Slashdot Mirror
NIST Releases Report On WTC 7 Collapse
photonic writes "After three years of study, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally released its report on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7. The main conclusion is that the building came down due to fire, not due to debris damage or some conspiracy demolition team. The fire started pretty small after the collapse of WTC 1, but was left to burn several floors out completely. The important finding is that the collapse was triggered by thermal expansion of beams, which could detach asymmetrically loaded girders from the main columns. Some limited pancaking of floors then caused a lack of lateral support and buckling of a single column. This triggered the failure of the entire core of the building, which finally fell down as a single piece. Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here. All documents can be found at NIST's WTC page, which read like a porn magazine for finite element junkies. Simulation movies are also available. And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations, some of which lasted for several months."
And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations, some of which lasted for several months."
No! You stole my +5 funny!!
I guess 2 minutes.
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.
Hah! What an optimist.
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.
What site is this, and what has it done with Slashdot
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
more whitewashing, make sure you never watch the actual footage of that building coming down either, looks pretty symmetrical to me
Zombies obviously did it.
MABASPLOOM!
The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
is sooo 2001
A standards organization whitewashes some more.
Still looking for answers to why George Bush ignored the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing. Or funneled $40 million dollars to Afghanistan in May 2001.
And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations
Yes, But did they run linux?
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Its a reasonable conclusion that a tower would collapse it it caught on fire, but how did the impact debris catch the tower on fire?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here.
You must be new here.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Remember how they said it was "pulled"? And just look at the way it fell down, only a controlled demolition could have done that. If fire actually caused WTC7 to fall, then the engineers who designed it have a lot to answer for: somebody screwed up big time if fire did it. So why isn't there a scandal and enquiries about the incompetent design?
...he must be new here.
Do they mean to say that a fire can cause a building to collapse? Next they'll be telling us damage to structures following earthquakes isn't manmade.
The use of language is interesting, don't you think? I'm not prepared to entertain any real conspiracy theories, but I have been fairly curious about one point I can't quite understand: Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Almost everyone that watches the collapse of the world trade center buildings and compares them to films of controlled demolitions sees that they look the same.
There are probably many plausible and well researched reasons for this, but no one has addressed them, but merely use language to attempt to discredit any such questions. That's what I find most interesting about the whole thing.
but you can still publish goatse links here.
Their they're doing there hair.
Everyone knows the CIA hired the mob and anti-Communist Cuban militants to bring it down.
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here
Where the hell do you think you are? If I want science I'll read a journal. I come here to watch armchair scientists duke it out. Kind of like that TV show, you know, Bumfights.
i blame niggers and faggots for the problem.
If someone left a crackpot burning, couldn't that have started the fire in the first place?
Ipso diabolico facto nonsensicalico.
These guys have resources. It could be quite damaging to be caught with a smoldering crackpot.
Ergo, they crash a plane into the building to cover it all up.
Sheeple, the answers are RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, just light them up and breathe deeply.
This story should have had banner ads for tinfoil hats instead of InterSystems Cache Post-Relational database.
They would've sold out in minutes!
I'm a big tall mofo.
Shut the fuck up. For fuck's sake, please just shut the fuck up.
You're ignorant, you're dumb and you're uneducated. Most of all though, you are fucking annoying.
I don't listen to your trolling. I don't pay attention to your buzzwords like "sheeple". I didn't start on 9/11 and I'm not starting today.
One more time for good measure. Shut the fuck up.
Let's see...hmm...full tanks of aviation grade fuel.
The 767-200ER, the UA plane which went into one of the towers, has a fuel capacity of 23,980. The flight was a few hundred miles from it origin at Logan International Airport in Boston.
Let's assume that the plan had only 15,000 gallons onboard.
The flash point of jet fuel is 100.4 ÂF (38 ÂC). Many surfaces - including the engines of the plane - would be well above this point.
In addition, there were numerous electrical connections which could have sparked causing the fuel to ignite.
Jet fuel has between 127,000 and 135,000 BTUs per gallon.
Therefore, at the point of impact we had between 1,905,000,000 and 2,025,000,000 BTUs of energy being released in a highly concentrated area (3-5 floors).
Even without the energy generated by the burning of other materials, this is sufficient to inflame the entire area and to cause the required heat damage to the tower.
Jordan
Proof here and here.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html
As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul
According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
This study, posed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse.
The building's demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the "9/11 Truth" movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute's building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government's three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument.
However, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory.
His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.
"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."
"There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.
Dr. Sunder disagreed.
"We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort."
While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.
Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.
"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."
Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.
After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.
The Institute asserts that due to the lack of water supply, an "extraordinary event" occurred, and for the first time ever, steel expanding due to heat from the flames caused columns to separate from structural concrete. Column 79 was the first to fail, according to the report, which brought about a quick succession of failures in adjoining columns.
"Thermal expansion of
First read as "NIST Releases Report On Windows 7 Collapse."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
To get any skeptic to believe those simulation.
They would have to open source the code,
so everyone can check that the code simulate real physics.
Also it still don't explain why bcc reported the collapse 20 min. to early.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
If the WTC 7 did come down because of a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying that it did or didn't!) then it would stand to reason that a federal agency like NIST would draw a conclusion of structural failure rather than deliberate demolition. No big surprises here.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of WTC buildings.
Now imagine it crashing.
Oh wait....
Mod -1:IN_BAD_TASTE
I wouldn't hire the designers of that building to build a doll house.
They brought it down with fire. I know because the report said the building was brought down by fire.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
regular theories a billion!
Asking Slashdot readers to stick to science, refrain from discussing conspiracies, AND taking the fun out of a beowulf cluster reference?
This submitter is a black belt troll and you all know it!
I remember on CNN, one of the researches claimed that this was the first recorded event of firing taking down such a structure. So how many unlikely events happened in that one (12 hr?) period? I often hear Occam's razor being suggested to push against ridiculously unlikely events. Any one know what is the approximate probability of that 12hr period occurring as officially stated?
Just seems to me, that if all these things did happened accidentally (aside from the actual hijacking and plane crash part), this is approaching the miraculous/"God did it"/fate level of likelihood.
Oh, and one more question, which I probably might know the answer to if I had read the full report: did the research set out to virtually replicate the collapse? Or did they model the entire environment and scenario, and threw it at a physics engine to see what would happen?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Granted, scale models don't tell the whole story.
There have also been a number of major earthquakes that knocked down "smallish" buildings, say, them 3-20 stories. These data points can be combined with scale models to predict how larger building will fare under a given kind of stress.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Larry Silverstein (owner of the WTC) admitted that they had a controlled demolition. Why is this not mentioned anywhere? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Slashdot has always been about freedom albeit in the open source world, this has always included debates on what people read and think. How can anyone on this web site stand there and demand to limit to science as if the fact that the only steel buildings in existence to ever fall from fire all did so on 9/11 (which includes WTC Building 7). This is a fact that goes against the science given which has always fueled conspiry theorists and with good reason. We live in a society that is given the freedom to discuss and this forum has until today always given it's user's the right to says anything that is on their minds. Is slashdot changing it's stance?
History was not written only once, it was written and rewritten countless times over long periods of time and came to exist as we know it because discussions continue over time and corrections and rewrites and new information that was ignored or suppressed comes out.
But this only happens because people don't just stand there and accept blindly what is told to them especially when it goes against commen sense.
I hope the person who wrote this has the curtosy to remove the comment or correct it.
Which way would you expect a building of that size to fall?
Toward Osama bin Laden's massive ego.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"All documents can be found at NIST's WTC page, which read like a porn magazine for finite element junkies"
Guess we should try not to get the pages stuck together huh?
... BUT: if fire caused the building to collapse, why did the owner of the building himself say, on public television, that they brought the building down intentionally???
Larry Silverstein says they intentionally brought down building 7.
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose! (Note: you might want to take some of the rest of the video with a grain of salt... but the Silverstein part is incontrovertible.)
And major network news reported it falling while it was still standing in plain sight behind them.
I'll deny it, and I'm not "a crazy."
It is compeltely obvious to so many people on so many levels that the building was imploded, and until there is an explanation that can address all of the ignored or glossed over issues, people who have truly looked at this without an agenda and who have a problem with these official theories aren't going to feel differently.
I am not saying I know exactly what happened, and I am not chiding anyone who wants to believe this report...If that settles it for you, then great. I don't think it settles it for anybody who has questions who has looked at the situation with a critical eye, and who can think for themselves.
Anybody who knows anything about engineering and controlled demolition can watch the video of that builidng coming down and know that it didn't collapse from a fire; not like that, no way - and that is ignoring all of the testimony from firemen and other who were there who claim it was imploded.
I would believe that the world mass hallucinated before I would give creedence to some of the bullshit "official explanations" about a lot of the 9/11 events.
At amplifying my Insanity Waves!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell.
Can anyone please cite me a case in the past where a fire has brought down a high rise building? I've seen cases of fires burning for days in high rises and gutting many floors yet have never seen a high rise come down with a simple fire, let a lone a fire that only burned for a few hours.
If anyone can cite just 1 case where a fire has brought down a high rise building, I'll consider myself a moron. Otherwise, all of you who believe "the party line" will have to count yourselves as morons or at the very lease lemmings or governement lackeys.
...it takes a while to doctor up a study in order to fit a pre-made conclusion.
See the video I linked to above. It SHOWS how demolition crews routinely use the word "pull" to mean "blow up".
... he SAID that they "made the decision" and then they "did it". In the NEXT SENTENCE, he said they then watched it collapse. There is no doubt whatever about what he is talking about. If YOU have doubts about his statements, then you must not know how the English language works.
That doesn't exactly address my question, does it? If it was a failure, why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose? ESPECIALLY when that statement could fuck up his insurance compensation?
I'm sorry, but buildings that large do not completely collapse like that due to fire. That's why firefighters had no fear whatsoever of going in there. You would have probably got at least half to three quarters of the buildings still left standing because fire would not destabilise and collapse every single part of the building. It's crucial to remember that absolutely nothing was left standing. It certainly wouldn't happen in two, or even three, buildings as well, as appears to be the case. The case of the seventh building is still very flimsy, and the whole thing hinges on the fires somehow spreading from other buildings. You can get simulations to say anything if you ask "What if?" for long enough, but that doesn't mean that it happened that way, and real-life experience tells us it probably didn't.
Were the buildings demolished? It's certainly possible, and the manner of the collapse(s) were mighty suspicious, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for that, as much as we might want to get ahead of ourselves. Is there some government conspiracy? Possible, but again, people always seem to jump several steps ahead when they talk about that and we still have no evidence at all. Is the above a conspiracy theory? Nope. It's based on years of how large buildings have tended to collapse, and how they react to fire, and all I and others would like is a sensible conclusion which takes that into account. Repeatedly saying "The buildings collapsed due to fire" and coming up with a theory to fit the facts with nothing to back it up is never going to be good enough.
Cynically, all this report seems to be is a knee-jerk response to the really big elephant in the room - the complete collapse of WTC 7 - discussion of which has been doing the rounds for a while, and has gained some traction.
So, I am willing to admit that everything is the way it has been presented. The only thing I really need explained is how the towers collapsed at freefall speed. If floors were pancaking, as presented in TFA, then how was freefall speed achieved.
Imperial:
WTC7 was 741ft tall.
Gravity is 32.1ft/s
741/32.1==23.08s
It should have taken 23 seconds for WTC7 to freefall. It took less. Explain that.
If it was really fire and bent metal, then chaos theory applied means it should never have imploded and fallen on its footprint.
NIST is lying.
They're using their grammar skills there.
As I write on my blog, there's a big group of - for lack of a better name - crackpots who go around claiming the Bush (Jr.) Administration had something to do with the 9/11 events or in the destruction of the two towers. Which is ridiculous for the simple reason I point out: "the (current) Bush Administration doesn't have people smart enough to pull a stunt like that. The current administration's staffing policies have been directed toward political cronyism and connections, even at the expense of even bare competence. From what I've seen, anyone working there that has any self respect or common sense has quit." It's pointless to argue that they have the kind of people smart enough to pull off this sort of thing and keep it secret. If they were that good, they'd have been able to cover up the whole fake "weapons of mass destruction" issue in order to make it look like they really were present in Iraq.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Arguing with truthers is like arguing with creationists. They've already decided, it's a matter of faith. The weird thing is having looked at the structural collapse of the towers, if the official version was controlled demolition and the conspiracy theory was burning jet fuel, from a straight scientific standpoint I'd be inclined to believe the conspiracy. Physically, building catches fire, steel expands, breaks seals makes a lot more sense then Rutger Hauer and why not Whoopy spend a few days planting charges. However, like IDers, truthers decided they can make up various physical laws and ignore others as they go along all the while shouting "science!" (cue: T Dolby). And they get continuously pumped up by right wing trolls who figure quite accurately that they make the left look like a bunch of hairy clowns shouting 'JET FUEL BURNS AT 800 DEGREES MAN' at a fireman's funeral.
The real cover up is that the buildings weren't code to begin with, or rather David Rockefeller etc bent building codes to get them built. And Rudy had all the fuel stored in 7 against the advice of all the professionals. And that the Saucer People, in league with the Bush Administration, used a gravity ray to make the buildings fall faster then gravity and straight down.
Actually if you work some UFOs in I'll sign up. How cool would that be?
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Since everything is clear now.. I'm sure we can get some CLEAR video material from the Pentagon.
Let's show it and forever put an end to the discussions..
Hundreds of camera's pointed at that building.. I'm sure that if nothing more extraordinary than a plane hitting the building has happened it would be no problem to show the cards to the world..
Right?!?
OR to turn the tables around for once: IF YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE....
What EXACTLY is so "normal" about a multi-hour, multi-floor fire started by burning debris and fed by fuel oil?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
* I * am not accusing anyone of anything! Larry Silverstein did. So please address the question: if it was not intentional, why did he say that it was? Especially when that statement could have had a profound effect on his insurance?
This report comes from NIST, an agency of the Commerce Department run by James Turner, who came from the Energy Department and has never been confirmed as a full Director. The Commerce Department, and NIST, is an Executive Branch agency overseen by Cabinet member Carlos Gutierrez, who of course is appointed by Bush.
--
make install -not war
This is a sham, they didn't use physics ot attempt to tell the truth in the slitest bit. 9/11 was an inside job! Where is the plane that hit the Pentagon? If the plane, made out of titanium, steel and aluminum was vaporized by jet fuel then how were they able to identify 174 passengers through DNA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html There was no reason for that building to fall. Remember, this was not hit by planes. Simply fire.
A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell.
Sorry, but the actual evidence is very, very compelling. YOU are the one who is rationalizing here.
Do you have ANY idea just how much effort is involved in demolition? Sure, it seems easy from the outside, if you know what you are doing, you can bring a house down with a sledgehammer, but it will be noticed. The same with controlled explosives, this is not a case of slapping a bit of TNT to a wall and walking out, if you do that, the explosion just goes outside and the building keeps standing. No, you got drill a hole into the structure. If it is still beam you got to apply a chaped charge that cuts it through. Buildings are constructed to be able to withstand the loss of a couple of support beams, so you need to cut them all. How the hell would you do that without anyone noticing? It would require truck loads of explosives and days of demolition to setup. No, the conspiracy theories fail NOT because it is impossible to consider the idea that someone might want to fake this but because the logisitics just don't work. I read one theory, that the cia was controlling the planes, the idea being that they were refuel planes because the planes had no windows. Right. Because the CIA, a organisation KNOWN to operate civilian aircraft finds it easier to aquire military planes of which there are only a few instead of buying just one of the countless 2nd hand civilian airliners. Look at the way that red department store in china collapsed, that is know to be an accident and it collapses just the way a controlled demolotion building collapses. You seem to have the idea that because you saw some demo docu's you now think that if a building collapses like that, it must have been done like that. It is as another poster said almost impossible to even start to explain how stupid your logic is.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Insecure people need conspiracy theories, they need to make what happened more complicated and devious that it really was. Because if what happened really was this easy;
Prior to 9/11 several people from a third world countries entered the US legally and took flight lessons and then booked flights. Then on 9/11 they legally boarded the aircraft and once the aircraft were airborne took over aircraft, that basically fly themselves, and then pointed them at buildings.
They could never sleep at night and it would make people from the third world smarter that they are.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
First, I need to say a few things to inoculate myself from being labeled one way or the other:
1. The concept of a "conspiracy theory" is flawed, and is simply a cop out. There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. There are just good and bad theories. Labeling an idea a "conspiracy theory" is just a form of jingoism and does nothing to increase the flow of ideas. Labeling something a conspiracy theory is a brilliant tactic to bury an idea as it takes advantage of herd mentality. Judge an idea by its merit and not by its label. Here on Slashdot extremely brilliant and extremely stupid ideas are posited all the time, so why now are we disallowed to discus a certain set of ideas? I thought there was a strong freedom/libertarian mindset here...
2. If you examine history, conspiracies are actually the norm and not an aberration. Look at Rome, or the times of Shakespeare, or Nazi Germany, or the French revolution, etc etc. Look at the behavior of the current administration of the United States and say there haven't been conspiratory behaviors with a straight face. All a conspiracy means is that more than one person plans together to do something secretly. That happens ALL THE TIME, whether criminally or not.
3. As Slashdot readers many of you consider yourselves to be scientifically minded and aware of logical fallacies. Why does this mindset breakdown when it comes to politically charged events? You are labeling people nut cases and tinfoil hat wearers and conspiracy theorists the same way people were labeled communists during the McCarthy era. The ad hominem attacks are relentless.
4. In light of the awareness that several agencies in the US with billions of dollars in funding and specific programs for controlling the flow of information DO exist, wouldn't you think that Slashdot, a hub of meme flow on the internet, would be a specific target of operations? Opinions are manipulated on the net regularly. You only have to look at China with their "wangyou" (internet friends) that are paid 50 cents chinese for each message they post that supports a certain agenda. The manipulation in the US is much more subtle. Teams of PhDs and psychologists know what buttons to press to get a certain response out of a self-admittedly obsessive compulsive crowd of nerds.
5. Building 7 was never hit by an airplane. The owner of the building admitted to it being demolished, then reneged his statement. There are videos of reporters describing building 7's fall while it is still standing in the background. It took SEVEN years for investigators to come up with a reason for the building to fall the way it did. Is it possible that the SEVEN years were spent honing a story plausible enough to convince even the most skeptical people of it's truth?
6. Unless you've visited the site of the building and done your own scientific measurements, everything you know comes from suspect media sources. This relates to point 3 above. I freely admit I don't know the truth of what happened due to this single fact.
In summary: Don't buy into either side of the story. There are plausible explanations for it being due to fire, but there are equally plausible explanations to it being due to malicious intent. Don't follow the herd - a certain subset of humans are purely pragmatic and will do whatever it takes to gain money or power.
PLEASE PLEASE refer to the last 5000 years of history and don't make the mistake of thinking that somehow right now things are different and innocent.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
simple as that
First, again you are not addressing my original question.
Be that as it may, nobody stated that the fire department had to be the ones actually doing the demolition? Many people have brought up the point that it takes a great deal of time -- sometimes weeks -- to prepare a building for demolition.
Now, I don't want to get into THAT can of worms... but nobody said that the fire department set up any demolition. Only that the decision was made to demolish it. (Just some of the evidence: A NY radio station was informed that the building was going to be demolished before it fell. It was announced on the air. Also, the BBC reported that the building had collapsed... 20 minutes before it actually did.)
Who might have actually pushed the button? That is anybody's guess. But this is NOT "conspiracy theory". There is a lot of very solid evidence.
Very bad.
Almost unbelievably bad for /.
Get out now. You don't belong here!
Back to dailyKos for you fucknut.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Thank you, that's one of the best and most balanced comments I have seen here in some time.
Sorry. I was there and I heard the explosions. No jet crashed into building 7 so the 'jet fuel' bs doesn't even apply anyway.
Go back to sleep sheeple. The government is taking care of everything. Don't ask questions or the terrorists win. In..credible. [sigh]
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening.
So your theory is that, under stress, BBC reporters posses the power to foretell future events? Wild...
Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Or that the official sources that the BBC reporter was quoting got their timing wrong whilst feeding their script to news organizations from 24 different timezones.
You know, either something completely logical, or your wild dismissive scenario. Either/or, really.
You can't take the sky from me...
Jeez. And you think * I * am gullible!
Fact: the upcoming demolition of the building was announced to at least one radio station, which announced in on air -- before the building came down.
Fact: the BBC announced that the building had collapsed -- by name AND number, there was no misunderstanding -- 20 minutes before it actually fell.
If you want to call those "mysterious coincidences", then I do not think I am the one who is doing the rationalizing and indulging in "crackpot theories".
I don't think you do.
Pancaking is what the controlled demolition people deliberately cause ('Implosion' is an incorrect media term) and a fairly common mode of failure during construction. It only takes one floor failing to take everything down below the original failure.
It's primary characteristics are complete destruction of the affected area and falling straight down.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In case any of you alleged scientific luddites are unaware, it has finally come out after decades that the US government did in fact LIE about the tonkin gulf attack, which they used as the primary excuse and reason to have a very long war with millions of deaths in viet nam. Do you really understand the ramifications of that? Or because it is ancient history to some of you younger guys that it "never happened"? This was high level, deliberate coverup of a complete fabrication- a story, a false report, a lie, that led to genocide on a lot of vietnamese, some say up to three million people murdered, plus 50 thousand US deaths, and many more permanently injured, and they kept it a secret for a very long time. In addition, they LIED about the effects of agents orange and blue, claiming it was harmless, even though many thousands of "our own guys" got hideously sick from dioxin poisoning. And this is completely relevant, because it shows what any real criminal investigation show, a past MO.
In short to the submitter, I have personal friends who got sick as dogs with that stuff and they got told for decades it was psychological, all in their heads, by fucking official doctors and scientists and politicians and military officers. In short, FUCK YOU, YOU SLIMEBALL POMPOUS AND RETARDED ASSHOLE, this fascist pig government has a past 100% verifiable track record of lying about some really important shit so a lot of fucking rich bastards can get richer with government contracts, plus they used it back then as an excuse to get the police state really moving, exactly the same as they are finalizing it now. It is the SAME modus operandi with 9-11 and the scam war on terror now, except they really did it, they killed those poor people.
Making sure they aren't lying now is not crackpot at all, it is common sense, it's patriotic, it's the most humane thing to do for the well being of the entire planet and all the peoples on it, it is the only intelligent thing to do. And noting this and your absurd statement you obviously don't have any of those positive qualities so you are incapable of seeing this without it being spelled out for you in detail, and no, I will NOT trust any fucking report from any official US agency on this subject, because that is exactly what happened last time, the official politicians and official high level military officers and the official white coated degreed tame asshole scientists on the payroll COMPLETELY LIED. You don't ask the MOB for a full honest report on the MOB.
It was an inside job, the evidence is and has been overwhelming despite their bullshit trying to weasel out of it, they lied at first, but finally and very quietly and reluctantly came clean about a huge "training exercise" being run the SAME FUCKING DAY,9-11-2001, about "terrorist seized airliner" planes smacking into buildings. JESUS FUCK what do you want? Are you really that stupid as to believe that horseshit? Just the odds of that being a fucking coincidence are astronomical. You really believe that was a fucking coincidence? We have live witnesses who HEARD AND FELT the explosions in WTC7. The fucking owner is on tape stating they "made the decision to pull it" meaning knock it down on purpose. There's tons of stuff out there on this subject. Fuck you, fuck NIST, fuck the lying asshole traitors in government who pulled off this scam.
Do you really think a truly independent analysis would even possibly come up with a report that the building came down from controlled demolition and they would release that? FUCK some people just can't think. This outcome was predetermined and just run through the academic bullshit generator. There was only ONE outcome possible from a practicality standpoint, and that is anything that supports the government fairy tale. Those people know that, they know the government was part of mass murder, but there is no possible way in hell they would ever be part of exposing that, it would never ever happen no matter what the real ev
You must be new here.
All the evidence was carted away. I cannot believe that anyone could have done an impartial study, meaning that there is to much pressure to prove things one way or another, and that belies scientific study.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
This is WTC 7 that we are talking about, not towers 1 or 2. It wasn't struck by a plane and didn't have hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel in it. As colfer pointed out, it had some diesel fuel tanks in the basement, but these were found to have not contributed largely to the fire (which was on the upper stories).
The conclusion of the board is that a normal building/office fire starting by falling debris from WTC 1 is what brought the building down. If we are going to be building dense cities with skyscrapers then it is important that a normal fire merely gut the building, not compromise it's structural support. The building techniques used in WTC 7 were not sufficient, and shouldn't be used in the future.
how many people here confuse WTC7 with the main towers.
Conspiracy theorists tend to use "common sense" which defeats the logic, methods, evidence collection and theories of science. All these detailed schematics, computer simulations, engineers with Harvard and MIT degrees don't make any sense. Any oversimplification of the matter with numbers, facts and figures doesn't have to make *any* sense. If you know what happened, then that is irrefutible. No matter that there are others with conspiracy theories. Yours is always right. Who needs all that engineering stuff? Steven Colbert would call this the "truthiness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Can't you see: conspiracy theory is not about logic, its about saving time! If you can jump to conclusions without any research, then you're already saving yourself a lot of time. If your theory isn't precise, then there's going to be a lot of others to "consult" with who will each come up with a better idea. Pick the better one of all, or continue to disagree, setup your websites, Youtube videos and publish books. Make it all look official.
Than again, with all this time spent on alternative theories, you aren't saving time. Everyone has to read your version. There's no conclusive ending. If the government is truly good at concocting a conspiracy, then shouldn't they have made one with only one solution to the question of who, what, when, why and how? If there's so many versions of what could have happened, then they probably aren't doing their jobs????
And then your marketing efforts are wasted. The public is confused with all the messages. This is when the truth is actually the time saver. Thanks NIST!
Maybe that was just the one inaccurate statement made that day. You know because no one else said anything inaccurate amid the chaos. So someone had to meet the quota (1 inaccurate stmt/day...it's a government regulation i think).
you're probably just used to how usually, breaking news is covered completely accurately and they always have the full story right at the start and never report unfounded rumors.
Here it's a little different because the person saying it wasn't a super-accurate news person.
i know that sometimes i have personally said things like 'i'm gonna kill that guy,' and then have to actually kill that guy so as not to be contrary to my words.
and generally 'pull it' does generally refer to demolition: i remember on one occasion, i was having sex and the girl said to 'pull it', so i demolished her using carefully placed explosives which were surreptitiously planted (i get IED's and IUD's confused a lot).
While trying to clean up i mentioned to myself, 'hey it looks like someone blew up a box full of tomato paste and hamburger'. Why would i have said that if i hadn't done it? So later on i did...just to keep the t's crossed and i's dotted mind you.
because i mean, if you can't take a person at his word...what do you have left?
and so was Oklahoma City, the attack on the USS Liberty was another false flag, so was Russia's attack on Georgia and incidentally how
WWII started when the Germans claimed they were attacked by Poland.
So there's a big screen TV right before I get into the office and that usually has CNN on all day. Having all the facts I had to giggle at the
mere headline they had scrolling past that read "WT7 myth explained".
At least read these sites and know what they're about:
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
http://www.truthnews.us/
The idea that these buildings were brought down by explosives is patently absurd. Period. However there is a "conspiracy theory" that is, to me at least, plausable and believable. Namely that Bush/Cheney and the other neocons allowed 9/11 to happen by looking the other way, and by not doing enough to stop it.
It is a well known fact, as outlined in the "Project for a New American Century", that Cheney and the other neocons wanted desparately to go into Iraq. It is also a fact that the Patriot Act had been written several years before 9/11, and was sitting in a drawer, waiting to be enacted. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to think that Cheney would allow America to be attacked in a hugely symbolic but ultimately non-devastating way, as a way of pushing the country into Iraq, and of foisting laws like the Patriot Act on congress.
However, I fear that what I propose here will be lumped in with all of the other crackpot conspiracy theories about demolition teams in the twin towers. There is really no compelling evidence to support what I say. Only a strong suspicion based on what was written in the Project for a New American Century document, and observation of how far the neoconservatives seemed willing to go to enact their policies. America under Cheney and his neocon thugs has been a profoundly unsettling place. I often feel that there is a war being waged right under our noses, against freedom and the ideals of American democracy.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The only 3 skyscrapers in the world to collapse from fire. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Move along nothing to see here.
Now we know for sure. Thank you for being so clear and evil.
So the government wants us to believe that buildings have a natural tendency to collapse like a stack of dominoes at the slightest bit of heat. Let's look at the logic:
if ( fire > 2 floors){
$action = global & uniform collapse of entire steel and concrete structure //WTC7 had 47 floors!
$ignore[] = $police, $rescue, $civilians, //credible eyewitnesses that reported explosions (like Barry Jennings).
$ignore[] = $symmetrical_collapse, $pulverized_concrete, $debunked_government_statements, $documented_lies , $known_physics, $squibs, $penthouse_collapse, $pyroclastic_flow, $molten_steel, $max_fossilfuelburn, $leaked_blueprints, $other
}
They described the building both by name (Salomon Brothers) and by number. AND they described its location. Mistake? Sure. Their mistake was the timing.
Funny, though... in the video, as the on-location reporter is describing the demise of the building, you can see it still standing, through the window behind her!
So, yeah, they made a mistake all right. But not the one you mean.
A quick search has not turned up evidence of the radio station I mentioned, so I will provisionally retract that statement. But... how do you explain the firefighters repeatedly telling people to move back, the building is "coming down" and the building is "about to blow up"? This, before any other sign of collapse? Remember... they had been taken out of the building hours before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok
Obviously I am not making this stuff up. It is right there on youtube, folks, for those of you who will take the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you do not want to take the time, then don't ask me to do it for you.
1. Stage a false flag attack against NY to obtain wider emergency powers
2. ???
3. profit!
Send your spendthrift head of state this
But not the one I mean? Eh? They reported factually inaccurate information. The only other explanation is that they "predicted the future" and managed to look silly and amateurish doing it. Lets be clear, it was an amateur mistake they made by reporting information without first verifying it. Not their finest hour.
Thanks for the chuckle.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
About the contents of the building from Wiki:
Not to say I buy into the crazy theorys or anything... but building 7 was always the part that didn't sit right for me.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCAoJuDw2Ic
Take a look at the South tower.
Also, a similiar clip here:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/448814/simultaneous_explosions_in_north_south_towers_on_9_11/
"The difference being that that building was reinforced concrete stack, which is essentially monolithic"
You mean it had the depth/width/height ratio of 1/4/9
No part of that post constitute flamebait: someone's abusing mod points again!
You can't take the sky from me...
Larry Silverstein has repeatedly explained exactly what he was talking about when he said 'pulled'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Arguing with officialists is like arguing with creationists. They've already been told, it's a matter of obedience. The weird thing is having looked at the structural collapse of the towers, since the official version is jet fuel and conspiracy theory is demolition, from a straight scientific viewpoint I'd get the facts myself. Physically, building have catched fire, steel have expanded, seals have broken, and that gone on for more than one day and those much older buildings haven't collapsed. But that happened to the WTC. And both came down. Exactly the same. After burning an hour or so.
And then come the 'emotional plea' arguments, that have more to do with creationists than anything else. "Don't you respect the sacrifices of the firemen? Why are you so un-American? How can you BELIEVE the gov't would do something like that?"
Look, I'm the most pro-American chap you'll ever meet. But don't hide behind science. You're doing as you're told, no more, no less.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Read this:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
- it points out all the guff in "Loose Change". Checks in with real experts, shows the pictures that Loose Change didn't bother showing (because it doesn't agree with their version of events), and explains everything the 'truthers' try to point out.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3
I'm afraid you have gotten all this quite in reverse. The science is not backing us the "official" conspiracy theory. The science is clearly on the side of those who wish to expose the truth about 9/11.
Crackpot theories? are you fuckin serious? I suppose this is another "Crackpot theory" too: http://www.carnicom.com/culture3.htm
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 [ae911truth.org]
They didn't do a very good job programming the sims that ran on those Beowulf clusters. The AE911truth press conference addresses the so-called sims too.
Garbage in, Garbage Out.
But if you are laughing, you have completely missed a very important point.
They reported some inaccurate information. Fine. WHERE did they get that inaccurate information? That is the issue here. If you think that the fact that they reported that WTC 7 had come down (again... described by name, number, and location) BEFORE it actually happened is a "coincidence", then you must be a very big believer in coincidences. Sorry, but that rather stretches believability past the breaking point.
And I did, by the way, find the source of that "radio announcement" of the building coming down. Two separate on-site witnesses reported a red-cross worker, outside the building, holding a radio that was blaring a countdown just before the building collapsed. Their separeate accounts are remarkably consistent.
Of course, that is not a "radio station" (interesting how stories get distorted)... but at least I was able to find the source. You can also find it on youtube with a quick search.
So, sorry for your disbelief, but some facts are pretty solid:
(1) The BBC reported the building coming down before it did. (What was the source of their information?) This is incontrovertible, since in the video you can SEE the building still standing behind the reporter as she reports that it had collapsed. Some minutes later, it did collapse. The probability of that being coincidence is probably much less than that of you getting struck by lightning in a given year, or killing yourself by slipping in the shower.
(2) Firefighters and red cross workers are on video telling people that the building "is going to come down", and that it is about to "blow up". This, hours after they were removed from the building, and when there was NO external evidence that the building was going to fall. (Remember... before that day skyscrapers had NEVER fallen in this manner, in the history of the world, except for earthquake or demolition. Never. And WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, nor was it even close to the others... closer buildings had little or no damage.)
(3) Outside the building, a countdown was heard on an emergency worker's radio (by MORE THAN ONE eyewitness who reported their stories on video), coinciding with the building's collapse.
If you really think that is all coincidence, then you have a funny view of reality. The laws of probability are practically screaming "no" at you!
So you can chuckle all you want. But if you really are, you are laughing at a joke that is very likely on you.
*I* am not accusing anybody of anything! I wasn't there!
I simply asked a question. If you can't answer it, fine! But don't go around accusing me of accusing others. I did no such thing.
I should also mention that I am hardly "relying" on a "single quote". There is a plethora of good evidence that the building was intentionally destroyed, even after you have discarded the obvious trash. Look it up yourself. It is easy to find.
I was wrong about the "radio station. It was in fact the radio of a red cross worker, outside the building, that was counting down. There are at least two witnesses on video who described the same thing. Find them yourself on YouTube.
I did not say it made sense... although it must be admitted that this government administration has done some astoundingly stupid things.
And the BBC DID report this as I described. You can find the video yourself easily enough! And the building is right there behind the reporter as she reports that it is gone! Now, I did not claim that I have an explanation for this. But saying that it is coincidence is pretty much beyond believability.
This was not a stand-alone thing. See my other comments. There are a lot of other facts about this building that are more than just "suspicious".
And it was not just "2 reporters". If you pay attention to what they actually said (describing the building my name, number, AND location), you can see that the probability that this was some kind of mistake is ridiculously low.
Further, emergency workers are on video telling bystanders to run because the building was about to "come down", and that (in so many words) that it was about to "blow up". This, well before it actually fell. You can find the videos yourself easily enough.
Those are just a few among many such "coincidences" that make the fire theory just unbelievable. There are a great many such, which you can verify for yourself if you bother to look. (My guess is that you won't... but that's up to you.) There are far to many to just explain them away as "coincidences". Probability is just plain not on your side, dude.
You can see the building still standing in the background, even while the on-site reporter is telling you that it had collapsed!
This is a matter of public record, and EASY to find! Go look for yourself!
Oh... and the Silverstein comment is also on YouTube. It was on the frigging evening news!
When you call bullshit on somebody, you should be able to back it up! You lost this one.
therefore you're a witch! Burn her(him)!
I love how anyone who doesn't agree with the government's findings are "crackpots". How dare we infer those aluminium pipes were for missile delivery systems for WMDs... oh wait, wrong topic.
Confirmation Bias.
this is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
Arguing with "thruthers" is like arguing with creationists. They've already been told, it's a matter of ignorance.
Here's a very interesting webcast of a discussion between structural and chemical specialists about the official NIST report on WTC7:
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3
Salient points from the webcast:
- the unexplained presence of thermite residue in and extreme temperature of the wreckage of WTC7 (cf. the inability of the diesel fuel to burn hot and long in an oxygen starved environment);
- the failure of NIST to adequately test for thermite in their samples (which were collected haphazardly);
- the inadequate explanation by NIST of the collapse of collapse of WTC7 pillars 79-81;
- the inaccuracy of NIST's theory on how a simultaneous catastrophic pillar failure could result in a freefall collapse.
Useful cheat sheet of the facts about the collapse of WTC7,1&2 (on the right of the page): http://www.ae911truth.org/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...there's not a (+1, Crackpot) Option?
Science would be to publish the code and the data used in the simulation, and let other scientist check and reproduce it!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here."
Who exactly decides what a "crackpot" theory is hmmm? This statement is nothing more than intimidation of those who don't buy the ridiculous made up theory of a fire bringing down a steel structured High rise which has never happened before in the history of mankind. Other high rise buildings have burned in an inferno like blaze for DAYS and didn't collapse. NIST 'claimed" that they found no evidence of thermite like materials yet admitted they didn't look for any. NIST 'claimed" that 25 percent of the building had been "scooped" out by falling debris but then had to back off that lie when confronted with photographic evidence to the contrary, yet we're all supposed to sign on to this magic theory like little sheep.
Statements like these are nothing more than prior restraint and if Slashdot were the government we'd all be suing for violation of our free speech rights.
WAKE-UP Slashdot.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
But my statement was "could"... I was not making predictions. I do know, though, that if it were MY insurance, I would not say something like that on TV.
2008-3 = 2005.
In all seriousness, why is it it took ~4 years for this study to actually get started? IMHO you got to thank the crackpot conspiracy theorists, if it wasn't for them this whole thing would have never been explained...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The official Government story is that there was "no loss of life" in or around building 7.
So to which dead firefighters do you refer? The ones witnesses said they had to step over in the lobby? Government says they did not exist.
With these 9/11 truth junkies, it's usually "Occam's Razor in, Complete Gibberish about demolitions teams out."
None of these idiots seem to notice the fact that every building that is improperly imploded shows the same "blasting" as accordioning internal structure causes supersonic wind blowing out of the structure, bringing dust with it.
If a structure doesn't have to be cost-effective or inhabitable, you can build almost anything with concrete. The most prominent example of this phenomenon is the 105-story Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang.
Not inhabitable, certainly not cost-effective, but it is over a thousand feet of concrete structure and interesting in a creepy way.
Cue the "In Communist North Korea, concrete builds you!" jokes.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> The science is clearly on the side of those who wish to expose the truth about 9/11.
Except you can't make science up as you go along. Yeah, yeah, I know, someone saw an old man with mutton chops singing 'hunka hunka burning steel ... ' while dancing on the pile. Somebody heard something weird, too. Read their stuff. Makes less sense than the official version.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Are you asking me to do your homework for you? Just go out to YouTube and find the videos! It should take you all of about 30 seconds to do the search.
Yes, probability is just that. My point was that when considering what might have actually happened, it behooves one to judge which is MORE LIKELY, given the best evidence.
My assertion is that all this being coincidence is probably about as likely as losing Rio de Janeiro tomorrow to an asteroid sent down by bugs... that is to say: not.
The owner said nothing about deliberately taking the building down. He discussed pulling the firefighters out. Even if you insist on the ridiculous use of 'pull' in a demolition context, it has nothing to do with explosive collapse.
This is all from a UK grad student's thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
"A video that was originally on the goddamned 5 o'clock news cannot be faked by conspiracy theorists! It was made by the NEWS organization, and seen live by THE PUBLIC! Fakers would be caught at their fakery within 5 minutes!"
Jeez, guy, you will have to do a lot better than that. Have you even TRIED to look at the actual videos yet? I am betting no.
> Let's leave McCain out of this one.
You can't do that to him! He was a POW!
He survived after crashing _5_ planes! You'd be a zombie too, after that!
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization of architectural and engineering professionals
Here's a link to their website
http://www.ae911truth.org/
All you are going to find there is real science.
So what if it is ALSO used to mean something else? It was NOT used in that "other" context! He said they decided to "pull", then he said that they watched the building collapse. They did NOT "pull" the building down (the other context that has been mentioned). And he knew that. So... he could not have meant it that way, could he?
I retract the statement about the "radio station". What actually happened was that witnesses (more than one) outside the building reported that an emergency worker's radio was giving a countdown that coincided to the building's collapse.
If anything, that is even more telling.
link...
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Not witch doctors for 9/11 truth. Not Pentecostal Ministers for 9/11 tongues.
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS for 9/11 Truth.
RE: "Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere ..."
I am not wedded to particular explanations, however, the recent certainty of government explanations that are later proved to be fatally flawed only to be followed by another propagated with the same level of certainty leave me skeptical of all official pronouncements.
While I think the National Institute of Standards was a class outfit, since the "Reagan Revolution" scientific studies have not been immune to political interference. Moreover, when more than one explanation can explain the observations the simplest is usual given the greater weight. Three years sounds a bit too much time and effort to create another, albeit more complex explanation for an unlikely coincidence leading to a weird physical outcome. An asymmetric heat source left unattended could still bring down a building vertically? That results in a symmetric final failure mode brought together by the happenstance of low probability set of failures. Truly astounding, if it really happened that way.
On principle, I have qualms about accepting these findings on little more than blind faith from sources that have proven to be unreliable.
I worry too that the one and only anthrax terrorist has been found and explained (via leaks) to the most credulous and receptive types, i.e. the establishment press corps. I would prefer the skeptical scientific types with relevant skills to evaluate the evidence. Moreover, when you see a key element blown one day to be replaced the next without mention the first was bogus (Washington Post, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/18/anthrax/), I think we all should give a hearing to the supposed crackpots. I no longer trust anything said or supported by the "realists" and their unlimited credulity to all official explanations. I bring this up, because they too (the establishment press) attack conspiracy theorists, that fail to see the truth as easily as they.
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
Are you Alex Jones?
What's the point of spending millions to find out why exactly a building right next to the WTC came down on 9/11 ?
Add this money to the billions the US spends each month on an unending war and you can see why the US economy is going down.
Maybe it's time America started focusing on its own people a little more, instead of pretending to be 'the greatest country in the world', while at the same time having more and more people being poorer than most people in former Eastern Europe.
The Invasion of Normandy proves that large conspiracies can be kept secret. England was known to be crawling with German spies in WW2, yet the Nazis never found out the correct location of the invasion target... Normandy. Matter of fact, the commander of Axis forces at the Atlantic Wall, Rommel (one of Hitlers best generals) was so sure nothing was going to happen in the near future, he left his command to visit his wife and son and was not able to be at his HQ the morning of the invasion.
Several days after the invasion, Rommel was still so sure the primary invasion was coming at Calais, he withheld his best Panzer units away from the Normandy Peninsula.
As far as conspiracies within the US, how the Manhattan Project. We blew up a freakin' nuclear weapon in New Mexico, and nobody knew about it for years! We built a whole city nobody knew about too.
Some points about WTC7:
- NIST proved that according to our current understanding of physics its was possible for the building to come down without explosives due to the fires. This doesn't mean that this is 100% sure what happened, but it is dumb to scream "no way was it possible" after this if you have any belief in out physics. So, it was physically possible
- NIST showed that using explosives to bring the building down would not have matched what we saw when the building collapsed. No broken windows from the pressure wave, no explosive sounds of the required magnitude (before the fall)
Some points about "truther" theories
- The collapse didn't look anything like a CD. Sure from the moment the building started to collapse it did, but that's becuase in CD:s gravity also brings down the building. But no CD like explosions and flying debris and "squibs" were seen (before the collapse). Check this video (watch it fully or after about 2:30 you see CD:s). Tell me in what way is this similar to the WTC7 collapse: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
- I haven't seen anywhere any calculations, models, tests or anything about how explosives would have been used. That is only now by NIST, but the truther side hasn't provided these. How muchch explosives? Where and how were they placed?
- Then there is thermite/thermate. I don't know why the truth-movement has clinged to this stuff. Anyways, show me some models or tests how you would cut vertical steel beams with this stuff. No such info has yet been produced. And these guys ridicule NIST for being slow? Yes, sulphur was found at the site, big surprise...
So the truhter side only likes to try to shred to pieces other people's work, but they have yet to produce one single scientific publication, or any other paper which hasn't been thoroughly dismissed by the scientific community.
Why is this? If they have all the answers why is it so hard to produce anything? No papers, tests, models, nothing. Just shouting "false flag!" like that proves eveyrthing. Oh I forgot, they only have questions...
One fool can ask more questions than 100 people can answer.
I actually read the report, which is quite interesting. This is the first time ever that a major high-rise building has totally collapsed from fire alone.
First, the biggest problem was that the fire sprinklers for the lower floors lost their water supply after the WTC1 collapse, which took out the city water main. The upper floor sprinklers were fed from tanks high in the building, and they were able to contain the fires on upper floors. The firefighters had to abandon the building because they didn't have a water supply.
The building had surprisingly little structural redundancy. The loss of one key interior column was enough to trigger a progressive collapse. The beams between columns were too long and not heavy enough to provide structural redundancy.
Fuel storage wasn't a factor. Paper storage and the use of open-plan bullpens was a much bigger issue. With more interior walls, the fire would have spread more slowly.
The building was built on top of a sizable power substation, but that didn't affect the fire. Nor did the basement-level fuel tanks for emergency generators. Only the small "day tanks" on higher floors fed the fire, and they weren't that big.
The recommendations in the report are surprisingly weak. They're not recommending any building code changes that would have prevented the WTC7 collapse. They're not recommending backup water supplies for sprinklers, for example. If there'd been some emergency arrangement through which the fire pumps could have drawn water from the nearby Hudson River, the building would have survived.
Emergency water supply in fires is a huge issue. In the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, the fire-fighting water supply for parts of the city was lost, despite a system that was supposed to be triply redundant. SF has a main water supply, an emergency system with a mountaintop tank, and cisterns under some key intersections. The main system was knocked out by the quake. The emergency system failed because some mains broke, and there was nobody on duty at the valve house at the tank to turn the valves to cut off the broken mains, so the tank drained out. (Due to a budget cut, that job was unstaffed. For seventy years, there'd been people at the tank on standby, with nothing to do until the next quake.) The cistern system had never been extended to the Marina district, so that backup was unavailable. However, there was yet another backup - SF fire trucks have suction hoses and pumps for use with those cisterns, and a few trucks were able to get to the edge of the Bay and suck in salt water. By stringing enough hoses together, they were able to deliver water to the fires.
If you Buy Fraggle Rock, Season 2 on DVD and watch episode 36, titled "The Doozer Contest," you will find, about 3 and a half minutes in, Flange saying "Look the Fraggles are Destroying the North Tower" and then all of the Doozers Cheer. If you don't believe that this is proof positive that Jim Henson was behind the events of September 11th, then you are a disinformation agent and a muppet of the shadow government.
Other videos have been mentioned in this thread.
But... so you watched the video. Do you still assert that it is a fake? Something that was aired live to millions of viewers?
If would be extremely easy show that it was altered, if it really were. Just compare the recording to the one BBC archives. But of course that would be a waste of time. It would have been noticed by some of those viewers long ago.
I am posting anonymously because I believe the moderating in this forum is unreasonably biased against those who question the official explanation of the WTC collapses, myself among them. I fully support having a new, independent investigation of the WTC collapses, rather than the federal investigations we've had to date. I thought I would include the following quotes directly from the NIST Report which I find interesting and relevant to some of the discussions here.
This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. (p. xxxi)
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. It was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an airplane. The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from those in the towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires. (p. xxxi)
The reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. (p. 13)
The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400 deg. C (750 deg. F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. (p. 19)
Note Figure 3-14. Buckling of the lower exterior columns... (p. 38)
Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris... The details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise. Thus, while the two predictions of the time of descent of the west penthouse also straddled the observed time, the mechanisms of building collapse were quite different... The kink and rotation of the northeast facade occurred 2 to 3 s after the exterior facade had begun to move downward, as a result of the global collapse. The simulations do show the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model. (p. 40)
Yet, in the summary at the end of the report:
Computer simulations of the fires, the thermal heating of the structure, the thermally induced damage to the structure, and the structural collapse can be used to predict a complex degradation and collapse of a building. The overall features and timing of the prediction were consistent with the videographic evidence. (p. 51)
Knock-knock
Who's there?
Nine-eleven.
Nine-eleven who?
YOU SAID YOU WOULD NEVER FORGET!
If your statements are correct, then you have been wasting everybody's time, not just your own.
You clearly stated, as if it were a mantra, "YouTube is not a reliable source of information." The implication is obviously that any video on YouTube is inherently unreliable. Many might be... but not in this case, because it was a news show seen live by millions of people.
The actual source was a reputable news organization, and there is very good reason to believe that the video has not been altered in any way.
As for your assertion that the BBC "made a mistake", you are still missing the point. How likely is it that they made that particular mistake at that particular time? The idea that it was just "coincidence", that they had all that exact information minutes before it happened, is just not likely enough to be believable. The idea that they were given this information and aired it prematurely is MUCH more likely.
None of the offerred scenarios are impossible. But which is more likely? Coincidence is not on the top of the list.
It wouldn't matter if the entire south end of Manhattan Island was submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and allowed to burn for weeks. The steel structures of the high rise buildings would emerge relatively intact.
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to damage the framework of steel frame buildings.
-------
"While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
That's less mass than one single steel beam.
The article fails completely to mention that sure buildings have been brought down by fire before, but never a skyscraper. And many skyscrapers have burnt uncontrolled for a much longer time than 3 hours.
I await peer review of the FELT analysis.
Don't forget a fully fuelled B17 crashed into a NY skycraper in 1945 and that building didn't fall down. (and that had 485 gallons of aviation fuel aboard).
The two planes crashing into the main towers would have each had probably less than 25 tons of avaiation fuel aboard.
I'm still sceptical until the math and facts the math is based on is peer reviewed mainly based on taking fuel and trying to bend steel. It takes a lot of fuel. If one single girder is 7 tons of steel, I'm having trouble seeing how 25 tons of aviation fuel (in normally aspirated fire it will burn at 285 degrees Celsius, very very far short of steel's melting 1500 degrees Celsius.
Plus, the explosion would presumably have burnt a substantial amount of the fuel exterior to the building and therefore this energy wouldn't heat the beams.
Still, lets get the paper peer reviewed, is there an equivalent for the Twin Towers? (I haven't heard of one).
Until there is a plausible, peer reviewed scientific explanation for this, there will always be questions. This is the start of the time when doubt will be extinguished, not the end.
And why did the building owner in the radio show refer to WTC7 being "pulled"?
Still the math, once picked over, will be irrefutable.
That must be nice to have all the facts. Not like all those so-called experts, they don't know anything!
Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username
Have they changed building codes to ensure fires dont do this again?
lol
It's funny how the biggest fools in the world are always the ones who are utterly convinced that they're right.
Then 2 billion BTUs is enough to melt 2000 tons of steel, or 300 girders.
(energy to melt 1 ton of steel = 334 kilowatt hours = 1 139 655.31 BTU)
However, there was a big fireball at the start (probably consuming at least many tons of fuel), the girders were supposed to be insulated, there would be sprinkler systems.
Also, would this fuel still be burning 3 hours on?, would a lot of heat have been carried away?
I still wonder how the pilots, many regarded very poorly by their teachers, could pull off the aerial gymnastics that they did, especially the Pentagon one.
Anyway, we await the peer reviewed math model for WTC1 and 2.
(describing the building my name, number, AND location)
Further, emergency workers are on video telling bystanders to run because the building was about to "come down", and that (in so many words) that it was about to "blow up". This, well before it actually fell.
This would all still be consistent with my scenario that they did expect WTC7 to collapse and that their was a misunderstanding between blowing up and collapsing. I am not claiming this is exactly what happened (we will never know), but in Mythbuster's words, it is a plausible scenario.
Those are just a few among many such "coincidences" that make the fire theory just unbelievable.
In your logic, the existence of an alternative theory makes the fire scenario less likely. This is false logic, since none of these 'facts' contradict the fire hypothesis. I don't see how one quote of a reporter/silverman is evidence that contradicts a simulation by NIST. Do read the report, i did and I liked it. It does explain in great detail how an uncontrolled fire can lead to structural weakening and an eventual collapse of the building. It will never be possible to determine how things happened exactly, but they describe a plausible scenario based on hard-core science. Denying this plausibility means you question the scientific integrity of some 50 experts of a highly respected institute. And as things works in science, you will need a consensus among people of similar qualification to counter their arguments, not just a single guy or some random amateur from the internet.
I could agree with you that they didn't rule out the alternative theory (controlled demolition) enough, although they do a little in appendix D of the report. But you still didn't give me an alternative scenario that would include demolition. I will help you: first we need a suspect with a motive to blow the building up, i can only think of Al Qaida (but they already blew up WTC 1 and 2 with airplanes, why would they take the trouble to blow up a smaller building with a lot of effort), Silverstein (he needed the insurance money, but would he commit a crime for that?) or 'the goverment'/FBI/CIA (but why? to cover up what?). Then we need to know how they did it, especially how they managed to sneek explosives or thermite into the building without anyone seeing. We also need to know when, did they install them in the few hours on 9/11 while the building was evacuated and already on fire? You see, if you try to make a story you quickly run into some hard questions. I dare you to come up with a story that is as simple as the one I gave.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
The explosion of the 3 WTC buildings was screwed up. It was so badly screwed up millions of people that witnessed it knew it was government cover story was a LIE.
16% of the American people think explosives brought down the WTC.
Sounds like a pretty big screw up to me.
I would not recommend the crackpot option. That gets you hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh as a motherfucker.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
There is only one way in which buildings fall into small pieces and powder: They were deliberately demolished.
All the WTC buildings had extremely large steel central columns. Heat delivered only at the top of those columns cannot make the bottom, very broad bases melt, even if there was enough heat, which there wasn't.
Never in history have buildings fallen into powder and small pieces, unless they were demolished.
It's a very inconvenient fact, but the the American government is partly very corrupt. As the familes of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis will tell you. Most people in America want to believe that the U.S. taxpayer paying to kill Iraqis is better than Saddam Hussein killing Iraqis.
WTC1 and WTC2 to my knowledge don't have a peer reviewed math model that explains their collapse.
All this "the beams did this" and "i feel it was possible" is just wasting time and effort.
Let's see the math for WTC1 and WTC2.
That won't explain how terrible pilots pulled the aerial stunts of the century, but the math paper would answer a lot of doubts.
That's called affirming the consequent. It's not insightful, informative, or valuable in any way; it's a fallacy.
I think your parent's reasoning is that regardless of whether the government is guilty or not, no government agency would say the government is guilty. Therefore, a government agency now saying the government is not guilty carries no information about the guilt of the government.
More specifically, let G be "The government is guilty." and let A be "The investigating government agency says the government is guilty.". We assume that ~G=>~A, i.e., the agency will not blame the government if the government is innocent. We also assume that G=>~A, i.e., if the government is guilty, they will force the agency to cover it up. Under these assumptions, both G and ~G lead to ~A, so the fact that we observe ~A should be obvious and does not say anything about G.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Governments lie, but this. . ?
From the get go, the controlled demolition idea struck me as 'off' somehow. If the goal was to persuade the country into war, then a single airplane crashing into a single building would have been plenty of motivation. Heck, the sinking of one passenger ship, (the Lusitania) was enough to inspire the national outrage required to get the U.S. into WWI. A couple of gun boat attacks on American destroyers in the "Gulph of Tonkin incident", (half of which turned out to be a mistaken report which nobody denies) was enough to get the U.S. to jump into Vietnam. Coupled with the right level of media encouragement, a medium-sized disaster is all that is required. Four crashing airliners on 9-11 was more than spectacular enough to launch a war.
So why go on to massively complicate things by planning a demolition of the three towers? The only two answers I've seen which suggest motive were the Silverstein profit gamble and the fact that WC7 housed a bunch of incriminating paperwork. But motive does not prove anything by itself; it has to be supported by evidence. --I've seen the Loose Change video and others, I've read all the arguments, and many of them raise clear and logical concerns. And I have gone over all the other evidence from the debunking side. They pretty much cancel one another out on the Twin Towers issue. --This is not to say that the debunkers are entirely rational. (The Popular Mechanics version of reality was perhaps one of the most arrogant, simple-minded and unconvincing.) Rather, it is the work of private individuals who put together the more rational arguments on the "natural collapse due to fire" side. (A good example of this is here.) --Though, even they offer up some pretty thinly-stretched and in my view, totally unnecessary ideas in their attempts to explain certain details. Indeed, everybody, on both sides, sport some pretty poor arguments. --But that's not a problem! All ideas, all questions and the attempts to answer them, the dialogue is entirely valid as people explore what happened on that day. All in all, it has been a spirited and very thoughtful debate with a lot of smart people contributing on both sides.
My personal conclusions?
1. Secretive portions of more than one government not only had foreknowledge, but actively strained against the well-intentioned systems in order to allow the attacks to take place, and indeed worked at certain levels to set various elements of it in place.
2. There is plenty of photographic/video evidence of the steel structure deforming and falling down as a result of fire. The big argument against this is that jet fuel cannot create enough heat. However, there were plenty of other combustibles in the fire, not the least of which being the several dozen oxygen generator canisters the planes were equipped with. I've worked with an iron forge, and simple bio-carbons, like coal in a forge, or in the case of the buildings, furniture and paper and plastics, etc., when subject to a steady airflow like a bellows or high-altitude winds, is sufficient to create high enough temperatures to take steel past the point of structural integrity and even melt it. The "Never Before Has This Happened to a Steel Building" arguments are faulty on a number of levels, not the least of which being that it's not even properly accurate. There are however, as far as I have seen, a couple of unanswered questions remaining; the claims of mysterious construction being done and the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs and the shut-off of security systems in the week leading up to the event is curious to say the least. I wonder if perhaps there might not have been more than one effort involved in the events of 9-11 rather than that of a single unified group.
3. WC7 is different question and it is less clear cut, but my impression after going over the many, once again valid questions raised by those suggesting that the building was
But... how do you explain the firefighters repeatedly telling people to move back, the building is "coming down" and the building is "about to blow up"? This, before any other sign of collapse? Remember... they had been taken out of the building hours before.
Hmmm.. maybe because of the fact that 2 other buildings nearby have collapsed and WTC7 was known to contain thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and was in an uncontrolled blaze?
Either apply some common sense or get back on your medication.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Um.. no.. alot of people knew about the Manhattan Project.
The Germans knew about it, the Japanese knew about it, Stalin knew about it.
About the only people who didn't know about it was the American public, because back then, keeping a secret for national security reasons meant something. If that would have occurred today, then it would have been all over CNN and MSNBC in seconds.
And alot of people knew about D-Day... the Germans KNEW it was coming, but they didnt know when. And besides, the weather was crappy at Normandy and Rommel didn't believe the invasion was going to happen right then because of the weather in the Channel was bad.
Also, to compare wartime operations from 60+ years ago when it took hours if not days to find out what was happening on the other side of the world to a modern conspiracy is naive. Its not like someone could have picked up a phone in the UK and said "Hey Erwin, I think the Allies are coming, they just launched all there airplanes". Phone calls had to manually routed in those days, and during wartime, all those were monitored.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
As far as compiling suspect lists (the type of thing you are supposed to do in criminal investigations, Bechtel Corp. would top the list.
Means: Bechtel is the largest engineering co. in the US. Bechtel is a leader in the field of demolitions technology. Bechtel manages the Lawrence Livermore Labs a particularly suspicious form of nano-thermite was researched and developed and discussed in this April, 2000 scientific journal article.
Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker
A.E. Gash, R.L. Simpson*, T.M. Tillotson, J.H. Satcher and L.W. Hrubesh
Energetic Materials Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livennore, CA 94550
Abstract
"Controlling composition at the nanometer scale is well known to alter
material properties in sometimes highly desirable and dramatic ways. In the field
of energetic materials component distributions, particle size, and morphology,
effect both sensitivity and reactivity performance. To date nanostructured
energetic materials are largely unknowns with the exception of nanometer-sized
reactive powders now being produced at a number of laboratories. We have
invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically
explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel ~hemistry.lT-~he ease of
this synthetic approach along with the inexpensive, stable, and benign nature of
the metal precursors and solvents permit large-scale syntheses to be carried out.
This approach can be accomplished using low cost processing methods. We will
describe here, for the first time, this new synthetic route for producing metaloxide-
based pyrotechnics. The procedure employs the use of stable and
inexpensive hydrated-metal inorganic salts and environmentally friendly solvents
such as water and ethanol. The synthesis is straightforward and involves the
dissolution the metal salt in a solvent followed by the addition of an epoxide,
which induces gel formation in a timely manner. Experimental evidence suggests
that the epoxide acts as an irreversible proton scavenger that induces the hydratedmetal
species to undergo hydrolysis and condensation to form a sol that undergoes.
further condensation to form a metal-oxide nanostructured gel. Both critical point
and atmospheric drying have been employed to produce monolithic aerogels and
xerogels, respectively. Using this method we have synthesized metal-oxide
nanostructured materials using Fe3', Cr3+, A13', Ga3+, In3', Hf', Sn4+and Zr4+
inorganic salts. Using related methods we have made nanostructured oxides of
Mo, Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ta, W, Pb, B, Pr, Er, Nd and Si. These materials have
been characterized using optical and electron microscopy, infrared spectroscopy,
surface area, pore size, and pore volume analyses.
The epoxide addition sol-gel technique is amenable the addition of
insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before
gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed and energetic nanocomposite upon
gelation. As an example energetic nanocomposites of Fe,O, and metallic
aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be
readily ignited. Production and characterization data of these novel energetic
materials will be presented...."
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf
There's been THERMITE RESIDUE in every single sample of WTC ash that's been tested so far by independent labs.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Motive: The 9/11 destruction of WTC 7 destroyed the evidence that had been gather for the case the Departmant of Justice was building against Bechtel in "THE BIG DIG" corruption scandal.
Since 9/11, the only corporation recieving more Iraq/Afghanistan contracts than Bechtel is Halliburton.
"In your logic, the existence of an alternative theory makes the fire scenario less likely. This is false logic, since none of these 'facts' contradict the fire hypothesis. I don't see how one quote of a reporter/silverman is evidence that contradicts a simulation by NIST. Do read the report, i did and I liked it. It does explain in great detail how an uncontrolled fire can lead to structural weakening and an eventual collapse of the building. It will never be possible to determine how things happened exactly, but they describe a plausible scenario based on hard-core science. Denying this plausibility means you question the scientific integrity of some 50 experts of a highly respected institute. And as things works in science, you will need a consensus among people of similar qualification to counter their arguments, not just a single guy or some random amateur from the internet."
Oh, yes, I do question their integrity. There is no doubt of that. They might have all the integrity in the world. But the simple fact that the report was organized and coordinated by a bureaucratic agency of the Federal Government gives me every reason to question. Remember that this involves the same government administration -- and in part even the same agency, FEMA -- that botched the New Orleans thing so thoroughly. So there is every reason to question. (There was a FEMA office in WTC 7, and a couple of FEMA employees are in fact two of the more credible witnesses who contradict the official government story.)
Perhaps you think that is unreasonable. Well, look at last year's IPCC report on Global Warming. Some of the science behind it might be reputable, but the conclusions found in the report were not based on that science. Authors of some of the papers cited tried to get their names removed from the report, stating that the conclusions are not supported by their work. And that was a report from the UN, involving literally hundreds of "reputable" scientists. Of course, the IPCC changed their tune in this year's report... which merely reinforces the point that their reports are unreliable. No matter how many reputable scientists they cite.
A problem here is that you are not looking at the big picture. If if you want to talk about science, then how about the science of probability? Here is a truth about probability: the likelihood of something occurring, given a number of independent variables, is the product of the individual probabilities for those variables. For example, let's take three variables that are pretty much independent: location, weather, and vehicle type. What is the probability that you will get injured by lightning, if you are on an aluminum-masted sailboat, in the middle of a large lake, in a thunderstorm? Not terribly high, really, but higher than would make most people very comfortable. On the other hand, what is the probability that you would get injured by lightning, in your car, on a clear summer day? Very low indeed. So you can take the statistic that 70-some people get struck by lightning every year in the U.S., and that might tell you something in a general way. But it tells you very damned little about the individual circumstances.
Here is a statistic that is true: prior to that September 11, NO steel-structure skyscraper in the world had EVER collapsed due to fire. Never. Not one. And there have been fires in skyscrapers that completely gutted the buildings. But no collapse.
The fire scenario is barely plausible regarding the twin towers. But WTC 7 had not been struck by planes. So THREE buildings, one of them built differently from the others by (I believe) a different firm, collapse from a cause that had NEVER been seen before? What is the likelihood of that? The circumstances of WTC 7 must be considered an independent variable... it did not have the excuses for failure that the other buildings did. The probability of this actually occurring is VERY low.
Eyewitness accounts contradict the government's official story on many, many things..
What an astronomical coincidence it was that all of those things happened at once. The beams expanded and buckled due to the heat, which "could" have detached girders, which resulted in "limited" pancaking which all fell against the central core and then caused the whole thing to collapse at free fall speed. What are the odds? About the same as that burning crackpot fire causing it all.
New building code forbade use of asbestos. If asbestos had been used to protect the steel from heat damage during a fire, the buildings would not have come down.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I'm so sorry. That's incorrect. Thanks for playing
The Germans know nothing about the Manhattan Project. Stalin had one spy infiltrate the Manhattan Project pretty thoroughly, but like many of the Soviet spy successes, Stalin refused to believe the reports the spy was sending in, so the Soviets were ordered to do nothing with the information.
And the Germans would have sat down in front of a radio transmitter and immediately tapped out whatever needed to be sent on a morse code key.
You have heard of radio transmitters? I assure you Germans spies were more than capable of getting urgent radio messages out of England instantaneously.
It's funny... No matter how many times you tell people, or how intelligent they may be, for some reason you just can't seem to get people to realize that simulations are often worthless in cases like this, as you can make a simulation say or prove anything you want it to by tweaking it's internal dynamics to support whatever result you want. Regardless, unless you have an overwhelming amount of real-world data and flawless physics computational models, no simulation is ever completely valid - modeling the real world inside a computer to that extent is functionally impossible. There simply isn't enough data on what actually happened (hence the desire to create such simulations to begin with) to create an accurate model in the first place. They don't know exactly what each fire did where - fire is notoriously difficult to predict, as the difficulty in even reproducing believable fire effects in computer animation shows: little things like winds currents, fuel spread, what parts of the plane went where in the building and did what all add up to too many statistical errors for any margin to account for, and all they are doing is best guessing here and claiming it must be true because their model agrees with them - I think the model is likely to have been biased in their own favor from the very beginning, even if not purposefully or intentionally. We as human beings are always biased, and it is not unreasonable to believe that our digital (re-)creations are any more impartial than the people who coded them to begin with.
Could I make a simulation of a galaxy that looks and behaves like a galaxy? Easy enough. Does that mean that the laws I founded my simulated galaxy on has anything whatsoever to do with how a real galaxy works? Not at all. It just means that I've managed to create a series of conditions within a computer that outputs some visuals and math that happens to look strikingly like a galaxy. Just because you use a really big computer that took a long time running said simulation does not make it any more valid. I could create a "simulation" that would take years to run but still show convincingly - based on data provided - that the building actually collapsed because of a hole through the planet that leads to China that was opened up as a result of an earthquake caused by digging done for a new hydro-dam there - that still doesn't make it correct or even partially true. Too many factors outside our ability to guess or second-guess or intuit or even, honestly, our ability to perceive, are at work.
How often does it happen that something more complex than a cheap Chinese-made children's toy or other simple item that is designed digitally actually makes it in to the real-world without modification? Does anybody know anybody who has ever designed a 10-story building in CAD that didn't require hundreds or thousands of modifications before construction was completed? I've worked for a (major) aircraft company, and I can tell you for certain that despite all the best modeling and simulation software that a multi-billion dollar aerospace defense contractor can summon, not one of those simulations is ever entirely accurate when it comes to the real world.
Any video-game company that has an engine with solid physics could recreate on a screen the WTC collapse - does that mean the factors they employed to *simulate* that collapse have anything to do with what actually occurred?
I find the quote that is on the bottom of this page as I write this to be incredibly succinct and germane - Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Yeah, sure. They "accidentally" reported the building's collapse... accidentally getting the building's name right, and accidentally mentioning its number, AND accidentally mentioning its location. Mere minutes before the building accidentally collapsed.
Wow! I don't think I want to live in an area that is prone to such "accidents".
Ugh I was listening to the NIST conference on cspan radio a few days ago. I heard the crackpot from infowars going on and on about his crackpot theories.... All I want to know is how did he get to ask question.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
... if you had read just about any of the rest of this thread, you would know that I am hardly "relying" on a single misreporting. That is just one thing among a great many.
Um.. no.. read the stuff from Project PaperClip.
Hitler DID know about our A-Bomb. They didn't know as much as Stalin, but the knew were were close. Stalin had spies at Los Alamos. The Nazi's just knew we had the project, which was more than the American public knew.
And as far using a radio transmitter, its a cakewalk to jam a local frequency, just by using a more powerful transmitter on the same frequency as the original signal.
So Thank YOU for playing.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
Well, I can't go into detail, but I'm sure I'm a reputed crackpot anyway. I've spoken to more than one person ranked in a certain military branch, but they're career and obviously no one who wants to move up the ladder is going to say anything publicly. Basically what they said is that the attacks were real, but we knew they were coming. I imagine it was kept at the highest levels, where secrets are kept. Just take a look at everything from the Pentagon Papers, or released documents from CIA ops that were run by very few people - we overthrew Iran in '53 with less than one hundred people who even knew about the operation, which the person writing the after-action report called "excessive."
What I think happened is that the Bush Administration saw it as their chance to have their Pearl Harbor event as a pretext to complete the job of securing the middle east, especially what was left of Iraq. No matter what the talking heads say these days, oil wins wars. The Germans were at a severe disadvantage because they were cut off from their supply. It's one of the main reasons their North African theater collapsed onto itself, and we went to war with Japan shortly after we stopped sending them oil.
Anyway, I think some top level officials got a hold of the plans, and they staged the NORAD exercises to make sure the plans were executed successfully. I think both planes that weren't flown into the towers were shot down, one over PA, and another over the ocean. The Pentagon was hit to add fear to the whole equation, in my opinion with some sort of missile or simple explosion. I was glued to the news that day and every single news center started off with "We have reports of an explosion at the Pentagon." There are so many holes in the official story of that I really believe it was a purely American military operation, whether it was carried out by the CIA or some other covert group with US assistance I don't know.
I think the planes causing the collapse of the building is something no one saw coming, and something they continue to draw out in order to avoid direct questions about Flight 93 and the Pentagon. So, yes the civilian government is dumb, but they can carry out extremely complicated and covert military ops that never touch civilian eyes.
3 steel buildings fall over, the first time in history, under exceptional circumstances, one thats required 7 years investigation to explain.... OR, they were knocked down deliberately.
I know where my money is placed.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Was the owner part of a conspiracy?
Was the media part of a conspiracy?
You sound like the crackpots, even though you're on the other side.
Knowledge is the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify. (Ambrose Bierce)
All Bush had to do was dismantle and stall anti-terrorism intelligence work, and he knew *something* would happen, and soon. He perhaps didn't expect the WTC to be hit, but the incompetence aimed at allowing it to happen was pretty systematic. Once it did occur, it took only a matter of days before it was cynically being spun to sell weapons and make bank for those who profit from disaster. It was a boon for all the institutions of the day, and big media who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the war industry. Perhaps nobody really allowed themselves to admit how they were using it to profit, but everyone did. Iraq was rolled out over the not-yet-cold bodies of 9-11 without anyone blinking an eye, while leveler heads were roundly ridiculed and marginalized.
None of these incompetent fuckers are innocent.
And who most likely told George Bush to lay low and do nothing? Probably, he was sold on the idea in a late night phone conference with Henry Kissinger: "Mister President, perhaps a little trip to Florida is just the thing you need to bolster your plunging numbers..."
In fact, this will be dramatized in my upcoming made-for-tv film "Homeland Insecurity" which will be released on the day Tom Skerritt apologizes for his role in NBC's racist, jingo-fest made-for-tv movie "Homeland Security" (now available on DVD!)
Welcome to the pretendocracy, people!
-- thinkyhead software and media
no citing truther says what?
Why do you say that? Based on what evidence?
It was clearly reported (and Silverstein himself said) that Silverstein and the fire department were in close communication long before the building collapsed. (In fact, contrary to the official story, it has been proven that the firefighters were told to leave the building hours before the collapse. So who WERE the people in the building? FEMA employees reported that for some strange reason, there were a lot of police. Not CIA or FBI, which had offices there. Police.)
Who is to say -- hypothetically only of course -- that the owner of the building did not tell the fire department, at that point, that there were demolition charges in place just for that kind of eventuality?
Improbable? Sure! But more probable than the building coming down due to a cause that had NEVER been seen at any other time or place in the history of the world. Ever. Before or since.
Hint: prior to 9/11, NO steel-structure skyscraper had EVER come down due to fire. And there have been plenty of fires, some of them much more extensive than in WTC 7. In fact, skyscrapers -- even much older skyscrapers -- have been completely gutted from fire before, leaving little more than the steel members left standing. But stand they did. And 9/11 saw THREE buildings supposedly collapse due to fire. AND... WTC 7 had not been struck by planes... so it did not have the excuse the other buildings did to fail.
I am NOT saying that fire did not cause the building's collapse. But I AM saying that just about all the real evidence points to it being unlikely as hell. Much more unlikely than the hypothetical situation given above. Which does not require prior collusion from the fire department for weeks in advance.
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so thereâ(TM)s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bushâ(TM)s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osamaâ(TM)s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbo
I lol'd :)
For those of you who visited that site and laughed your ass off at the idiots trying to act like proffesionals, you may also want to check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It seems that a few of the nutters finally realized that they'd never get their drivel published in a real journal, so they started their own! Have a look at their "articles" - they're pure comedic genius.
Yes, militaries keep secrets sense it is sound tactics, but they are always released later on, and lots of people know about them.
In your examples, they kept a secret for a couple of months, but knowing that the truth would come out with the fruition of the plan. That eases one's ability to maintain a secret...knowing that he will be released of the burden later on.
That is far different from keeping a secret that is never ever supposed to come out for many years, especially when the more people are in on something, the less likely it is to be be secret, especially when the secret is a heinous human rights violation of treasonous proportions.
Someone blew the whistle on Enron scams, so there's just as much proof that conspiracies can't hold up over time.
If you study the 9/11 conspiracies, you can see that match the realm of the desperate, grabbing at any straws they can to support their theories instead of engaging in honest discussions of truth. So much evidence must be concocted to piece everything together that Occam's Razor cuts through their arguments very quickly.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
"They will believe anything, because they cannot afford truth."
"You are, in fact, accusing the owner of the building of having said something that he's repeatedly denied saying. You've taken a word out of context (Actually, not even that. You've invented a new meaning of a word.), added in a failure to realize that almost all building collapses look the same, and and made up some absurd theory that the US government went and told the extremely liberal BBC about a building collapse before it happens, and the BBC has not questioned this."
First, * I * did not make anything up. This was not my idea. And I did not "accuse" him of saying anything he did not, in fact, say. Further, I did not "make up" the fact that "pull" means to demolish via explosives. If you would BOTHER to look these things up, you would know that. In fact, the head of the demolition crew that took down Building 6 later used EXACTLY that same term in reference to their explosive demolition, on public television. Regardless of your opinion of YouTube, you can find unaltered clips of his statement that they were about to "pull" the building using explosives. THIS APPEARED ON PUBLIC TELEVISION and was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. You are simply wrong in that regard. Which you would know if you bothered to research your "facts". It's right there on the net, guy. Provably authentic. Easy to find. Go watch it.
As I already explained elsewhere, my "theory" does NOT require complicity by the NYFD. Your claim that it does is erroneous. In fact, there are more likely explanations than complicity by the NYFD, which still do not contradict "my" theory (which is not "mine" at all).
"And as for your question, the reason there is not an inquiry is that EVERYONE KNOWS STEEL REINFORCED BUILDINGS FALL DOWN IF THEY REMAIN ON FIRE."
Here is where you are absolutely, provably, dead WRONG. Look it up yourself. Prior to that 9/11, NO steel-structure skyscraper, anywhere in the world, at ANY time, had collapsed due to fire! Not one. Anywhere. Ever. There have been fires. Lots of them. But NONE of them ever caused the building to collapse -- EVER -- prior to 9/11. Or since. Even when the interior of the building was completely gutted, the steel structure remained standing. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF! You are WRONG.
I challenge you to show me even one supportable counterexample to show that is false.
Your final statement may or may not be wrong, but it is completely beside the point. It has nothing to do with the collapse of the building hours later. I can understand why you think it might, because you obviously believe that fires commonly bring down skyscrapers. But as it turns out, you are just plain wrong on that point. Again, if you can find a supportable counterexample, by all means let's have it. I don't mind admitting that I am wrong... if you can demonstrate that I am. You won't, because I am not.
Jet fuel does not reach temperatures capable of causing damage to steel and further more quickly burns off due to the highly flammable nature of it leaving only carpets and other highly inefficient fuels to burn...at even lower temperatures. But I suppose this still explains the 45 degree angle cuts in thermite style on the core columns and numerous reports of explosions in the basements and why such low temperatures smoldered liquid steel in the ground for days. Not to mention in all the history of skyscrapers in all the nations in the world and all the fires that have burned in them two towers specifically engineered to take the impacts of planes just happen to break all simple temperature rules and burn on down. Oh and at the same a time a building where gold bars are stored just happened to not only catch on fire but have the same tragic end as the wool over the eyes towers.
Fucking morons, you will wish you pulled your heads out of your asses when your new overlords put your stupid sheep minds to work in the cotton fields.
When talking about the so-called controlled demolition theory of 7 World Trade, it was only the conspiracy theorists who called it "W-T-C-7" when talking about it.
These buildings were known by a different name in colloquial speech:
The building in question was known as "7 World Trade." The others were "1 World Trade" and "2 World Trade" and the like. Never "South Tower" or "W-T-C-Anything."
All this internet-based conspiracism by non-locals has renamed them "WTCx" but they were never known as such to the 400+ men and women who died protecting them on 9/11.
.
Kriston
They are reporting about the Twin Towers. Then they say that they just received a "report" that the "Salomon Brothers building" (mentioned by name) had collapsed. They described the building AND its location in relation to the others. (All the while, the building was still visible in the window. So there was no mistake about when the report was actually made.)
How could they have "accidentally" gotten all those other facts straight? Possible, but the odds against it are enormous. And mere minutes before it actually fell? That would be a "coincidence" of world-class proportions. Which do happen... no doubt about that. But when you add it to all the other "coincidences" about the very same thing that very same day, it becomes... well, the word "suspicious" does not even remotely do it justice.
i would just like to point out is what about the plane that disintegrated? what about the pentagon? i still think those are more important to the situation that the WTC. yes it WAS a tragedy (i still think it was set up) but why are we concentrating on the WTC buildings? wouldnt the disintegrated plane bring up more questions? or the pentagon we all know there in NO plane especially jet powered the same size as the explosion? i understand the pentagon if reinforced but even the walls still would have cracked a bit more than they did? i care for the people that died in the WTC building but i think if we are still going to blame terrorist (dont forget over 50% of those terrorist are still alive that supposedly hijacked the planes) that we should look more where they hit the GOVT not where they hit the people. and dont forget they supposedly found a passport from one of the terrorists on the plane in the debris. that brings the biggest question to me. what about the millions of $$ of gold that dissapeared. and last but not least. how long have we the USA been looking for a reason to retaliate for the gulf war. with nato and the UN how can we start a war without it going to WW3? make up information and a tragedy then blame it on whom you want.
This is the real truth behind 9/11 http://wtfoff.com/2007/04/13/jason-the-real-truth-behind-911/
I do not find Silverstein's explanation of his earlier comment about "pulling" (the building?) to be plausible. According to the article to which you linked, there is another telling fact, which is also reported elsewhere: a spokesman for the Fire Department, when asked about Silverstein's claim that he agreed to "pull the firefighters out", said (paraphrase): "We have complete independent control over whether we pull out of a building on fire. Nobody but the Fire Chief makes that decision."
In essence, he was (very diplomatically) implying that Silverstein was lying.
It is certainly POSSIBLE that the BBC report was a mistake. Reuters admitted that they erroneously reported building 7 collapsing. But... THAT BEGS THE QUESTION. The question is: "How could such a mistake have been made???" It is improbable as hell. Even given that it was a chaotic, difficult-to-deal-with day, the odds of that particular "error" happening accidentally at that particular time are vanishingly small. Not impossible, but very improbable.
WOW This NIST report is a real slap in the face of science, WOW I'm in shock that This garbage gets put out. Check out the independent research that 400+ Architects and Engineers have put out and the Rebuttal against this Abomination of science and decency, http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 Here we discuss the report and deconstruct it. http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/export/TNRA_20080822.mp3 see the science here http://www.ae911truth.org/
The Germans only had interest in Allied atomic research. They had no real information on allied atomic research.
Check the text of pp 347-348 in Heisenberg's War by T. Powers at google books...
http://books.google.com/books?id=4i2ghEnG6VkC&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=german+knowledge+manhattan+project&source=web&ots=80jOHCHQxO&sig=nHXDnjxwqM6dbBD-F0da8k78AuA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA347,M1
This German WW2 radios collection website...
http://www.laud.no/ww2/se108/index.htm ...shows German spy radio transmitters were built with variable frequency transmitters. Sorry. No single local frequency to block. Jamming attempts would be very hit and miss propositions.
Your reply here does not in any way dispute the scientific research being done there. I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings there. I see you calling people names.
That's a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [wikipedia.org]
You aren't engaging of honest discussions of any evidence here. nI don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings. I see you calling people names and lobbing insults.
That's a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [wikipedia.org]
Appointed by the lying Bush administration. Yeah, I believe everything they say. Wait, Cheney has been implicated by ex-CIA in forging fake documents to "prove" that Sadam was working with Al Queda and the Bush white house outed an active CIA agent when her hubby shot down their fake uranium yellow cake documents. Yeah, this white house never fakes documents it releases to the public. Riiiiiight.
Perhaps I just don't get it. But metals conduct heat, unless all the metal is enclosed in a hot enough fire , or the fire is concentrated on any one point, wouldn't the structure just act as one big heat sink and dissipate most of the heat? And if the pancake theory is true, then where are all the core columns? Shouldn't there be 100+ floors worth of central columns twisted at the bottom of the rubble? And why did nasa report fires still burning weeks later at elevated temperatures, where did they come from? Leave the conspiracy theories out, these are important questions. We have standards for a reason , and that is to prevent things like this from happening. The report just leaves me feeling stupid.
They use rebar, I'm sure if that heated up it would fail, and the concrete alone can't handle the stress, so it would still collapse, although it would take longer.
I am challenging a Republican incumbant in the primary here in Wisconsin. I think the events of 911 involve US Government and Israeli Mossad.
http://www.josephwilliambaker.org/
Neither of those statements are true.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
They described the building both by name (Salomon Brothers) and by number.
Yes, they were quoting the Reuters press release. Big deal. The Reuters release was wrong. A single person gets it wrong and it spreads through the news organizations. The person reporting it at the BBC had no clue what building it was.
"No, he didn't. You didn't link to it, it doesn't exist."
Garbage. I don't have to link to everything that you can find yourself in 30 seconds on Google or YouTube. Don't ask me to do your homework for you. If you are too lazy, you are too lazy. But that is YOUR problem, not mine! Wrong is wrong, even if you are afraid to prove it to yourself. I am not your mommy.
"Um, actually, buddy, the balls in your court to show a non-concrete core building that was allowed to burn for an hour without the fire being fought and didn't collapse."
Nonsense again. I have no obligation to prove to you every claim I make. YOU are the one who called "bullshit". In this society, it is traditionally YOUR job to show that the call has some kind of basis. And in this case it does not.
"None of them did not have a concrete core."
Really? NONE of the steel-structure skyscrapers that burned did NOT have a concrete core? That's a rather incredible claim. I know of one such... but only one.
Regardless, I can meet YOUR challenge easily enough: WTC 7 burned for a good many hours, without active firefighting, without collapsing. The fire department actually gave up on the fire early in the day; the building was not brought down until almost 5:30.
So: I showed you mine, now it's your turn. How about some evidence? I have given you plenty, for free. You have claimed some things that have turned out not to be true. How about a little evidence to back up your rebuttal, for a change? You are starting to look pretty silly.
The thought that you can get three out of three perfect collapses by splashing them with a bit of aviation fuel must have demolition companies shaking in their boots.
Your premise is ridiculously flawed. The collapses were very, very far from "perfect" by the standards of controlled demolition. The buildings did not fall straight down at all--the outer walls peeled outward and disintegrated, with debris landing hundreds of yards away and thoroughly destroying all neighboring buildings.
Any controlled demolition company watching the fall would feel very comfortable about their jobs. Those companies don't get paid just to knock buildings down. They get paid to drop the debris where it is supposed to go, and only where it is supposed to go.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20041115a.asp
The floors weakened, but the building did not collapse. And it did not have a concrete core.
Firefighters stopped work on this fire in the early afternoon. The fire was described as "raging", and the sprinklers in the building did not work. The fire continued to burn for a very long time after that.
So... I met your challenge, and it took me all of about 10 seconds to find this case on the internet. Your turn.
A Beowulf cluster was needed to invent a lie bigger that the 9/11 one, just to try to fool people again.
The solution is waaaaay simpler. I've got a lot of beer that day and the burp was sooooo big that the entire building was brought down.
As of credibility the two explanations are more or less on the same level...
There were massive steel beams running through the central core of the WTC buildings.
To use the martial artist metaphor properly, there would have to be about 12 lengths of rebar running side-by-side securing each board right through the middle of the boards the guy was trying to break.
Wrongo, old chap!
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm [wtc7.net]
As a result of the investigation covered by this story, they discovered weaknesses in current building designs, and we could potentially save lives in the future by applying new building standards to deal with these weaknesses. 9/11 conspiracy theorists, however, would ignore these findings and stick firmly to their "they bombed it" stance, or whatever they are saying nowadays.
9/11 conspiracy theorists are trying to prevent us from learning from the mistakes made in constructing these building. They are trying to deflect everyone's attention to other things. Things that won't make buildings safer in the future.
I hate crackpot theories. I can't believe people are stupid enough to believe them.
So what was the reason they found molten steel underneath the towers? I couldn't find NIST's explanation. I have a crackpot friend who keeps bringing that crap up and I want to FINALLY shut him up for good.
The seismic data disprove both NIST reports.
Huge explosions in the ground immediately before the collapses of both of the WTC buildings.
http://uscrisis.lege.net/911/
Both the old and new NIST reports have no explanation for the huge shock recorded in the seismic recordings immediately preceding the WTC collapses.
Every single sample of WTC ash that has been tested by independent labs has found the residue of thermite in that ash.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Science has led to the controlled demolition hypothesis. No other hypothesis fits the data.
Better take a look at good hard look at what is in the public record regarding what Bechtel Corp. of being fully capable of accomplishing before being so dismissive.
Any type of credible criminal investigation would have them at the top of the list of potential suspects.
You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.
The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyskraper. Period.
I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.
If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent laws shows thermite residue in every single sample.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
-----
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.
The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyscraper. It burns at too low a temperature to have any significant effect on the structural integrity of steel beams. Period.
I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.
If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent labs shows thermite residue in every one of those samples.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf [journalof911studies.com]
-----
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃffC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
my big 8====D fell on the towers, I admit it, it could have been me sleepwalking.
I keep saying this over and over. Hell, I think these problems are important enough, so let's just build an exact WTC7 replica and see what it takes to duplicate the collapse.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Ok, let's do some basic Newtonian Physics...
You know ? the stuff most of you debunkers have flunk in college ?
Ok, it's been established that WTC1,2 and 7 felled at near free fall speed...
What does that mean ? If we suppose that gravity was the only force pulling the buildings down it means basically that m * g * h = 1/2 * m * v * v.
If you had any resistance from the structure, it would have opposed the gravitational force:
F_net = F_gravity - F_resistance and since F = m * a, it would have reduce acceleration and hence speed of fall...
Now consider the conservation of momentum... We can consider this collapse as a large number of inelastic collision so
p_before = m1 * v1 + m2 * v2
Initially v2 = 0 so p_before = m1 * v1
After the collision:
p_after = (m1 + m2) * v3
Hence by conservation of momentum
m1 * v1 = (m1 + m2) * v3
Suppose for example that m1 = m2, we get v3 = 1/2 * v1, so in one inelastic collision, we lost 50% of speed and 50% of energy...
It follows that a structure collapsing cannot do so at anything even approaching free fall speed unless helped by something else... (And I'm not even talking about the symmetry of the collapse or the fact that it fell down through the path of maximum resistance...)
But I don't expect so called debunkers to get it though, since this explanation does require that you passed physics in college...
Those examples are not connected in any way. Making that connection is fallacious.
Holocaust deniers and ID proponents are most often politically, spiritually, and scientifically opposed to the 9/11 truthers I've met.
Most of them seem like godless atheists who want to talk about the burning point of jet fuel and thermate, evidence of which has been found in the dust and wreckage.
There is clearly a cover-up going on, no matter WHAT you might suppose actually happened.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Well, actually, the payment of the hijackers was done by high levels of the ISI, Pakistani CIA run largely by our own. The 9/11 commission report suggested this funding and tracing it was "of little practical value." All the Al Quaeda members involved were not on flight manifests. They were out drinking at strip clubs, and some are still alive. Besides which, the CIA has been funding Al Quaeda all along, including during the time we were fighting the cold war in Afganistan against the Soviets.
But you know, when the mob pays a hit man, police rarely bother chasing the money trail, right?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Why is there so much desperation here that there be NO nefarious activities from the US wrt 11/9?
OK, let's suppose a sprinkling of jet fuel DID bring the buildings down with perfectly cut 45 degree angle I beam cuts (of which there are several pictures). Please explain:
1. Who killed Kennedy.
2. The role of the Federal Reserve, and IRS, and how it is constitutional.
3. The electoral college, and the reliability of Diebold voting machines.
4. Why we can't get candidates not bought and paid for by mega-corporations.
5. How there is a free press, when every newspaper, magazine, radio station, TV station, book publisher and movie publisher is owned by five corporations: Viacom, AOL/Time, News Corp, Disney, and Bertellsmann.
6. Why Marvin Bush was in charge of security for the WTC for only one month prior to 9/11.
7. Why there is no footage publicly released that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon, arguably the highest security building in the world.
8. Why the Bush family and Bin Laden family are so cozy.
I mean, even if some stripper loving drunkard muslims did bring down the buildings and live to tell about it later, how do you explain the complete lack of transparency and latent fascism encroaching whats left of our democracy?
Who wants to volunteer for a water-boarding?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Stop calling it a conspiracy THEORY. There were tons of put options put up in the week before 9/11 on the airline industry, and the insurance for the whole wtc complex changed hands less than 2 months before. There most certainly was a conspiracy, now the only theories are trying to figure who perpetrated this dastardly deed.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
since if there IS a conspiracy, there ARE people who know about it. That's what your "crackpots" are saying.
You also say that they must be so smart that they can hid it (from everyone, as long as "everyone" includes only those who don't know) but also so dumb as to make mistakes. Uh, you can still make mistakes AND make smart moves at the same time. You may walk out the house and forget your car keys yet fail to run over several people driving to work. So you've done dumb things and not dumb things.
"Unpossible" you say...
The other buildings were hit by a plane, not that one.
And how many high-temp elements are normal office fittings? Paper burns about 451F. Wood about 1000F tops (char bricks). Do most offices have flammables that burn 4x hotter than wood or more?
Look, the "conspiracy" here could be just burying any evidence that doesn't pin the blame on Al Quaeda (and Iraq?). It could be that the building was designed to survive it but it wasn't BUILT on that spec and this cannot be uncovered (else the anger at the deaths by terrorist attack may turn on US companies).
But you just label them "crackpot" and "nuts" because they sit there and go "hang on, that can't be right".
Yeah, right. And the "molten steel" absurdity too. You really need to gauge your eyes out so you stop reading retarded shit like that, it rots your brain.
Your reply here does not in any way dispute the scientific research being done there. I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings there. I see you calling people names.
Well I can ask more questions though? Like the big argument of the 911 "truth" people is that, the building fell straight down and that can only happen when it's a professional job. But here's the thing, show me a 37 story building that tips over sideways and I'll believe it can happen. I've only seen buildings implode straight down. Saw a bulldozer try and tip over a 15 story smokestack once, and even that imploded. (on top of the dozer to boot)
So I just don't understand why people believe that a huge skyscraper can tip over.
You'll have that sometimes...
The official story of 911 is a huge lie. Even us nerds, as smart as we are, have been pulled into a matrix where we accept authority as truth instead of truth as authority. There are so many holes in the official government story of 9-11. It is completely absurd and almost laughable that the general public has been fed and believes such a fairy tale. I am not going to go into specific points. Once you realize the truth behind the building collapses and the cover-up taken place to hide the truth of 9-11, you never really look at life the same way again. It is really the Matrix red pill. I watched the greatest 911 film I have ever seen last night, and I have seen them all. I invite you to watch Zero: An investigation into 911. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0
I have addressed this question elsewhere in this thread at least three times already. My opinion on it should be well known by now.
My hope is these findings will make the people who are considering a crackpot point of view to choose to believe otherwise.
I feel we should treat the "9/11 Truthers" the same way we should treat the "Flat Earth Society." Ignore the loonies and not give them the satisfaction of any attention.
You risk alienating the majority of your readership with something as juvenile as name-calling. I'm a crackpot? Meanie!
(There is an entirely different 'Monokote' which is just a kind of plastic shrink wrap. Don't get confused.)
Oh phew, I was wondering what kind of idiot used RC plane skin as a fire deterrent! I can tell you that stuff doesn't slow fires down one bit!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here?
Well how about this little painfully obvious FACT:
In the history of modern building, there have been only 3 skyscrapers to ever fall do to fires: WTC1, 2, and WTC 7. Coincidence? I think not. Especially since there was a building in I believe Brazil that burned for over 18 hours and never fell. And those buildings weren't built as well as the three towers were. Go figure. But you guys go ahead and keep believing what they are shoving down your throats...that the laws of physics don't matter.
my favorite 9/11 site is this one.
What do you, sane, non-crackpot people, will say to that? That those cars too were melted by the biblical fires in the WTC 7?
Btw, what is the point of bringing the 9/11 issue up, over and over again? If you can't make someone believe *your* truth, just make them forget.
Isn't vision what's really being argued here? It seems that everyone wants to see 9/11 in their own light. There will always be people who want to think that the simple answer is that the government did it. Just because one can watch the YouTube videos of the politicians indoctrinating the audience with words of '9/11' doesn't mean that they were behind the so-called 'attack'. The politicians certainly had their own, now-unravelling agenda after it, but were they responsible for it? Likely not. Maybe financed, through cash that can't be traced so that any investigation would turn up with empty leads.
Facts can be argued and are being used like bible verses. Paint with a big brush with bristles of bible verses, and you can depict any picture. Facts are not holy writ, especially when they are construed by people who are paid money.
What's the concern? Isn't it fear? Fear that the government could be responsible for such a thing? Or fear that some jihad might be organized enough to send a symbolic message that world trade is collapsing? Is it the sub-cultural knowledge that very few that don't watch YouTube know about the third building on 9/11, resulting in a severe blindness between the larger culture and the sub-culture? Is it fear that there could be something so deep here that goes beyond the Bush administration, beyond the World Bank and beyond even World War I?
Instead of arguing over who's right and who's wrong, perhaps what we need to be doing is working to abolish fear of basic survival in our communities. How can we be conscious of the larger world, and how can we respond to the great unknowns? Perhaps it all starts at home.
Neutiquam erro
Did anybody notice? I spent 5 minutes looking at the NIST site on this and as a interested layman I'd sure love to have a working licensed PE walk me through the draft report. The NIST video leads by saying that no tall building had ever collapsed primarily due to fire previous to 9/11 so they clearly know they had some 'splaining to do. Anyway, it's open for public comment through September 15. If you can see any glaring holes in their logic, if they've omitted pertinent facts, or if they've simply got something wrong you have a couple of weeks to get it together and let them know they're full of BS or maybe even to get your favorite tenured or emeritus engineering faculty member to do it for you.
It is obvious that many of you doesn't take into consideration that most efficient and easy way to collapse a steel structure is to use thermite 'explosive', which doesnt explode at all, in fact thermite generate an extremely powerful exothermic reaction, that can reach temperatures in excess of 2500-3000degrees Celsius. So there is no need to hear any loud bang at all. In addiction thermite is composed of very easily produceable and transportable materials, ferrous oxide (rust+-) plus aluminium powder, which in fact can be carried inside a building without any concerns about security checks and can be installed around main structures without big problems by a team of post-delivery service boys in few weeks-months. Thermite cannot be stopped in any way once the reaction is started , no water , no lack of oxygen, no anything almost. Even a very rough placement of the charges will produce a high destructive flow of molten steel that will weaked/melt any other steel-made parts it comes in contact with. What strikes me more yet is the totally symmetrical way all the buildings collapsed... this is totally unlikely to me.. I would expect the top tower bend in the way the airplane damaged the structure and eventually fall off... but not almost perfect vertical collapse. And the highly thermical hotspots that were present in the ruins for so long time really reminds of active thermite reactions... When there are trillions on dollars in the equation black can turn white and viceversa...really.... cheers mrn
How much jet fuel was in any particular plane is meaningless in this discussion, since NO PLANE CRASHED INTO WTC7.
Are we in the same conversation yet?
> This triggered the failure of the entire
> core of the building, which finally fell
> down as a single piece. Crackpot theories
> can be discussed elsewhere
what BS. The NIST theory is the crackpot
theory. Anyone can watch the videos and
see the evenly sequenced events walking
up the building just before the collapse
--unless you think pancaking
can happen upwards, as well as downwards.
By the way, NIST repudiated the pancake ......
theory respecting WTC-1 and -2 back in
2006. Didn't hear about that from the
mainstream press, did you?
why the heck is NIST doing these reports
anyway? Why did FEMA do the first report?
Not enough corruptible officials at NTSB?
Who was fired for the lack of air security over our capitol that day? Over New York? Who was fired because of inadequate communication equipment in the towers for the first responders? Who was fired because the buildings collapsed despite being billed as capable of withstanding such a collision? Who was fired for not taking the previously reported threats of hijacked airplane weapons seriously?
I know i'm throwing fuel on the fire here And I will say now that I am reletivly undecided, though I will admit I lean to the idea that a gov' which has pretty much limmitless resources could pull this off. Any way, I can accept the explanasion of pancaking, It's makes perfect sense, the momentum and energy in a steel and concrete floor collapsing would be more then enough, an dby the time it reaches and stable floor woul dbe too much. But what i was thinking was, for that theory you only need one of the higher floors to fail, and that means it takes a whole lot less effot to collaps a building, and even less when you consider a plane has just hit it. it's just a thought that particularly in wtc7 where there were several gov angencies, including CIA, that setting one floor of charges may not be all that inpossible.
BZZT! Wrong. That there was to be an invasion was no secret at all, really. Too hard to hide several thousand airplanes and gliders, millions of men and the material to support them, as well as the largest invasion fleet ever. What was considered so very secret was the location of the landings of the initial thrust of the invasion.
Read D-Day 1944: Voices from Normandy (or any other concise and well-researched history of that event), and you'll learn that only the people at the very, very top of SCHAEF knew when and where the actual landings were going to take place. It was an extremely closely held secret. Field commanders in our own combined armies were not told their destinations until just a day or two ahead, and which time they were put under what was basically "quarantine" from the rest of Britain, and began the actual movement to their respective method of transport to the invasion beachs.
Rommel left his post for the family visit because he had roughly the same weather reports we did (which were cause for much concern that we weren't going to be able to pull off the landings). The forecast that he had was that the storm coming in from the Atlantic would be several days duration at minimum. But for a roughly 36 hour break in the weather (IIRC), we wouldn't have been able to pull off the initial landings. He knew the invasion was coming, and very very soon. Were it not for the storm laying down just (barely*) enough for the invasion forces, his decision would have been fine.
(*We lost a lot of men due to the conditions and sea state. Especially vulnerable were the amphibious vehicles and tanks.)
The NIST report does not explain news reports as that is not their job.
And major network news reported it falling while it was still standing in plain sight behind them.
Duh Media have an aversion to accuracy. Basing anything on what Duh Media reports is hazardous. It is unfortunately possible, even likely, that a reporter can stand in front of a fact and misreport that fact.
But in this instance, they may have been correct. WTC 7 could very well have been falling down during their reports, with beams giving way bolts severing and whatnot, just not enough to be obvious in a news clip.
In any case, you're basing far too much on hurried reportage. Duh Media are idiots and liars on their best days, and whether a day when 3000 Americans died was one of their good days is unfortunately still an open question.
just like they did when they announced #7 had fallen twenty minutes before it actually fell
Wow wow wow wow wow.
I honestly CANNOT believe all the pro-government-theory on here. Man I remember when Slashdot used to have intelligent discussion based on REAL facts. The amount of just brainless Bill ORiley-esque retardation I'm reading is just depressing. Utterly and totally depressing. Slashdot has been overrun by snippy, blog running, opinionated Digg users.
Slashdot is dead.
but that exact argument was just used to "successfully" explain why "pull" didn't mean "pull"
who are the real fuckheads here?
Disclaimer: I don't believe the official story, but I'm not a "truther"
You talk about the design of the buildings being such that the collapse in a predictable way.
I have a CS degree, and I'm in EE right now, although I haven't gotten into any specifically engineering classes (just math/physics, etc.).
To someone like me who is a relative layman, what would I need to study to get a better idea of this? One the things that always got me about the twin towers and especially 7 was the relative symmetry of their collapse. From my thinking, the only way this would be possible is for all or most of the structural columns to fail simultaneously. But apparently you're saying that's not true. Any links you can give me would be appreciated.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
Oh my god, an English word has multiple meanings? Say it ain't so!
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Yes, it can. The steel will weaken from the heat, the stress of the crash and debris and floors above will cause a collapse.
Learn to love Alaska
Why were there explosions in the basements reported by multiple sources *prior* to any planes hitting any buildings?
I am not sure what happened on 911. But if you look at some of the eyewitness testimony available on google video you will find it fascinating. There are many people that heard explosions right before the towers went down. There is video of a new york fire fighter with some of his buds saying they heard sequential explosions. I believe this clip was taken very shortly after the towers fell. Is this man lying? Concerning wtc7 there is also eyewitness testimony where people said they heard a thunderclap, then it fell. Here are two conspiracy videos you might want to check out. The first is an mit engineer talking about the collapse. The second deals with wtc7 collapse. I know most videos are from crackpot nuts but there can be some really good eyewitness testimony in them. Are these people just plain liars. What is the deal?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&hl=en/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739&ei=nxKzSKOuNZOKrgP25tjADA&q=wtc&hl=en/
Building 7? I thought there were only 2?
It is one thing to link to a story or article that is hard to find. It is quite another to insist on links to information you can find FOR YOURSELF in less than 10 seconds if you are a reasonable typist and have an internet connection. You have "won" nothing, except to look like a lazy ass.
"Your example of a building that didn't collapse is a building that did collapse? Interesting. I think I'll let that example stand without any comment at all."
No, you idiot. You asked for a building that burned for more than an hour without firefighters trying to put out the fire, but did not collapse. The fact is we were discussing one! WTC 7 burned for a number of hours, without active firefighting, and did not collapse until almost 5:30 that evening.
We were already discussing an example of what you asked for, and I pointed that out, and you were STILL to stupid to recognize it. Well, I DID give you what you asked for. If you think it doesn't "count", then too bad. You don't get to change the rules after someone else has won the argument.
"More to the point, slashdot isn't filled with traditional Truther morons. They understand that if you assert a web page exists, and I assert it doesn't, your job is to link to it. It is logically impossible for me to prove such a video doesn't exist. (Of course, logic? Not your strong suit.)"
That is actually pretty funny. What makes you think I am a "Truther" at all? Just because I disagree with you on one single issue? Hmmmm... looks like I am not the one here who has problems with logic. In a number of ways.
No, I am NOT obligated to provide links to you for everything I claim, when you can prove the claim to yourself with a few seconds' look at the evidence on the 'Net. YOU were the one who called "Bullshit". YOU are the one who is obligated to support your claim of "Bullshit". That is a tradition that goes a lot farther back than the Internet, not to mention Slashdot.
And you haven't. You have yet to give me ONE counterexample to my claim. I have given you TWO examples of what YOU asked for. So... who is winning, you think? I don't care if you don't like my examples... they are still examples that bested your challenge. If you don't care for that, then think through your challenges better next time. But you don't get to change the rules after the fact.
The Parque Central is still an example of a steel building that does not "have a concrete core". That's what you asked for. If you wanted something else, you should have asked for something else. But bitching about it afterward is nothing more than sour grapes. I win.
You are also wrong about the Parque Central being a "more modern" building. Parque Central construction began 4 years BEFORE WTC 7. It's all right there on the 'Net, guy. Don't blame me if you are too lazy to do your own research.
You can make excuses and try to change the rules of the game all you want, but the fact is that I have given you two counterexamples that met the criteria you asked for. You have not shown me even one that disproves my claim.
Okay. So "crazy nut job" conspiracy theorists who do not accept authority as truth simply due to its authority, have alleged that elements within the current Bush administration staged terror attacks on 9-11 in order for a pre-text for war and expanded power. So.. The NIST is going to say "Yes, my boss is guilty of the biggest criminal act of this century?" THINK AGAIN Best 911 Movie to date: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0
I am not claiming it didn't happen. I am claiming that the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. Maybe it did... but the odds are against it.
People have tried to say that this is an "extraordinary claim". But actually, it is the other way around.
The "official" claim is: on 9/11, THREE buildings -- one of which had not been struck even by much debris, not to mention any airplanes -- fell down due to a cause that had never been observed before in the history of the world, or since!!
If you ask me, THAT is the extraordinary claim. Not impossible, mind you... but rather extraordinary. I think -- based on some solid evidence -- that it is MORE LIKELY that it fell due to other reasons. That is all.
You give, as an example, a building that you, yourself, claim was of a completely different type of construction?
That is not a valid argument. Look back at the original statement. It was about STEEL structured buildings. If you can come up with a valid counterexample to THAT, then I will admit I am wrong and go away. But the Windsor Building is not an example of that kind of construction. In fact, it is even likely that weaker steel was used because the structure relied on its concrete core. Or perhaps not... but the fact remains that this is not an example of what I asked for.
Bwa hahahahahahahahaha
You haven't been reading carefully... or you skipped over part of the conversation, or something.
I am saying that it is UNLIKELY that it happened by accident, given all the other unlikely "accidents" that happened in the same direction.
When you have a number of independent events, the probability that they would all happen together by accident is the product of their individual probabilities. So when the individual events are all extremely improbable, the probability of them all occurring together at about the same time is so low as to be pretty damned astounding.
When things occur with probabilities that are THAT low, it should throw up a red flag. They do happen, of course... but one has to ask what is more likely. And there are a number of scenarios that are MORE LIKELY than all those accidents happening the way they did on that day.
And no, they are NOT all "conspiracy theory"!
"Repeat after me... YouTube is not a reliable source of information."
THAT was the context in which I replied. He clearly implied that he felt the video could have been faked (else, how could it be "unreliable"?). And that was the implication I was rebutting. Your comment is out of context.
My statement was that YouTube is irrelevant... the video was seen live by millions.
That was all.
As for the mistake, again people have been taking this out of context. Originally, I was trying to point out that this "mistake", WHEN PUT TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OTHER SUCH UNLIKELY MISTAKES THAT DAY, was highly improbable.
Perhaps my examples were not wonderful. But what I meant was people working independently, in different areas, who were not in contact. If there is no reasonable way to connect them, via proximity or shared communication (through a third party, for example), then those must be considered independent variables. You cannot consider them DEPENDENT variables unless you can show that they were connected in some way. I was referring to events that could not reasonably expected to be connected.
Does that clear it up for you?
Your bigfoot example is not even remotely relevant to the scenario I was trying to describe. Nor was it a good example even to illustrate what you were trying to say. That was simple sarcasm, and out of context. Please try to keep the discussion reasonable.
So, if your government is under suspicion of committing a false-flag type tragedy to manipulate their people, accept without question, said government's report on the event in question as objective and honest. Something's wrong with the system folks.
There are many plausible reasons why the building might have been wired with explosives. The building housed the CIA, SEC, and secret service. It is rational to suspect they had some kind of self destruct mechanism in place to be used in the event of a war or other event resulting in the loss of control of the building. But all that aside, there are plenty of well known videos on youtube that have capture the explosions. It is not a matter of eyewitness credibility.
No, you're wrong, foolio.
My, my, my. How you do hate real physical scientific evidence.
That seismic evidence isn't going anywhere. Neither is this..."
-The USGS Spectroscopy Lab produced images which showed dense thermal hot spots days and weeks after the attacks.
-ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees (1000 degrees hotter than jet fuel burns) Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
âoeWas the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? ⦠NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel.â
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable
difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented
destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan
2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NISTâ(TM)s story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is
at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for
fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other
pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with
explosive and thermite materials.
One of the most intriguing aspects of NISTâ(TM)s diversionary posture has been their total
lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the
substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators
(Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only
after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to
their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.
The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony
(MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005,
Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also
substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC
(Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire
where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all
parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of
each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted
much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).
These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).
This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called âoesolsâ, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting âoesol-gelâ is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far
Are you scientifically illiterate?
I just posted in the above post the results of a study done in the UK that says it doesn't.
As far as I can tell this is science fiction.
> Despite the substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC
Wishing doesn't make it so.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
My, my, my. How you do hate real physical scientific evidence.
Honestly, when using difficult words like "evidence", you should try to find out what they mean first.
The Earth just sucks.
Are you scientifically illiterate?
Not at all. Why are you?
I just posted in the above post the results of a study done in the UK that says it doesn't.
You posted about a student's thesis that indicates a structure in perfect condition suffers significant deflection under heat. Add in a little damage from a very large airplane smashing into it, plus the large confirmed deflection, and that sounds like a recipe for structural failure. My guess is that the terrorists expected instant collapse from a large plane slamming into the building. But it didn't happen. And if the sprinkler system were designed in a way that would allow continued operation, then it would have stood. However, there was massive damage at impact, including the sprinkler systems being destroyed, that also caused structural damage leading to the collapse. Your study was interesting, but only studies one point of the collapse, large deflection of steel buildings is confirmed. And that supports my statements, not refute them.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah because we know that the impact of an airplane flying as fast as it was going had no effect on the structural integrity of the core.
We know this because that is how it was engineered:
February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
Edit event
In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, âoeOur analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.â But, he says, âoeThe building structure would still be there.â [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: âoeThe buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707â"DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.â
You can't take the sky from me...