911 revisited

Penn

moviesrme wrote: »

I don't know anything about an internal collapse of wtc7 first. I try to limit myself to more visual proofs as how can I have any confidence in statements generally. He said she said etc.

I don't want to get to much into the technical details of structural members etc. because I no nothing about it. I am out of my depth. All I am saying is I watched Gages documentary and I basically agree with everytihng he says. I like the approach he takes. Start with the facts, build a case and arrive at a conclusion. All he is calling for is a thorough investigation. He is not saying Bush did it or whatever.

I know you can't see a visual collapse per se, but the kink in the roof could only appear if the steel members supporting that area collapsed, which would be an internal collapse. With no fires and probably no structural damage directly below the roof, it is most likely that the members below the roof collapsed due to the members below them collapsing. In essence, the kink in the roof was probably caused by the steel columns and beams supporting it being dragged down by the floors below.

I think there were also a few puffs of smoke and debris coming out from windows before the kink appeared. This would be explained by the floors internally collapsing, and the pressure of floors falling onto floors breaking the windows and expelling the dust and debris.

But I agree, this is basically my own assumptions as a structural engineer. I'm nowhere near as qualified as Richard Gage or others, but this is just the most likely explanation to me.

moviesrme

To paddyirishman85:
Thank you for the nice reply. I mean that. The tone is good. Sometimes these discussions can be quite tetchy and quite unenjoyable for it.

To your substantive point: You may well be correct. I really don't know.

I just find Gage very compelling. You know that feeling when you just engage with a mind and can almost tell what he's going to say next because you're on the same wavelength. I'm thinking "Ah but what about..." and he answers it a few seconds later. It's only my view though and it may not be correct.

Penn

moviesrme wrote: »

To paddyirishman85:
Thank you for the nice reply. I mean that. The tone is good. Sometimes these discussions can be quite tetchy and quite unenjoyable for it.

To your substantive point: You may well be correct. I really don't know.

I just find Gage very compelling. You know that feeling when you just engage with a mind and can almost tell what he's going to say next because you're on the same wavelength. I'm thinking "Ah but what about..." and he answers it a few seconds later. It's only my view though and it may not be correct.

I know what you mean. When I first saw Loose Change, it blew my mind. I couldn't believe that the evidence was so clear and obvious. Yet when I started looking up more evidence and learnt more about various topics, I changed my mind. It was just that Loose Change was so compelling to watch that I believed it.

In a way, its all irrelevant. So many people believe so many things. If you're happy in your beliefs, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are. All that matters is that you're happy.

meglome

Documentary's that tell me events are connected without explaining how they are connected and ones that tell me there can be only one interpretation of events when clearly there can be others make me suspicious of their motives. This is how I felt about loose change. It made some good points which made me wonder so I decided to go and check. The more I checked the more I found wrong with it.

I was shocked about 911 just like everyone else was. But it was a little too easy to say these planes couldn't have caused the buildings to collapse. Personally I had no frame of reference and I was fairly sure that most other people didn't either. So how could they say it couldn't have happened as was officially reported.

So I'd break down my views of 911 into these categories...

• Fits the official accounts. 70%
• Not enough information to really draw a conclusion. 20%
• Could be suspicious but lacks further info. 10%

So while I can't rule out some conspiracy there just isn't really evidence of one and given eight years have passed I think the odds of a big conspiracy here are pretty small.

moviesrme

I like the way meglome has given a breakdown of his state of mind on 911. I would be more or less the opposite:

Conspiracy: 70%
Confused: 20%
Official: 10%

Now, I'd like to try a little exercise. Take for example the "molten metal" assertion of Gage. I think if this is the case then it pretty much blows the case wide open. How could you have it present there with only fire?

Gages' case:
(1) He's an architect of 20 years standing and believes it to be so. In his documentary at one point he almost breaks down and cries. He believes it.
(2) Leslie Robertson (original designer of exterior tube of towers) say he saw the molten metal at the site of the wtc. Mark Loiseaux (demolition expert) says he saw the molten metal at all 3 wtc sites. A fireman spoke of seeing it at the wtc. He described it as "like being in a foundry".
(3) Video evidence of molten metal dripping from one corner of one tower.
(4) NASA thermal pictures of the site show surface temps which are consistent with the kind of temps. necessary for molten metal.
(5) Video evidence of solidified pools of a rusting substance and "meteorites" at the wtc sites. The "meteorites" were a solidified conglomeration of steel/concrete and whatever else.

Gage does mention FEMA and NIST flat out deny the presence of molten metal at the wtc sites. He shows a clip of a reporter in a media meet putting the case for the presence of molten metal to the NIST guy. NIST just denied it. It was an interesting exchange. I did not believe the NIST guy.
GAGE also mentions the molten metal was not aluminium as it appears silvery when molten and does not rust when it is set. So it was not the plane or cladding aluminium.

That's all I can think of at present. ie. On this point I have nothing else to base my opinion on.
To me weighing both sides I agree heavily with Gage.

Now I am going to go off and see if I can debunk this aspect of the documentary. You can jump in or just wait for me to come back and judge the sincerity of my attempt.

Penn

moviesrme wrote: »

I like the way meglome has given a breakdown of his state of mind on 911. I would be more or less the opposite:

Conspiracy: 70%
Confused: 20%
Official: 10%

Now, I'd like to try a little exercise. Take for example the "molten metal" assertion of Gage. I think if this is the case then it pretty much blows the case wide open. How could you have it present there with only fire?

Gages' case:
(1) He's an architect of 20 years standing and believes it to be so. In his documentary at one point he almost breaks down and cries. He believes it.
(2) Leslie Robertson (original designer of exterior tube of towers) say he saw the molten metal at the site of the wtc. Mark Loiseaux (demolition expert) says he saw the molten metal at all 3 wtc sites. A fireman spoke of seeing it at the wtc. He described it as "like being in a foundry".
(3) Video evidence of molten metal dripping from one corner of one tower.
(4) NASA thermal pictures of the site show surface temps which are consistent with the kind of temps. necessary for molten metal.
(5) Video evidence of solidified pools of a rusting substance and "meteorites" at the wtc sites. The "meteorites" were a solidified conglomeration of steel/concrete and whatever else.

Gage does mention FEMA and NIST flat out deny the presence of molten metal at the wtc sites. He shows a clip of a reporter in a media meet putting the case for the presence of molten metal to the NIST guy. NIST just denied it. It was an interesting exchange. I did not believe the NIST guy.
GAGE also mentions the molten metal was not aluminium as it appears silvery when molten and does not rust when it is set. So it was not the plane or cladding aluminium.

That's all I can think of at present. ie. On this point I have nothing else to base my opinion on.
To me weighing both sides I agree heavily with Gage.

Now I am going to go off and see if I can debunk this aspect of the documentary. You can jump in or just wait for me to come back and judge the sincerity of my attempt.

NIST have never denied molten metal at WTC

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

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

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

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

moviesrme

To paddyirishman85:
yes, I accept what you say fully. I was just about to post the exact link you posted from "debunking 911". I have just finished reading it. A lot of it is bitching but the section from Stephen D. Chastain managed not only to cause doubt in me but to convince me Chastain is probably correct. So I scrub the dripping molten steel from my previous post as solidly debunked. I mean the video/ photos of it dripping from the windows prior to collapse.

moviesrme

Actually points 1, 2, 3 are at this point effictively debunked as all the later "molten steel" could have been this aluninium oxide mixed stuff. The whole building was clad with aluminium (I think from memory) so there was plenty there. I say in this case sufficient doubt exists to render the points moot and therefore not useful in any proof.

At this point after 1 hour what appeared very solid now appears far less so. Just shows how deceptive this stuff can be.

Penn

The debunking911.com site is very good, and for most parts they provide links as to where they got their information, for double checking. A lot of it can be bitchy though, particularly with regards to Loose Change and Alex Jones. But their evidence speaks for itself.

With pretty much everything, both sides can put up very good arguments, deliver their points strongly and make you believe exactly what they are saying. Only thing you can do is look solely at the facts and decide for yourself.

Happy hunting

moviesrme

Yeah, but you know what, in regards to Alex Jones I don't really blame them. He comes across as boorish and deserves the same back I suppose.

I am feeling somewhat sheepish at this point. Rest assured I do not go off half cocked in my life decisions generally. I like to weigh things carefully. My interest in 911 is of a passtime nature so less rigour is applied and I think it's no harm at all to have someone change their mind on one of these threads. Usually the opposite is the case. Further entrenchment etc.
I place great faith in facts and my own opinion once I've made a decision but you've got to be able to accept new information.

bonkey

Actually...that whole "flow from the window" is one of the things that I think NIST got wrong - at least partially.

Have a look at this.

meglome

moviesrme wrote: »

Yeah, but you know what, in regards to Alex Jones I don't really blame them. He comes across as boorish and deserves the same back I suppose.

I am feeling somewhat sheepish at this point. Rest assured I do not go off half cocked in my life decisions generally. I like to weigh things carefully. My interest in 911 is of a passtime nature so less rigour is applied and I think it's no harm at all to have someone change their mind on one of these threads. Usually the opposite is the case. Further entrenchment etc.
I place great faith in facts and my own opinion once I've made a decision but you've got to be able to accept new information.

You know this is the big problem with the whole 911 debate, there are just so many sensationalist sites claiming to know the 'truth'. But when you step back and look at the minute details you keep coming back to the official reports being the most accurate. I mean if these sites are so sure of their 'truth' then why don't they have any balance, why do they misrepresent so many things, why do they misquote so many people, why are they so selective on their use of photographs, why do they connect events without ever actually being able to explain why they are connected, why do they pretend they have no agenda while at the same time making money off the whole thing. I could go on.

It's just too simple to say government bad, CT sites good. Governments are made up of thousands of ordinary people, who live ordinary lives just like the rest of us. The assumption that these people are somehow monsters that will cover up mass murder is being extremely disingenuous to these people, to say the least.

moviesrme let me make a prediction here. Each time you put forward conspiracy information you've read out there in dinterweb someone in here will be able to show you logically and using evidence that the reality just isn't the way the CT sites choose to portray it. This is no reflection on you personally, just on the level of bull**** out there. And honestly you seem to be open to listening to evidence and logic even if it doesn't fit with the views you currently hold, which IMO a real sceptic should be able to do.

An Fear Aniar

The one thing that would make me think it was not an inside job is that it would have been too risky, too elaborate. They could have got a 10 or 12 man team to plant a dirty bomb or chemical weapon, or a truck load of high explosives with similar effect.

This hypothesis, with the airplanes would require hundreds of people to be in on it - to control the airspace, secretly plant explosives in the buildings, handle the fire service, the police....

.

meglome

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The one thing that would make me think it was not an inside job is that it would have been too risky, too elaborate. They could have got a 10 or 12 man team to plant a dirty bomb or chemical weapon, or a truck load of high explosives with similar effect.

This hypothesis, with the airplanes would require hundreds of people to be in on it - to control the airspace, secretly plant explosives in the buildings, handle the fire service, the police....

My guess, when you add all the responders to the scenes, all the investigators etc you're talking in the thousands.

uprising

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The one thing that would make me think it was not an inside job is that it would have been too risky, too elaborate. They could have got a 10 or 12 man team to plant a dirty bomb or chemical weapon, or a truck load of high explosives with similar effect.

This hypothesis, with the airplanes would require hundreds of people to be in on it - to control the airspace, secretly plant explosives in the buildings, handle the fire service, the police....

.

Nobody controlled the airspace, these planes were watched, the first plane shouldn't have made it to WTC,

The members of the police and fire services have repeatedly said there were bombs in the building, most first responders are dying now from the crap in the air at ground zero, they face financial ruin trying to stay alive, another cover-up.
I think you could place the number of complicit people in the millions, that include's everybody who believes the official version yet observe the irregularities without question.

meglome

uprising wrote: »

Nobody controlled the airspace, these planes were watched, the first plane shouldn't have made it to WTC,

The members of the police and fire services have repeatedly said there were bombs in the building, most first responders are dying now from the crap in the air at ground zero, they face financial ruin trying to stay alive, another cover-up.
I think you could place the number of complicit people in the millions, that include's everybody who believes the official version yet observe the irregularities without question.

Just some general observations...

The planes had their transponders turned off which would have made them much harder to notice and track. There were over 3,000 aircraft in the skies over the US at that time.

Some people including police and fire-fighters said that they heard explosions. An explosion could be a burning photocopier blowing up, it could be lot's of things in a huge burning building, it's a big leap from there to bombs. Maybe you can explain how these 'bombs' didn't go off from the fire or planes crashing in? Why weren't the control cables cut?

I'm all for the truth, I'm a very truthful person and yet you're suggesting I'm complicit in something because I don't agree with you. See I like things like fact if I want fantasy I read a book.

Captain Furball

meglome wrote: »

Just some general observations...
I'm all for the truth, I'm a very truthful person and yet you're suggesting I'm complicit in something because I don't agree with you. See I like things like fact if I want fantasy I read a book.

If you had facts it wouldn't be a conspiracy,Hence dare I say the conspiracy....

The planes had their transponders turned off which would have made them much harder to notice and track. There were over 3,000 aircraft in the skies over the US at that time.

How many aircraft in that area? And how do radars work?

uprising

meglome wrote: »

Just some general observations...

The planes had their transponders turned off which would have made them much harder to notice and track. There were over 3,000 aircraft in the skies over the US at that time.

Some people including police and fire-fighters said that they heard explosions. An explosion could be a burning photocopier blowing up, it could be lot's of things in a huge burning building, it's a big leap from there to bombs. Maybe you can explain how these 'bombs' didn't go off from the fire or planes crashing in? Why weren't the control cables cut?

I'm all for the truth, I'm a very truthful person and yet you're suggesting I'm complicit in something because I don't agree with you. See I like things like fact if I want fantasy I read a book.

They knew the planes were hijacked, nothing was done, no intercepters sent, airforce stand down, well documented click, do attacking aircraft usually have their transponders turned on?, why spend so much on defence when an attacking aircraft simply has to turn off it's transponder?.
NYPD and FDNY both said there were explosions in the lobby, and in the building, and bum,bum,bum,bum,bum,bum as the towers collapsed.
Only 3 steel structured buildings ever freefell from fire, all in NY on the same day, you want fantasy go buy 9/11 commission.

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

If you had facts it wouldn't be a conspiracy,Hence dare I say the conspiracy....

And yet you're suggesting that people were complicit in murder.

Captain Furball wrote: »

I
And how do radars work? How many aircraft in that area?

Generally speaking yes. I'm guessing I wouldn't be too far off the mark to say the skies were fairly crowded over the likes of New York, Boston and Washington on 911. Aren't they over most big cities at busy times?

meglome

uprising wrote: »

They knew the planes were hijacked, nothing was done, no intercepters sent, airforce stand down, well documented click, do attacking aircraft usually have their transponders turned on?, why spend so much on defence when an attacking aircraft simply has to turn off it's transponder?.

They did send interceptors and there was no stand down. I'm sure Bonkey will happily supply the details as he has done previously. I don't have info here at the moment.

The hijackers turned the planes transponders off as a way to make it harder to spot them.

You generally spend your defence money on prevention of attack from outside. NORAD was created to fight off an attack by the Soviets not to stop four passenger planes crashing into buildings. Do you think that's what defence systems are set up to do?

uprising wrote: »

NYPD and FDNY both said there were explosions in the lobby, and in the building, and bum,bum,bum,bum,bum,bum as the towers collapsed.

Why if these were bombs in the lobby would the collapses of the two towers start exactly at the points the planes hit and not in the lobby? Do you have any idea how controlled demolition actually works? (if that's what you're suggesting). And didn't you just right above say that these were bombs but now you're saying explosions.

uprising wrote: »

Only 3 steel structured buildings ever freefell from fire, all in NY on the same day, you want fantasy go buy 9/11 commission.

Isn't it strange that when the towers fell the debris was falling ahead of the collapse? Wouldn't that be impossible if the buildings actually fell at free-fall speeds?

Oh and one other thing these are not the only steel framed building to collapse from just a fire. And very similarly designed buildings, with similar flaws, collapsing in similar ways, shouldn't really be a shock at the end of the day.

bonkey

It is imporant to remember that the events of the morning of September 11, 2001 should be interpreted in terms of what was known at the time.

People have argued that there should have been aircraft up in the air within seconds. Someone has worked out that if the planes were scrambled immediately, and flew to the WTC at full speed, they'd have been there a full seven minutes before the first plane.

But again...lets remember what was known at the time.

Hijackings, prior to September 11 2001, were never situations where you needed to react immediately, and be ready to shoot the plane down.

Hijackers took planes either to an airport of their choosing to negotiate, or sought to divert a plane to a destination of their choosing.

The US air defence system was not built around the premise that someone would hijack internal civilian flights and fly them into buildings. It was designed around the premise that attacks would be of a military nature, and would originate from points outside the US.

Planes suffer failures. Just because a transponder goes off, or radio contact is lost, does not mean that a plane has been hijacked and is going to be flown into some notable building and that every second counts.

Although many people claim that time was lost in one step or another, no-one (that I'm aware of) has yet produced an example of a situation where response times were faster then 911.

People have argued that the system which was in place was inefficient. This is certainly an arguable point. Its possible that with modern technology, a more streamlined and efficient communications system could be built...but that's not the point. Unless we wish to argue that there was a decades-long conspiracy to build an inefficient system in order to facilitate the events of September 11, 2001, then any inefficiency of the system is independant of the notion of conspiracy.

I would say to anyone trying to argue that there was slow reaction times somewhere to identify the key event(s) where time was lost, and explain why reactions should have been faster based on what was known at the time.

bonkey

uprising wrote: »

Only 3 steel structured buildings ever freefell from fire, all in NY on the same day, you want fantasy go buy 9/11 commission.

The buildings didn't "freefall".

WTC 1 and 2 didn't collapse "from fire".

Plenty of steel-structured buildings have collapsed - partially or totally - from fire.

I find it ironic that you make a claim about something being fantasy accompanied by a claim that is almost entirely factually inaccurate.

moviesrme

Re Bonkeys' post on the UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply): Excellent. Just gives an indication to all and sundry of the incredible complexity possible and how a few slides and hey presto conspiracy can really be off base. So it could have been molten lead is the import I suspect. Well it could've. It's as good an explanation as any.
To my point 4 on previous page ie. NASA thermal readings from space: This could be simply indicating fire/ smouldering debris at or near the top of the pile and not as Gage supposes indicative of a lot higher temps. below so again it ain't any kind of proof. So scratch that one.
Meglome made a point at least once that he is suspicious of sites only providing one interpretation of facts when there can be many is well taken and basically is directly demonstrated above.

edit: Just looking at the timestamps (with my new razor sharp powers of research) people seem to have been "pulling somewhat of an allnighter". This thread is active!

bonkey

moviesrme wrote: »

To my point 4 on previous page ie. NASA thermal readings from space: This could be simply indicating fire/ smouldering debris at or near the top of the pile and not as Gage supposes indicative of a lot higher temps. below so again it ain't any kind of proof. So scratch that one.

I'd scratch it, but for a different reason.

I think Gage is fundamentally correct in his position, that high surface temperatures were indicative of even higher temperatures below. Where I think the argument falls apart is in trying to suggest that esoteric explanations are required for such temperatures.

uprising

bonkey wrote: »

It is imporant to remember that the events of the morning of September 11, 2001 should be interpreted in terms of what was known at the time.

People have argued that there should have been aircraft up in the air within seconds. Someone has worked out that if the planes were scrambled immediately, and flew to the WTC at full speed, they'd have been there a full seven minutes before the first plane.

But again...lets remember what was known at the time.

Hijackings, prior to September 11 2001, were never situations where you needed to react immediately, and be ready to shoot the plane down.

Hijackers took planes either to an airport of their choosing to negotiate, or sought to divert a plane to a destination of their choosing.

The US air defence system was not built around the premise that someone would hijack internal civilian flights and fly them into buildings. It was designed around the premise that attacks would be of a military nature, and would originate from points outside the US.

Planes suffer failures. Just because a transponder goes off, or radio contact is lost, does not mean that a plane has been hijacked and is going to be flown into some notable building and that every second counts.

Although many people claim that time was lost in one step or another, no-one (that I'm aware of) has yet produced an example of a situation where response times were faster then 911.

People have argued that the system which was in place was inefficient. This is certainly an arguable point. Its possible that with modern technology, a more streamlined and efficient communications system could be built...but that's not the point. Unless we wish to argue that there was a decades-long conspiracy to build an inefficient system in order to facilitate the events of September 11, 2001, then any inefficiency of the system is independant of the notion of conspiracy.

I would say to anyone trying to argue that there was slow reaction times somewhere to identify the key event(s) where time was lost, and explain why reactions should have been faster based on what was known at the time.

In the year prior to Sept 11, military aircraft were scrambled 67 times for aircraft going as little as 2 miles off course.
Ok suppose the first was a mistake, as soon as that plane hit the tower planes should have been scrambled, they were not, another plane already known to be hijacked makes it's merry way to NY, still no scramble, and washington dc, another plane long known to be hijacked makes it's merry way, planes scrambled from so far away, flew at half speed to intercept that.
911 is a farce, anybody still buying the official account needs to do a reality check.

Captain Furball

uprising wrote: »

911 is a farce, anybody still buying the official account needs to do a reality check.

Anyone with half a brain knows 9/11 was as dodgy as Bertie Ahern not having a bank account...

There's no talking to some people.They want formulas,algorithms,solid evidence,and Google skills that are above black belt.They out rank you in the search department.Therefore your arguments and theories are useless.Everyday they're new experts in some topics.Today there scientists,the next they're doctors,tomorrow they're military experts on Georgia proper lol, what is Georgia proper? loll, anyway you get my point uprising

moviesrme

So I guess when I think on what I 've seen on 911 I still have a few areas of serious concern:

1) The nice clean fall of wtc7. I mean it really did fall so sweetly didn't it?
2) The lack of debris at the pentagon and the building remaining pretty intact for a while after the "plane" hit it.
3) Looking at either of the towers actually falling. If you look it kinda looks like an afro or dreadlock on the tower where stuff appears to jump up from the centre (against gravity) and then fall.

I know these are non technical points but just as a layman when I see a car crash or whatever or if that car were to slam into that house what kind of damage would I expect etc. ie from world experience.
I find it very difficult to not think there is "something rotten in Denmark"

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain knows 9/11 was as dodgy as Bertie Ahern not having a bank account...

There's no talking to some people.They want formulas,algorithms,solid evidence,and Google skills that are above black belt.They out rank you in the search department.Therefore your arguments and theories are useless.Everyday they're new experts in some topics.Today there scientists,the next they're doctors,tomorrow they're military experts on Georgia proper lol, what is Georgia proper? loll, anyway you get my point uprising

I think you're explaining the difference between your opinion or your assumptions and something that can be proven within reason. You're entitled to any opinion you like, but when you push it as fact I personally want to see the evidence which so far has been sorely lacking.

Penn

Captain Furball wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain knows 9/11 was as dodgy as Bertie Ahern not having a bank account...

There's no talking to some people.They want formulas,algorithms,solid evidence,and Google skills that are above black belt.They out rank you in the search department.Therefore your arguments and theories are useless.Everyday they're new experts in some topics.Today there scientists,the next they're doctors,tomorrow they're military experts on Georgia proper lol, what is Georgia proper? loll, anyway you get my point uprising

I'll settle for just solid evidence

Captain Furball

So let me get this straight you want evidence?Where do you suppose one gets that?
Could we work together to find this illusive evidence or do you want the premise to be on me?