The Truth of 9/11

[Racer814]

Primal, this is an open discussion forum bro...meaning> everyone is not going to always agree with your viewpoint....I made a fairly innocuous statement that referred to no one..so back the fuck up

[Primal Instinct]

Primal, this is an open discussion forum bro...meaning> everyone is not going to always agree with your viewpoint....I made a fairly innocuous statement that referred to no one..so back the fuck up

That's cool and all but you must realize that all too often there are people who attempt to discredit others with regards to 9/11 events that don't offer any reasoning or factual statements to back up their own claims while dismissing others in an off-hand sort of way. It just gets old when people don't have much background info yet think that they can discredit others and then not even offer anything other than mere opinion. So, I thought that this thread would be based in evidence and facts either for or against the official scenario. Disagreement is certainly welcome on this thread. Your statement followed my post directly and very much implied that it was addressed towards me. I apologize if I slighted you in any way.

[Primal Instinct]

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.html

Guess what else? There just happened to be a gold heist going on at the same time the collapses occurred too. There were lots of gold and platinum bars stored for MONEX and other companies underneath the complex. Authorities found an abandoned dump truck, bobcat loader and lots of gold bars on the ground in the tunnel between WTC 5 & 6. That implies that certain people KNEW ahead of time that the attacks were imminent. How would anyone except for the "terrorists" know what was about to happen then? It gets even weirder than that too. There was more to this whole thing than just some terrorists crashing planes into the twin towers, Shibby.

[Shibby]

So, I thought that this thread would be based in evidence and facts either for or against the official scenario.

It is, and if Racer dosn't grow "the fuck up" and keep things mature, he can leave.

[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.

[babyblues]

I would just like to say that I think it’s awesome that we’re discussing this and that Primal Instinct is so willing to allow people to scrutinize and even argue against his point of view. I think that we’re all going to be better educated about 9/11 as this discussion progresses. I mean no disrespect for PI because of anything that I post here. I think he’s an extremely intelligent and respectable person.

Racer, there is no need to "construe the facts" to fit an outcome or conclusion here. Perhaps you 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.

Well, here are a couple of links to articles written by two structural engineers who concur that it was possible for the towers to collapse and that the pancake theory has NOT BEEN DISPROVEN.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

And here are some more links to many other articles written by other structural engineers.
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

These guys aren't using FEMA or NIST reports either. They're using their expertise in the field of civil engineering to conclude that the collapse of the towers without explosives was possible. They're opinion is just as reliable and admissible as evidence as any other.

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' gal 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 traveled all of that distance into the basements to damage the core columns?

I disagree. First, the steel support columns didn't melt. Second, any melted steel in the basement wouldn't have necessarily been melted at impact or even have come from the impact zone. There conceivably could have been enough heat from fires under the surface of the rubble to melt SOME of the steel, and not necessarily the 4" support beams. You're saying that there wasn't any steel in the basement other than the support columns? There may not have been enough heat to melt the support columns, but there may have been enough heat to melt some lesser quality steel smaller than the support columns.

Now, you're right, the impact itself wasn't enough to cause collapse. The ensuing fireball from the explosion of jet fuel in itself wasn't enough to cause collapse. And the subsequent fires in and of themselves weren't enough to weaken the structural steel enough to cause collapse. But, here's the kicker, the combined effect of ALL THREE EVENTS could have been enough to cause collapse. The links I provided above support this statement. The loss of support structure from the impact, the further loss of integrity from the explosion and the further weakening effect of the fires all contributed together to cause structural failure leading to collapse. Now, you’re right, the steel buildings that I referenced before were of different construction and they weren’t high-rise buildings built to withstand fire damage as the towers were, but fire damage wasn’t the only contributing factor in the collapse of the towers.

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.

The existence of thermate has yet to be proved. Aside from that, how could thermate have been used anyway? I have yet to run across any explanation of thermate being used to cut vertical beams. Thermate can melt steel, but how would they have used it to cut vertical structural support beams? And what evidence suggests that thermate is ever used in controlled demolitions?

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.

Where’s the evidence? So far, this is just hearsay and conjecture. True, they pulled bomb sniffing dogs out of the towers two weeks prior to the attack, but let’s include all of the facts here. The extra bomb sniffing dogs weren’t part of normal security measures.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...,1255660.story
Now, the security guard mentioned “extra security” which would imply that the bomb sniffing dogs weren’t normal security procedure. It would also imply that if they did receive some kind of warning, than they did act on it. And the fact that they pulled the dogs out would suggest that they found nothing. If they were expecting an aerial attack as the second security guard claimed, than how were they to know that they were going to fly the planes themselves into the buildings? The precautions they took would have been sufficient if missiles were launched at the towers, but not the whole plane.

And, it would appear that there were still bomb sniffing dogs in the buildings when they collapsed. http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

Did you know that EVERY building in the WTC complex that was totaled 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.

Not true. Again, let’s consider all the facts here.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=3&aid=60290
This article suggests that the proceeds are for REBUILDING the World Trace Center site. And it’s not a done deal. Nothing has been paid out yet. And the number you gave is about triple the amount the courts are awarding, so that would seem about right considering your claim that he has only 1/3 of your $8 billion invested in the buildings. What’s more, his lease with the Port Authority stipulated that should the complex be destroyed, he’s still responsible to pay $120 million a year in rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. He’s contending that he’s not going to be able to pay the rent plus rebuild with the current settlement amount.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...-WTC6dec04.htm
Consider also that the cost to rebuild is going to be much much higher than the original cost to build the WTC back in the 1970s. Some intriguing information in this article.

[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?

[babyblues]

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!

I would like to submit the following websites into evidence.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

A few things. First, this tower was smaller than the trade center towers, only 32 stories. Second, it was not struck by an airplane. Third, the primary support material in this tower was concrete, not steel. The steel columns that were used to augment the concrete core actually did completely collapsed. They actually built two "technical floors" which were made entirely of concrete to provide added strength, located just above ground level and the other at the 17th floor. The only thing the Madrid fires prove is that concrete is more fire resilient than steel. Which in turn bolsters the original story that the steel support columns in the WTC towers collapsed, in part due to the effects of the fires.

And again, no airplanes struck the WTC towers in 1975, so no, fire as a stand-alone event is not sufficient to effect structural failure.

This article that I posted in my previous rebuttal also deals with the fires in the WTC towers.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

[babyblues]

You sound like a lawyer :nerdnew: :laughnew:

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

[blm]

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]

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]

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]

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.