9/11 : Ten Years?!

[sten_super]

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION], you do seem to concentrate only on the evidence that suits your hypothesis. I've already posted this link, and there have been numerous studies regarding the effects of the collapse, because all architects, engineers etc. seek to learn from failures such has occurred at WTC. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html. You're expertise on building collapses through collisions with jet aircraft is astounding given this is the first time it's happened.

Or about this offering from those known government patsies, Walls and Ceilings magazine.

A Tale of Fire & Steel - Archives - Walls and Ceilings

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't dispute this and never have. I might suggest a different group was responsible, but I am hardly saying 9/11 did not happen.

If you are saying that someone has proved that the buildings did structurally fail, in their entirety, as a result of fire, then I am surprised. Thanks for the info. When did they laws of physics change?

Thanks for bringing facts and an objective perspective to the conversation.

The NIST proved the buildings did structurally fail (to the best of their expertise), however in this case what would be conclusive proof? As the comments below the video demonstrate, those that choose to believe one story will not accept another. Perhaps the NIST were part of a cover up, but you are now talking about a conspiracy with so many different people involved, it's difficult to accept that no hard evidence to the contrary has been leaked in anyway whatsoever.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

That is a bold statement. If you know nothing about physics you should'nt draw such definitive conclusions, if you know a little about physics you should question this statement.

No steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire. On 9/11 supposedly 3 buildings collapsed from fire. It could be argued that WTC1 & 2 were hit by planes and that this somehow was able to weaken the building although, in terms of heat, the jet fuel burned up on impact, and in terms of the effect of the impact alone, this could not have affected the structural integrity of the lower half of the building.

I am also amazed that people can watch all three buildings collapse downward through the path of most resistance, at speeds resembling "free fall" and not question how this is physically possible. Even if they were to fall in a chain-reaction "pancake" collapse, they would still experience a degree of resistance. A free fall collapse requires all of the supporting structure, from top to bottom, to fail simultaneously.

It's all a bit boring now. You have nothing to suggest that the buildings' collpase was anything other than what it seems to be. You can quote molten thermite if you like, or you can talk about super thermite or use industry phrases like "pancake collapses", but it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. You're talking rubbish. And why? What's the point. You talk about the supporting structure needing to fail simultaneously, watch the video! That's exactly what happens, whether you like it or not, and whether it is controversial enough for you or not. You want to believe a conspiracy, that's fine, it's your decision. Mine is that people like yourself need to move on and deal with what happened.

 

[Pat McCrotch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION], you do seem to concentrate only on the evidence that suits your hypothesis. I've already posted this link, and there have been numerous studies regarding the effects of the collapse, because all architects, engineers etc. seek to learn from failures such has occurred at WTC. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html. You're expertise on building collapses through collisions with jet aircraft is astounding given this is the first time it's happened.

No plane crashed into to WTC7.

But agreed, I am no expert on planes crashing into buildings. But when I try to imagine a plane crashing into the top of the building, and the bottom half of the supporting steel structre failing as a result, I struggle with that. It is one of a multitude of problems with the official explanation.

The paper you linked to:
"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure"

I don't doubt it, many structural engineers also believe that these collapses were not physically possible. We should not pretend that there is agreement amoungst the experts in this respect.

If you observe the collapses of WTC1 & 2 the concrete is both pushed outwards and pulverised into dust. I cannot fathom where energy required to pulverise all of that concrete came from.

In the event that each floor came down on the one below in a "pancake" effect, and in the event that this was able to happen without any significant resistance, I would still expect to see a huge steel frame standing once the concrete, plaster etc had fallen away.

There was never anything on the day, plane crashes or fires or anything else, that could have brought the steel structure down in pieces, and in one go.

If buildings could collapse in the way these buildings did, for the supposed reasons that they did, then there would be no need to use explosives in a demolition, it should work like a house of cards and you would only need to start a collapse for the rest to all neatly follow as it is said to in this case. But that is not how it works.

We should also be terrified of the prospect of a fire in a tall building because, by this logic, it would be in danger of collapsing. That does'nt ring true for me, and as previously stated there have been many serious fires in tall buildings without them collapsing. Buildings have burned for days down to the steel structure and not failed. The only time it has ever happened is on 9/11, supposedly 3 times, and in the case of WTC1 & 2 it took only 102 minutes & 56 minutes respectively.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I don't dispute this and never have. I might suggest a different group was responsible, but I am hardly saying 9/11 did not happen.

If you are saying that someone has proved that the buildings did structurally fail, in their entirety, as a result of fire, then I am surprised. Thanks for the info. When did they laws of physics change?

Thanks for bringing facts and an objective perspective to the conversation.

Hardly breaking the laws of physics as you say. A quick google is simple to find someones opposing opinion, I have no idea of their credentials, but neither do I know those of where you get your info from ...

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

 

[thejackal]

we covered this above. im not very interested in the board membership of security companies, i dont have the time nor inclination to research if there is anything substantial to this link. often board members do nothing in the company but offer input to the board in favour of the shareholders. other times they might have complete control over operations and can instruct people to arrange access for the CIA/Mossad to rig the building with explosives for a future demolition.

Twat.

Honestly, people like you are worse than the so-called conspiracy nuts, because you just believe what you think, and you literally choose to ignore the facts.

When you have read, cover to cover, all 585 pages of the Official 9/11 (Kean/Hamilton) Report, David Ray Griffin's excellent "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions", the NIST piece, the various rebuttals, and the rebuttals of those, or even the excellent (and short) Der Spiegel book "Inside 9/11", then your opinion on this subject may be worth listening to. Until such time, your opinions really do have no place at this debate.

 

[dingodan]

Or about this offering from those known government patsies, Walls and Ceilings magazine.

A Tale of Fire & Steel - Archives - Walls and Ceilings

Thats more a review of the analysis by NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). And I could point you to a website which says something else. Im not interested in what you can come up with on the interweb I am interested in what you understand yourself using your own intellect. We could have a webpage war for days hitting each other with links, its not productive though, if you don't understand something well enough to explain it yourself, don't offer it as evidence of anything.

FEMA I would'nt trust with shit anyway. If you have not heard of FEMA look them up they do not have a great record. Someone suggested maybe NIST is "in on it". That I doubt, I do think they will have felt some pressure to come up with an explanation and one that is considered "satisfactory" in that it supports what most people believe, it was always going to be an effort to prove the official account, rather than an objective search for the truth, but that is just my opinion.

 

[dingodan]

It's all a bit boring now. You have nothing to suggest that the buildings' collpase was anything other than what it seems to be. You can quote molten thermite if you like, or you can talk about super thermite or use industry phrases like "pancake collapses", but it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. You're talking rubbish. And why? What's the point. You talk about the supporting structure needing to fail simultaneously, watch the video! That's exactly what happens, whether you like it or not, and whether it is controversial enough for you or not. You want to believe a conspiracy, that's fine, it's your decision. Mine is that people like yourself need to move on and deal with what happened.

Are you confused?

you can talk about super thermite or use industry phrases like "pancake collapses" I never mentioned thermite and "pancake collapse" is the official explanation, not mine.

You talk about the supporting structure needing to fail simultaneously, watch the video! That's exactly what happens I know thats what happens, thats the problem. It shouldn't have.

You want to believe a conspiracy Someone else said this to me. If anyone thinks I sleep easier at night because of the conclusions I have come to, you a wrong.

people like yourself need to move on and deal with what happened. Mutually exclusive for me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No plane crashed into to WTC7.

But agreed, I am no expert on planes crashing into buildings. But when I try to imagine a plane crashing into the top of the building, and the bottom half of the supporting steel structre failing as a result, I struggle with that. It is one of a multitude of problems with the official explanation.

The paper you linked to:
"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure"

I don't doubt it, many structural engineers also believe that these collapses were not physically possible. We should not pretend that there is agreement amoungst the experts in this respect.

If you observe the collapses of WTC1 & 2 the concrete is both pushed outwards and pulverised into dust. I cannot fathom where energy required to pulverise all of that concrete came from.

In the event that each floor came down on the one below in a "pancake" effect, and in the event that this was able to happen without any significant resistance, I would still expect to see a huge steel frame standing once the concrete, plaster etc had fallen away.

There was never anything on the day, plane crashes or fires or anything else, that could have brought the steel structure down in pieces, and in one go.

If buildings could collapse in the way these buildings did, for the supposed reasons that they did, then there would be no need to use explosives in a demolition, it should work like a house of cards and you would only need to start a collapse for the rest to all neatly follow as it is said to in this case. But that is not how it works.

We should also be terrified of the prospect of a fire in a tall building because, by this logic, it would be in danger of collapsing. That does'nt ring true for me, and as previously stated there have been many serious fires in tall buildings without them collapsing. Buildings have burned for days down to the steel structure and not failed. The only time it has ever happened is on 9/11, supposedly 3 times, and in the case of WTC1 & 2 it took only 102 minutes & 56 minutes respectively.

Well, you've chosen to believe in some theories where no evidence has been found to support the claims, no explosives discovered (was everyone at Ground Zero in on the conspiracy?), and it is entirely based on opinion, conjecture and coincident, over detailed studies, calculations, computer simulations, reviews of the structural detailing, components, analysis of the wind loading at the time, and all over measurable factors that are possible after the event. All of your statements above are without basis in expertise or fact, purely conjecture and loosely on opinion.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Thats more a review of the analysis by NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). And I could point you to a website which says something else. Im not interested in what you can come up with on the interweb I am interested in what you understand yourself using your own intellect. We could have a webpage war for days hitting each other with links, its not productive though, if you don't understand something well enough to explain it yourself, don't offer it as evidence of anything.

FEMA I would'nt trust with shit anyway. If you have not heard of FEMA look them up they do not have a great record. Someone suggested maybe NIST is "in on it". That I doubt, I do think they will have felt some pressure to come up with an explanation and one that is considered "satisfactory" in that it supports what most people believe, it was always going to be an effort to prove the official account, rather than an objective search for the truth, but that is just my opinion.

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] - all you've done throughout this thread is post your links to various youtube crackpots and theorists, then you have a go at someone for doing the same!

 

[Bold Seagull]

You talk about the supporting structure needing to fail simultaneously, watch the video! That's exactly what happens I know thats what happens, thats the problem. It shouldn't have.

This is making me chuckle now. 'It shouldn't have'. This statement is completely unfounded because a tall building has never been hit by a jet aircraft before, nor has one built like the WTC towers (which incidently was a pretty unique construction at the time), so regardless of what you believe, there is no basis for stating it shouldn't have, when no one knows how it should have.


Can I just say that throughout this discussion, I am not asserting that you are wrong, I am only questioning your unwaivering belief in the certainty of these conclusions. Perhaps it is rhetoric, but your statements speak of facts rather than theories.

 

[dingodan]

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

So basically it was hit by a plane and that is different. As I previously said, in my opinion, that does not shatter the entire steel frame of the building. Nor does fire.

not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires Interesting that you claim that the fires were not being tackled. They were. In is interesting to note that the firefights on the 78th floor were dealing with two isolated "pockets of fire" that they felt they should be able to "knock [it] down with two lines". The impact of the plane in the south tower was 78th floor to 94th floor, meaning that even at the point of impact, it was not too hot for the firefighters to be there and working to put out the flames.

 

[dingodan]

Well, you've chosen to believe in some theories where no evidence has been found to support the claims, no explosives discovered (was everyone at Ground Zero in on the conspiracy?), and it is entirely based on opinion, conjecture and coincident, over detailed studies, calculations, computer simulations, reviews of the structural detailing, components, analysis of the wind loading at the time, and all over measurable factors that are possible after the event. All of your statements above are without basis in expertise or fact, purely conjecture and loosely on opinion.

I've said all along I am giving my opinion (unless I cite something). But I have a reasonable grasp of physics and using my brain there are things that don't make sense to me. Instead of coming along and saying "well they make sense to me, here's why", you just tell me that someone else says differently and you believe them. Ok. Fair enough.

But lets not pretend there is agreement amongst everyone and only "crazies" like me are asking these questions. There are good scientists, engineers, family members etc asking the same questions, but if officialness is good enough for you in forming your opinion, fair enough, thats on you.

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] - all you've done throughout this thread is post your links to various youtube crackpots and theorists, then you have a go at someone for doing the same!

I'm saying better to just cite NIST because that website was not detailing its own independant review or analysis, it was only citing NIST. Not having a go for posting stuff please do.

 

[dingodan]

This is making me chuckle now. 'It shouldn't have'. This statement is completely unfounded because a tall building has never been hit by a jet aircraft before, nor has one built like the WTC towers (which incidently was a pretty unique construction at the time), so regardless of what you believe, there is no basis for stating it shouldn't have, when no one knows how it should have.

Can I just say that throughout this discussion, I am not asserting that you are wrong, I am only questioning your unwaivering belief in the certainty of these conclusions. Perhaps it is rhetoric, but your statements speak of facts rather than theories.

The only things I speak of with certainty are things I cite (provable or historical facts), and the laws of physics as best I understand them. Otherwise I have said throughout this thread I, we, can only speculate.

The fact that a plane hit the building, and the fact that this is without precedent, does not mean we chuck our physics book out of the window. There will be things that need to be considered like the force of the impact and the presence of jet fuel, but all things considered, and in my opinion these things do not suffice in explaining the failure of the buildings in the manner in which they failed. That is my opinion.

 

[dingodan]

 

[Bold Seagull]

The only things I speak of with certainty are things I cite (provable or historical facts), and the laws of physics as best I understand them. Otherwise I have said throughout this thread I, we, can only speculate.

The fact that a plane hit the building, and the fact that this is without precedent, does not mean we chuck our physics book out of the window. There will be things that need to be considered like the force of the impact and the presence of jet fuel, but all things considered, and in my opinion these things do not suffice in explaining the failure of the buildings in the manner in which they failed. That is my opinion.

No, what you are saying is that the studies, calculations and examination of the evidence to form the conclusions as stated by several investigating panel of experts in the previous links I posted are not enough for you. While there are no studies to refute the calculations made, (I've only seen expert testamony to contradict this evidence rather than any counter mathematics) that you would rather not accept those conclusions based on your own knowledge of the laws of physics.

The only person chucking physics books out of windows is you, because a physics book is a collection of laws and theorems based on empirical study and the collection of data. As I have said on numerous occasions, all theories to the collapse of the WTC towers or 7 through explosion, or some other conspiracy are simply conjecture given no evidence has been found, or detailed modelling analysis given to the contrary.

Have your opinion by all means, but don't be hypocritical enough to criticise those that don't share it as those that have decided to throw reference to science out of the window. You seem incapable of making a comment regarding your own opinion without a barbed reference to your perceived ignorance of others that don't share it.

 

[thejackal]

Terrorists. The conspiracy theorists are always ready to bound forth (after smoking a fat one) and expound their reasoning.
Believe me, the US Government would never have needed to do something like that at home, to excuse heading off abroad to screw up an enemy state.

It's stupid stuff, but those who accuse the Bush administration of doing it, seem to stumble past the intrinsic fact that if they were so callous and intent as to want to do such a ridiculous act, they would be (and were) callous enough to be able to excuse a war without doing it.

Terrorists had tried before, so it was fairly predictable that they would try again. Hindsight is 20/20 now, so it might be simple to suggest they'd try using planes.... but that was not so predictable.

Every time you use a UK or US airport (not sure about the ROTW), you experience the legacy of 9/11.

I'm not so sure about that.

Firstly, the neo-cons were desperate to invade Afghanistan and Iraq but didn't have the public support to do so. It may appear to us, from a distance, that the US just steams into foreign countries without a care but this is simply not the case. US presidents face formidable obstacles in such cases, unless there is a prima-facie case for an attack. Vietnam, and the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident is a prime example.

Dubya was the least popular president-elect since Nixon. He couldn't even get out of his motorcade to shake hands with the crowd on inauguration day as there were an expected 20,000 protesters at the event who felt very strongly that the election had been stolen from their guy, Al Gore, and they have a fair point.

"George W. Bush's motorcade crept through the largest inaugural protests since Richard Nixon on Saturday, enduring thousands of protesters who hurled insults at the newly installed president. Some threw bottles, tomatoes and an egg and one demonstrator burned an American flag atop a lamppost." (Associated Press)

For a great insight into what was already planned, pre-9/11, it's worth reading some of the works of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which was essentially a group of Bush's cronies, the neo-cons, who laid out their plans for world domination or "full spectrum dominance". One of the most revealing sections is, of course, the famous "New Pearl Harbour" quote.

Secondly, the 1993 WTC bombing is an excellent example of govt / terrorist collusion. The bombing was planned and orchestrated with FBI help - we know this because the main informant, former Egyptian army officer Emad Salem, taped hours of conversations with his handlers, fearing that he was being set up by them. He did this to cover his back because the FBI kept insisting that he supply real explosives, not harmless powder. This info is in the public domain.

Lastly, it was very much known that the 'terrorists' would try to fly planes into the WTC. Indeed, one of the many 'drills' occurring on 9/11 claims to have been simulating just that. What is not in doubt is that Bush, Cheney et al were all aware of the possibility from the famous, leaked Presidential Brief of 6/8/11, yet they have all stated since that they had no idea, that no-one had even contemplated it. Condi Rice's classic quote "I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center" is clearly a bare-faced lie because she was present at the briefing that day.

 

[dingodan]

No, what you are saying is that the studies, calculations and examination of the evidence to form the conclusions as stated by several investigating panel of experts in the previous links I posted are not enough for you.

When did I say that? I think "studies, calculations and examination of the evidence" is abit strong, all I could see was one citing of the NIST report and another persons (perhaps scholars?) opinion (albeit a scientific one) about what happened. You need to check yourself, because all these things you are citing, including NIST acknowledge themselves that they are not proving anything. They are providing "theories" to try to explain events. As are those on the other side of the argument. Nothing wrong with that. I think its a shame that the wreckage and steel was all shipped off to china immediately by Rudy Giuliani, a forensic examination of the crime scene would have answered some of these questions no doubt.

Personally I don't look at one side, then the other, and choose who I believe or who I trust more. I try to understand the facts (as best I can) and I have explained what I think and why. If you have a cogent and specific argument regarding something I have said, please make it. Perhaps you can even correct me and increase my understanding. But telling me that I have to accept what someone else has concluded, and abandon my own judgement in favor of it, that is abit weak. Again if you do not understand something sufficiently to explain it yourself, you should'nt be citing it as an argument.

Have your opinion by all means, but don't be hypocritical enough to criticise those that don't share it as those that have decided to throw reference to science out of the window. You seem incapable of making a comment regarding your own opinion without a barbed reference of your perceived ignorance of others that don't share it.

I have not criticised you once. When you said "This statement is completely unfounded because a tall building has never been hit by a jet aircraft before, nor has one built like the WTC towers (which incidently was a pretty unique construction at the time), so regardless of what you believe, there is no basis for stating it shouldn't have, when no one knows how it should have." For me, this is as good as saying the laws of physics don't apply. We cannot make a judgement because it has never happened before. I think (in my opinion) that is rubbish.

EDIT: And again WTC7 was not hit by a plane.