B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell)
Boeing 757: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757)

A casual glance will tell us two things. One: that the Boeing 757 was built after the WTC(some 20 years or so), and two, that the Boeing 757 travels much faster, and is significantly larger, than the B-25(The 757 is 41.2m, and the B-57 is 16.1m, 757 wingspan is 38m, B57 is 20m). Therefore entailing more force in the acceleration times mass equation, and more fuel. Relevance?

I also have to wonder what relevance a 200 pound bomb has to do with anything. the difference between a 200 pound bomb and hundred-ton+ plane moving at over 200 mph filled with massive quantities of jet fuel should be obvious to anyone with eyes. I included the date for a reason. This article was published after the first terrorist attack on the WTC. Thus the article makes reference to the bomb used in that attack. If the reference was confusing, then I apologize for not snipping it.

The steel supports on the damaged floors holding the floors above them are designed to take vertical pressure and slight horizontal movement. Additionally the construction differences between the Empire State Building, built some 30 years earlier, make the effects of a powerful impact entirely different. To be specific, the ESB was designed from the top down, and based on the plans of an even earlier building.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building)Again), relevance?

Relevance?
Um, that more weight and more mass, and more fuel at a higher speed creates increased amounts of damage?

I included the date for a reason. This article was published after the first terrorist attack on the WTC. Thus the article makes reference to the bomb used in that attack. If the reference was confusing, then I apologize for not snipping it.
that explains things.

Again, relevance?
That "a plane hitting a building" is not some kind of standard? The damage incurred depends greatly on the design of the building as well as the way the damage is delivered.

ex: if you punch a wall, you'll probably hurt your fist, and not bother the wall much. If you throw a wrench at your TV screen, you'll seriously damage your TV.

the key factors here are the design of what is being hit, and the manner in which you are hitting it. That's the relevance. We can't blankly say that a B25 plowing into the ESB is the same as Boeing 757 hitting the Twin Towers.

Um, that more weight and more mass, and more fuel at a higher speed creates increased amounts of damage?Ok fine, but what does B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber have to do with the multiple, fully-loaded Boeing 707s that the WTC building were designed to withstand or the Boeing 757s that struck them?

that explains things. Glad to hear it. Sorry again for the confusion.

We can't blankly say that a B25 plowing into the ESB is the same as Boeing 757 hitting the Twin Towers.I think you may be confused about what's being discussed there. I think I may have addressed this above, but please let me know if I did not.

Ok fine, but what does B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber have to do with the multiple, fully-loaded Boeing 707s that the WTC building were designed to withstand or the Boeing 757s that struck them?
my apologies, I missed that he was discussing that it was Boeing 707's the building was designed to withstand.

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length. My conclusion is thus:

Either the plane hit at a "sweet spot" and just hit all the right places, and burned up all the right things to soften the floor supports up(which is entirely possible), their calculations may have been incorrect, though buildings are tough, as they said, the Twin Towers were unprecedented things, and therefore more vulnerable to the effects of time and wear and tear.

However, I am curious if their "impact analysis" took into account the heat of the jet fuel and the explosion of the plane. As they said, they're not demolition experts, so taking the pure force exerted by the plane without the explosions or the heat from the fuel would leave a substantial part of the equation out. They said they thought the fuel would "dump into the building", I am assuming this to mean they thought the fuel would flow down the many floors, causing a much larger, but much less constrained fire. I suppose there could be a gap in their determinations there too.

http://www.foldmoney.com/)

I can do it too.

So, a 767 passenger plane going 500 miles an hour weighing 400,000 pounds and carrying 23,000 gallons of jet fuel had little to nothing to do with the buildings collapsing...

It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result of fire.
Yep, 100% true. They were also hit by 767 Passenger Planes. Maybe the inferno didn't do a lot of damage, but I bet those two planes did a fair amount themselves. Seeing as those buildings were already laughing at gravity...

Okay, you're telling me that untrained people from a long distance could tell the difference in sound from a secondary explosion to steel giving way under pressure and entire floors collapsing on top of each other? I mean, that's off the cuff stuff. I'd probably have thought it was secondary explosions too at the time. But with the benefit of hindsight, I think it can be reasonably stated that they were mistaken about secondary explosions.
Also, bodies landed all around the ground around the towers. When a human hits terminal velocity and hits the ground, it sounds like an explosion. The sounds many people heard could very much have been bodies hitting the ground, or the remains of the planes still exploding inside the towers. Or, as you said, the building groaning under its own weight and support beams snapping. Just because there -is- a loud noise does mean it was made by an explosive.

The Twin Towers fell straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a similar characteristic of a controlled demolition. The dust cloud and its make up are considered un-characteristic of a gravity-driven collapse.
Yep. They just happened to be 1,300 feet high though. Due to their massive height and weight, it isn't surprising that moderate structural damage from a 767 passenger plane caused it to succumb to its own gravity and collapse. The two buildings were impressive, but were also huge. As they say, the bigger they are... the harder they fall. Maybe they wanted to fall all along and the planes were the extra nudge they needed.

There is a small chance that our government could have helped out in the attacks, I'll give you that. There is also a small chance of most conspiracies to be correct, like the "Apollo 11 Moon Landings were faked by NASA" conspiracy.

Don't get me wrong, I hate this government and honestly, this country. But, I would not assume that the United States government planned this entire attack out, however. I wouldn't be surprised if some small strings were pulled, or that this administration is just blind... but I wouldn't assume that we would place bombs in 3 buildings and set them off, considering the right-wing conservative nature of this administration. Maybe I would consider it more if it appeared the administration and namely Bush was less self-obsessed.

Just because you don't believe theres a conspiracy, does not mean the people that do, are idiots. I'm not naming names, but you know who you are.
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx)

I'll say the same thing to you all as well, namely Achilles. Just because a few things don't fit doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. And just because we don't see the holes in the events as you do doesn't make us any less than you. This is still a conspiracy theory, and goes right up there with "Kentucky Fried Chicken makes black men impotent". Achilles, I'll have to find the documentary you spoke of about 9/11... but honestly I'd take it with a mountain of salt in the same way I do Michael Moore. I'll soak it in and double check everything said, but that doesn't make it any less questionable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698)
Date: February 27, 1993
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our 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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Boeing 707
Wingspan 130 ft 10 in (39.90 m)
Length 144 ft 6 in (44.07 m)
Takeoff Weight 257,000 lb (116,570 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/707.htm)

(9/11 Planes) Boeing 767-200ER
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html)

Plane 1:
About 466 mph

Plane 2:
About 545 mph

The two 767 planes that hit the WTC were significantly larger and heavier than your 707. More mass hitting those towers with more power behind the explosion, making the comparison of a 707 to a 767 irrelevant. You can argue that the 707 information matches the 767, but the numbers say otherwise. Both planes hit those buildings at roughly 500 mph with roughly 400,000 lb of force behind them along with the exploding jet fuel.

And, as Web said, the ESB is not the WTC. They are built differently, and the WTC was significantly larger.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov). This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composit wtc floor system

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpgg)
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length. My conclusion is thus:
American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223ER
United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222ER

Both of them are a good 20%+ bigger than the 707.

my apologies, I missed that he was discussing that it was Boeing 707's the building was designed to withstand. It's no problem. I'm glad we found the source of the misunderstanding.

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length. Don't let Jae hear you say that. :xp:

My conclusion is thus:

Either the plane hit at a "sweet spot" and just hit all the right places, Heck of a coincidence that probably has truly astounding odds (assuming that such an explanation is even valid)

and burned up all the right things to soften the floor supports up(which is entirely possible), Steel trusses, welded and bolted. Floors constructed of concrete. Otherwise ditto what I said above.

their calculations may have been incorrect, And multiple tests carried out by agencies responsible for certifying the results all missed it. Yes, possible but how likely?

though buildings are tough, as they said, the Twin Towers were unprecedented things, and therefore more vulnerable to the effects of time and wear and tear. Steel, concrete, glass, and aluminum. Also possible, but I think that's going to be a very hard sell.

However, I am curious if their "impact analysis" took into account the heat of the jet fuel and the explosion of the plane. Yep, per the aforementioned testing and certified results (per the sources I've seen, FWIW).

As they said, they're not demolition experts, so taking the pure force exerted by the plane without the explosions or the heat from the fuel would leave a substantial part of the equation out. We see the fuel being burned off in the fireball on impact. Unless those planes were carrying napalm instead of jet fuel, I'd say that's going to be another tough sell.

They said they thought the fuel would "dump into the building", I am assuming this to mean they thought the fuel would flow down the many floors, causing a much larger, but much less constrained fire. I suppose there could be a gap in their determinations there too.True.

You do this just to hear me rant about burden of proof, I know it. :xp:

Well, actually I was hoping for someone to rant about how the Jesuits are taking over the world, but I suppose a rant on the burden of proof would come close second for entertainment value. :xp: :D

In seriousness, though, how many buildings have been crashed into by 'planes prior to the September 11th attacks? I can't think of any myself.

And I'm afraid that projections often are inaccurate. In 1929, Hoover projected that shares had hit a permanently stable plateau. The Orion Correlation Theory projected that the Great Pyramid was built in 10,500 BC - a figure which is such a nonsense as to be truly fantastical. I could go on.

My point is, projections do not equate to accurate information. Projections go wrong all the time. Every day, in fact.

True, probability is against pot luck meaning that the 'planes hit the right spot and burnt the right things, but to say that it is unlikely is not to say that it is either impossible or that other theories are more likely.

By-the-by, does anyone know roughly what temperature range jet fuel burns at?

By-the-by, does anyone know roughly what temperature range jet fuel burns at?
Maximum burning temperature: 1796 °F

I don't know, granted the Buildings could take a hit, they couldn't take 2 plane strikes. Not only do the planes hit the building, instantly weakening the structure, but they also send off vibrations when they do so. These vibrations do even more damage than has already been done, further weaking the structure.

After some time of both fuel burning, parts of the plane falling, pieces of the building falling. The towers collapsed, when horizontal support beams collapse, the floor falls. When you get at least 10 floors dropped, it's not too hard to imagine that maybe the building will crush under itself.

I believe that is the same concept they use when aligning explosives to demolish a building. Take out about 14% of the building and have the rest drop on it.

Its time for one of those famous J7 common sense posts...

(TA I apologise but I don't have time to read all of your post)

Right I've browsed this thread... too those who seem to think there were explosive in WTC why didn't the building just collapse when the planes hit both towers?

The documentary I watched here hypothesized, that the fuel, got past the steel's fireproofing and slowly melted the super structure and that then the building above then collapsed down causing the chain reaction... That seems to me a far more reasonable hypothesis than, explosives being placed, partly because common sense tells me that the explosion was nowhere near big enough to be fully laden 747 + explosives.

As for conspiracy theories, I think this an entirely unreasonable one as far as explosives being placed in the building. I can't comment on other factors such as intelligence failure etc. However if you want a conspiracy think JFK... That was a conspiracy, however most conspiracy theories are thought up to make the truth more colourful than it needs to be.

My 2 cents...

And I'm afraid that projections often are inaccurate. In 1929, Hoover projected that shares had hit a permanently stable plateau. The Orion Correlation Theory projected that the Great Pyramid was built in 10,500 BC - a figure which is such a nonsense as to be truly fantastical. I could go on.I see what you're trying to say, but you're using unrelated examples to support your point. Engineering is a little more of a precise science and models are more easily testable than those of finance and the estimates of archeology. So this is really apples and oranges.

What we need are examples of catastrophic structural failures that occurred as a result of something that was tested for and ended up being wrong (pre Sept. 11). Then we have to show that these examples have some relevance to incident we're discussing.

My point is, projections do not equate to accurate information. Projections go wrong all the time. Every day, in fact.Absolutely true, but I think we're using the word in different contexts. We can't rule out that the tests these engineers conducted were inadequate, but comparing these tests to an educated guess doesn't help to carry the argument either.

True, probability is against pot luck meaning that the 'planes hit the right spot and burnt the right things, but to say that it is unlikely is not to say that it is either impossible or that other theories are more likely. Remember that the planes hit different floors and different angles, etc. The first plane hit almost straight on. The second plane hit off to the side. How many "right spots" are we going to propose existed and who is going to put up the math showing the probability of such a thing not happening once, but twice on the same day?

Maximum burning temperature: 1796 °F And the fire resistance rating of ASTM E119 certified steel?
The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F.

I don't know, granted the Buildings could take a hit, they couldn't take 2 plane strikes. Neither building withstood 2 plane strikes :confused:

Not only do the planes hit the building, instantly weakening the structure, but they also send off vibrations when they do so. These vibrations do even more damage than has already been done, further weaking the structure. Except that multiple sources have argued that it wouldn't have weakened the structure (see the clip provided at the end of post 43).

Of course this guy could have been wrong, but what evidence do we have that he was? You can't argue that the building collapses themselves are evidence without invoking circular reasoning, so you'll need something else.

After some time of both fuel burning, parts of the plane falling, pieces of the building falling. The towers collapsed, when horizontal support beams collapse, the floor falls. When you get at least 10 floors dropped, it's not too hard to imagine that maybe the building will crush under itself.First, the fuel burnt off on impact. Yes, it started many other fires, but it did not "hang around" acting as a fuel source for 90 minutes. If you have an alternative explanation for the fireball billowing up the sides of each building when each of the planes hit, I really would be interested in hearing it.

Second, each floor was made of concrete and was supported by steel trusses that were both bolted and welded to the frame. There were hundreds of these connections per floor. And these hundreds of connections would have had to have all failed instantaneously on each of the floors in order for the collapse that we saw to be possible. The buildings fell at roughly free fall speed which meant that the floor above would have had to encounter no resistance from the floor below as the building came down.

I believe that is the same concept they use when aligning explosives to demolish a building. Take out about 14% of the building and have the rest drop on it.A random 14% or do they have to target specific areas?

Right I've browsed this thread... too those who seem to think there were explosive in WTC why didn't the building just collapse when the planes hit both towers? If you're asking what I think you're asking: why would they have? If there were detonation materials in the building, they would have been in multiple locations set to multiple blasting cords, etc. Why would the plane strike cause them all to go at once?

The documentary I watched here hypothesized, that the fuel, got past the steel's fireproofing and slowly melted the super structure and that then the building above then collapsed down causing the chain reaction... The PBS one, right?
First, the fuel wouldn't have burnt hot enough to weaken the steel.

Second, the dramatization showed the damage occurring in unrealistic ways. Supposing that the steel did weaken in the trusses, it would have sagged in the middle. Heated steel becomes soft, not brittle. Also the dramatization of the floors "pancaking" shows the 49 central support columns being left intact. So either the model is right and reality is wrong (which we know can't be rigth because that part of the structure collapsed too) or reality (whatever that may be) is right and the model is inaccurate.

Third, best case scenario for an actual pancaking would have taken more than a minute and left us with a pyramid-looking debris pile. Instead each building collapsed fairly symmetrically at just a tad slower than free-fall speed.

That seems to me a far more reasonable hypothesis than, explosives being placed, partly because common sense tells me that the explosion was nowhere near big enough to be fully laden 747 + explosives. I'm not sure what this part means. :(

As for conspiracy theories, I think this an entirely unreasonable one as far as explosives being placed in the building. Okay. Why?

Heck of a coincidence that probably has truly astounding odds (assuming that such an explanation is even valid)
The building's not going to move and you've got a plane slicing through it, if you're aiming for the building at a high speed, it doesn't seem hard to miss.

Steel trusses, welded and bolted. Floors constructed of concrete. Otherwise ditto what I said above.
After even a normal fire, concrete left over from a personal home has to be removed because it loses it's structural integrity.

And multiple tests carried out by agencies responsible for certifying the results all missed it. Yes, possible but how likely?
*shrug* I think a lot of these things are difficult to test in labs. Did they fly a plane into the building to test it? I don't think so.

Steel, concrete, glass, and aluminum. Also possible, but I think that's going to be a very hard sell.
The glass, aluminum and concrete(addressed above), would be severely damaged from the heat if not destroyed. Windows explode under normal fire heat and aluminum just melts.

Yep, per the aforementioned testing and certified results (per the sources I've seen, FWIW).
Can I get some links? The article was well...just an article.

We see the fuel being burned off in the fireball on impact. Unless those planes were carrying napalm instead of jet fuel, I'd say that's going to be another tough sell.
I kinda doubt that's ALL the fuel, but that's just me, it's kinda hard to judge the amount of jet fuel going off based on the size of the fireball.


In the end I'm sure they thought long and hard about what would happen, I just don't see how they can test for a plane crashing into a building in a lab.

Ninja edit: And the fire resistance rating of ASTM E119 certified steel?
http://www.csiphoenix.org/CodesArticles/tabid/67/ctl/Details/mid/416/ItemID/5/Default.aspx)

The building's not going to move and you've got a plane slicing through it, if you're aiming for the building at a high speed, it doesn't seem hard to miss. Please be sure to note which part of the comment I am replying to before offering your rebuttal.

The argument that the planes just happened to fly into "sweet spots" are incredible odds. That pilots intentionally aiming for buildings hit them are not.:dozey:


After even a normal fire, concrete left over from a personal home has to be removed because it loses it's structural integrity.And the steel?

Do normal fires cause concrete to vaporize into dust?

*shrug* I think a lot of these things are difficult to test in labs. Did they fly a plane into the building to test it? I don't think so.Argument from personal incredulity noted.

I like that we're discounting scale models, simulations, and math because you think we should. :)

The glass, aluminum and concrete(addressed above), would be severely damaged from the heat if not destroyed. Windows explode under normal fire heat and aluminum just melts. Your comment was they burned. Please explain how these things burn.

Also, you forgot to address steel in your reply.

Can I get some links? The article was well...just an article. I provided a quote for El Sitherino in post 60, but you can certainly Google "ASTM E119" for more info.

I kinda doubt that's ALL the fuel, but that's just me, it's kinda hard to judge the amount of jet fuel going off based on the size of the fireball. So some of the fuel burned right away but some didn't? Why?

In the end I'm sure they thought long and hard about what would happen, I just don't see how they can test for a plane crashing into a building in a lab. Scale models, simulations, mathematics.

Not to take the conversation off topic, but it really does seem as though you'd argue that human flight and space travel just seem too unrealistic because you don't know how they would be able to figure out how to do that kind of stuff.

Ninja edit:
http://www.csiphoenix.org/CodesArticles/tabid/67/ctl/Details/mid/416/ItemID/5/Default.aspxhehe), ask yourself this: If the conclusions reached in this document are true (normal fire will weaken steel enough to cause a building to collapse), then why aren't all the buildings that were constructed using ASTM E119 certified steel being demolished? Why are people still being permitted to live and work in potential death traps?

Sorry, not buying the NIST-biased study.

Oh, come on people! We all know the CIA blew up the WTC and that the moon landing was a hoax!

Yeah, sure.. :rolleyes:

Please be sure to note which part of the comment I am replying to before offering your rebuttal.
pretty sure I got the right part...

The argument that the planes just happened to fly into "sweet spots" are incredible odds. That pilots intentionally aiming for buildings hit them are not.:dozey:
just saying it's easier to do damage when that's your intent, as opposed to trying to miss the buildings as a non-terrorist pilot would.

And the steel?
Most homes don't have much steel in them, it's generally scrap though after a fire.

Do normal fires cause concrete to vaporize into dust?
wait...where'd dust come in? Yeah, collapsing buildings destroy the concrete making dust, a lot of the dust likly came from the gypusm wallboard(aka: drywall)

Argument from personal incredulity noted.

I like that we're discounting scale models, simulations, and math because you think we should. :)
of course, but still, those are controlled lab tests.

Your comment was they burned. Please explain how these things burn.
my apologies for choice in words, "burns" in this context means: sufficiently heated to the point of losing structural integrity or catching fire.

Also, you forgot to address steel in your reply.
no I did not, I only addressed the sections I am aware of through experiance.

I provided a quote for El Sitherino in post 60, but you can certainly Google "ASTM E119" for more info.
As noted below, you don't like my source, so, I'd love to see one of yours(the actual page, not a quote)

So some of the fuel burned right away but some didn't? Why?
dunno, go light some jet fuel on fire and tell me how long it takes to burn. I'm not a fire expert.

Scale models, simulations, mathematics.

Not to take the conversation off topic, but it really does seem as though you'd argue that human flight and space travel just seem too unrealistic because you don't know how they would be able to figure out how to do that kind of stuff.
remember, they shot a lot of rockets into the sky before they shot one into space. They didn't fly any planes into the Twin Towers at any point in their construction.

hehe, ask yourself this: If the conclusions reached in this document are true (normal fire will weaken steel enough to cause a building to collapse), then why aren't all the buildings that were constructed using ASTM E119 certified steel being demolished? Why are people still being permitted to live and work in potential death traps?

Sorry, not buying the NIST-biased study.
Because the costs of demolishing them would be astronomical, the money lost from businesses being put out for a while would be equally huge, and the construction costs to rebuild a "safe" building would be doubly so.

Many buildings that do not meet current code(remember the code has become more strict over time), are allowed to remain because the cost of their demolition and reconstruction is less than the cost of letting the thing get destroyed in a fire.

pretty sure I got the right part...
<snip>
just saying it's easier to do damage when that's your intent, as opposed to trying to miss the buildings as a non-terrorist pilot would. No, that isn't what you were saying at all. What you were saying is that the planes must have a hit "sweet spots" which would have caused the buildings to collapse (presumably when hitting them in other places wouldn't, else it doesn't stand to reason that they would have been particularly "sweet").

Trying to hit a building when you're trying - pretty good odds
Happening to hit two different "sweet spots" that just happen to bring the building down - not so much.

Please don't try to change the argument after you've already made it.

Most homes don't have much steel in them, it's generally scrap though after a fire. I mentioned steel because it did exist in the WTC buildings. You ignored the point and introduced personal homes, not me. So please offer an explanation for the steel, per post 56.

wait...where'd dust come in? Yeah, collapsing buildings destroy the concrete making dust, a lot of the dust likly came from the gypusm wallboard(aka: drywall) The concrete was turned into dust. Please explain how the fire turned the concrete into dust.

(hint: explosives could probably do it).

of course, but still, those are controlled lab tests. Right which means that the conditions for a certain outcome are more favorable, not less so. So if they wanted to apply heat to the steel in order to determine where it woudl fail, the best possible place to do that would be in a lab. Not sure what your point is.

my apologies for choice in words, "burns" in this context means: sufficiently heated to the point of losing structural integrity or catching fire.Glass, aluminum, steel, and concrete catch fire? That's my point.

no I did not, I only addressed the sections I am aware of through experiance. Okay, well then you didn't address my point.

As noted below, you don't like my source, so, I'd love to see one of yours(the actual page, not a quote)A copy of the letter can be found here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451).

dunno, go light some jet fuel on fire and tell me how long it takes to burn. I'm not a fire expert. I didn't ask how long it took to burn. Please try again.

remember, they shot a lot of rockets into the sky before they shot one into space. They didn't fly any planes into the Twin Towers at any point in their construction. Didn't have to because they did it with models and simulations.

Because the costs of demolishing them would be astronomical, the money lost from businesses being put out for a while would be equally huge, and the construction costs to rebuild a "safe" building would be doubly so.

Many buildings that do not meet current code(remember the code has become more strict over time), are allowed to remain because the cost of their demolition and reconstruction is less than the cost of letting the thing get destroyed in a fire.Is that your final answer?

bah, this isn't worth it anymore. We're not even talking about the subject you're just going after the words I decided to use in my sentence, and not even making much sense at that. I'm done, I don't even know what we're arguing over anymore.

You're still missing the point, but that's okay :)Actually, I completely understand the artificial use of language you're making and your distinction. The terrorists conspired to slam planes into buildings, i.e. it was a conspiracy. However, since their actions are fact and not theory, you can't really call it a conspiracy theory now, can you? Just because I don't agree with how you intentionally ignore the connotative use of 'conspiracy theory' to utilize only the denotation artificially to make your point does not mean I didn't understand it.

If you don't have a source, then I can't rule out that you're just making this up.
I haven't seen it so I can't comment. If I find it at some point then maybe I'll be able to then.I already looked at them and discounted them. There wasn't any way to prove on the one video(one of these many variants) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related) that the film hadn't been doctored before being put up on youtube, so I discounted it. The other thing was just too silly to pursue. I'm sure if you google 9/11 conspiracy you'll find more crap than you ever wanted to wade through.

To the best of my knowledge however, only 5 frames of footage have been released and they don't match what you're describing here, so either your source was making it up or you are. *shrugs*Thanks for accusing me of lying yet again just because I won't jump when you say jump. That's so constructive to the conversation. I don't see you berating other people to provide sources to the degree you do me, and I provide you with a lot more sourcing on a regular basis than most here already. I don't accuse you of making stuff up when you don't immediately give a source for every single thing you say. :roleyess:

Keep in mind that the Pentagon and surrounding building have multiple security cameras both indoors and out and if the government really wanted to shut up the "conspiracy theorists" all they would have to do is show about 10 seconds of footage from any of them (and allow an independent expert to confirm that the footage wasn't doctored of course).Sure. I'll agree with that. You're talking about a place that houses some of the most highly classified information in the world--it doesn't surprise me that they won't release footage. It's disappointing, maybe, but hardly surprising.

See, that's how you quiet people with bad information: you provide indisputable evidence to the contrary. Poorly funded, slapped together, biased-sourced "investigations" that take place years after the fact don't necessarily meet that standard.Oh, come on. How fast do you think the experts can move? It took a long time to research the FEMA report, which I'm assuming you're talking about. Do you honestly think that's something that could be done in just a few days or even a couple months? They were still collecting forensic and scientific data for several months after the event. How many experts do you think needed to be consulted? Dozens at least, and likely hundreds of victims and eyewitnesses. They all had to write their reports, review and rewrite as needed, get that sent to FEMA, all those reports synthesized, reviewed, the draft report had to be written, the draft reviewed by the experts for accuracy, rewritten, reviewed yet again, and so forth. I've had to write more than a few after-action reports, and it takes a long time to interview people, wait for their reports, read through all those, contact the people to clarify some statements, write the report, send it for review, get it back for clarifications and/or rewrite, and get a final draft written. That's just for a single incident involving perhaps just 1 person, a few at the most. Magnify that by hundreds and it should be no surprise that it took a few years to get the report done.

Did you attend some course to become an expert in crap spotting? Are you credentialled? Or are you asking me to adopt your opinion for no good reason?Well, I sure don't need a degree to spot it in your comment here. If you believe everything you see/read about the 9/11 tragedy, and that there has been no crap produced, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.... I would have thought that 'there's crap on the internet about 9/11' didn't need to be substantiated by an expert.

then please forgive my obtuseness Forgiven of course. ;P

Not sure what your point is here.You had mentioned people hearing what they thought was an explosion on 9/11. I noted that people in '45 said the same thing when the B-25 hit the Empire state building. It's not a stretch to think that people on 9/11 might have thought something similar when the 767s crashed into the WTC.

Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a government report at face value.Do you? I accept that the report is going to have bias. Bias does not make facts suddenly non-factual, however. You would learn a lot reading that report even if you don't agree with every single conclusion made from those facts.

Which of these credentials make him or her uniquely qualified to makes such an assessment?You tell me--you're the one questioning the credentials. I happen to think extra hazmat training takes precedence over normal FF training when talking about hazardous situations. Your mileage may vary.

As for the 2nd part of your question: I have not, but feel free to assume that they are similarly qualified for the sake of my point. And I should assume they're similarly qualified why? Additional hazmat certification is not part of the typical training, so no, they are not similarly qualified.

Your comment was that they had not been struck by a plane. The evidence is to the contrary. Perhaps you wanted to convey some other point though?Where did I say 'they had not been struck by a plane'? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because the context for this is gone.


Source please?Well, if I can find the primary source from 1960's that shows the engineers considered a 707 crashing into the WTC, I'll provide it. In the meantime, we'll have to rely on a secondary source. The engineers could not possibly have planned for a strike by a Boeing 767, because the first one didn't go into production until 1978, well after the WTC was built, and a good 28 years after the initial plans were drawn up for the buildings. Do you honestly need me to find a source to say that?

Gee, this sounds awfully familiar to what JediMaster12 and I said in posts 22 and 23 respectively. I didn't know I was disallowed from agreeing with either of you and saying so. Please re-send the memo on that to me. Thanks. ;)

Simple yes. The simpler explanation still would be that the buildings wanted to fall down all along and the planes just helped. However, I suspect that we're all aiming just a little bit higher than "simple". I suspect that many of us would perfer an explanation that fits all the evidence. As you pointed out above, there are some things "that don't fit". If some things "don't fit" then it's impossible that the offered explanation fits all the evidence.The FEMA report appears to fit the evidence best at this time, with some obvious flaws. I haven't found a conspiracy theory that fits the evidence better. If a serious one comes out that fits the evidence better than the FEMA explanation, then I could go for it.

Nicely done! :DThanks. It takes some work to be that irreverent at my age.

Seems just as complex as the "official story" though so I'm not sure how that supports your point.It has more steps involved, more people involved, more secrecy involved, more stuff involved, more illegal activities involved, all of which increase the complexity in varying degrees.

Re Skilling's comments: The exploding fuel had a lot more force than a 200 lb car bomb. A 767, as I noted above, had 3.4 times more force behind it than the planned-for 707.

And the fire resistance rating of ASTM E119 certified steel? Why does everyone think the steel has to actually melt? All it has to do is soften enough to _bend_, which happens at a much lower temperature, and the entire structural integrity is screwed. Steel loses 20% of its strength at about 400-500 C (see figure 2 of this link (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/HotRolledCarbonSteel/mechanicalProperties.htm), 50% of its strength between 500 and 600C , and 90% of its strength at 800 C, well below the melting point.

The main gravity load bearing was done by the central core (here's a non-gov't link (http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html)). Damage the gravity load bearing center, and everything above it falls in on itself. The floors were designed to support themselves by connecting to the lateral sides. Once the side walls they were bolted to were gone on the floors where the planes made impact, those supports were also gone. The walls were 208 feet wide, the wingspan of a 767 is 156 feet, so roughly 75% of one side of each of the buildings were destroyed when the planes hit, and that's not even including the exit damage done on the opposite side. Couple that with the heat making steel bend excessively, further compromising the engineering. Once the lateral support was gone, the floors above the damaged ones fell, and the buildings fell. The steel supports on the higher floors were thinner than on the lower floors (since they didn't have as much weight stress from the floors above), which may also have contributed to this. There may be a degree of physics/engineering that most of us don't have the background in to fully grasp about building construction, but it isn't rocket science, either.

First, the fuel burnt off on impact.You quote a source earlier that says some of the fuel would flow down the support columns and burn. Which source should we refer to in this case?

Third, best case scenario for an actual pancaking would have taken more than a minute and left us with a pyramid-looking debris pile.And your source for this is?

The concrete was turned into dust. Please explain how the fire turned the concrete into dust.
(hint: explosives could probably do it).Yes, and so could a plane crashing into the concrete, and the fuel tanks blowing everything to smithereens.

A copy of the letter can be found here. You've got to be kidding. You gripe about the gov't sources being biased and then you trot this site out as if it's unbiased? I never want to hear a complaint about biased sites ever again if you're going to do that. Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a conspiracy theory website at face value.

Well, I looked up the stats, and I have to say, the 707 and the 757 are relativly the same when it comes to stats on loaded weight, wingspan, and length.The planes that struck the WTC were 767s, not 757s. The 767 has twice the fuel capacity, wider wingspan, length, and height, carries 60% more weight and has 50% greater engine thrust than the 757.

The planes that struck the WTC were 767s, not 757s. The 767 has twice the fuel capacity, wider wingspan, length, and height, carries 60% more weight and has 50% greater engine thrust of the 757.

my apologies, I apparently clicked on AA Flight 11 instead of 77. It was late, I was tired, my bad.

my apologies, I apparently clicked on AA Flight 11 instead of 77. It was late, I was tired, my bad.

No worries. I just wanted to make the clarification since it had an impact on the discussion.

Brilliant post, Jae.

That was very engaging to read.

_EW_

hehe, ask yourself this: If the conclusions reached in this document are true (normal fire will weaken steel enough to cause a building to collapse), then why aren't all the buildings that were constructed using ASTM E119 certified steel being demolished? Why are people still being permitted to live and work in potential death traps?If planes were crashing into skyscrapers everyday, no one would care about 9/11, and your argument would have merit. But since jets aren't crashing into buildings everyday around here and no one's burning loads of jet fuel next to the aforementioned buildings' supports, your "argument" is just an unfunny remark made out of desperation and a need to be right. Another reason is that we've also allowed our government to devolve into a self-absorbed mob of power-hungry old men who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about anyone unless it costs them some of their power.

The concrete was turned into dust. Please explain how the fire turned the concrete into dust.I dunno, maybe it was crushed under the remains of a building or something -- with all the buildings in New York there are quite a few suspects, so let's me and you get on the case!

A copy of the letter can be found here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451).So) what you're saying is the guy who works for the company that did the certifications for the steel used in the World Trade Center says they would have been a-okay in that situation? I am shocked sir. Furthermore, he ignores the state of disrepair the buildings were in and assumes the steel used in its construction was in the same shape it was at the time of construction. The only time he accounts for time is when he mentions that the steel may have been without fireproofing. In addition, it seems to me that that site's purpose is to find some way that the World Trade Centers didn't collapse because of the planes. Actually, I'm sure of it. Part of their mission statement is "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-ups regarding the events of September 11th, 2001 in ways that inspire people to overcome denial, confront disturbing evidence and comprehend its implications for our freedoms and democracy." Ooh I love when people throw around words like "freedoms" and "democracy", it makes me feel like I'm running across a field with just an American flag towards a bunch of British soldiers. Demon British soldiers!

Didn't have to because they did it with models and simulations.Well that certainly sounds science-y. Hey, I have Flight Simulator <some Roman numeral>, how about I pop that in, load up New York and a 747 and see what happens? Better yet, I have 3Ds Max too, I bet I could really up the Bad Boys factor if I use that to simulate the attacks.


I think the truth is just as simple (and horrifying) as InSidious said it was on the first page. Two planes hit two buildings. The initial impacts weakened the structural integrity of the buildings and added quite a bit to the weight to what they were designed to hold. After this, jet fuel burned on and around the materials used to create the buildings. Unfortunately, these materials weren't meant to be doused in jet fuel and set ablaze and were weakened significantly. Finally, because the buildings were designed to require these materials to be at full or close to full strength, the buildings collapsed. Not every great tragedy has a complex plot behind it, and most often these complex plots are concocted so that we can pretend things aren't fragile and maintain our illusion of safety.



I thought the Jesuits used their telekinetic mind powers to bring the towers down...

DISPROVE ME.The Jesuits are just pawns used by the Illuminati. You're also forgetting the psy-nullification field put in place by the large population of Hasidic Jews living in New York. Hurr.

Okay. Why?

Lets start with this...

Motive?

I cannot see any possible motive for placing explosives in the WTC, especially several hundred floors up, if you wanted to collapse a building the logical place to place explosives would be the super structure at the bottom.

The PBS one, right?
First, the fuel wouldn't have burnt hot enough to weaken the steel.

Nope being British, it was a BBC Panorama/Horizon documentary, so British funded. We are talking however about 5 years since I watched the thing. I did loose a friend in the WTC, and whatever caused his death won't bring him back, unpleasant as I find your current government, I don't think they placed explosives.

If you're asking what I think you're asking: why would they have? If there were detonation materials in the building, they would have been in multiple locations set to multiple blasting cords, etc. Why would the plane strike cause them all to go at once?

Because Jet fuel is very hot? Surely it would of caused all nearby explosives to go off, again I'm not an explosives expert, but I would think 1,500 degree heat would set any explosives off.

Second, the dramatization showed the damage occurring in unrealistic ways. Supposing that the steel did weaken in the trusses, it would have sagged in the middle. Heated steel becomes soft, not brittle. Also the dramatization of the floors "pancaking" shows the 49 central support columns being left intact. So either the model is right and reality is wrong (which we know can't be rigth because that part of the structure collapsed too) or reality (whatever that may be) is right and the model is inaccurate.

I think we are talking about different documentaries.

Third, best case scenario for an actual pancaking would have taken more than a minute and left us with a pyramid-looking debris pile. Instead each building collapsed fairly symmetrically at just a tad slower than free-fall speed.

I'm no expert but I would expect the Towers to leave a pretty similar rubble pattern, unless they collapsed sideways.

I'm not sure what this part means. :(

I don't think the explosion on the videos of the 747 (or whatever plane type it was) is nearly big enough for a combination of a fully laden plane and explosives. Again I'm no expert.

Thanks for reading :)

I see what you're trying to say, but you're using unrelated examples to support your point. Engineering is a little more of a precise science and models are more easily testable than those of finance and the estimates of archeology. So this is really apples and oranges.
Well, I'll accept that...except that things like the Orion Correlation Theory were supposedly put together at 'scientific' standard, using the positions of stars (I realise this may sound like a contradiction in terms, but that's what the 'supposedly' is for. :p ). Engineering reports may be much better, of course, but I wouldn't know, and since I've disavowed expertise, I reserve the right to speculate fruitlessly. :xp:

What we need are examples of catastrophic structural failures that occurred as a result of something that was tested for and ended up being wrong (pre Sept. 11). Then we have to show that these examples have some relevance to incident we're discussing.
Well, it would be nice to hear from a structural engineer on the subject. I'm afraid I'm only qualified to comment on the structural engineering of carved reliefs. :D

Absolutely true, but I think we're using the word in different contexts. We can't rule out that the tests these engineers conducted were inadequate, but comparing these tests to an educated guess doesn't help to carry the argument either.
This is quite possible, although I did mean the term in a general sense, including the highly mathematical complicated ones involving the less sane end of mathematics, where it's claimed that the whole field is actually a rabbit...

Remember that the planes hit different floors and different angles, etc. The first plane hit almost straight on. The second plane hit off to the side. How many "right spots" are we going to propose existed and who is going to put up the math showing the probability of such a thing not happening once, but twice on the same day?
I could give you a very high number as a guess?


The Jesuits are just pawns used by the Illuminati. You're also forgetting the psy-nullification field put in place by the large population of Hasidic Jews living in New York. Hurr.

That was switched off owing to the new deal between the Vatican and the Learned Elders.

That was switched off owing to the new deal between the Vatican and the Learned Elders.Haha, don't be naive. You think the Hasidic Jews would turn off the device just because of that? They manufactured a faux-nullification field generator years before in preparation for such a deal.

The terrorists conspired to slam planes into buildings, i.e. it was a conspiracy.Quite right.

However, since their actions are fact and not theory, you can't really call it a conspiracy theory now, can you?The theory is that the planes and fire caused the building to collapse or that plane and the fire damaged the building but explosives cause the building to collapse, or as you pointed out earlier a myriad of other possible scenarios. They're all theories. So yeah, I guess I can.

Just because I don't agree with how you intentionally ignore the connotative use of 'conspiracy theory' to utilize only the denotation artificially to make your point does not mean I didn't understand it.I guess I just wanted to know what justification you had to use it in that connotative form. The fact that you have one too kinda seems hypocritical. *shrugs*

I already looked at them and discounted them. There wasn't any way to prove on the one video(one of these many variants) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related) that the film hadn't been doctored before being put up on youtube, so I discounted it. The other thing was just too silly to pursue. I'm sure if you google 9/11 conspiracy you'll find more crap than you ever wanted to wade through. So this clip covers the claims you made earlier? Cool.

Unfortunately, I can't access YT from the office so I'll have to watch and comment later.

Thanks for accusing me of lying yet again just because I won't jump when you say jump. That's so constructive to the conversation. I don't see you berating other people to provide sources to the degree you do me, and I provide you with a lot more sourcing on a regular basis than most here already. I don't accuse you of making stuff up when you don't immediately give a source for every single thing you say. :roleyess:I like how this isn't actually a denial.

Sure. I'll agree with that. You're talking about a place that houses some of the most highly classified information in the world--it doesn't surprise me that they won't release footage. It's disappointing, maybe, but hardly surprising. Do they house it in the parking lot, because that's where the 5 frames were filmed? Or one of the seized security tapes from one of the surrounding businesses? They'll allow people drive on the freeway outside the building, take tours, etc, but they can't release a few seconds of footage of the outside? Really?

Oh, come on. How fast do you think the experts can move? It took a long time to research the FEMA report, which I'm assuming you're talking about. Actually I was referencing the 9/11 Commission Report which wasn't started until more than a year after the attacks. Since this is considered "the official investigation" I thought it should take priority.

Well, I sure don't need a degree to spot it in your comment here. If you believe everything you see/read about the 9/11 tragedy, and that there has been no crap produced, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.... I would have thought that 'there's crap on the internet about 9/11' didn't need to be substantiated by an expert. So it is your opinion then? That's what I thought.

Also, I'd like for you to go back and re-read (assuming that you have read it) post 23.

Forgiven of course. ;P That apology did have a qualifier.

You had mentioned people hearing what they thought was an explosion on 9/11. I noted that people in '45 said the same thing when the B-25 hit the Empire state building. It's not a stretch to think that people on 9/11 might have thought something similar when the 767s crashed into the WTC. Indeed it isn't but since I also stated in the very same section that you were responding to that I don't put much weight behind such claims, I'm still at a loss for what relevance this has here.

Do you? I accept that the report is going to have bias. Bias does not make facts suddenly non-factual, however. You would learn a lot reading that report even if you don't agree with every single conclusion made from those facts. It makes me sad when you answer questions with questions. :(

Do you have an unbiased source or not?

You tell me--you're the one questioning the credentials. I happen to think extra hazmat training takes precedence over normal FF training when talking about hazardous situations. Your mileage may vary. And if I knew what reason you had for thinking so I might be inclined to agree with you. If you told me that that your hazmat friend had to have an extra 80 hours of structural-related trainging in order to qualify, I would probably agree with you and then want to know if these other firefighters were similarly trained. However if you hazmat friend only had to take some extra classes on how to deal with the types of chemicals, etc they would be dealing with, then I would have absolutely no reason to think that he or she was more qualified.

So it sounds as though you may have said, "Ooo...hazmat. That sounds important. I'm believeing them!". And while that is certainly your perrogative, that kind of thinking isn't very persuasive to me.

And I should assume they're similarly qualified why? Additional hazmat certification is not part of the typical training, so no, they are not similarly qualified. Because I was going to counter your argument from authority with an argument from popularity in order to demonstrate how silly logical fallacies are. That's why. Since you don't seem to have any basis to refuse, I'm a little bummed that you opted not to play along.

Where did I say 'they had not been struck by a plane'? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because the context for this is gone. Post #31:
Your infernos in other steel buildings example does not apply--those buildings were not first hit with airplanes. I hope that helps.

Well, if I can find the primary source from 1960's that shows the engineers considered a 707 crashing into the WTC, I'll provide it. In the meantime, we'll have to rely on a secondary source. The engineers could not possibly have planned for a strike by a Boeing 767, because the first one didn't go into production until 1978, well after the WTC was built, and a good 28 years after the initial plans were drawn up for the buildings. Do you honestly need me to find a source to say that? I need for you to show me a source that shows that they did not plan for multiple impacts by Boeing 707s (or equivalent planes) which is the claim made by the gentlemen in the clip provided in post #43. He made the claim, you wish to contest it, so now you need to provide your case. Once that's done then we can go back to the discussion where we determine whether or not a partially fuelled, partially loaded, Boeing 767 is comparable to a fully loaded, fully fuelled Boeing 707.

I didn't know I was disallowed from agreeing with either of you and saying so. Please re-send the memo on that to me. Thanks. ;) You're welcome to agree with whomever you'd like whenever you wish, however it is very confusing for some of us when you concede points and argue them at the same time.

The FEMA report appears to fit the evidence best at this time, with some obvious flaws. I haven't found a conspiracy theory that fits the evidence better. If a serious one comes out that fits the evidence better than the FEMA explanation, then I could go for it.
Thanks. It takes some work to be that irreverent at my age. Based on your opinion, correct?

This is where you and I differ Jae. You throw in behind something, even if you admit that it doesn't make sense (i.e. the FEMA report). I don't.

It has more steps involved, more people involved, more secrecy involved, more stuff involved, more illegal activities involved, all of which increase the complexity in varying degrees. Of course it doesn't. :lol:

"Bad guys" which may or may not have been hired and trained by al-Queda were made to look like students, etc visiting America were sent on a mission to plow some planes into some buildings so that they could make sure lots of Americans would die. However two of the buildings just happen to have been constructed with faulty materials that were tested and certified multiple times (but no one caught, which is either a sure sign of either misfeasance or parties conspiring to purposely build an unsafe building) therefore when the planes hit they both happened to cause the buildings to do something that they were not designed to do (fail to withstand the impact of a comparable airplane). That way Osama bin Laden can show the muslim world that America is not untouchable and rally a lot of people "who hate us because we stand for freedom and democracy" and send them to Iraq to participate in terrorist training in Saddam Hussein's secret weapons of mass destruction program which he was able to successfully hide from teams of UN weapons inspectors for nearly 10 years which he intended to unleash on the United States via a means that we're not sure that we know. Once we were able to uncover evidence of Saddam’s secret weapons of mass destruction program as well as his ties to al-Qaeda, we were morally obligated to divert our attention there so that we could help instill peace and democracy by overthrowing and evil and brutal dictator. Oh and by the way, we’re going to deny that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with oil and accuse anyone who questions this version of the story as being “soft on terror” and unpatriotic. That way, we can abduct foreign citizens accused of having links to terrorism and hold them in secret prison without charge or trial, sending a clear message to Osama bin Laden that he will not get away with what he’s done and that democracy will prevail.

Would you care to count the number of steps, people, secrets, "more stuff", and illegal activities involved so that we can have a true comparison or should we just call it a wash?

Re Skilling's comments: The exploding fuel had a lot more force than a 200 lb car bomb. A 767, as I noted above, had 3.4 times more force behind it than the planned-for 707. Yep, and I'm still waiting for your source.

Why does everyone think the steel has to actually melt? All it has to do is soften enough to _bend_, which happens at a much lower temperature, and the entire structural integrity is screwed. Gee, they should probably stop building steel frame buildings then. I guess we're all just incredibly lucky that none of the other fires we've seen in steel frame building haven't been equally fatal.

The main gravity load bearing was done by the central coreI'll just hop in to point out once again that the 2nd plane hit the corner.

The floors were designed to support themselves by connecting to the lateral sides. Once the side walls they were bolted to were gone on the floors where the planes made impact, those supports were also gone. Some of them were anyway. That's why they designed them with "lots". That way if "some" of them were gone, there would still be "more".

The walls were 208 feet wide, the wingspan of a 767 is 156 feet, so roughly 75% of one side of each of the buildings were destroyed when the planes hit, and that's not even including the exit damage done on the opposite side. There was no exit damage. Neither plane cleared the building once it impacted. I suspect that all those steel columns in it's way kinda stopped it (steel being stronger and heavier than aluminum) and all that.

Couple that with the heat making steel bend excessively, further compromising the engineering. The heat coming from all the death-trap office equipment.

Once the lateral support was gone, the floors above the damaged ones fell, and the buildings fell. Arguably. :)

The steel supports on the higher floors were thinner than on the lower floors (since they didn't have as much weight stress from the floors above), which may also have contributed to this. There may be a degree of physics/engineering that most of us don't have the background in to fully grasp about building construction, but it isn't rocket science, either. But we're going to pretend anyway. I like it :)

You quote a source earlier that says some of the fuel would flow down the support columns and burn. Which source should we refer to in this case? I quoted source that said that they were concerned about it, yes. Is there some contradition in that that I should be aware of.

And your source for this is? I'll share it if you watch it, but I'm not going through and ticking of time markers for you :)

Yes, and so could a plane crashing into the concrete, and the fuel tanks blowing everything to smithereens. Not consistent with what we saw though. :(

You've got to be kidding. You gripe about the gov't sources being biased and then you trot this site out as if it's unbiased? I never want to hear a complaint about biased sites ever again if you're going to do that. Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a conspiracy theory website at face value.I was really hoping that you wouldn't try to make this argument Jae, but somehow I knew that you would. :(

Was the letter drafted by the authors of the site or merely provided on the site? We're attacking url's now Jae? See when I attack your sources for bais, it's because I'm attacking your sources...usually for being bias. What you're doing here is completely ignoring the source (i.e. the author of the letter) and attacking the site that it's hosted on. Not quite the same thing there.

So if you really want to put me in my place you can point out how Kevin Ryan is biased.

I'll respond to the rest of the posts in this thread when I get home.

Thanks for reading.

Question for you: If we were reading about some similar tragedy in Africa or South America (places known for having corrupt governments), do you think we would be so quick to dismiss reports of conspiratorial acts carried out by the government against their own citizens? Wait the U.S, is not known for it corrupt government?

I get your point about questioning the facts and not following blindly. However, in my mind the collapse of the Twin Towers is still a result of the jetliners ramming the building. That does not however mean I know that as a fact. Is it possible that our egocentric thinking tells us that stuff that only happens to "other countries"?Now I thought you knew me better than that. However, I’ll play along. Yes, I definitely feel this country has that attitude that we are always on the right side. Forgive me. We have the false illusion that God has some how blessed our nation and that we can do no wrong. I will also admit that I once felt this way too; only with me is was probably worst since I am a Texans and we all know how they are. This mentality is what made September 11, 2001 such a shock. How could something like this happen here? I also believe it is a contributing factor to the all sides of the conspiracy theories. Some people take the government’s description of the events without question and others want to prove we could not be that vulnerable, that two symbols of America financial strength could not be removed from the New York skyline by 19 men armed with box-cutters. Still others just want to find the truth. Even though I still believe the government explanation for the most part, I will continue to question the events of September 11, 2001 if for no other reason, but to always remember those 2752 people that perished that day.

Separate post for length Understood. Mine pushed the length limits, too. --Jae

If planes were crashing into skyscrapers everyday, no one would care about 9/11, and your argument would have merit.Web Rider's source indicated that temperatures from "normal" fires were sufficient to cause the building to collapse. I think that rules out this particular argument needing to involve planes since "normal" fires can occur without them.

But since jets aren't crashing into buildings everyday around here and no one's burning loads of jet fuel next to the aforementioned buildings' supports, your "argument" is just an unfunny remark made out of desperation and a need to be right. I love it when people accuse me of needing to be right when I hold a position that they don't agree with :lol:
Another reason is that we've also allowed our government to devolve into a self-absorbed mob of power-hungry old men who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about anyone unless it costs them some of their power. So then we should just go back to our victim roles then?

I dunno, maybe it was crushed under the remains of a building or something -- with all the buildings in New York there are quite a few suspects, so let's me and you get on the case!1) Not consistent with fire. Is consistent with explosives.

2)Okay maybe with the bottom floors, but we should have some huge chunks from the top floors right (the ones above the impacts)? What do we see though? Plumes of vaporized concrete.

So what you're saying is the guy who works for the company that did the certifications for the steel used in the World Trade Center says they would have been a-okay in that situation? I am shocked sir.Was it his analysis that was called into question? Was he some high-level executive concerned about the reputation of the organization? Nope on both counts. So assuming that your comments are a call to bias, I guess I don't see how.

Furthermore, he ignores the state of disrepair the buildings were in and assumes the steel used in its construction was in the same shape it was at the time of construction. You'll have to explain what this means. There are steel frame building that are far older than these were. The outside was an aluminum facade, so it's not as though the steel beams had been exposed to the elements, etc.

The only time he accounts for time is when he mentions that the steel may have been without fireproofing. In addition, it seems to me that that site's purpose is to find some way that the World Trade Centers didn't collapse because of the planes. I won't dispute the purpose of the site, but his letter was crafted entirely independently so I'm not sure what relationship you are trying to establish.

Actually, I'm sure of it. Part of their mission statement is "TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-ups regarding the events of September 11th, 2001 in ways that inspire people to overcome denial, confront disturbing evidence and comprehend its implications for our freedoms and democracy." Ooh I love when people throw around words like "freedoms" and "democracy", it makes me feel like I'm running across a field with just an American flag towards a bunch of British soldiers. Demon British soldiers!:lol: Nice! :)

You'd have a field day with Alex Jones. You think these guys are nutty? :nut:

I think the truth is just as simple (and horrifying) as InSidious said it was on the first page. Two planes hit two buildings. The initial impacts weakened the structural integrity of the buildings and added quite a bit to the weight to what they were designed to hold. Sure. Just as soon as I see a report or a simulation that doesn't have question marks hanging over it, I'll be happy to accept that. I really will.

After this, jet fuel burned on and around the materials used to create the buildings. And if that made sense, I'd accept that too.

Unfortunately, these materials weren't meant to be doused in jet fuel and set ablaze and were weakened significantly.Except that's not true.

Finally, because the buildings were designed to require these materials to be at full or close to full strength, the buildings collapsed.If that helps you sleep better at night, then that's great. :)

Not every great tragedy has a complex plot behind it, and most often these complex plots are concocted so that we can pretend things aren't fragile and maintain our illusion of safety. Right because that's exactly what government killing civilians provides. :eyeraise:

Lets start with this...

Motive? In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this document, the think tank put forth it's case for how to make sure that America remains the sole world superpower from now on. Key objectives included (but were not limited to) removing strategic obstacles in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

In the document, the following comment was made:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

Members of the PNAC included Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and many others who had key positions in the Bush administration, but aren't necessarily household names.

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

I cannot see any possible motive for placing explosives in the WTC, especially several hundred floors up, if you wanted to collapse a building the logical place to place explosives would be the super structure at the bottom. These guys argue that there were explosives throughout the building (including the bottom). I'm still skeptical, but I can't rule the evidence they provide either.

Nope being British, it was a BBC Panorama/Horizon documentary, so British funded. We are talking however about 5 years since I watched the thing. I did loose a friend in the WTC, and whatever caused his death won't bring him back, unpleasant as I find your current government, I don't think they placed explosives. Any chance you can find it online? I'd be very interested in taking a look.

Because Jet fuel is very hot? Surely it would of caused all nearby explosives to go off, again I'm not an explosives expert, but I would think 1,500 degree heat would set any explosives off. The nearby ones, sure. But again the argument was that they were everywhere.

I think we are talking about different documentaries. Probably :)

I'm no expert but I would expect the Towers to leave a pretty similar rubble pattern, unless they collapsed sideways.Why is that?

I don't think the explosion on the videos of the 747 (or whatever plane type it was) is nearly big enough for a combination of a fully laden plane and explosives. Again I'm no expert. How many explosives are you envisioning and where are they?

Thanks for reading :)My pleasure. Thanks for your post :)

I reserve the right to speculate fruitlessly. :xp::rofl:
Noted.

Well, it would be nice to hear from a structural engineer on the subject. Unfortunately, we have. The reason I say "unfortunately" is because they don't seem to agree.

I could give you a very high number as a guess? I would be willing to settle for 42. :D

In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses...

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

I thought of September 11, 2001 when originally watching this documentary and when watching the documentary on the Twin Towers. I agree that it is a damning piece of circumstantial evidence. I also believe the neo-cons have benefited from September 11, 2001 more than any other group. However, there is a huge difference between wanting events to transpire and actively participating in those events. I believe connecting the two would require some hard evidence that “911 Mysteries” failed to deliver. IMO

However, there is a huge difference between wanting events to transpire and actively participating in those events.J7 asked for motive. I provided motive. :)

I believe connecting the two would require some hard evidence that “911 Mysteries” failed to deliver. IMO Establishing motive and establishing proof of guilt are two entirely different things (although I'm sure Darth333 will be happy to correct me if I'm wrong here). I am pretty much convinced that we were never, ever have the latter.

Web Rider's source indicated that temperatures from "normal" fires were sufficient to cause the building to collapse. I think that rules out this particular argument needing to involve planes since "normal" fires can occur without them.Alright then, how's that being a ludicrously cost ineffective idea? Or that pretty much any enclosure engulfed in flames is a death trap? Or like 90% of the houses in the U.S. being even more susceptible to flame?

I love it when people accuse me of needing to be right when I hold a position that they don't agree with :lol:If that sounded like it was specifically directed towards you...

1) Not consistent with fire. Is consistent with explosives.

2)Okay maybe with the bottom floors, but we should have some huge chunks from the top floors right (the ones above the impacts)? What do we see though? Plumes of vaporized concrete.1) I didn't say anything about fire there.

2) Gravity. I hear concrete can break if you drop it from a skyscraper.

Was it his analysis that was called into question? Was he some high-level executive concerned about the reputation of the organization? Nope on both counts. So assuming that your comments are a call to bias, I guess I don't see how.That's a bit naive.

"Hey scientist guy, if you say we screwed up the inspection we're all ****ed and that means you too."

You'll have to explain what this means. There are steel frame building that are far older than these were.That were hit with 767s or whatever and burned with jet fuel?

I won't dispute the purpose of the site, but his letter was crafted entirely independently so I'm not sure what relationship you are trying to establish.I'm saying the site in general isn't very reputable a source.

Sure. Just as soon as I see a report or a simulation that doesn't have question marks hanging over it, I'll be happy to accept that. I really will.I like how you phrased that subjectively, so even if I cared enough to look for one, you could just say "NOPE I DUN TRUST IT."

Except that's not true.Perhaps the steel would have been if it had the fireproofing on it that was applied originally. Other than that, I don't see how all the other **** that comprised the building was meant to be burnt in jet fuel.

If that helps you sleep better at night, then that's great. :)

Right because that's exactly what government killing civilians provides. :eyeraise:I was referring to terrorists who hate anyone who isn't like them having the ability to pull off an attack like 9/11. I mean, ****, at least the government doesn't give a damn about me.

Alright then, how's that being a ludicrously cost ineffective idea? What precisely is your argument? I don't want to respond to what I think this is saying without knowing for sure.

Or that pretty much any enclosure engulfed in flames is a death trap? Or like 90% of the houses in the U.S. being even more susceptible to flame? Houses constructed out of certified fire resistant steel? Apple and oranges?

If that sounded like it was specifically directed towards you... My apologies. Who were you referencing then?

1) I didn't say anything about fire there. Sorry, your flippant comment made your point a little vague. However I do stand by my point whether it turns out to be unsolicited or not.

2) Gravity. I hear concrete can break if you drop it from a skyscraper.Sure, in freefall. But remember that under the pancake theory, the floor above collapsed onto the floor below. The process of collapsing would have actually slowed down. And the floors above the impact area should have been mostly intact (since none of the floors above the impact would have no cause to collapse on themselves).

That's a bit naive.

"Hey scientist guy, if you say we screwed up the inspection we're all ****ed and that means you too.""Scientist guy" worked for a completely different organization with a completely different role. NIST still published their report and Kevin Ryan was fired.

So I'm still not understanding how he is biased. He stuck his neck out to call attention to something that did't make sense, got fired for it, and it made absolutely no difference in the end.

That were hit with 767s or whatever and burned with jet fuel? I'm not sure what that has to do with the point you were making. Your argument seemed to be that buildings were in poor shape before the attacks.

I'm saying the site in general isn't very reputable a source. That's fine but the site isn't the source of that letter. Therefore your point is entirely irrelevant.

I like how you phrased that subjectively, so even if I cared enough to look for one, you could just say "NOPE I DUN TRUST IT."I wasn't implying that you needed to. I've done a lot of looking on my own, so I doubt you'd be able to find something I haven't seen. And some of the sources available have valid points and some of them are absolute garbage...on both sides. Hence the whole "we'll probably never know for sure" thing I did way back on the first page of this thread.

Perhaps the steel would have been if it had the fireproofing on it that was applied originally. Other than that, I don't see how all the other **** that comprised the building was meant to be burnt in jet fuel. They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies. :)

I was referring to terrorists who hate anyone who isn't like them having the ability to pull off an attack like 9/11. I mean, ****, at least the government doesn't give a damn about me.Okay.

Thanks for your response.

Let me try again...

National Institute of Standards and Technology research on the crash and stats on the 707 vs the 767 200ER planes.
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55)

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

----

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1 ( wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf ), a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472793&postcount=55)
You can skip past my analysis and go directly to the facts if you'd like.

Or if you would like the original link,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

Have fun.

EDIT:
December 14, 2007
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm)

What precisely is your argument? I don't want to respond to what I think this is saying without knowing for sure.My argument is that your argument sucks.

Houses constructed out of certified fire resistant steel? Apple and oranges?You said all buildings. So, granny smiths and red delicious.

My apologies. Who were you referencing then?Err... live people?

Sorry, your flippant comment made your point a little vague. However I do stand by my point whether it turns out to be unsolicited or not.Pointing out something you imagined into my post is flippant? Also, feel free to stand by that point.

Sure, in freefall. But remember that under the pancake theory, the floor above collapsed onto the floor below. The process of collapsing would have actually slowed down. And the floors above the impact area should have been mostly intact (since none of the floors above the impact would have no cause to collapse on themselves).Hmm... that explains the stack of intact floors on top of the rubble...

"Scientist guy" worked for a completely different organization with a completely different role. NIST still published their report and Kevin Ryan was fired.As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
So you're saying he doesn't have a motive to say the steel passed inspection?

That's fine but the site isn't the source of that letter. Therefore your point is entirely irrelevant.Actually, it isn't seeing as you're using the site for a source.

They were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes. No one is saying that were designed to have them bounce off the windows like houseflies. You're wrong. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) (courtesy of Avery <3)

Thanks for your response.I aim to please.

(Yes, I've searched for "world trade center" and even "attacks")

I only had to watch this to believe that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand:

Paraphrase the message or find a clip with no language. Thanks.

~9

Whatever.

As much as I am two sided on this topic your evidence lacks.

Also, would a president/ruler actually admit to such war crimes? I mean, seriously.

My argument is that your argument sucks. :lol:

You said all buildings. So, granny smiths and red delicious. I'll be sure to be more specific with you in the future.

Pointing out something you imagined into my post is flippant?No, the flippancy in your post made it difficult for me to determine what your point was. I thought you meant one thing but your response indicated that you did not.

Hmm... that explains the stack of intact floors on top of the rubble... Source please?

So you're saying he doesn't have a motive to say the steel passed inspection? Not unless he was the one that had signed off on it or was somehow responsible for the department that did.

Does he feel compelled to come forward and say something? Yeah it appears that he does, but that isn't the same thing as showing bias in what he says.

You might cast aside your cynicism long enough to argue that he was compelled out of some sense of loyalty to the company, but I think that wanting to point out a mistake is just as likely and probably has better evidene. But of course, that's only my opinion.

Actually, it isn't seeing as you're using the site for a source. I could not possibly be using site for the source, as the site didn't write the letter. I am using the letter as the source which happens to be on the site.

If it were available on some other site, such as FoxNews or BBC, the letter would not be any different and you would still have to determine the veracity of the letter on its own merits.

It's like saying a website that you found using Google is better than when you found it using Yahoo!.

You're wrong. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) (courtesy of Avery <3) We were just discussing bias, weren't we?

I aim to please.Indeed you do. Take care.

Either way, a lot of people died in the 9/11 attack. Before a debate continues, I'd say it's important that all information known about this is put on the table. Every source, and then a process of elimination, instead of pointless bickering where one provides a source, another refutes it and provides a source and the same person refutes that and provides a source, etc, etc.
However, this may turn out to be a debate of heavy speculation, from conflicting sources if what I suggest is done... the debate could do with less insults like: My argument is that your argument sucks

Now i'm not trying to play moderator here, but the debate would go along much more smoothly without any 'I'm right because I know you're wrong' arguments...

Not to target one person individually with an argument over a person's validity in debate, which is not my intention.

Any chance you can find it online? I'd be very interested in taking a look.

In brief;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml)

Full transcript; http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml)

(Sorry searched high and low but couldn't find a video version)

In September 2000, the Project for a New Amercian Century published a document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. In this document, the think tank put forth it's case for how to make sure that America remains the sole world superpower from now on. Key objectives included (but were not limited to) removing strategic obstacles in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

In the document, the following comment was made:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

Members of the PNAC included Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney, and many others who had key positions in the Bush administration, but aren't necessarily household names.

Smoking gun? Nope. I can't argue that it is. But it certainly seems like pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

They're morons, the above does nothing to counter India and China's growing power, i.e. The above doesn't do anything about those two. The above is a long way from explosives being placed in a building.

These guys argue that there were explosives throughout the building (including the bottom). I'm still skeptical, but I can't rule the evidence they provide either.

Fair enuff, untill any evidence is produced to the contrary, I don't think explosives were in the building.

The nearby ones, sure. But again the argument was that they were everywhere.

From the way the building fell, I don't think there were explosives everywhere.

Probably :)

You can let me know :)

Why is that?

I would clarify similar here; to the casual observer, a pile of rubble... is a pile of rubble

How many explosives are you envisioning and where are they?

To take down a building that size... quite alot! But if you review the planes hitting the towers, I don't think the explosion is big enough; purely conjecture on my part.

My pleasure. Thanks for your post :)

No worries :)

In brief;
<snip>
(Sorry searched high and low but couldn't find a video version)
I appreciate you looking.

They're morons, the above does nothing to counter India and China's growing power, i.e. The above doesn't do anything about those two. The above is a long way from explosives being placed in a building. You asked for motive. There's motive. :)

Fair enuff, untill any evidence is produced to the contrary, I don't think explosives were in the building.:lol: And what would that evidence look like, now that the hypothetical bombs would have been exploded and all the steel beams shipped to China? :)

Niiiice and safe. :D

From the way the building fell, I don't think there were explosives everywhere. That's an interesting thing to say. What is it about how the building fell that makes you think that?

I would clarify similar here; to the casual observer, a pile of rubble... is a pile of rubble Fair enough, but (and no offense here) that doesn't mean anything. Why did you bring it up if it doesn't have any significance?

To take down a building that size... quite alot! But if you review the planes hitting the towers, I don't think the explosion is big enough; purely conjecture on my part. So are you assuming that the explosives are in the plane? Because the argument is that they were placed inside the building ala the way a controlled demolitions team would.

I appreciate you looking.

No worries

You asked for motive. There's motive. :)

Thin though :p

:lol: And what would that evidence look like, now that the hypothetical bombs would have been exploded and all the steel beams shipped to China? :)

Well in the pile of rubble, there would be explosive particles over everything, so some tests of the debris/dust would reveal their use.

That's an interesting thing to say. What is it about how the building fell that makes you think that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&NR=1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6N66vPCAs)

Fair enough, but (and no offense here) that doesn't mean anything. Why did you bring it up if it doesn't have any significance?

The relevance is that the pile of rubble would be quite similar if the towers collapsed straight downwards regardless of the method used to destroy them, personally I think that pertinent.

So are you assuming that the explosives are in the plane? Because the argument is that they were placed inside the building ala the way a controlled demolitions team would.

Explosives on the plane I think is even more wild a theory than explosives in the WTC; American airline security may have been lax back then, but it was lax enough to allow someone with lots of say C4 on.

Thin though :p How so?

Well in the pile of rubble, there would be explosive particles over everything, so some tests of the debris/dust would reveal their use.Depends on what was used.

Very loose example: Suppose someone uses gasoline to blow up your car. Investigators later find evidence of gasoline in the wreckage.

Remember this wasn't like a airplane investigation where they put every piece they could find in hanger somewhere and spent a couple months piecing things back together to see what happened.

A small sample of beams were kept for investigation and everything else was scooped up and shipped elsewhere as part of the clean-up effort ASAP.

And yes, some people claim there there is evidence of explosives on the material, but I don't know how much credence to give the claims (physics I can follow. Chemistry, not so much).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI&NR=1) And if another expert had the opposite conclusion?

The relevance is that the pile of rubble would be quite similar if the towers collapsed straight downwards regardless of the method used to destroy them, personally I think that pertinent. We know they collapsed straight down though, so what's your point? :)

Explosives on the plane I think is even more wild a theory than explosives in the WTC; American airline security may have been lax back then, but it was lax enough to allow someone with lots of say C4 on.You didn't answer the 2nd part of my earlier question, so I had to ask again in a different way. In fact you still haven't told us where you think the explosives were (though we've now ruled out that you think they were on the plane) so I'm still not clear how you got to "the explosion wasn't big enough".

bah, this isn't worth it anymore. We're not even talking about the subject you're just going after the words I decided to use in my sentence, and not even making much sense at that. I'm done, I don't even know what we're arguing over anymore.

I have to wonder if it's not some people's pathological distaste for the Bush Administration. Do they believe that the Clinton Admin helped plan/planned the first WTC attack or the federal bldg in OK? Also, why anyone (in this case Achille's) would attach much credibility to a conspiracy theory that's plagued with holes, but then hold others to exacting standards of proof, boggles the imagination.

I have to wonder if it's not some people's pathological distaste for the Bush Administration. Do they believe that the Clinton Admin helped plan/planned the first WTC attack or the federal bldg in OK? Also, why anyone (in this case Achille's) would attach much credibility to a conspiracy theory that's plagued with holes, but then hold others to exacting standards of proof, boggles the imagination.

I personally would still question any administration. The Bush administration is a funny one though... manipulating the American Public for an endless war. So I guess it wouldn't be too far-fetched for them to pull off such a disaster. I mean, many other leaders of various countries have done evil things to gain control.

Every Empire/Country has changed in the past. You can't expect the United States to never have a corrupt government... just look at the Romans. Eventually there will be a call for change.

However, being on both sides of the 911 conspiracy, what would you say these "holes" are? I have seen a lot of evidence that supports that it would be impossible for the towers to collapse, and others saying that it was possible. However, the side that is saying that it was possible has never fully disproved what the conspirators have said.

^^^^
Great post.

I personally would still question any administration. The Bush administration is a funny one though... manipulating the American Public for an endless war. So I guess it wouldn't be too far-fetched for them to pull off such a disaster. I mean, many other leaders of various countries have done evil things to gain control.

Every Empire/Country has changed in the past. You can't expect the United States to never have a corrupt government... just look at the Romans. Eventually there will be a call for change.

However, being on both sides of the 911 conspiracy, what would you say these "holes" are? I have seen a lot of evidence that supports that it would be impossible for the towers to collapse, and others saying that it was possible. However, the side that is saying that it was possible has never fully disproved what the conspirators have said.

Though the US has been around less than a quarter of a millenium, it's had its share of corrupt administrations, even local and county ones. I've never contended that this administration has been any more or less corrupt than previous ones. However, it's one thing to accuse your govt of a false flag operation and another to prove it. Frankly, given that openness has been both a strength and an achille's heel of the US economy, it's also equally possible for any organized outfit to pull something like that off, especially with outside help.

I would ask you....which claims do you see as still having merit b/c you believe they haven't been disproven? Untill one finds the unequivocal proof that Bush et al rigged the TT to go down to start his "apocolyptic" scenario, it's mere speculation/conspiracy mongering.

There were lots of media reports of explosions and discussion regarding the possibility of bombs. They discuss them at length in several of the videos that are available.

Yes, I also wondered why there were explosions heard from quite a few different people coming from underground, after the planes hit, but before they fell?

Another thing I found interesting is the building's fall itself. If you were to run the collapse over in real-time, you'll see the the buildings (all three of them) fell at maximum velocity. One of the documentaries did this for us and slowed and highlighted the regular intervals of floor collapse.

There is visual evidence of small bursts or explosions on regular intervals of floors as the buildings fell. You can see Both towers fell exactly the same and at the same speed. The only time buildings fall like that are when they are done purposely.

The strangest thing is Tower 7. It had absolutely no damage whatsoever, however, it fell, seemingly out of the blue, also at maximum velocity.

BTW, in our atmosphere, jet fuel burns somewhere in the neighhborhood of 1500 or 1600 degrees. There were bent, not shattered, but bent steel foundation girders that could only have been damaged by explosive temps reaching around 2800 degrees. The only thing that burns that hot is stuff like thermite.

You know what that stuff is used for? That's right you got it, DEMOLITION.

I always wondered why NY smoldered for weeks after the collapse.

There are a lot of questions about that day. Some of them can't be answered by science.

The strangest thing is Tower 7. It had absolutely no damage whatsoever, however, it fell, seemingly out of the blue, also at maximum velocity. Building 7 did have some damage (although it was not struck by a plane), however the question is did it take enough to rationalize and complete structural failure (I think the answer is "no").

There are a lot of questions about that day. Some of them can't be answered by science.Hehe, I think that all of them can be answered by science. I don't think that science has been applied to many of the answers that we've been furnished. :)

Speaking of bldg 7, heard a conspiracy mongerer claim that it was taken down b/c of all the Enron related files that were purportedly kept there. :lol:

Speaking of bldg 7, heard a conspiracy mongerer claim that it was taken down b/c of all the Enron related files that were purportedly kept there. :lol: Now that is just crazy. Everyone knows that Arthur Andersen took care of those files and if the person is talking about the documents that link Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm to the scandal, then that document is probably kept at his residence. It would be his marriage license to Wendy Gramm, who was formerly on the board of directors of Enron.

Hehe, I think that all of them can be answered by science. I don't think that science has been applied to many of the answers that we've been furnished. :)

Better said. that's what I meant. :)

I was also wondering of the validity of statements relating to a gold depository in the lower levels of tower 7 and how some people weren't allowed near certain areas almost immediately after the collapse.
How could there be Feds with guns on the scene so quickly shooing people away after a disaster of this magnitude?
Oh well, probably for looters and such. :xp:

I was also instantly curious when I heard statements about the owning group of the Twin Towers putting up an unusual insurance policy toward them just months before that fateful day. I can understand putting up insurance for planes hitting buildings that big. I surely would.
But it must of taken a massive amount of clairvoyance to put up insurance for both of them getting hit simultaneously.

...which is what they did.

I wonder how much that claim paid out?

...and why aren't there any photographs of a dc-10 splattered all over the Pentagon? How could the same plane do so much damage in NY but hardly a scratch to a much smaller building? Where are the wings and tail and engines after the fires were put out? Can a fuselage be totally disintegrated in an area of damage that small?

pics? Don't bother looking. You won't find any.

Well, I've actually done some reading on the Pentagon.

Well, its almost the largest building in the world (Square Footage wise) at around 5.4M square feet... (Maybe even more!).

Also, the plane hit it in the area that had just finished being restored up to current-day military spec. We're talking Blast-resistant windows, fire-doors, reinforced walls, cleaned up ceilings, the whole nine yards.

Basically, if they could have chosen a worse spot to drive a plane (Or Cruise Missile) into, they would be very, very, very hard pressed. The rest of the building was the original 1941-2 construction.

One of the reasons for the structural damage being smaller is the way it was built. Like most reinforced concrete buildings of the 40's, it was built in a manner that made the entire floor of the building take the stress of a small area, however, the entire floor than received the strength of the rest of the floor.

And, from what I've picked up, the plane disintegrated upon impact, or something like that, I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Hope that helps.