The Truth of 9/11

[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.

[Kayak Jones]

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]

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]

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."

[Primal Instinct]

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

I totally agree. We'll cover FEMA and Nist's outright fabrications in another post on this thread later. But for now, Popular Mechanics likes to make up their own facts by attacking strawman arguments that they created or at the very least, accentuated, which are not really mainstream arguments. They like to discredit stuff without actually addressing any hard evidence. There's nothing quite as effective as handpicked arguments form a minority POV to make a false case. Here are two excellent rebuttals to their 9/11 article:

Popular Mechanics Assault on 9/11 Truth

Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11



Incidentally, there WAS molten steel at the WTC site that DID exceed available fuel combustion temperatures. Here are some statements from witnesses:

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Alison Geyh, PhD. - Johns Hopkins University Environmental Scientist onsite @ WTC complex LINK


"But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris." LINK


"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." LINK


"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said." LINK

There are lots more but let's just move on to some photographic or video evidence:

Why Doesn't This Look Like the Color of Rest of the Fires and What Is This If It's Not Steel Dripping From the Building?

Here's a side by side comparison of the molten steel from the WTC and the thermite reaction in an experiment. Do they color and dripping metal appear to be very similar? Remember, jet fuel and office furniture/products DON'T burn hot enough to melt steel, people. Certainly NOT in such a short time frame even IF it was possible, which it isn't because the fires weren't even burning close to optimum efficiency:
WTC Dripping (aka molten steel) vs Thermite Experiment

More thermite reaction:
Thermite dripping


I'll offer more stuff later including witnesses reproting fireballs and explosions from inside the basement just prior to the collapses. Long weekend and very busy right now...

[Kayak Jones]

Popular Mechanics likes to make up their own facts by attacking strawman arguments that they created or at the very least, accentuated, which are not really mainstream arguments

And here is a partial list of the over 300 persons and agencies that evidently conspired with Popular Mechanics to make up their own facts.


Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane’s Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Primal Instinct]

None of these people and certainly NOT your Popular Mechanics article ever addressed what could have created the extreme temperatures that created molten steel found in the basement levels of WTC I, II, and 7, did they? The question STILL stands....Popular Mechanics attacks strawman arguements and refuses to deal with real questions of legitimate concern. Perhaps YOU could address the molten steel using some hard evidence to back up your claims? That IS what this thread is supposed to be about- hard evidence for or against the official government claims. I'd really like to see anything that explains the molten steel up to 3 months after the attacks. Please provide evidence explaining how jet fuel or office fires could have possibly created that? I KNOW that thermite/thermate can create that and that it leaves a trace signature of sulfur such as that found in some of the few beams that weren't immediately shipped off to asia for meltdown. What's your theory, Kayak Jones? Everyone here wants to know...

[hurley]

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

hell yeah it would be..... :nutkick:

[Otter]

Primal I have to give credit where credit is due. You my friend surely have done your homework and I commend you for your efforts, however you can't tell me that with all the Bush Bashing Left Wing Liberal News Nerds, politicians and f*%k nuts like Michael Moore running around NYC and the the US that not one of them can come up with hard core evidence to prove your theories. As good or bad (however you want to look at it) as you make sound, I just can't see it your way.

[Primal Instinct]

Primal I have to give credit where credit is due. You my friend surely have done your homework and I commend you for your efforts, however you can't tell me that with all the Bush Bashing Left Wing Liberal News Nerds, politicians and f*%k nuts like Michael Moore running around NYC and the the US that not one of them can come up with hard core evidence to prove your theories. As good or bad (however you want to look at it) as you make sound, I just can't see it your way.

That's what is so great about this country...we can disagree and (usually) not get imprisoned for our dissonance- at least for now. We CAN get conclusive hardcore evidence if only the FBI would release it. There are numerous seized video footages of the Pentagon attacks that the FBI/DOJ refuses to release. Simply doing so would either show an aircraft or not OR possibly a missile impacting the Pentagon, like Rumsfeld had accidentally alluded to during an interview with Parade Magazine at the Pentagon only a month after the 9/11 attacks:

Quote:
"Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.


They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them." Source: DOD Pentagon Website



Maybe the FBI could release the black boxes and their unedited contents of flights 77, 175, 11 and 93 or at least some of the individually serialized aircraft parts for say, 93 and 77 of which neither aircraft was proven to be destroyed in the attacks that day nor were any identifiable serialized parts released for inspection. We ALL saw two aircraft hit the towers but we DIDN'T see any aircraft hit the Pentagon (they won't release the numerous DOT camera footages, the Sheraton National Hotel rooftop camera footage, the Navy Annex gas station security camera footage nor have we ever even seen ANY supposed aircraft parts from Flt 93 that was said to have crashed over Shanksville, Pa.


It's like saying that you saw an auto crash scene in which two cars were absolutely totaled and burnt beyond recognition. Sure, we might see two vehicles but how do we know that they are the vehicles that they say they are unless we see something particularly identifiable to those SPECIFIC vehicles, like say a serial number? Even insurance companies expect proof before they accept a claim. Why don't we as citizens demand the same minimal standards? Are we that easily duped?


I didn't even want to get into the aspects of the Pentagon attack yet. That gets even plainer for everyone to see. We should focus on the WTC attacks first.

[Primal Instinct]

Another thing to consider for the pro-government cover story proponents:
9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001

Please explain the explosions... :hmmm: