9/11 14th Anniversary
- Thread starter qazwsxedc34
- Start date
californiagrown
Active member
13496484:las. said:Falling debris and a handful of small fires did this?:
Side-by-side with a controlled demolition:
When you add a few hundred additional tons of loading, plus a few key supports being eliminated, plus a bunch of dynamic loading, plus lots and lots of heat... sure.
You are a chucklehead if you are using the above images as evidence. Thats the kind of shit that gets on my nerves. Different causes, similar outcomes. Not that tough of a concept to understand, right? You have legitimate questions about tower 7. when you use the "oh look how close it resembles a controlled demolition" thing, you come off as a boob.
Use science, not completely uninformed analysis of highly macro images from an extremely complex occurrence.
Ya gotta remember that just because the 9/11 comission report has a few holes, DOES NOT prove the "conspiracy theorists" right. it just means that some things were missed, or there isnt enough evidence to definitively identify causes and mechanisms.
So far, the only actual evidence for a controlled demolition is an incomplete explanation of the official cause.
iH8pow
Active member
I thought this thread was going to be about "what happened to media coverage?".
I tuned in yesterday morning to watch recaps, and was a bit shocked that coverage (at least on the channel I was watching) ended after a few episodes in the morning. And I had to search through the TV guide to even find a channel showing coverage.
For us that are old enough to remember, we will never forget that morning no matter how much or little media coverage there is. But still, maybe those younger should see the coverage. No words can describe the confusion, shock (and awe) of everything that was happening.
And the "jet fuel doesn't melt steal beam" argument.... ever heard of a pressure cooker? Shit burns a lot hotter when it is under pressure, which there was because there was a lot of fuel burning and not many windows for it to escape out of.
I love conspiracy theories, but not today/yesterday
I tuned in yesterday morning to watch recaps, and was a bit shocked that coverage (at least on the channel I was watching) ended after a few episodes in the morning. And I had to search through the TV guide to even find a channel showing coverage.
For us that are old enough to remember, we will never forget that morning no matter how much or little media coverage there is. But still, maybe those younger should see the coverage. No words can describe the confusion, shock (and awe) of everything that was happening.
And the "jet fuel doesn't melt steal beam" argument.... ever heard of a pressure cooker? Shit burns a lot hotter when it is under pressure, which there was because there was a lot of fuel burning and not many windows for it to escape out of.
I love conspiracy theories, but not today/yesterday
13496500:californiagrown said:
Californiagrown. Ignorant as usual.
First let me explain you a thing, different variables change the outcome. That much is true. Regardless of that physics always works the same way. The laws of physics have yet to be proven false.
For a building to fall in perfect synchronization on top of its own foot print every load bearing beam on the foundation would have to collapse simultaneously. That can only happen in one of two ways. Controlled detonation or overloading of the structure. But if the structure was overloaded then it would have to be overloaded completely evenly for all of the structure to collapse at the same point and at the same rate. It's a simple math problem. If you had any knowledge about structural dynamics you would know but yet again her you come out talking out of your ass.
To further pick apart your argument the report had more than a few "holes" it completely left out information and scientificaly (as according to laws of physics among others) was false. All people are saying is we should look into the things that were "missed" because a lot of it does not make sense. People have a right to know.
Not to mention that they reported it collapsing before it happened
But anyways...
californiagrown
Active member
13496586:Lonely said:
FYI, I'm a professional engineer. You are not. The fact you say "its a simple math problem" actually made me crack a grin at your ignorance.
What laws of physics, specifically are you referring to?
yungsteeze
Member
13496465:Titus69 said:
Come to Michigan and square up then
13496588:californiagrown said:
The fact that you say that you're a professional engineer makes me doubt that you are. Seems in another thread you said something along the lines of financial manager for some charities or something but whatever
It is a simple equation. It really is. First things first any debri would have landed on the roof of the building. There is rebar and concrete under the building which comes to the load bearing beams. The most common form of support for a fairly symmetrical building is having foundation struts going to beams that are either equally spaced or staggered. This allows for equal distribution of the weight of acending floors. If to much weight is put on one or more load bearing beams, or if the structural integrity is compromised, those beams will buckle and collapse. But that would cause the building to fall in a staggered fashion, left side falling first, right side following after, instead of all at once. It could only fall in complete synchronization if every load bearing support beam gave out in unison (which is what they do in intentional demolition), which would mean that the debri would have to have fallen almost completely evenly and cause an overloading of the structure and its collapse.
But I guess your right, im not a professional engineer (didn't even say what type lol you could be a software engineer) but being a critical thinker and working on a degree in biomedical engineering definitely helps.
californiagrown
Active member
13496639:Lonely said:The fact that you say that you're a professional engineer makes me doubt that you are. Seems in another thread you said something along the lines of financial manager for some charities or something but whatever
It is a simple equation. It really is. First things first any debri would have landed on the roof of the building. There is rebar and concrete under the building which comes to the load bearing beams. The most common form of support for a fairly symmetrical building is having foundation struts going to beams that are either equally spaced or staggered. This allows for equal distribution of the weight of acending floors. If to much weight is put on one or more load bearing beams, or if the structural integrity is compromised, those beams will buckle and collapse. But that would cause the building to fall in a staggered fashion, left side falling first, right side following after, instead of all at once. It could only fall in complete synchronization if every load bearing support beam gave out in unison (which is what they do in intentional demolition), which would mean that the debri would have to have fallen almost completely evenly and cause an overloading of the structure and its collapse.
But I guess your right, im not a professional engineer (didn't even say what type lol you could be a software engineer) but being a critical thinker and working on a degree in biomedical engineering definitely helps.
Professional Civil Engineer. And no it is not a simple equation. You have just oversimplified it to a point where you can make the scenario fit your theory.
Biomedical engineering has literally zero application to this scenario. thanks for playing.
13496662:californiagrown said:
Since you're a civil engineer then you probably know the exact equation. It's not one of the most complicated. Feel free to post.
And it does? The amount of advanced math involved surpasses that of an equation to solve a load and support question.
Are you going to tell me what I said is false? Because it's not.
californiagrown
Active member
13496676:Lonely said:
Off the top of my head it would involve:
static loading, dynamic loading, thermodynamics, seismic loading, and an intricate knowledge of the asbuilts. then you would also have to have knowledge of the amount of material that fell onto tower 7, the locations of all fires, their temperature, and finally what supporting structures where damaged and how.
Far from a simple equation. the problem with college brats is that all the problems they have ever been given to work on are oversimplified so they have no understanding of how things really work int he field. There is a reason that graduates start at the bottom in the workforce... if they really were taught everything they needed to know in college then they would be the most freshly trained and the most qualified. But they arent.
13496588:californiagrown said:
Also forgot to mention that about every engineer institution and enginee college looked over what happened and they all seem to think it made sense. so I'm not going to challenge engineer's on a national level because this falls outside my knowledge.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13496500:californiagrown said:
The only three incidents of a skyscraper suffering global collapse due to fire occurred all on the same day in the same place.
The north and south towers collapsed into the greatest path of resistance at essentially free fall, while WTC7, which was not hit by a plane and of which NIST states that exterior damage from falling debris was not a factor in its collapse, instead collapsed at free fall speed for 2.25seconds due to the thermal expansion phenomenon. Therefore, you are debunking NIST's analysis of which you say you believe.
This violates the law of conservation of momentum and the law of conservation of energy. 100’s of thousands of tones in the lower section of the North and South towers should of slowed the upper part of the building, simply due to the mass of the lower section (excluding WTC7). The deformation of the lower section should of additionally consumed energy slowing the fall even more.
Now the theory which NIST claimed to be the most probable for several years after 9/11 was called the pancake theory. This theory is not supported by NIST nor any other investigational organization but yet this myth is still being propagated by the media as truth.
Here we see explosions descending ahead of the collapse in the middle of the southeast side of the North Tower. If the pancake theory was true we would see plumes of dust, debris and concrete from corner to corner on each side of tower. However, this is not the case. Instead, we see a continuous straight-lining of what looks to be 'explosions' running down ahead of the collapse. This can be seen in original video posted at the top of the thread, 33:00. Could this be the severing of core columns? Why are these explosions running ahead of the collapse, incrementally in the center of the southeast side of the North tower? This so called pressurized smoke would skip 2 floors in intervals ahead of the collapse.
Moreover, there were dozens of key-eyewittnesses that saw, heard, and were injured or killed by explosions in the lobby of both towers and in the basement of the south tower before the plane had hit! Might this be the severing of core columns by an unknown mechanism?
What could of accounted for the hat truss of the North Tower to fall in on itself before initial collapse? The antenna punched through the hat truss. However, NIST reports that the chief agent of destruction was the hat truss. The hat truss came apart under the antenna. Something within the building initiated what looks to be the core collapsing.
Now it makes me sick to believe that the pancake theory was propagated for so many years. If in fact, the theory that the floors became weak because of heat and collapsed, the core would subsequently stay in place, which is what NIST illustrated in their analysis of the collapse of the North Tower prior to 2005, yet, the core was the first structure to initiate collapse. Even more frustrating is that NIST left the core standing in place! THIS ISN’T SCIENCE to any degree.
One may conclude that the antenna never fell through the hat truss. However, then what caused the antenna to fall before the rest of building. Furthermore, the antenna fell before the tower started to collapse slightly to the south, in that case its structural integrity was compromised by a specific mechanism. NIST opposes such a belief and thinks nothing of it. They state that the core failed because the buildings, south angled wall was situating stress on the core.
You should read, 'Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse and the Question of How Did the World Trade Centers Perish’ Charles M. BECKhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609105v8.pdf
Beck is one of the many, that consistently show us where Bazant & Verdure in their J. Engr. Mech. ASCE publications were using misconceptions and simplifications to bolster the official NIST theories and NIST's own misconceptions, fed by government pressure and lies, and despicable career pressure. They used botched science and often propagated fraudulent claims. Out righting lying and having to admit to them.
“Progressive collapse based on the NIST scenario, and the practical realizations of collapse in WTC 1 and 2"
(i), the average avalanche pressure is 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the pressure the vertical columns are able to withstand, and (ii), the intact vertical columns can easily absorb through plastic deformation the energy of the falling top section of the WTCs. (LT : a NATURALLY falling WTC top section.)
"We propose a collapse scenario that resolves these inconsistencies, and is in agreement with the observations and with the mathematical models."
(i) and (ii) remarks are given for a non-realistic scenarios, which is presented by NIST. NIST tried to convince us of a natural cause for the WTC collapses. Caused solely by plane impacts and heat losses from fires for the steel, followed by column buckling.
Did all columns buckle?
The Twin Towers did NOT collapse caused by NATURAL buckling of vertical columns after they could not stand the load of the top mass and the heat of the fires anymore, caused solely by steel strength loss and weight stress and compression.
The yield strength of A514 structural steel is, "110 - 130 KSI ultimate yield strength range, an at least 5200 times (130/0.025, N.T.) and 2600 times (130/0.050, S.T.) stronger calculated collapse initiating yield force outcome would have been needed in the by Beck proposed NIST worst case scenarios."
SO, the PCs and the CCs, we find the scaled ultimate yield force f = f(z), at the top (z = 0) and at the bottom (z = 1). The parameters r and s are then obtained.
From researcher, on BECKS analysis:
"Beck proves with those 2 diagrams the NIST-proposed buckling to be impossible.
He proves the structural steel columns under and above f.ex. WTC1N its 93rd floor, possessed 2400 times more ultimate yield force strength f (in kilo-pounds/inch²), than the collapse initiation force he measured over the whole floor area in case of the by NIST proposed avalanche start."
"In case of WTC1N, Beck found for the failing floor :
f = f(z) = 0.025 KSI, compared to the in the NIST report mentioned ultimate f = 58-60 KSI of the columns their structural steel (page 6, in between eq.11-12)."
"And thus that steel could not buckle at all, under those NIST circumstances, only when it got cut and displaced by explosives, could the remaining, and/or the already cut steel buckle at all."
"These Towers collapsed because an additional event took place, i.o.w. the introduction of massive explosions to add to all of Beck's equations, explosions to cut these very strong steel columns.”
I can get into much more detail regarding WTC7 and the North and South towers but first read this,http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609105v8.pdf
qazwsxedc34
Active member
So in brief,
-NIST sagging and pulling truss effects that NIST depends on were not seen. NIST was not able to demonstrate this pull in effect, physical tests were not done, computer models did not compute these forces either. As a result NIST fraudulently stripped off all the fire proofing off a large section of the computer model building. Exaggerated temperatures were applied for twice as long as NIST had said occurred in the failure zones. That is that they applied exaggerating temperatures for 90mins instead of 45mins, but even then the pull-in forces were not created in the computer so NIST disconnected the floors before applying an imaginary pull-in force.
NO PHYSICAL TESTS WERE DONE, computer models did not give them the answer they want so they fraudulently apply data. They falsified input data and then deny going access of there data because it would ‘jeopardize public safety!?’http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
This is the opposite of science and it is criminal!
-The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded in their report on Building 7: "While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."
-WTC7 fell symmetrically at free fall (2.25s) into the greatest path of resistance.
-The model was built without physical evidence.
-Cracking middle folds downward precisely as in a controlled demolition.
-NIST declined to test for chemical explosives used in demolition. Yet, says no chemical explosives were utilized. How thorough!
-Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, was trapped inside Building 7 when the first plane hit. He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He died mysteriously in 2008, days before the release of the final NIST report. The cause of death has not been made public.
-Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, famously made the command to 'pull it', in reference to building 7.
"The relationship between 9/11 and insurance industry money laundering may be a key factor. Silverstein's payment for the WTC destruction of 9/11 was deceitful. He received much more than the reviewed value of the buildings. The insurance companies did not prosecute Silverstein for fraud because it wasn't insurance company money used to pay the settlement. What insurance company pays for the criminal conduct of third parties? There was no 'murderer in hand. As a result, no one act or omission could be identified as having caused the murders. There is no insurance liability, no causality. Life insurance proceeds are not immune from the money-laundering scheme. Insurance rates are based upon claims. The rates and claims remain relatively stable from year to year. (There is a quota system for claims, including traffic fatalities. Many automobile accidents are not accidents.) Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties that day oddly remained standing, despite being a lot closer to the two towers that collapsed onto them. However, there was no sufficient evidence to sue Silverstein. Now the quote “pull it” specifically means to demolish a building. However, Silverstein, after two years self-confessed it meant to withdraw all the fire fighters out of WTC7. The insurmountable problem with Silverstien’s statement is that there were no fire fighters within WTC7."
-Multiple reports made by professionals that molten steel beneath the rubble that lasted for weekshttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
-Suspicious money transfers in domestic banks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41584-2005Jan27.html
-Powerful and influential people claiming the need for a new Pearl Harbor in the year before 9/11
-Whistleblower Indira Singh claiming that the company PTECH had access to all FAA databases for 2 hours on the morning of 9/11
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2vgk_indira-singh-testimony-1-2_news
-Powerful and influential people claiming the need for a new Pearl Harbor in the year before 9/11
There’s a thousands other so called coincidences that happened prior and during 9/11, but i’ll refrain from posting them.
-NIST sagging and pulling truss effects that NIST depends on were not seen. NIST was not able to demonstrate this pull in effect, physical tests were not done, computer models did not compute these forces either. As a result NIST fraudulently stripped off all the fire proofing off a large section of the computer model building. Exaggerated temperatures were applied for twice as long as NIST had said occurred in the failure zones. That is that they applied exaggerating temperatures for 90mins instead of 45mins, but even then the pull-in forces were not created in the computer so NIST disconnected the floors before applying an imaginary pull-in force.
NO PHYSICAL TESTS WERE DONE, computer models did not give them the answer they want so they fraudulently apply data. They falsified input data and then deny going access of there data because it would ‘jeopardize public safety!?’http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
This is the opposite of science and it is criminal!
-The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded in their report on Building 7: "While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."
-WTC7 fell symmetrically at free fall (2.25s) into the greatest path of resistance.
-The model was built without physical evidence.
-Cracking middle folds downward precisely as in a controlled demolition.
-NIST declined to test for chemical explosives used in demolition. Yet, says no chemical explosives were utilized. How thorough!
-Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, was trapped inside Building 7 when the first plane hit. He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He died mysteriously in 2008, days before the release of the final NIST report. The cause of death has not been made public.
-Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, famously made the command to 'pull it', in reference to building 7.
"The relationship between 9/11 and insurance industry money laundering may be a key factor. Silverstein's payment for the WTC destruction of 9/11 was deceitful. He received much more than the reviewed value of the buildings. The insurance companies did not prosecute Silverstein for fraud because it wasn't insurance company money used to pay the settlement. What insurance company pays for the criminal conduct of third parties? There was no 'murderer in hand. As a result, no one act or omission could be identified as having caused the murders. There is no insurance liability, no causality. Life insurance proceeds are not immune from the money-laundering scheme. Insurance rates are based upon claims. The rates and claims remain relatively stable from year to year. (There is a quota system for claims, including traffic fatalities. Many automobile accidents are not accidents.) Any building that was not owned by Silverstein Properties that day oddly remained standing, despite being a lot closer to the two towers that collapsed onto them. However, there was no sufficient evidence to sue Silverstein. Now the quote “pull it” specifically means to demolish a building. However, Silverstein, after two years self-confessed it meant to withdraw all the fire fighters out of WTC7. The insurmountable problem with Silverstien’s statement is that there were no fire fighters within WTC7."
-Multiple reports made by professionals that molten steel beneath the rubble that lasted for weekshttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
-Suspicious money transfers in domestic banks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41584-2005Jan27.html
-Powerful and influential people claiming the need for a new Pearl Harbor in the year before 9/11
-Whistleblower Indira Singh claiming that the company PTECH had access to all FAA databases for 2 hours on the morning of 9/11
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2vgk_indira-singh-testimony-1-2_news
-Powerful and influential people claiming the need for a new Pearl Harbor in the year before 9/11
There’s a thousands other so called coincidences that happened prior and during 9/11, but i’ll refrain from posting them.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13496681:californiagrown said:
NIST calculated all of this and determined while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little to no effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.” Hence, it was thermal expansion alone, which really can’t account for global collapse of all core columns at free fall. There was another mechanism involved.
Gods_Father
Active member
13496588:californiagrown said:
Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth
Ae911truth.org
californiagrown
Active member
13496811:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
i am waaaaaayyy too high to be able to read those two other walls of text right now.
So they cant fully explain the mechanism causing it to fall, but have a very good idea... And THAT is your evidence for a controlled demolition?
Also, what other examples of fully fueled airliners crashing into skycrapers can you find? this event was the first of its kind. this was a crazy event and first-of-its-kind things happened all over the place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-urges-world-leaders-reveal-secret-files.html13496822:Gods_Father said:
you believe this guy too, right? or is he just the crazy minority?
californiagrown
Active member
Actually, All of you "conspiracy theorists": What do you think happened, from start to finish on September 11, 2001?
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13496833:californiagrown said:
NIST states that thermal expansion led to global collapse of WTC7. My evidence of a controlled demolition and fraudulent, grotesque, botched science that NIST presents as truth can be seen in the paragraph that you choose not to read.
WTC7 was not hit by an airliner. " This was a crazy event and first-of-its-kind things happened all over the place.” Yes, it was an unprecedented event but if we collate the official NIST narrative, one can see that the laws of physics were broken.
Now you are posting irrelevant sources to try to discredit my character. I will refrain from arguing with you until you grow up. Furthermore, stop labeling someone who doesn’t believe in fraudulent science a ‘conspiracy theorist’ i’m not labeling you, so please don’t label me, and don’t start off asking what ‘you people' believe in, it’s childish. We can start off with how the North tower fell if you want?
californiagrown
Active member
13496852:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
you sure you aint high too? i never posted a source in response to you. at any point...ever.
But what do you think happened, from start to end?
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13496857:californiagrown said:
You posted of all things, a dailymail article that was completely irrelevant to anything we were talking about.
And I’m not here to talk about what happened on 9/11 from start to finish, I’m here to talk about NIST’s fraudulent science presented as truth and the demand for an independent investigation into the collapse of all three towers, cleared from any collusion.
NIST’s fraudulent data warrants a new, independent and above all means TRANSPARENT investigation.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13496857:californiagrown said:
Anything this *thread is talking about. Posting an article about something irrelevant trying to discredit someones character is childish.
californiagrown
Active member
13496877:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
I posted it as an example of there being crazies who are supposed to be knowledgable that hold their own crazy conspiracy theories.
What evidence of 9/11 still exists that was not included in the 9/11 comission report? I hate to tell you, but none does. All the evidence that exists is out there, open to analysis and interpretation... and there havnt been ANY valid theories to come out. So looks like youre shit outta luck.
13496879:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
I posted it as an example of there being crazies who are supposed to be knowledgable that hold their own crazy conspiracy theories.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13496888:californiagrown said:
Sealed, closed, done. Thanks for playing!
Later on just read the post you chose not to read and watch the original video I posted on the top of the thread, if you’re not high. The commission report, has put forth biased and fraudulent information.
californiagrown
Active member
13496891:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
Again, where is this new evidence you are talking about finding? The hard evidence is gone, only records remain. All of those records are public. No remotely viable alternative theories have been put forward.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13496897:californiagrown said:
I completely forgot about this thread and wanted to bring up a few more points, and from the words of David Chandler, "The events of 9/11 were huge. The body of evidence that the administration, or other agencies within the US government, were involved is also huge. The problem with summarizing the information is that the scale of the operation and its cover-up are so vast. Finding smoking guns is like picking up litter on a field. It's hard to move in a straight line. That makes it hard to create a simple narrative.”
The horizontal ejection velocity of the stream of debris was around 60 mi/hr from the North tower. These ejections of material were from high in the building. How could heavy steel members be thrown sideways so fast when even the downward collapse had not picked up very much speed? This is not consistent with a purely gravitational collapse!
Several videos of the collapse of both towers show waves of horizontal mass ejections that race down the middle-faces of the buildings, nearly keeping pace with material falling outside the building, well below the zone of destruction itself. Hence, evidence of mechanisms severing the core columns. (YouTube: South Tower Coming Down and Race with Gravity.)
The ejections appear to come from many floors at the same time, which is inconsistent with the idea that the ejections consisted of debris blown out floor-by-floor as the floors pancaked together, which has already been thoroughly debunked. In addition to the massive waves of ejections there are many photographs and videos showing individual, focused, high-speed ejections of material many floors below the point of collapse. These are easily explained as some sort of explosive ejections. They are not convincingly explained as escaping jets of compressed air.
The lack of sufficient cause for the collapse has been thoroughly documented, disputed, rationalized, and obfuscated. The jet fuel would have burned off within the first ten minutes of the plane hitting the fact of the South Tower. Most of the fuel burned up in a fireball outside the building, especially in the case of the South Tower where the plane mostly missed the core columns. The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires, and not very large ones at that, ignited by the jet fuel, like lighter fluid on charcoal. Jet fuel is kerosene. Temperatures from either kerosene or office fires are insufficient to melt, or even catastrophically weaken, the massive steel columns running up the core of the building. Even if the flames and air temperature were maximally hot, the large mass of steel and fireproofing protective coating would wick away the heat and not raise the steel temperature sufficiently. For the steel temperature to come close to the air temperature the fires would have to be of long duration, but these fires were very brief, on the order of an hour.
There are photographs and video footage of a woman leaning on a girder and waving in the hole where one of the airplanes crashed waiting to be rescued. This would seem to be direct testimony that the fires on the floors where the impact and the jet fuel had their greatest effect, had subsided, and the air and steel temperatures were moderate enough for people to walk around and touch the steel: nowhere near hot enough to cause failure of the structural steel columns. The fact that the fires were emitting black smoke is a sign that they were not burning at high efficiency, so high estimates for fire temperatures are unwarranted.
(The small sample of steel studied after the event is a problem in establishing steel temperatures conclusively, but by the same token, it speaks to the rapid and near-total destruction of the crime scene. Destruction of any crime scene is itself a crime. In this case it is part of an ongoing criminal cover-up of mass murder.)
On the other extreme of temperatures, the research of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others have established that there were very high temperatures present in the building 45-50mins after the planes hit, not just enough to weaken steel, but to melt it!! How could this be? They found evidence for thermite in the rubble pile. There were pools of molten steel under the rubble piles of Buildings 1 and 2 (the North and South Towers) and Solomon complex Building 7 that remained molten for weeks after the building collapses, indicating a continuing energy source.
Molten steel would seek its lowest level after the collapses of all three buildings. The AVIRIS thermal imaging measured the thermal heat at the surface, far above the molten steel. Even so on Sept 16, 5 days after 9-11, NASA still measured a surface temperature up to 1341 degrees seven debris and dust-filled basements above the molten steel. That molten steel was much hotter than that measured surface temperature. To remain molten, it had to be much hotter!
"This is why the 911 Commission Report simply did not publish any of the eyewitness accounts of molten steel regardless of the fact it listened to these testimonies. NIST simply ignores the issue because it did not fit with their collapse hypothesis as admitted in their own Q&A. Yellow journalists Popular Mechanics move the emphasis by disingenuously misrepresenting the argument, saying "the steel did not have to melt, it just needed to weaken".
NASA thermal images show evidence of high temperatures on the surface of the rubble pile for literally months, indicating even higher temperatures below. Furthermore, several research groups found tiny iron spheres in the dust scattered all over Manhattan. These are from tiny droplets of molten iron that solidified before hitting the ground!!!!
Why do we all ignore the fact that molten iron/steel was found and has been identified by scientific analysis. Instead, the official narrative focus only on a visual identification of eyewtiness reports and testimony which CORROBORATE the work of scientists in the positive identification of molten iron which proves temperatures in excess of 2800F (1538C) which are in no way to be expected from this type of fire as recognised and agreed upon by the entire scientific community!
For there to be tiny spheres of iron in the dust, there had to be temperatures above the melting point of iron, and a blast event to atomize the molten iron into droplets during the collapse of the building, for it to be distributed with the dust. These are droplets of iron, not steel. They did not come from the structural steel of the towers. Iron spheres are an expected byproduct of the thermite reaction. Along with the iron spheres, scientists also discovered red and gray layered chips in the dust samples, which turned out to have the signature molecular structure as nano-thermite.
Parking Lot:
Yet an unmelted alleged hijackers passport was found! This does not even curious anymore?
In April 2009 an international team of scientists published a seminal paper identifying the red and gray chips found in the dust as high-tech nano-thermite, also known as super-thermite. Unlike ordinary thermite or thermate, which could be considered high-temperature incendiaries, nanothermite releases its energy at a much higher rate because of the high surface-to-volume ratio of the particles. When combined with suitable volatile materials, nano-thermite can be formulated as an explosive. The ignition temperature is also much lower than ordinary thermite.
Now in regards to the destruction of WTC7,
Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the evening of 9/11, even though it was not hit by an airplane and only had fires on a few floors. If you have ever seen a controlled demolition on TV, that is what the collapse of Building 7 looked like. It was a bottom-up demolition. It looks like the building is just sinking into the ground. The roof line stayed level as it fell, implying that the onset of collapse was simultaneous across the whole width of the building, and it came down in freefall, implying that it met zero resistance. I had heard others claim that it fell at free fall. 2.5 seconds of the collapse is indistinguishable from absolute freefall. Everything about the collapse points to controlled demolition. The 9/11 commission omitted any mention of Building 7, and the main NIST investigation offered no explanation for its collapse!!!
As blatant as any of the events of 9/11 themselves is the existence of a cover-up. The security cameras at local gas stations and hotels that would have recorded the Pentagon crash were immediately confiscated and withheld from public view. Two New York firefighters have stated that three of the four flight recorders at the World Trade Center were recovered, but according to the 9/11 Commission that they were not. The steel from the World Trade Center site was quickly disposed of, the vast majority of it taken to Asia for recycling. The official investigators retained only a few unrepresentative samples. A structural engineer from UC Berkeley who went to the site as soon as planes were allowed to fly was banned from Ground Zero. He had to do his research in recycling yards as the evidence was being destroyed. The destruction of evidence was not mere oversight or carelessness by the Giuliani administration: it was done in the face of a public outcry from firefighters and others who published angry complaints in the New York Times.
Not only was the physical evidence destroyed, the blueprints of the buildings were made secret and withheld from public view. They were not even made available to the investigators. Copies of some of the architectural and electrical blueprints of the North Tower were later made public by whistle blowers. They confirm the existence of massive columns in the core of the building and cross bracing between the columns, contradicting early claims of the buildings' architectural inadequacy.
There is abundant testimony from many eyewitnesses who reported explosions in the buildings long before they fell, including explosions in the lobby and basements. There is video footage of burn victims who were involved in some of these explosions. There is a video of firefighters using a pay phone interrupted by a loud, startling explosion in Building 7 long before it fell. It has recently been verified that that video was taken before noon. There is eyewitness testimony by a city official (Barry Jennings) of explosions in Building 7 even before the two towers fell. The leadership of the fire department had the presence of mind to interview hundreds of firefighters—who clearly would have some standing as expert witnesses—in the weeks after 9/11. Many of them testified to explosions in the buildings prior to the collapse. Their testimony was locked away, and released only through recent court action.
The 9/11 commission itself was a result of long and loud pressure by the families of 9/11 victims.
Launching an immediate investigation would seem to be a no-brainer, but it was resisted for over a year by the Bush Administration. When the administration finally acquiesced, it appointed Henry Kissinger—one of the least transparent figures in American history—to head the commission. Public outcry and conflict-of-interest resulted in his withdrawing his name. The commission was overtly balanced, with five Republicans and five Democrats, but the Executive Director, who tipped the balance and steered the commission behind the scenes, was Philip Zelikow, a close associate of Condoleezza Rice.
In violation of the rules of the commission, Zelikow now appears to have remained in contact with the White House during the investigation. Also, the commission adopted rules that it would present a "consensus" report, meaning no controversial or dissenting opinions would appear. As noted above, they made no mention whatsoever of Building 7 and they suppressed any testimony that would call the official account into question.
Reasons for suspicion go on and on. The scientific investigators for 9/11 have come under scrutiny. NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapses. The NIST report on Building 7, which was released for public comment in August 2008, claimed that the collapse of Building 7 took 40% longer than a freefall collapse. This is a blatantly false claim.
However, in the November 2008 final report they had a revised analysis in which they admitted a 2.25 second period of freefall, but buried it in a deceptive framework and ignored the obvious implications. Freefall can only occur if all resistance has been removed, simultaneously across the whole width of the building within a small fraction of a second. This is a smoking gun for use of explosives. NIST refused to even look for evidence of explosives. NIST is thus clearly playing a role in the cover-up.
californiagrown
Active member
So you think it was a controlled demolition?
HornyOrphan
Member
13496588:californiagrown said:
"I went to school so I'm smarter than you"
californiagrown
Active member
13526043:TheHornyOrphan said:
I'm guessing you also think you are better versed in law than a bar certified lawyer haha.
Curiously, from beginning to end, what do you think happened on 9/11?
13529809:nocturnal said:
I've seen the full documentary, but only now watch the second half of that video and saw that the person who made the video cut to something completely different. ( which by the way didn't even use thermite he used thermate) In the documentary they go see an expert demolitionist, who goes into detail about what it would take to put thoes things in place. You would need access to the building columns which are not accessible without lould tools, then you would have to sneak in. And it would take about 100 people a week to get everything together for the demolition.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13529817:nocturnal said:
How about we stick with the evidence that we do know. We know that explosive residue was found at the collapse zones of the North and South towers. Address my points and math above, if you think I’m wrong. And to put things into perspective.
Now, 20,000lbs of Nano-thermite, which equals around 9000kg or 9 tones. Say if 50 individuals were involved in the planting of these explosives. That would mean that individual would be required to plant about 182 kg. That would require exactly 3 excursions, around 60kg per trip. Assuming the generic size of a military grade Nano-thermite explosive approximately 3kg to 3.5kg, that would be 20 devices per trip. So in total 3000.4 or just 3000 devices. 220 floors in total accounting for the North and South towers top down demo. 1 person for every 4 floors, 50 times 4 equals 200 floors. So, 25 men with 1,500 devices for each building. Gaining entry has reasonable scenarios and only requires a frame of 5 minutes, inaction the core columns were easily accessible via elevators. Witness months before 9/11 have stated that there was heavy work being done on core columns, loud power tools and banging. Lastly, 1 person could move across 4 floors, positioning 60 devices, in 3-4 hours, 150 people about an hour. I am not stating that this is what happened, I am only reiterating the fact that it is easier than you think and takes less time.
Also, explosives on floor 92 were programed to delay 2.12 seconds former to the next explosions. On floor 90 to 88 the explosives were programed to wait 0.4 seconds and hence repeating the 0.4 second interval. It can be seen clear as day in the video I linked about. We can see that the pancake theory was a myth and concrete is instead being pulverized ahead of collapse zone in the middle of the sides of the North Tower, i.e the severing of where core columns are situated.
13531034:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
Jesus Christ man I'm Way out of my element with this one. What I do now is just from what I've learn has been said to me from experts. I've never heard anybody tell me about construction or being able to access it from the elevator, you have much more knowledge on the subject than I do and it seems like it would take me hours of reading to get on your level. So I'll just give you the point on this.
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13531040:nocturnal said:
Okay, that’s completely fine, thanks for being honest. I’m not well versed on a lot of issues surrounding this event too, but I am well aware that fraudulent science continues to be passed off as truth.
I’m not trying to force anyone to believe that something as terrible as 9/11 was orchestrated by factions within our own government, I’m just sick and tired of lies and the coverup that keeps perpetuating these myths. We might not agree but that’s fine.
californiagrown
Active member
13531034:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
13531048:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
Couldn't the thermite residue been because of rescuers and disposal teams cutting steel I beams?
Where did you get your demolition math, btw?
13531048:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
What I was talking about 18:20http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jlcfz
arnie_grape
Active member
13525831:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:I completely forgot about this thread and wanted to bring up a few more points, and from the words of David Chandler, "The events of 9/11 were huge. The body of evidence that the administration, or other agencies within the US government, were involved is also huge. The problem with summarizing the information is that the scale of the operation and its cover-up are so vast. Finding smoking guns is like picking up litter on a field. It's hard to move in a straight line. That makes it hard to create a simple narrative.”
The horizontal ejection velocity of the stream of debris was around 60 mi/hr from the North tower. These ejections of material were from high in the building. How could heavy steel members be thrown sideways so fast when even the downward collapse had not picked up very much speed? This is not consistent with a purely gravitational collapse!
Several videos of the collapse of both towers show waves of horizontal mass ejections that race down the middle-faces of the buildings, nearly keeping pace with material falling outside the building, well below the zone of destruction itself. Hence, evidence of mechanisms severing the core columns. (YouTube: South Tower Coming Down and Race with Gravity.)
The ejections appear to come from many floors at the same time, which is inconsistent with the idea that the ejections consisted of debris blown out floor-by-floor as the floors pancaked together, which has already been thoroughly debunked. In addition to the massive waves of ejections there are many photographs and videos showing individual, focused, high-speed ejections of material many floors below the point of collapse. These are easily explained as some sort of explosive ejections. They are not convincingly explained as escaping jets of compressed air.
The lack of sufficient cause for the collapse has been thoroughly documented, disputed, rationalized, and obfuscated. The jet fuel would have burned off within the first ten minutes of the plane hitting the fact of the South Tower. Most of the fuel burned up in a fireball outside the building, especially in the case of the South Tower where the plane mostly missed the core columns. The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires, and not very large ones at that, ignited by the jet fuel, like lighter fluid on charcoal. Jet fuel is kerosene. Temperatures from either kerosene or office fires are insufficient to melt, or even catastrophically weaken, the massive steel columns running up the core of the building. Even if the flames and air temperature were maximally hot, the large mass of steel and fireproofing protective coating would wick away the heat and not raise the steel temperature sufficiently. For the steel temperature to come close to the air temperature the fires would have to be of long duration, but these fires were very brief, on the order of an hour.
There are photographs and video footage of a woman leaning on a girder and waving in the hole where one of the airplanes crashed waiting to be rescued. This would seem to be direct testimony that the fires on the floors where the impact and the jet fuel had their greatest effect, had subsided, and the air and steel temperatures were moderate enough for people to walk around and touch the steel: nowhere near hot enough to cause failure of the structural steel columns. The fact that the fires were emitting black smoke is a sign that they were not burning at high efficiency, so high estimates for fire temperatures are unwarranted.
(The small sample of steel studied after the event is a problem in establishing steel temperatures conclusively, but by the same token, it speaks to the rapid and near-total destruction of the crime scene. Destruction of any crime scene is itself a crime. In this case it is part of an ongoing criminal cover-up of mass murder.)
On the other extreme of temperatures, the research of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others have established that there were very high temperatures present in the building 45-50mins after the planes hit, not just enough to weaken steel, but to melt it!! How could this be? They found evidence for thermite in the rubble pile. There were pools of molten steel under the rubble piles of Buildings 1 and 2 (the North and South Towers) and Solomon complex Building 7 that remained molten for weeks after the building collapses, indicating a continuing energy source.
Molten steel would seek its lowest level after the collapses of all three buildings. The AVIRIS thermal imaging measured the thermal heat at the surface, far above the molten steel. Even so on Sept 16, 5 days after 9-11, NASA still measured a surface temperature up to 1341 degrees seven debris and dust-filled basements above the molten steel. That molten steel was much hotter than that measured surface temperature. To remain molten, it had to be much hotter!
"This is why the 911 Commission Report simply did not publish any of the eyewitness accounts of molten steel regardless of the fact it listened to these testimonies. NIST simply ignores the issue because it did not fit with their collapse hypothesis as admitted in their own Q&A. Yellow journalists Popular Mechanics move the emphasis by disingenuously misrepresenting the argument, saying "the steel did not have to melt, it just needed to weaken".
NASA thermal images show evidence of high temperatures on the surface of the rubble pile for literally months, indicating even higher temperatures below. Furthermore, several research groups found tiny iron spheres in the dust scattered all over Manhattan. These are from tiny droplets of molten iron that solidified before hitting the ground!!!!
Why do we all ignore the fact that molten iron/steel was found and has been identified by scientific analysis. Instead, the official narrative focus only on a visual identification of eyewtiness reports and testimony which CORROBORATE the work of scientists in the positive identification of molten iron which proves temperatures in excess of 2800F (1538C) which are in no way to be expected from this type of fire as recognised and agreed upon by the entire scientific community!
For there to be tiny spheres of iron in the dust, there had to be temperatures above the melting point of iron, and a blast event to atomize the molten iron into droplets during the collapse of the building, for it to be distributed with the dust. These are droplets of iron, not steel. They did not come from the structural steel of the towers. Iron spheres are an expected byproduct of the thermite reaction. Along with the iron spheres, scientists also discovered red and gray layered chips in the dust samples, which turned out to have the signature molecular structure as nano-thermite.
Parking Lot:
Yet an unmelted alleged hijackers passport was found! This does not even curious anymore?
In April 2009 an international team of scientists published a seminal paper identifying the red and gray chips found in the dust as high-tech nano-thermite, also known as super-thermite. Unlike ordinary thermite or thermate, which could be considered high-temperature incendiaries, nanothermite releases its energy at a much higher rate because of the high surface-to-volume ratio of the particles. When combined with suitable volatile materials, nano-thermite can be formulated as an explosive. The ignition temperature is also much lower than ordinary thermite.
Now in regards to the destruction of WTC7,
Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the evening of 9/11, even though it was not hit by an airplane and only had fires on a few floors. If you have ever seen a controlled demolition on TV, that is what the collapse of Building 7 looked like. It was a bottom-up demolition. It looks like the building is just sinking into the ground. The roof line stayed level as it fell, implying that the onset of collapse was simultaneous across the whole width of the building, and it came down in freefall, implying that it met zero resistance. I had heard others claim that it fell at free fall. 2.5 seconds of the collapse is indistinguishable from absolute freefall. Everything about the collapse points to controlled demolition. The 9/11 commission omitted any mention of Building 7, and the main NIST investigation offered no explanation for its collapse!!!
As blatant as any of the events of 9/11 themselves is the existence of a cover-up. The security cameras at local gas stations and hotels that would have recorded the Pentagon crash were immediately confiscated and withheld from public view. Two New York firefighters have stated that three of the four flight recorders at the World Trade Center were recovered, but according to the 9/11 Commission that they were not. The steel from the World Trade Center site was quickly disposed of, the vast majority of it taken to Asia for recycling. The official investigators retained only a few unrepresentative samples. A structural engineer from UC Berkeley who went to the site as soon as planes were allowed to fly was banned from Ground Zero. He had to do his research in recycling yards as the evidence was being destroyed. The destruction of evidence was not mere oversight or carelessness by the Giuliani administration: it was done in the face of a public outcry from firefighters and others who published angry complaints in the New York Times.
Not only was the physical evidence destroyed, the blueprints of the buildings were made secret and withheld from public view. They were not even made available to the investigators. Copies of some of the architectural and electrical blueprints of the North Tower were later made public by whistle blowers. They confirm the existence of massive columns in the core of the building and cross bracing between the columns, contradicting early claims of the buildings' architectural inadequacy.
There is abundant testimony from many eyewitnesses who reported explosions in the buildings long before they fell, including explosions in the lobby and basements. There is video footage of burn victims who were involved in some of these explosions. There is a video of firefighters using a pay phone interrupted by a loud, startling explosion in Building 7 long before it fell. It has recently been verified that that video was taken before noon. There is eyewitness testimony by a city official (Barry Jennings) of explosions in Building 7 even before the two towers fell. The leadership of the fire department had the presence of mind to interview hundreds of firefighters—who clearly would have some standing as expert witnesses—in the weeks after 9/11. Many of them testified to explosions in the buildings prior to the collapse. Their testimony was locked away, and released only through recent court action.
The 9/11 commission itself was a result of long and loud pressure by the families of 9/11 victims.
Launching an immediate investigation would seem to be a no-brainer, but it was resisted for over a year by the Bush Administration. When the administration finally acquiesced, it appointed Henry Kissinger—one of the least transparent figures in American history—to head the commission. Public outcry and conflict-of-interest resulted in his withdrawing his name. The commission was overtly balanced, with five Republicans and five Democrats, but the Executive Director, who tipped the balance and steered the commission behind the scenes, was Philip Zelikow, a close associate of Condoleezza Rice.
In violation of the rules of the commission, Zelikow now appears to have remained in contact with the White House during the investigation. Also, the commission adopted rules that it would present a "consensus" report, meaning no controversial or dissenting opinions would appear. As noted above, they made no mention whatsoever of Building 7 and they suppressed any testimony that would call the official account into question.
Reasons for suspicion go on and on. The scientific investigators for 9/11 have come under scrutiny. NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was the government agency assigned to investigate the building collapses. The NIST report on Building 7, which was released for public comment in August 2008, claimed that the collapse of Building 7 took 40% longer than a freefall collapse. This is a blatantly false claim.
However, in the November 2008 final report they had a revised analysis in which they admitted a 2.25 second period of freefall, but buried it in a deceptive framework and ignored the obvious implications. Freefall can only occur if all resistance has been removed, simultaneously across the whole width of the building within a small fraction of a second. This is a smoking gun for use of explosives. NIST refused to even look for evidence of explosives. NIST is thus clearly playing a role in the cover-up.
hey brah this is nsg not your communications class discussion board ya fuckin n3rd
qazwsxedc34
Active member
13531148:californiagrown said:
The sample was collected on 9/11 about ten minutes after the destruction of the second tower, long before clean-up operations began.
“The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower."
californiagrown
Active member
13531529:CONAIR_BUSCEMI said:
And that thermite residue couldn't have come from ironworkers building or maintaining the structures in the recent or distant past? What levels of residue were found? Etc.
HornyOrphan
Member
13526075:californiagrown said:
beginning: there was 2 planes
end: the 2 planes hit 2 towers