Tweet
I started this thread in General Chat because we really just want to discuss the evidence, not argue opinions. We're going to try to discuss just one topic of evidence at a time instead of just posting about 9/11 in general. Primal Instinct is quite a bit better versed on 9/11 than I am, so I'm going to let Primal Instinct start us off with a question or bit of evidence that we can discuss. I realize that many topics are going to overlap but let's try to limit our posts to the discussion at hand. Again, one topic at a time so that we aren't all over the place.
-
-
"TheTruth of 9/11".
Meaning somehow 9/11 is a lie? -
Well, the arguments that are surfacing now fall in to a few categories, from those claiming the official news account of 4 planes crashing into the Pentagon, WTC, and in Somerset, PA, are in some way false, to arguments that the government either knew in advance of the attacks, that the government sponsored the attacks, or that the government is trying to suppress some of the details of the attacks.Originally posted by Kayak Jones
The so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" is an attempt to expose which of these may be the case, or simply (I hope, for the sake of their credibility) to investigate and discuss the original account in an academic matter.Comment
-
sorry to jump the gun here guys...Originally posted by babyblues
Babyblues, I'm from the NY area. Every day in French class in high school, I looked across the Hudson River at the twin towers. The first aspect of the truth movement I want to discuss is that the towers were a controlled demolition. I believe this would require -- obviously -- wiring the buildings beforehand. I find it hard to believe that this could have been done without word getting out. It's certainly easy to say, "wow, that looks like a controlled demolition;" however, the demolition of a tall building takes months of planning, carefully wiring explosives, and is done by contractors or demolition firms.
Secondly, from what I understand, human remains that matched the passenger manifests on Flight 77 were found in the Pentagon. If it weren't a plane that hit the Pentagon, wouldn't one of the families of the supposed victims stand up and say, "hey, my wife/husband/son/daughter didn't die?"
just a couple thoughts, once again, sorry to jump the gunComment
-
As long as you and Hurley stay out of it, it should be fine. :DOriginally posted by radoComment
-
a-MENOriginally posted by ShibbyComment
-
Since I will mostly just be reading this, I guess I can help direct it.
Let's start with GoYankees first question and discuss the way the buildings fell.Comment
-
OK, I just worked about 40 hours of the last 50. Imma gonna get some sleep and I will post some stuff regarding evidence of a controlled demolition @ the WTC site. Read up on molten steel found in the sub basement levels of WTC I, II & 7. Yes, several experienced experts reported molten steel, not aluminum or plastic or stuff like that. As an opening consideration, E119 structural steel melts at approximately 2750F. It doesn't melt in mere minutes or even an hour. Kerosene (jet fuel) burns at 800C which equals only 1450F. The jet fuel burned off in about 20 minutes and the resultant fires were mostly office products, carpeting and stuff like that. The temperatures weren't even hot enough to blow out the windows, unlike the fire in 1975 on the 11th floor of one of the towers. The fire spread over a few floors in that fire and the temps were far hotter while the duration was much longer. There was NO structural steel damage after inspectors checked once the fires were put out. I can provide documentation for this if anyone is interested.
So what caused the first ever recorded steel framed buildings in history to collapse due to fires? What could have made structural steel melt if the BTU content of the burning materials cannot meet the specifications to melt the 4" thick structural steel? Jet fuel wasn't even a factor in the collapse of WTC 7, as no plane ever struck this building. I'll post more about the structural steel and molten puddles still found over four weeks after the collapses. This will include witness quotes and everything. for now though, I must sleep.Comment
-
By way of rebuttal, there are previously documented examples of steel structures collapsing due to damage caused by fire.Originally posted by Primal Instinct
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/...mick_fire.html
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
I realize this last link comes from FEMA, but unless that was a coverup as well, the event still happened.
I'm still working on a post of my own.Last edited by babyblues; 08-22-06, 02:08 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by babyblues
OK, I should have been more specific. My bad. There has never been a documented case of a steel framed skyscraper collapsing to the ground due to fire. The theater complex used in your example is a totally different type of building structure in that it does not have the redundancy of load transfer built into the building and had a high arching roof (being a theater) using turnbuckles and struts as the load bearing members. This is a significant departure from a steel framed skyscraper.
The same thing holds true for the McCormick fire. Like the theater building, it was a large open area type of steel framed exposition hall with the lack of load bearing redundancy such as madern steel framed skyscrapers have designed into their architecture. See the photos for comparison. Additionally, a large open area at the roof as seen in the photo had collapsed but the exterior walls did not. It did not completely collapse like the twin towers did. In both examples, we are only primarily talking about ROOF collapses, not the entire structure nor the exterior walls.
Either later tonight or tomorrow I will post some pics to links showing the Madrid fire and info about the 1975 WTC fires that burned much, much hotter and for a significantly longer amount of time yet those instances did not produce complete collapses, although the Madrid fire did produce a partial collapse of the uppermost part of the structure. In that fire, the temperaturse were in excess of 1470F and the building burned for about 24 hours straight. It did not collapse. In the pics and video links, notice the COLOR of the flames and how far out they project from the building. There was NO molten steel found in or at the base of the still standing structure.
Compare that to pics of the WTC twin towers' fires on 9/11 and you will see that the latter fires are oxygen starved (meaning that they are not burning efficiently thus, a cooler flame temp) and the flames aren't even close in comparison. Yet this is what we are asked to believe caused the demise of the towers- in 1-1/2 hours and 40 minutes respectively. Not enough duration or temperature to melt E119 certified structural steel of up to 4" thick TUBULAR columns. That's a huge difference and this fact alone points to explosives or some type of chemical reaction used to cut the steel and break the framework in the sub-basements. More on this later.
Madrid Skyscraper Fire
More Madrid fire pics
Madrid- Raging Inferno
24 hours people. 1470F + and no collapse. Does this look more intenst than WTC I, II, and especially WTC 7? Opinions are welcome here. Discuss!Comment
-
Originally posted by Primal Instinct
Because there were gaping holes in the building, the ventilation system and elevator shafts could have, hypothetically, turned the building into a giant blast furnace. The overall design of the towers was very unique and has actually been attributed to the ulimate cause of structural failure.Last edited by goliath; 08-22-06, 09:39 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by goliath
goliath,
Don't go by what FEMA stated in their report. It is a fabrication to reach a predetermined conclusion. NIST is not much better. The elevator shafts in the twin towers had a special hermetically sealed mechanism (shutter system) designed to close up and not allow the chimney effect of a forced draft airflow to feed a possible fire. The dark, thick smoke is evidence that such a system did in fact function properly until the collapses. If the fuel had appropriate amounts of oxygen to maximize the combustion efficiency then we would not have seen the aforementioned type of smoke. The fires were oxygen deprived and therefore not burning as hot as we are led to believe and very sooty. Soot indicates a cool combustion process. Relate this to a wood burning stove fireplace type of effect when you choke off the fresh oxygen to the fire and black soot forms in the chimney and floats in the air near the chimney exit.
Notice that if the fires were raging so hot at the impact zones, how could people possibly be standing at the openings and waving for help? Where are the raging flames in the impact zone? These photos were taken after the fires died down but obviously before the collapse.
survivor waving for help
larger phot of same woman in impact zone
Man standing in impact zone openingComment
-
well, I think people are going to construe the facts as needed to support their own predisposed viewpoint.
carry onComment
-
Racer, there is no need to "construe the facts" to fit an outcome or conclusion here. Perhaps yopu could invalidate ANY of these conversations or furnish your own evidence to support the official story? Good luck. FEMA couldn't do it and neither did NIST. Don't get me wrong, they tried but failed miserably. The pancake theory was clearly disproven so then NIST was called in to offer the column failure theory, which also failed. Neither organization has even tried to tackle how WTC 7 collapsed. There is a very good reason for that too. I'll let you decide on that one, IF you are at all familiar with the circumstances surrounding that mysterious collapse. I have read the NIST and FEMA reports in full. Perhaps you should if you haven't already. Come to this discussion armed with facts if you want to discredit others here.
Rado,
There simply wasn't enough heat energy to do the work. BTUs are contained in every consumable. The flames weren't even burning hot enough nor did they have the amount of contact time necessary to "melt" 4" thick structural steel in the sub-basements. Think about it for a minute and consider that if the aircraft struck about 1300' agl and the basements levels were 5 levels deep in the area where the support columns meet the bedrock, then how did they melt? Jet fuel did not run down 1/4 mile top the sub-basement to perform the work. First off, most of the jet fuel ignited upon impact with the buildings. That was consumed in the initial fireball when each airliner struck the building. THEN are we to seriously believe that it travelled all of that distance into the basements to damage the core columns? I'm sorry but that is just NOT possible. How then could one explain the molten steel in the basement of the WTC 7 which hadn't been struck by any aircraft? It was created by cutting charges, probably superthermite or thermate.
There was plenty of opportunity to place explosives in the 2 week period prior to the attacks. Arab terrorists did not have free access to such places in these buildings. So then we must conclude that it was an inside job.
Did you know that EVERY building in the WTC complex that was totalled belonged to Silverstein? He made over $8 BILLION on insurance payments due to the attacks. He didn't have even 1/3 as much money invested in these buildings. That's a lot of profit to consider motive for working in concert with the perpetrators, ya think? Oh, BTW, although Silverstein worked in the WTC complex daily, he just happened to have a dentist appointment during the attacks and "luckily" wasn't there in danger when they happened. Nice.Last edited by Primal Instinct; 08-23-06, 11:45 PM.Comment
-
PI, I never even knew about WTC 7's collapse until you mentioned it. I found this and it does look interesting http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.htmlComment
Comment