks for the reply nick!

What's is the problem with video links? Stress on the server or something like that?

OK...Instead from now on I'll give the search query text and people can copy and paste it into google video themselves. I have some great info to post.

Worth mentioning that some (only some) of my posts on politics.ie were stripped out even some posts without any video links. Think the moderator Andrew is not what you might call open minded on the matter

billy the squid

Your gripes with the moderators of politics.ie do not belong here.

As for video links, they may have been removed due to possible copywrite infringement.

Flyingfish

OK! Back to topic.....

Oracle

Great that this sticky is here, I must admit I was very sceptical at first about anything other than two planes hitting the twin towers. But since watching my first video on Google I've become convinced it was a massive cover-up. In fact I remember distinctly on the day of 9-11 thinking to myself, that building looks like it's being demolished with explosives but convincing myself otherwise because of the shocking media coverage and pictures of the actual "aircraft".

I still have a few unanswered questions about the conspiracy theory. For example, if something other than an aircraft hit the towers where are the people who boarded the original flight? If something other than an aircraft hit the pentagon where are the people who boarded that original flight? What about the flight crew and the actual aircraft? Where are they? Were the airlines involved, did they know anything? If they were that would mean the airports had to have known something, or noticed something unusual. I haven't seen much on these questions but I'm sure there are answers.

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Steven E Jones

Retired physics professor actually. And his field was cold fusion not pratical physics like civil engineering. Jone's own department rubbished his paper, and he was critictised by nearly every HoD in the physics department. Jones was placed on suspended academic leave for a number of months, while his own department examined his paper, a paper I might add that
Jones did not present for peer review in any major physics or engineering journal.


Jones has quietly resigned, a result that pleases both parties, any academic review of his case would put his paper under intense spotlight from the world of physics, which it cannot survive. And BYU get rid of Jones, before anyone asks, "How did you make that ninny a head of department?