The Truth of 9/11

[rado]

Originally Posted by babyblues

I would like to submit the following websites into evidence.

You sound like a lawyer :nerdnew: :laughnew:

[babyblues]

Originally Posted by rado

You sound like a lawyer :nerdnew: :laughnew:

Wow, that'd be one dumb ass of a lawyer. :laughnew:

[blm]

Originally Posted by Kayak Jones

So let me get this straight. Some of you Einsteins are suggesting that 9/11 is a giant (government?) conspiracy. Well damn my lyin eyes. I guess if they can kill JFK and pull off a fake moon landing they can do just about anything, except catch Bin Laden. Or do you want me to believe he works for the CIA?

This thread is intended for intelligent/mature discussions and/or arguments pertaining to each individuals beliefs/theories. If you have something you would like to dispute or add to the discussion then do it an a tactful manner or just stay out of the thread entirely.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally Posted by Otter

I'm no expert and I surely do not intend to match wits with Primal. But I've got to throw this out there. Have you ever seen the damage a car going 60 mph can do to a steel guard rail? Now imagine what a plane going 500 plus mph can do to the so named 4" steel beams of the WTC. IMO I would think that it would do enough damage (like bend, warp, push out of alignment or maybe even knock down these beams) to the structure that over a period of time the weight alone of the floors above the entry line would put so much strain on the one side that it would have no choice but to collapse. Now add a fire ball from jet fuel burning at 1450F for 20 minutes and I can see this hapening.

As for the molten steel in the basement. If steel does not melt in 20 minutes or even an hour, then how long does it take to melt a 4" steel beam. And where the so called experts witness to the fact that no fires were burning hot enough below the surface for an extended period of time. I doubt it. So it can be assumed that fires burning hot enough to melt steel could have been burning below. Or not.

As for the collapse of WTC 7. I wonder what effect the collapse of the two WTC buldings would have measured on the Ricter Scale. I bet it was equal to or greater than most earthquakes. Could this have played a factor in it's collapse?

As for explosives being used. Where is all the forensic data that supports this theory. Some where along the line you would think that someone would have come up with a trace of some sort of explosive by now. Something, anything to support this theory. I mean come on now science is so far advanced now that it is almost impossible to comit the so called perfect crime.

Primal you have some good poop, but I just can't go with you on it. To many what if's are out there and no live witness to back up any theory.

You have brought up many excellent points, Otter! You made me break out my old laptop that is pretty much dedicated to this very topic, lol. I will attempt to answer them all as cleanly as possible, starting in reverse order.


It is not possible to commit the perfect crime but it IS possible to get away with it provided that you control all of the investigative mechanisms related to the crime. This includes having your own handpicked 9/11 Commission to promote your official cover story and "experts" in FEMA and NIST that may have some serious financial ties to certain government departments. Look into the financial situations of the so-called government experts used for public announcements pertaining to defending the official cover story of 9/11 and you will find some individuals who suddenly acquired VERY lucrative government consulting contracts. I'll let you do the background checks on these people. It shouldn't be too hard to find, maybe 1/2 day of searching for an average person. On to the evidence...


Forensic data is rare but there IS some available and what we have speaks volumes to us. How can we validate that explosives may have been used on the WTC complex of buildings which include WTC I, II and 7? Chemical residue on what little bit of steel beams that have been salvaged before all of the rest of it was quickly carted off to be melted down in asia (which in itself, was a felony because removing evidence from a federal crime scene without forensic examination and documentation is highly illegal). Mayor Guliani was most helpful in removing most of the forensic evidence, namely the structural steel columns and beams that should have been closely examined for just such a reason as explosives. It should be noted that starting on 9/11, Guliani became the darling of the GOP and also has launched a highly lucrative security consultant business as a result of his actions on that day.

Anyway, very few pieces of structural steel were saved. They underwent metallurgic testing and some VERY interesting results were discovered. Here is one of the reports pertaining to the forensic examination of some of the steel recovered:
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

Notice how they said that there were high amounts of sulfur in the steel which caused dramatic and rapid oxidation. So much so that it RAPIDLY oxidized the steel and feathered it out, thus severely weakening it. Sulfur is a key chemical signature of thermate which can melt through structural steel very quickly with temperatures as high as 4500F. Structural steel melts at 2750F. However, superthermite actually fits the bill better for the towers though since it also is of an explosive nature and unlike regular thermite or thermate, does not just burn as an incendiary device. This can thoroughly explain both the sulfurization reside on the structural steel, reports of loud explosions in the basement levels AND explain the intense hot spots underground that seemingly resisted all conventional firefighting techniques. We need to keep in mind that up to a full month after the collapses, these ultra-high temperatures continued to exist in the sub-basement levels. When you consider the high temperature capabilities of thermate or super thermite and the insulating properties of the underground basements, nothing else can account for such high temps so long AFTER the collapses. It would also account for "rivers of molten steel", which I will get to shortly. Here is a demonstration of what plain thermite (which BTW, is readily available on EBay and not nearly as effective as the military version- TH3 or thermate) can do to iron and steel. Pay attention to the super bright white-yellow coloration of the flame reaction and the molten slag that results from the irreversible thermite reaction:





Incidentally, the company that did the debris removal @ the WTC complex was called "Controlled Demolition, Inc." and is considered one of the foremost blasters in the world. They have demolition down to an art form. They took out the 1993 OKC Murrah Federal Building remains using only 100 pounds of explosives properly placed. That's right, just 100lbs to bring down the building. According to their own website, "Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally. Through the support of our international network of offices and agent relationships, Controlled Demolition Incorporated can respond promptly for defense-related consulting and performance requests on short notice." SOURCE


How much can the towers affect WTC 7 as far as seismic effects? Not a lot. WTC 7 wasn't all that close to the towers. WTC 5 & 6 were much closer and they did not collapse due to a seismic shock. In fact, since WTC 7 had a Con Ed substation housed underneath it, it was most likely built to account for seismic activity, as are most airports, federal buildings and skyscrapers. There were seismic recordings of the impacts and the collapses Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack Just because the impacts and collapses were recorded, don't read too far into that because such devices are very sensitive and record a lot weaker shock waves than you may think. Seismic records were primarily used to accurately place the chronological sequence of events such as the impacts and the collapses. WTC 7 fell within its own footprint in a symmetrical fashion, much like a controlled demolition - too much like a controlled demolition. In order for WTC 7 to fall in such a way would mean that EVERY support beam and floor joist would have to have been heated up evenly and to the proper temperatue to induce a simultaneous failure of ALL supporting points at the exact same time. All of this to a 47-story tall modern steel framed skyscraper with random office fires, mind you....

Here is a link showing the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 at nearly freefall speeds: WTC 7 symmetrical collapse Does THAT look natural to you? If such things caused buildings to symmetrically collapse why then would anyone go to the trouble of professional demolitions using explosives if they can achieve the same results with just some random fires scattered throughout the building?


How long does it take to melt a 4" thick steel beam? That depends upon the amount of heat generated and exposure time. We need to remember that the fires were not burning at peak efficiency since they were producing a lot of soot. The hottest part of a flame is the tip of the inner cone. That would mean that in order to melt the structural steel (requiring 2750F) the fires would have to contain the necessary BTU amount to perform the work. According to FEMA and NIST, the most intense temperatures in the twin towers never hit higher than about 1800F. Where did the heat come from then?

There is another problem with the jet fuel/office products fire argument. That is because structural steel absorbs and dissipates large amounts of heat. Since the beams, joists and columns interconnect, the heat will therefore radiate upwards and outwards from the point of origin. It can take a lot of continually applied heat to weaken, much less melt steel in this fashion. Anyone who has ever used an oxy-acetylene cutting torch setup can verify this thermodynamic property of steel. This certainly does not address the issue of molten steel found in the sub-basement levels of the WTC buildings.


Let's discuss the melting point of certified E119 structural steel and compare it to the misleading statements made by NIST. Kevin Ryan from Underwriter's Laboratories, the company which certified the structural steel used in the consruction of the WTC towers. He wrote a letter to Frank Gayle of NIST which completely contradicts NIST's claims of steel failure. As a result, Ryan was fired from UL. Here is the initial letter which contains exactly the information that you asked for:
Underwriter Laboratories' Letter to NIST Notice, Ryan states that even unprotected steel won't melt until temps approaching 3000F. If temperatures were maxed out at around 1800F in the fires as claimed, then where did the extra heat to melt the structural steel come from? It certainly wasn't from kerosene and office products' fires. As I've stated before, these items simply do not contain the amount of BTU energy within them to even aproach that temperature. There were no fires in the basement resulting from an airliner impact 1/4 mile ABOVE, so how did there get to be molten pools of steel in the sub-basement that was still hotter than the available BTU content of the fires even weeks later?


Molten steel. The cross section of the bedrock mounted core columns at WTC towers (all 47 of them) were 16" wide x 36" deep x 4" thick. That is a LOT of steel to heat up and melt, especially with jet fuel and office products as the fuel about 1/4 mile above the basement levels. Why didn't we see other fires below the impact zone? How could people still get out or the first responders still get in if all of that area in between was melted, engulfed in flame or whatever? Simply put, there was no major damage below the impact zones. The structural integrity of the floors below were indeed sound- until they were blown with explosives. As I've stated before, these buildings had redundancy built into them. They could have withstood 3 aircraft strikes from a 757/767 each without collapse. Here is an interview by one of the construction managers at the WTC prior to the attacks talking about it:
WTC Built to Withstand Multiple Airliner Hits

A fully loaded Boeing 707 is VERY comparable to the weight and dimensions of a Boeing 757/767. You decide if the on-site construction manager of the WTC knew what he was talking about. I doubt that he would have been hired if he didn't know what he was talking about or doing. BTW, Frank A. Demartini died in the 9/11 attacks.


Lastly, the core columns in the towers did not sustain massive amounts of damage like we are led to believe. The towers were designed as a two core system. A core within a core. The outside walls would bear some of the static load of the building and deal with the eindload as well. The inner core (47 columns) was what encased the elevator shafts and actually supported the vast majority of the static load on the building. Again, there was redundancy built into these towers so that if one or more areas became severely damaged (as in an airliner impact) the loads would shift to undamaged columns and beams. This is an engineering necessity. Shit, on the South Tower, the aircraft actually clipped through the corner of the building and missed the vast majority of the core columns. Check out readily available video footage of the impacts. Each floor in the towers was approximately 1 acre of open space. This should give you an idea of the vastness of these buildings. Did it not look like each building swallowed up the aircraft? More on this stuff later. I'll be travelling this weekend and I'll try to check back when I can during this time.

[Primal Instinct]

Good stuff, babyblues! I am short on time, as you can see by the length of my last post here, lol. I DO have the answers to your questions though. I will try to find the time this weekend to reply back. What I will do is point you to a few things that you can search out on your own in the meantime.



Thermate/superthermite can be contained in blankets that are wrapped around vertical columns and detonated. They don't have to be very wide either, just wide enough (say, 4- 6" or so) to cut the steel surfce that they are contacting. The best way to do this would be to place them on an angle (we find angled cuts in many of the steel columns) and therefore blast them and let gravity slide them off of the base, bringing down the buildings. There aere a hell of a lot of eyewitnesses that saw, felt, or heard very loud explosions just prior to the collapses. Explosions that emanatated out from the basement levels of these buildings.


I can also provide evidence of such witnesses as well as firefighter testimonies documenting explosive charges blowing off throughout the buildings as they were either in or near them.


Also, check into the financial backgrounds of the government "experts" to discover that they each got massive government contracts for their consulting firms AFTER they make such claims. Contracts hat more than double their original sizes. It is on public record- their sudden vault to the bigtime.


Gotta run for now. Keep up the great discussion! I'll address your stuff more in the next few days. I'll be travelling over the weekend, yikes!

[Kayak Jones]

Originally Posted by blm

This thread is intended for intelligent/mature discussions and/or arguments pertaining to each individuals beliefs/theories. If you have something you would like to dispute or add to the discussion then do it an a tactful manner or just stay out of the thread entirely.

I dipute the entire argument that the government of the United States conspired with islamofacist terrorists and allowed them to crash commercial passenger jets into the world trade center twin towers so that same government could then blow up the burning hulks of said buildings. I also dispute that they allowed some of the same group of terrorists to crash another plane into the pentagon. It is most unfortunate that some people choose to spend more time arguing in support of unverified "evidence" than they they do actually reviewing the known facts to date.

[Shibby]

Originally Posted by Kayak Jones

I dipute the entire argument that the government of the United States conspired with islamofacist terrorists and allowed them to crash commercial passenger jets into the world trade center twin towers so that same government could then blow up the burning hulks of said buildings. I also dispute that they allowed some of the same group of terrorists to crash another plane into the pentagon. It is most unfortunate that some people choose to spend more time arguing in support of unverified "evidence" than they they do actually reviewing the known facts to date.

Ok, this is a continuation of another thread with different points of view. The discussion is the view of the facts from both sides. So feel free to post your facts or ask questions of the facts posted. Simple "I don't believe it" isn't going to cut it. That's kind of what the other thread was about.

[Kayak Jones]

My "facts" are simple and verifiable. There are currently NO verifiablle "facts" that positively determine that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. There is however speculation, conjecture, hearsay, assumptions, theories, and conclusions drawn from all of the above, the vast majority of which are internet based. Fortunately, as is still the norm in our culture and society, none of the aforementioned constitute fact.

[Shibby]

So post your facts towards "I don't believe it" or stay out of this conversation. We are trying to stay away from people posting "what they heard's" and instead post where there facts came from.

[Primal Instinct]

I WILL furnish evidence that suggests that these "Islamoterrorists" were in fact not Islamic terrorists at all. Some like Atta had CIA connections. I'll cover that when we eventually get around to the flight schools and the actual identities of the said "terrorists" later on in this thread, some of which had actually lived on US military bases here in the US. Hint: It has a lot to do with drug running (heroin) and central Arkansas. For now, we should stick to the actual facts surrounding the collapses of WTC I, II & 7. Then we move on to the Pentagon....that should be a lot of fun. LOL.

[Primal Instinct]

Kayak Jones,

You talk as if the internet is a bad thing. In actuality, it is the last bastion of free expression in our society. You, me nor anyone here wouldn't be able to get print in newspapers, airtime on TV, or even radio time for any meaningful discussion. 80% or more of our TV, radio and newspapers are owned by only 5 parent corporations in the US. 80%! That seriously cuts down on the amount of unbiased news that we see, hear or read on a daily basis. If I write my book do you think that most publishers will probably shun it until I find one willing to print somewhat unflattering facts about Israel's water rights aggression toward her regional neighbors? It will be difficult, to say the very least.

The internet is the last free speech discussion forum in this nation, period. The open exchange of ideas is what this nation had been founded upon. Remember during the GOP caucas in NYC? Who set up "free speech zones" there? You know, those areas removed far away from the hotels and convention center where there people can protest? I thought that people anywhere in the US were allowed to speak their minds in public? Apparently not anymore, since this practice had been curbed in the last 6 years under Dubya. What about the holding pens in NY Times Square during New Year's Eve celebrations? Who's idea was that? You can no longer freely move about as you wish and enjoy the festivities. What other Constitutional rights will we lose in the future? The right to bear arms? The revocation of Posse Comitatus? What will you be willing to lose next? All of these things in the name of security... Who will protect us from our own government if everyone just lays down and accepts such aggregious behaviors? What we are currently witnessing is a fundamental shift in our form of government towards an Authoritarian state. An Oligarchy. 9/11 is a part of that change. Kennedy, Viet Nam, WTC 93 bombing, the OKC bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, 9/11, warrantless wiretapping, internet data collection records of our communications and web searches, and what's next? These are all steps towards the exchange of freedom and liberties for the mere specter of security that can NEVER ever be obtained in a truly free society. The more chaos and frightened we become the easier it will be for us to forfeit our voice on government. Once we lose them we will never get those freedoms back....never. At least not without a new revolution aimed at our elected (can we even honestly say elected anymore?) leaders. Globalization is here. It IS what they mean when people say a new world order. Multinational corporations make policy, start wars, detract from our freedoms and seek to repress all who stand in their way to making profits that rival the GDP of most 2nd world nations.

[rado]

Originally Posted by babyblues

Wow, that'd be one dumb ass of a lawyer. :laughnew:

lol....

[rado]

Nice thread with some good opinions/facts.

[Kayak Jones]

Originally Posted by primal instinct

The internet is the last free speech discussion forum in this nation, period. The open exchange of ideas is what this nation had been founded upon.

Evidently one of the mods disagrees with that statement.

[Shibby]

Originally Posted by Kayak Jones

Evidently one of the mods disagrees with that statement.

No, I already told you that if you are just going to say your opinion without any facts to back it up, then don't bother. Saying that you don't feel obligated to show evidence of your side is exactly what we don't want in this thread.

[Kayak Jones]

Allright, we'll do this your way. Reprinted off the INTERNET!

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

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

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

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

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Now of course conspiricy theorists like Primal Instinct don't want you to believe any of this because they believe that Popular Mechanics, FEMA, NIST, and what will surely be thousands of other experts are all in on the whole government conspiracy together. So i reckon if it's OK for him to say that about these, and dozens of other studies, then it's equally OK for me to make the same claims about the conspiracy theory as long as I steal stuff supporting my claims off the Internet. Is that how this whole thing is supposed to work?

[Shibby]

Originally Posted by Kayak Jones

Allright, we'll do this your way. Reprinted off the INTERNET!

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

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

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

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

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Now of course conspiricy theorists like Primal Instinct don't want you to believe any of this because they believe that Popular Mechanics, FEMA, NIST, and what will surely be thousands of other experts are all in on the whole government conspiracy together. So i reckon if it's OK for him to say that about these, and dozens of other studies, then it's equally OK for me to make the same claims about the conspiracy theory as long as I steal stuff supporting my claims off the Internet. Is that how this whole thing is supposed to work?

I liked reading what you posted there. But no one is making you participate in this thread if you don't want to.

[Kayak Jones]

Well Shibby, as the late Sen, Patrick Moynihan stated:
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts."