9/11 Conspiracy Theories

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

ndansmith
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby ndansmith » Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:35 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:You still never explained where the energy involved in collapse goes, if it doesnt go into the structure falling. Nor how the energy is transducted into something else.

If you are responding to jwthomp2, I think he has. Remember that about molten metal in the basement? How about the pulverization of concrete during the collapse (i.e. before hitting the ground)? The lateral ejection of the steel frames? There are many ways in which the released gravitational energy was spent besides the destruction of the steel frame. That doesn't indicate anything one way or the other, unless we do some energy accounting. Now, who can figure out how to account for the total amount of energy available, and for all the ways it was spent, and the inefficiencies of the transformations from kinetic to other types of energy. Anyone got a lot of spare time on their hands to calc that out? ;-)

User avatar
jwthomp2
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:07 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby jwthomp2 » Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:59 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:That's what happens in, say, house fires or maybe even large-ish buildings that are very spread out, but a 40 story building isn't going to "gradually deform" and slowly tumble over. It's too tall and not spread out enough.


This brings us back to my very first post of the conclusions of the NIST Final report on the Collapse of WTC 7, which I think it would be instructive to repeat here, so that we are all on the same page.

"-The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. [...]

- WTC 7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires with characteristics similar to previous fires in tall buildings. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings (One New York Plaza, 1970, First Interstate Bank, 1988, and One Meridian Plaza, 1991) where automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. However, because of differences between their structural designs and that of WTC 7, these three buildings did not collapse. [...]

-The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures. [...]

-The collapse of WTC 7 was a progressive collapse. [...]

- The transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7. Neither did the Con Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC7.
[...]

- Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001 [...]

-Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. [...]

-Hypothetical blast evens did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB at a distance of a least a half mile. [...] There were no witness reports of such noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of the video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse."

The initial structural damage was not significant to the NIST's collapse hypothesis, this is the first time a tall building has collapsed due to fires, the fires were similar to other tall building fires, the results of which were dramatically different than the result of the WTC 7 fire. The unique structure of WTC 7 is (as correctly mentioned before) blamed on the collapse. I think this last assertion is worthy of further discussion.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:03 pm UTC

ndansmith wrote:and the inefficiencies of the transformations from kinetic to other types of energy.

Since we're talking about heat energy, this is not really relevant. Because in general all "inefficiency" in transforming energy ends up becoming waste heat. So the more "inefficient" the transfer from gravitational potential to kinetic energy was, the more heat we can expect.

And no one really needs to do all the calculations for this (that kinetic energy became heat energy) to still be the best explanation for at least some of the heat damage to steel. Because it is a plausible explanation (anyone who's done so much as bend a paperclip back and forth until it breaks knows that stressing and bending metal causes it to heat up), and every alternative explanation is horribly implausible because of how arbitrary and contrived it is. Not to mention how many more inconsistencies are introduced by any controlled demolition theory I've ever seen, than could ever possibly be cleared up by it.

22/7 wrote:Also, suddenly we're allowed to say that the structures entered free-fall again? I thought we all agreed that none of the structures was ever in free-fall? Odd.

Referring to, I believe, the graph at the end of this post. Which pretty clearly shows only temporary free-fall accelerations, between periods of much slower acceleration. The first slow period probably involved a bunch of support structures failing as the weight of 47 stories was concentrated on already weakened columns, leaving the top of the building unimpeded for the next few seconds
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby 22/7 » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:14 pm UTC

jwthomp2, you're assuming that my negative use of the word gradual when responding to the idea that it would slowly deform and piece by piece collapse the way a large, spread out house would were it on fire and the NIST positive use of the word gradual when referring to a steel structure on fire are the same gradual but in contention. They're not.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Marbas » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

I did look at the second link, it contained a great deal of hypothetical situations that the author was conjuring up to try and deal with the presence of molten metal. You will notice in the conclusions section though, that it is conspicuously absent of any explanation for the molten metal, and that it simply appeals to the NIST for further analysis. This tells me that even though the author was specifically trying to find an explanation for melted steel other than thermite, he failed.


Well, first of all, the compound is thermate, the one you would have to blame. However, brushing off those explanations as hypothetical is silly. This is because your explanation IS a hypothetical with no real evidence supporting it, which requires even more assumptions about worker availability, the stealth of those workers, the ignorance of everyone working in the WTC, and the ability of a large entity within the government to make such plans without being caught. A "hole" like that in the official theory doesn't actually point to thermate, it points to the presence sulfur. It's quite a leap to jump from "corrosion and the presence of a eutectic" to "THERMATE". Those are TREMENDOUS ifs that can't be explained away by going "SULFUR EUTECTIC GUYS, THERE'S A SULFUR EUTECTIC THAT MEANS EVERYTHING IS WRONG." Especially when several plausible alternative scenarios have been cited. Sure they're hypothetical, but they're based in good science and are perfectly reasonable. They're more plausible than thermate demolition anyways.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I am returning to a civil tone.
Last edited by Marbas on Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:07 am UTC, edited 9 times in total.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
JazzPenguin
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:30 pm UTC
Location: Manchester UK
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby JazzPenguin » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:57 pm UTC

Hi, Ive been lurking for quite a while, however this thread has driven me to post, not over truthing/debunking but over metallurgy,
First of all I think a mix up is occurring over how much sulfur you'd need for a eutectic mixture, do you guy's know what a eutectic is? i don't have an iron-sulfur phase diagram handy but as it's much like carbon I'd reckon on 3% S/97% Fe, and they only talk about a corroding mixture,NOT throughout the pieces found.

Secondly, having spent quite a while around liquid metals, I seriously doubt there were pools of liquid steel about for hours never mind days, metals freeze very fast, you've got lots of undercooling from 1400C. Has anyone got any pictures of these pools, please bear in mind steels thats glowing yellow-white hot isn't molten, which brings me to my third point.

The fires really really wouldn't have to reach 1400C or whatever the melting point of A36 is to loose a lot of strength, the estimated temperatures are easily enough to reduce the steels strength by around 80%, peoples arguments seem to hinge around the planes/the fires couldn't do enough damage, please remember the accepted (more?) is that BOTH happened.

Sorry for the horrific lack of citations, Im too sleepy/lazy right now, please feel free to prove me wrong.

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Marbas » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:55 am UTC

JazzPenguin wrote:Hi, Ive been lurking for quite a while, however this thread has driven me to post, not over truthing/debunking but over metallurgy,
First of all I think a mix up is occurring over how much sulfur you'd need for a eutectic mixture, do you guy's know what a eutectic is? i don't have an iron-sulfur phase diagram handy but as it's much like carbon I'd reckon on 3% S/97% Fe, and they only talk about a corroding mixture,NOT throughout the pieces found.



No, no I did not. Not until I googled it five seconds ago. Was it that obvious?

:oops:

There's something I'm confused about that maybe you could clear up, the report mentions a corrosion attack on metals, but I don't see where it mentions molten metal or even the word melted. Are there technical terms I don't understand that indicate there was molten metal? Did I just not read the report closely enough? I'm quite confused.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
jwthomp2
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:07 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby jwthomp2 » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:04 am UTC

Glad you could join the conversation JazzPenguin.
JazzPenguin wrote:i don't have an iron-sulfur phase diagram handy

Here you go.
Fe-S Phase Diagram.JPG
Fe-S Phase Diagram.JPG (29.53 KiB) Viewed 7812 times

The eutectic mixture (the concentration of a sulfur-iron mixture which has the lowest melting point) is 31% by weight sulfur, and 1000 C.
Marbas wrote:your explanation IS a hypothetical with no real evidence supporting it
Yes my explanation of thermite is still hypothetical as well. We have not come to any conclusions as to the source or cause of the molten metal. What I think is interesting though, is that this author of the report you referenced earlier, seems to be disturbed by the fact that the NIST has not even attempted to explain the presence of molten metal. So he is sticking his neck out, suggesting some hypothesis, and appealing to the NIST to test them. Somehow I don't think the NIST will listen.....
JazzPenguin wrote:Has anyone got any pictures of these pools

Excavation_molten_metal.jpg
Excavation_molten_metal.jpg (33.68 KiB) Viewed 7810 times

This was a picture taken eight weeks after 9/11. It clearly shows molten metal. Pictures obtained from this source.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... oltenmetal
Other quotations from this source...
-Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]
-William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
-Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 pdf file]
-Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
-Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 pdf file]
-Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [US News and World Report, 9/12/2002]
-According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]
-New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
bullet As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]

In my mind, there is no doubt as to the presence of very large pools of molten metal surviving for weeks during the excavation.

Other evidence of molten metal includes analysis of WTC dust by the RJ Lee Group[1],

“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event,
producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation
of spherical particles due to surface tension…”
[1]
Iron-rich sphere.JPG
Iron-rich sphere.JPG (12.07 KiB) Viewed 7811 times

[1]
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool"
[1].
Lead vaporizes at 1740 C, 3164 F [2] Well beyond the capabilities of any normal fire (max=1800 F).

I hope that the above information thoroughly establishes that there is an abundance of evidence and eye-witness reports that confirm the presence of large amounts of molten metal.
gmalivuk wrote:Which pretty clearly shows only temporary free-fall accelerations

I would like to continue our conversation concerning the collapse of WTC 7, because I had an "Aha!" moment today concerning the computer modeling evidence that the NIST provides to backup their claim that WTC 7 collapsed the way it did. I will address it in a separate post, as my mind grows weary. I accidentally lost this this last posting several times due to inept clicking. :|

[1]RJ Lee Group. WTC Dust Signature Report, December, 2003
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Li ... .Final.pdf
[2] http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/pb.html

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Marbas » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:48 am UTC

That picture is of burning steel. Not melted steel.

This link covers all of the quotes below, and that picture.

Iron spheres are dealt with here. Actually, this page covers a bunch of stuff. The tone is slightly inflammatory though. I've spoilered the relevant section.

Spoiler:
Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker who documented a few examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7 microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group, who identified small, round iron particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still debated, along the following lines:

 As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or some other highly localized process.

 It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

 There appear to be several plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the flyash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules from one report. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents, rather than building structure, without much more careful study.

 The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.

 Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.

 Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.

 As mentioned above, there is potential site contamination from salvage operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from the buildings’ original construction.

 Iron that appears to have melted may have merely oxidized, and surface chemistry effects of merely heated iron may give rise to tiny amounts of melting even at moderate temperatures.

 Chemical factors, combined with heat, could lead to eutectic mixtures of iron with other elements (such as sulfur) melting and dissociating at relatively low temperatures, potentially creating the iron spherules.

For purposes of this discussion, we will focus on the latter two inferences, and speculate that the spherules may be a result of a chemical process, catalyzed by moderate heat but below the actual melting temperature of steel. It is, therefore, possible (but unproven) that the spherules and the sulfidized steel are related.To further understand sulfidization, we should begin by attempting to understand the source of the sulfur. Sulfur is an abundant element, with numerous possible sources. The following is a brief list of some possible origins of sulfur:

 Diesel fuel, found in emergency generators and in vehicles in the WTC parking garages, contained a fairly high concentration of organosulfuric compounds, providing a possible source of sulfur in an energetically favorable form. WTC 7, where all but one of the sulfidized samples came from, had exceptionally large stores of diesel fuel to power emergency command and control equipment.

 Large banks of batteries existed in a few locations, as backup for computers involved in the financial services, and could plausibly have provided a significant quantity of sulfuric acid.

 Acid rain could have potentially exposed some surfaces to low concentrations of sulfuric acid over many years.

 Ocean water, bearing sulfate salts, was pumped onto the burning debris piles as part of the firefighting effort.

 Gypsum wallboard, omnipresent in large buildings, is almost entirely composed of sulfur-bearing minerals. However, this sulfur is not in an energetically favorable form, and some other chemical process would be required to react with steel structural members.

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.

A related possibility, voiced by Dr. Greening, is that of burning plastics or other chemicals giving rise to other caustic compounds, such as creation of hydrogen chloride (which in contact with water forms hydrochloric acid) from burning PVC (polyvinyl chloride). This is relevant because large quantities of PVC, along with other plastics, are found in modern offices. Chemicals such as this could potentially catalyze sulfur reactions, and also lead to a chemical weakening of steel structural elements, an additional hazard. A historical example of this is the Plastimet Fire in Hamilton, Ontario, in July of 1997. In this fire, roughly 200 tons of PVC and other plastics burned over a period of a few days. Among the fire’s effects were reports of localized metal corrosion, linked to the creation of HCl gas which was measured at 53 to 930 micrograms per cubic meter.

The volume of PVC burned in this fire was comparable to the amount of plastics in the WTC fire floors, and it is also conceivable that caustic chemicals would be trapped within the structure, raising their concentrations to this level or possibly much higher.

However, the use of PVC in construction is not new, and there have been numerous studies on its effects in fires. Industry sources question its ability to weaken a structure through chemical means:

Burning PVC has resulted in corrosion damage to electrical equipment in the vicinity. This has led to suggestions that PVC should not be used in construction applications. Against this should be set other factors. PVC components can be formulated to combine a good technical performance and high resistance to ignition and flame-spread. Formulations can also be designed to reduce the quantity of hydrogen chloride emitted. There have been suggestions that hydrogen chloride from burning PVC may damage steel reinforcement in concrete, or significantly weaken unprotected steel structures. The UK Fire Research Station has shown that reinforcement is not normally affected. It has also been confirmed that unprotected steel structures are distorted and weakened by heat rather than by hydrogen chloride.

For applications with very high fire risks, for example oil rigs and nuclear installations, more expensive, high performance insulating materials are preferred to PVC. The cost of post-fire clean-up operations must be included in assessing the total cost of fire damage. Just as soot can be removed from affected equipment, so chloride corroded parts can be reconditioned. This is well recognized by fire salvage consultants and by insurance companies.

The author is of the opinion that chemical processes had a negligible effect on the WTC collapses. However, this too is an open question and deserves further attention. The ongoing work of Dr. Biederman et al. may provide further insight into the sulfidized steel and other unusual phenomena seen in the WTC fires. The upcoming NIST report on WTC 7 may also address this problem directly. While the NIST Report does not require any chemical weakening mechanism to explain the collapses, a more thorough understanding of the chemical processes in a modern office fire will lead to better recommendations on future construction."

I have little doubt that Jones and his "scholars" will find more scientists quote to misuse as evidence of controlled demolition. The pattern has been set.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
JazzPenguin
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:30 pm UTC
Location: Manchester UK
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby JazzPenguin » Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:06 am UTC

Jwthomp, did you read the bit where I said yellow-white isn't molten, that looks about the same colour as things I've seen come out of furnaces at 750-800C, again eye witness =/=photo though firefighters are close to a reliable witness, I think we've already show people get confused between liquid and just hot. also thank you for the phase diagram, I'm certainly going to look into that more, that is interesting.

As for iron rich balls, unless you have evidence of a lot of them BEFORE rescue work started, they don't really show anything, that phase diagram shows the eutectic mixture would have been liquid at 1000C and theres other explanations on Marbas' link. Also please remember thermite/mate makes liquid iron, so you'd expect lots of frozen lumpy splodges IN the debris, NOT lying under a just cut column 3 days later.

Marbas I'll look into the steel corrosion and get back, I think it's some pretty complex happenings.

Coffee Sex Pancake
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:45 pm UTC
Location: Austin, TX

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Coffee Sex Pancake » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:29 pm UTC

I personally think most of the discussion about the steel shows an unfamiliarity with metalworking or confusion about definitions. These are all from my personal experience.

1. Hydrocarbon fires can certainly render steel malleable. Every forge I've worked with has burned hydrocarbons, either as a solid or a gas.

2. It is entirely possible to burn through steel (forming holes) without melting it.

3. When I hit (room temperature) steel with a hammer (even on a 150 pound anvil as a heat sink) it gets hot. Quite hot. I never use a hammer more than 2 pounds, which is somewhat less massive than an airliner. Also my arm travels at somewhat lower speeds than a jetliner.

4. Steel exposed to impact becomes brittle.
"It’s just part of the miraculous nature of life that whatever the problem is, sex can be the solution… even when the problem is also sex." - Amaranth, Tales of MU

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:2. It is entirely possible to burn through steel (forming holes) without melting it.

I suspected as much, myself, but had neither experience nor citations to back it up. Thanks for providing these additional facts.

As far as I can tell, recent contributions by people who actually work with metal have pretty much addressed the objections conspiracy theorists have been bringing up about the building collapses. Unless someone can provide any evidence of actual molten or melting steel, rather than burning or glowing-hot steel.

Or, hell, I might reevaluate my position if someone provided even a remotely plausible explanation of how any significant amount of thermite or other substance able to melt steel could have been put in the building(s) undetected. And no, the fact that we can't be sure *precisely* how many people for how long would have been required to pull this off does not make it a nitpicky request on my part. Certainly *some* incendiaries would have needed to be attached to structural elements on multiple floors prior to 9/11 for the controlled demolition theory to work. And whether this was done by a huge crew in one night or a small crew over a longer time, I continue not buying that it could have been done so secretly that no one found out about it who had any incentive to blow the whistle.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
jwthomp2
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:07 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby jwthomp2 » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:15 pm UTC

Marbas, instead of just linking to entire posts or articles, it is generally considered good courtesy to quote whatever part of that link you think is relevant to the post here, then link to it. I don't think anyone wants to spend their time digging through other people's evidence, looking for exactly what they are talking about.
Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:Every forge I've worked with has burned hydrocarbons

Forges are a thoroughly different animal than uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires. In a controlled forge condition, with a pure oxygen and fuel input, you can melt steel and create very high temperatures. In an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fire, the temperature of the fire is limited by the availability of oxygen and the availability of fuel, thus they never exceed 1800 F.
Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:It is entirely possible to burn through steel (forming holes) without melting it

With a torch, yes, with an uncontrolled fire, no.
JazzPenguin wrote:Jwthomp, did you read the bit where I said yellow-white isn't molten, that looks about the same colour as things I've seen come out of furnaces at 750-800C

Maybe you are right on the color thing, but what I noticed was that the steel was literally dripping. Let me provide a closeup of that same picture.
Excavation_molten_metal_closeup.JPG
Excavation_molten_metal_closeup.JPG (9.85 KiB) Viewed 7649 times

And no one seems to have an explanation for the volatilized lead that was found, which certainly indicates extremely high temperatures.

I think that this is also a rather relevant question that was asked, and answered by the NIST on their FAQ page concerning the collapse of the twin towers. I have posted it in full. [1]
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.


Molten metal aside for the moment I wanted to make one last point about the NIST investigations as a whole, and in particular, their investigation of Building 7.

Now the NIST hypothesis of collapse for the towers, was that plane damage and fires caused the collapse.
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.[1]


Well actually, they only say these forces started the collapse. Whether or not such a collapse would have continued, is still an open question, since,
it [The Tower investigation] includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse were reached[2]


Nevertheless, they had to test their hypothesis. They did this by,
perform[ing] 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.[1]


So lets, for the moment, focus on their "sophisticated computer simulations" used to test their hypothesis. Remember the disturbing quote I provided about the NIST refusing to release these computer simulations?
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.[3]

Notice what it says about how important visualizations are. The only way we can really check and see if their models are making sound predictions, is if we force those models to produce visualizations of their results, and then check to make sure they match the photographic and video evidence. The NIST is denying us access to their computer visualizations, presumably because they don't match reality.

Well several years later the NIST published its final report on WTC 7, but these guys arn't total idiots, so they weren't going to be caught with their pants down twice.

For WTC 7, their hypothesis was that fire was the primary cause of collapse.
The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported of nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures.[4]

And again, to test their hypothesis, they relied on computer models.
To test the working hypothesis and reconstruct the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, the Investigation Team supplemented the information available from the photographic and videographic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and personal interview with computer simulations. [4] (pg 70 in the adobe document)

Strangely enough though, they do not model the entire building collapse, only the lower 16 stories. This is where the fires where, and ostensibly where the collapse started, but it completely ignores the rest of the building, simply assuming that it naturally follows that the rest of the building would end up like this.
WTC 7 debris.JPG
WTC 7 debris.JPG (32.13 KiB) Viewed 7650 times

The structural response of the lower 16 stories of the WTC 7 to the heating from the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 was simulated using ANSYS, a finite element computational model[4]

They did, unlike last last time, actually provide visualizations for this model. This is the model they showed that supposedly corresponds (at t=6.5 seconds) to the beginning of the downward movement of the north face of WTC 7. Red seems to indicate increased damage, blue, undamaged.
NIST WTC 7 simulation.JPG
NIST WTC 7 simulation.JPG (66.89 KiB) Viewed 7651 times

So whatever information they put into their models (which I won't even try and address) it made a majority of the lower portion of the building (floors 4-16) fall apart, first starting with the east side (right side) and moving west (left side). It seems to correctly predict the collapse of the east roof of the building before the collapse of the rest of building. What it does not predict, however, is how this led to the global collapse of the rest of the building.

Even the NIST later admits that they began to encounter a great deal of randomness in their models and that
the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.[4]


So the question remains, why did the rest of the mostly undamaged building (floors 16 through 47), collapse the way they did, and just leave a relatively small pile of broken rubble, as shown in the picture above? Why can't this model account for the presence of molten metal in the debris? Does the model show the building collapsing at free-fall speed?

the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4s.[4]


(A clarification on time conventions used in this paper.) In their models, t=0 corresponds to the collapse of the east penthouse, and t=6.3 s corresponds to first downward movement of the north face of the building. As shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxxsqjiF ... re=related
In their analysis of free-fall time of collapse (quotation directly above), t=0 is the first downward movement of the north face.

So basically the last visualization they show at 6.5s, is only the beginning of the collapse of the north face of the building.

I don't think the NIST provides significant evidence for the above questions, and I remain unconvinced as to their conclusions.

[1] NIST FAQ page http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
[2]NIST NCSTAR 1, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.
Footnote #2, page 39 in the PDF, xxxvii in the document.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf
[3]Parker, Dave (2005). "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization," New
Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
[4] NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7 October 2008
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Azrael » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:16 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:And whether this was done by a huge crew in one night or a small crew over a longer time, I continue not buying that it could have been done so secretly that no one found out about it who had any incentive to blow the whistle.


A significant issue, regardless of time frame involved, is that to do so one would have to either:

a) cut *many* holes in drywall, place devices, flawlessly patch the drywall and repaint the whole wall without anyone noticing. This might or might not involved moving varying amounts of furniture or other office accoutrement.

and / or

b) leave charges out in the open on members that weren't covered, again without anyone noticing.

And then hijack and crash two planes into the buildings close enough to the correct floors.

jwthomp2 wrote:So whatever information they put into their models (which I won't even try and address) it made a majority of the lower portion of the building (floors 4-16) fall apart, first starting with the east side (right side) and moving west (left side). It seems to correctly predict the collapse of the east roof of the building before the collapse of the rest of building. What it does not predict, however, is how this led to the global collapse of the rest of the building.

Even the NIST later admits that they began to encounter a great deal of randomness in their models and that the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise.

So the question remains, why did the rest of the mostly undamaged building (floors 16 through 47), collapse the way they did, and just leave a relatively small pile of broken rubble, as shown in the picture above? Why can't this model account for the presence of molten metal in the debris? Does the model show the building collapsing at free-fall speed?


Free-fall has been debunked. So has molten metal. So I guess your question is why does the modeling not accurately predict the collapse?

Dynamic modeling cannot accurately predict such a systematic failure, no matter how perfect the input is -- and trying to mimic the input function of being struck by debris of another falling building is, honestly, not possible. There are too many unknowns, too many non-linearities and the boundary conditions are purely assumption.

In short, welcome to dynamic modeling. It only sorta works.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:05 pm UTC

jwthomp2 wrote:So the question remains, why did the rest of the mostly undamaged building (floors 16 through 47), collapse the way they did, and just leave a relatively small pile of broken rubble, as shown in the picture above?

What? Are you seriously asking why, after the floors below them failed, the top thirty stories of a building fell mostly straight down on top of the collapsed bottom third of the building? Those thirty stories had just fallen 16 floors. Of course they're now going to collapse pretty readily. Reading your post, it sometimes almost seems like you're expecting that the top of the building should somehow have remained undamaged. You seem to think that some other force should have stopped the collapse after it started, without specifying what force could possibly have done this. (That's why they only need to model up through the start of the collapse, incidentally. Because at that point it became both a much harder modeling job and a completely inevitable ultimate result.)

Why can't this model account for the presence of molten metal in the debris?

Supposing for a second that there was molten metal for real, and that it was definitely steel and not aluminum or something else, the reason the model doesn't account for its presence is because the model was detailed enough to do what it needed to do, and no more. We don't have computers sophisticated enough to accurately model something as complex as the collapse of that building, if we're requiring that it also keep track of the precise phase of every gram of metal involved. So the model simply didn't say one way or the other what temperatures would be created in the already-collapsed portion of the building when the rest of the building fell on top of it. Because that's not actually relevant to modeling the collapse itself.

Does the model show the building collapsing at free-fall speed?

If it only models through the beginning of the inevitability stage of the collapse, then no. Because as you said yourself the model's results started becoming increasingly chaotic at that point. It's the same reason no one bothers trying to model weather patterns more than a few days off, because it's simply not possible to get accurate predictions at that point.

However, that it maybe fell at free-fall speeds for a small portion of the total collapse time could be explained as follows (using the stage numbers from the earlier diagram):
Stage 1 - The bottom 16 floors begin to collapse in a gradual but accelerating fashion. The top of the building starts to fall, but not freely because there are still support beams in the bottom third which impede the process. For a couple seconds.
Stage 2 - Now that the bottom 16 floors have failed pretty completely, the top of the building can fall unimpeded. Again, for a couple of seconds.
Stage 3 - When the less-damaged portion of the building reaches the ground, it begins to fail quite rapidly, not actually supporting higher floors long enough to slow them down. But it does decrease the acceleration rate over the remainder of the collapse.

At the end of Stage 1, the north face roofline was falling at about 11 ft/s. The "free fall" period then lasts for about 2.27 seconds. Meaning by that time the top of the building was falling at about 73 ft/s. Meaning the average speed during this period was about 42 ft/s, so the building fell 95 feet in that time. This is consistent with the notion that the "free fall" period for the north face roofline was simply the result of the bottom 16 floors (well over 95 feet in height) having finally failed catastrophically, leaving the top of the building to fall freely.

That the roofline fell significantly slower than free fall at the beginning and end of the collapse is really strong evidence *against* the claim that more floors than the ones on fire (for 7 hours, unchecked) failed simultaneously. Strong evidence against the controlled demolition theory, in other words.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Coffee Sex Pancake
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:45 pm UTC
Location: Austin, TX

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Coffee Sex Pancake » Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:59 pm UTC

jwthomp2 wrote:
Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:Every forge I've worked with has burned hydrocarbons

Forges are a thoroughly different animal than uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires. In a controlled forge condition, with a pure oxygen and fuel input, you can melt steel and create very high temperatures. In an uncontrolled hydrocarbon fire, the temperature of the fire is limited by the availability of oxygen and the availability of fuel, thus they never exceed 1800 F.


I'm beginning to think that you don't know what you're talking about. Forges do not have an pure oxygen supply. Catalan hearth/tub/charcoal/coal/wood forges don't really have a "fuel input" unless you mean shovelling in some charcoal at the beginning of the process.

jwthomp2 wrote:
Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:It is entirely possible to burn through steel (forming holes) without melting it

With a torch, yes, with an uncontrolled fire, no.


Now I know you don't know what you're talking about. Have you not even done any charcoal grilling? Have you not seen cookers burned through? Do you think they're not made out of steel?

jwthomp2 wrote:Well several years later the NIST published its final report on WTC 7, but these guys arn't total idiots,


I've never met a NISTer that was anything close to an idiot. All their lab techniques are pretty much bulletproof. And I'm AOAC.
"It’s just part of the miraculous nature of life that whatever the problem is, sex can be the solution… even when the problem is also sex." - Amaranth, Tales of MU

User avatar
jwthomp2
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:07 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby jwthomp2 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:12 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:a) cut *many* holes in drywall, place devices, flawlessly patch the drywall and repaint the whole wall without anyone noticing. This might or might not involved moving varying amounts of furniture or other office accoutrement.

and / or

b) leave charges out in the open on members that weren't covered, again without anyone noticing.

If I told an easily corruptible demolitions expert to draw up a plan to secretly plant explosives within a building, and I gave him 20 millions dollars and 1 year to think about it, and told him he could have total access to the building (because I happen to know a guy in security), do you honestly think that this is the best he could come up with? With enough time, money, and motivation, people can figure out how to do almost anything.
Azrael wrote:Free-fall has been debunked

I am sorry that I didn't make this any clearer, free-fall is a recognized part of the NIST WTC 7 collapse hypothesis. Let me re-post the graphic and quote from the NIST Final report on WTC 7.
Orignial NIST Graph.JPG
Orignial NIST Graph.JPG (46.78 KiB) Viewed 7368 times

"In stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4s.[4]"

You can see that the red line in the graph has the equation v(t)=-44.773 +31.196t. The slope, 31.196, is almost exactly equal to gravitational acceleration (32.174 ft/s2). The R2 number indicates that the data (black dots circled in red) match free-fall (red line) with a precision of 99%. At the end of the period of free fall (stage 2), where the building starts decelerating slightly, the downward velocity is 80 ft/s (as correctly noted by gmalivuk) or 54.4 MPH. The last recorded points show speeds of 110 ft/sec, or 74.8 MPH.

So the steel frame building (the upper portion of which was undamaged) collapsed downward into itself at over 70 miles per hour. When structural steel deforms, it absorbs energy, and tends to slow things down. I don't see that happening here.

Azrael wrote:So has molten metal.[been debunked]

If you believe that the NIST ignoring the evidence of molten metal is akin to debunking, then I suppose so. Because you have have to ignore the excavation picture, and claim it was fake, ignore the fact that these following people publicly stated that they saw molten metal running many days after the collapse.
-a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing
-Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC
-William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero
-Ron Burger, a public health advisor
-Paramedic Lee Turner
-New York firefighters
You could also ignore the unusually high concentration of small molten balls of iron found in the dust
You could ignore the vaporized lead.
all quoted in this post posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=31574#pr1170135
You could ignore the pictures of a bright yellow liquid pouring out of the towers 1 minutes before they collapsed.
WTC 2 molten metal.JPG
WTC 2 molten metal.JPG (14.49 KiB) Viewed 7368 times

Ignore the fact that the NIST recognized this phenomenon.
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot
appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows
removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing
liquid
. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many
such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes
leading up to the collapse of this tower.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (August 2006)
You could claim (as the NIST does) that this liquid is liquid aluminum with burning office materials in it. Liquid aluminum looks like this.
Liquid aluminum.JPG
Liquid aluminum.JPG (18.69 KiB) Viewed 7371 times

Or you might notice it looks quite similar to flowing molten iron from a thermite reaction.
thermite reaction.jpg
thermite reaction.jpg (31.18 KiB) Viewed 7365 times

Either way I have yet to see anyone "debunk" this evidence.
Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:Forges do not have an pure oxygen supply

Ok, you are right, but forges are a controlled environment, where fuel and oxygen are generally made readily available to the fire. But uncontrolled fires do no have the same luxury of being fed oxygen (air) and fuel.
Coffee Sex Pancake wrote:Have you not even done any charcoal grilling?

Are you saying that the WTC fires were similar to fires in a charcoal grill? There are specific instances, such as coal fires and sugar refinery fires, where large amounts of dense fuel burning for a very long time can create extremely high temperatures. These cases do not apply to office fires. And the NIST has stated themselves, that the fires in the WTC never went above 1800 F.
gmalivuk wrote:Reading your post, it sometimes almost seems like you're expecting that the top of the building should somehow have remained undamaged.

No, but I would expect recognizable portions of the building to be left, as in the case of this building collapse.
fallen building.JPG
fallen building.JPG (18.29 KiB) Viewed 7368 times

gmalivuk wrote:You seem to think that some other force should have stopped the collapse after it started, without specifying what force could possibly have done this.
No force is required to maintain a structure's integrity, it is simply the law of conservation of momentum. A great deal of energy needs to be spent to bend, deform, and break steel connections. This energy will necessarily slow or stop any collapse, depending on the energy balance. But because this structure was specifically designed to resist the downward force of gravity, to assert that it is possible to break all of these steel connections on all these floors, and leave a small pile of broken rubble, without the building collapse slowing significantly, seems absurd to me.
WTC 7 side view.JPG
WTC 7 side view.JPG (41.04 KiB) Viewed 7366 times

WTC 7 top view.JPG
WTC 7 top view.JPG (21.21 KiB) Viewed 7364 times

gmalivuk wrote:the roofline fell significantly slower than free fall at the beginning and end of the collapse

Look again at stage three, it slows briefly, then continues at an acceleration (slope) quite similar to stage 2 (free-fall).

I think you are generally disregarding the highly interconnected nature of the steel structure when asserting that a collapse can simply progress through 16 floors at free fall speed and continue unimpeded into a small heap of rubble. I think you will find that the only case where a large building can be turned into a small pile of rubble (47 story building reduced to a 3 story high rubble pile as shown in the WTC rubble picture in the last post) is through controlled demolition.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby 22/7 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:44 pm UTC

jwthomp, the building that you've got a picture of toppled over is about what, 10, 12 stories? And it's got a significant horizontal cross-section (compared to this height). It might even be a square in the original isometric view. In addition, how did this building come down and why? I can show you a picture of a boat with essentially no damage sitting a mile inland that got there when it was picked up and then essentially placed there by a tsunami. I can also show you a picture of a boat that was sunk by bad weather while it was out at sea. Can you see why the boat being set down a mile inland by a tsunami (essentially a huge wave) isn't evidence that the other boat has to have been brought down by something other than waves?
jwthomp2 wrote:Look again at stage three, it slows briefly, then continues at an acceleration (slope) quite similar to stage 2 (free-fall).
You go ahead and look again at the data in stage 3. You might notice that the slope between the 3nd to last and next to last points create a slope that is (visually) significantly greater than that in stage 2, indicating that it was actually accelerating downward at greater than gravitational acceleration. Surely you have a reason why suddenly the building is collapsing at, maybe, 30+% what is physically possible in a free-fall situation? One last thing, you keep using this phrase.
jwthomp2 wrote:But because this structure was specifically designed to resist the downward force of gravity
What exactly do you think this means? All buildings are "specifically designed to resist the downward force of gravity" if you take into account that they're all designed such that their floors will be able to hold up XX lbs/kgs of furniture, equipment, people, files, etc. As someone who has been involved in commercial construction for a few years, I'm currently unaware of any commercial buildings that have ever been designed to withstand the impact that comes from a 10+ story free-fall.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

Dazmilar
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:37 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Dazmilar » Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:26 pm UTC

If I might ask a common sense question in the middle of all this building charts and graphs and such...

If you believe in a controlled demolition of WTC-7, when was it wired to explode? I think it's a pretty fair question. It had to either be wired prior to the planes hitting or after the planes hitting. If it happened after the planes hit and the towers came down, you're talking about a 7 hour window of opportunity to wire WTC-7 for explosives. Seems incredibly unlikely, considering the emergency presence, and the fact that the building was, y'know, on fire. If it were wired before the planes hit the towers, then you have all the complications of wiring the building that were mentioned above, plus any added security because of the FBI field office.

And if you believe that WTC-7 was somehow wired beforehand, why wasn't it blown up earlier? Why wait hours from towers one and two falling to take it out? Was whoever responsible hoping to mask the collapse with the fires? So... How did our mystery men know that debris from the falling towers would damage and cause fires in WTC-7?

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Marbas » Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:16 am UTC

a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing
-Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC
-William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero
-Ron Burger, a public health advisor
-Paramedic Lee Turner
-New York firefighters
You could also ignore the unusually high concentration of small molten balls of iron found in the dust
You could ignore the vaporized lead.


Either way I have yet to see anyone "debunk" this evidence.


Jthwomp is it a hobby of yours to ignore other people's post when they contain links debunking your ideas? And liquid aluminum with burning office materials is perfectly logical. That evidence of yours is not evidence, it's paranoid speculation. I mean really, it's like you don't expect exothermic reactions to consistently release heat and light.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

ndansmith
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby ndansmith » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:46 am UTC

Marbas wrote:And liquid aluminum with burning office materials is perfectly logical.

I am not sure how you could use logic to predict what liquid aluminum with diffused combustibles would look like. If NIST predicts that liquid aluminum with burning office materials looks like what was observed falling from the South Tower, that ought to be easily tested by experimentation, correct? Steve Jones' experiments seem to contradict this hypothesis. I will try to find out if NIST actually conducted any experimentation to back up their claims, or if they just speculated.

User avatar
JazzPenguin
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:30 pm UTC
Location: Manchester UK
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby JazzPenguin » Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:23 pm UTC

Jwthomp2, I understand why your so keen to prove what you believe in, but your ignoring things more than one other poster is saying, I don't think your excavation photo is a fake, but it DOESNT show molten steel, it shows hot steel, and you've not found a photo of either the pools of molten metal or any other evidence of molten steel other than as ive shown unreliable eyewitnesses(atleast regarding metals at temp.), and even thermite cut steel would set after a few days.
Can you please address this and the questions regarding when the "iron" balls were found, i.e not after cutting, as I asked earlier, and explain the "vapourised" lead and how that relates to your theory.

Also, and you may be surprised, I don't believe that is molten aluminium coming out of the tower, Steve Jones is right, mixing things with molten metal gets you 1-molten metal in the face 2-stuff on top of molten metal, personally i think it falls too slowly to be EITHER liquid Al or Fe, and doesn't form spheres like it should (look up shot towers)

User avatar
jwthomp2
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:07 am UTC
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby jwthomp2 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:10 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Surely you have a reason why suddenly the building is collapsing at, maybe, 30+%

Yeah, its called uncertainty in measurement, no measurement is perfect, so it is a good reason to look at more than two data points.
22/7 wrote:I'm currently unaware of any commercial buildings that have ever been designed to withstand the impact that comes from a 10+ story free-fall.

Assuming that for some reason the lower 16 stories in the 47 story building "magically disintegrated", allowing the top 30 stories of the building to simply free-fall downwards, what would be the result? Would we see the crushing of maybe, the lower 10 of the top 30? The disintegration of the entire top 30? When you are at the last top 10 stories, what is left to do the crushing? Shouldn't all of the energy have dissipated? Why don't we see something that looks like an accordion-style crushing, rather than a pyramid-shaped pile of steel beams? It's qualitative speculation, but my experience in this world just doesn't see this kind of thing as being possible from fires, and history bears that out.

Remember that the NIST is trying to prove that in all the history of tall-building fires that have raged longer and hotter, this is the first time anything like this has ever been attributed to fire.
non-controlled demo rubble.jpg
non-controlled demo rubble.jpg (52.15 KiB) Viewed 7045 times

controlled demo rubble.jpg
controlled demo rubble.jpg (32.28 KiB) Viewed 7048 times

WTC 7 debris.JPG
WTC 7 debris.JPG (32.36 KiB) Viewed 7046 times

Dazmilar, as to your questions of why and how. I don't know. But as I have said many times before, just because I don't know why or how it was done, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I am focused more on what is wrong with the physical nature of the collapses and the NIST analysis of these collapses. If the dust in the WTC had signs of explosive residues in it, then it should naturally follow that we ought to consider controlled demolition as an explanation, right?
Marbas wrote: Jthwomp is it a hobby of yours to ignore other people's post when they contain links debunking your ideas?

I would be happy to see you quote any part of any debunking site that you consider relevant, and post the text here. Just pointing me towards a debunking site and saying "the answers to all of your questions are in there" is not sufficient. I don't have time to read every debunking site on the internet in its entirety.
ndansmith wrote:I will try to find out if NIST actually conducted any experimentation to back up their claims, or if they just speculated.

As far as the liquid aluminum explanation goes, it is contained in their August 2006 FAQ and I don't think they actually analyze it in their reports. They just mention the presence of a strange flowing liquid and move on. It seems that they made up this answer because aluminum can melt in normal fires, no matter how ridiculous it appears on the outside. The material pouring out of that window is not, by any stretch of the imagination, silvery or reflective in color. I don't think burning office materials entrained in aluminum is a sufficient explanation for the bright yellow color either.

Here is a good side-by-side comparison of a thermite reaction with videos taken of the WTC liquid metal event. I highly recommend looking at this.
http://www.veronicachapman.com/checkthe ... ermite.htm
Molten-iron thermite residue seems to fit the bill much better than aluminum, but this is not, by itself, definitive proof.
JazzPenguin wrote:Can you please address this and the questions regarding when the "iron" balls were found, i.e not after cutting, as I asked earlier,
I apologize for ignoring your earlier questions, it was unintentional. They are good questions, so thank you for asking them again. Contamination from cleanup operations is a legitimate concern. So here is how the RJ Lee group describes how their samples were collected from the interior of the building on 130 Liberty St.
The World Trade Center destruction commencing on September 11, 2001
(“WTC Event”) physically destroyed significant portions of the interior and
exterior of the building located at 130 Liberty Street, New York, NY (the
“Building”).[...] the Building was exposed to [...] a
combination of soot, dust, dirt, debris, and contaminants
[...]
In April of 2002, RJ Lee Group was retained by the law firm of Pitney Hardin
Kipp & Szuch LLP, on behalf of the Bank, to oversee and investigate the
presence, type, amount, and extent of environmental contaminants in the
Building and to recommend remediation strategies.
[...]
Upon arrival in the predetermined grid location, a below-ceiling undisturbed
area was selected. The sampling areas included, for example, file cabinets,
tables or credenzas. In the same vicinity of the below-ceiling sample, an
above-ceiling sampling area was selected. These areas were often the tops of
drop ceiling lights

[...]
In summary, comprehensive and systematic procedures generally accepted by
the scientific community were followed to ensure quality and data integrity
throughout every step of the environmental assessment process.

[1]RJ Lee Group. WTC Dust Signature Report, December, 2003
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Li ... .Final.pdf

This was a thorough, independent and professional study, and it seems to me that they did an excellent job of collecting uncontaminated samples.
JazzPenguin wrote:explain the "vaporized" lead

Again, from the same RJ Lee report
Many of the materials, such as lead, [...]
vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

According to wikipedia, lead vaporizes or boils at (1749 °C, 3180 °F), well above the temperatures achievable by office fires(1800 F). Something must have been burning hot enough to vaporize this lead. What was it?
JazzPenguin wrote:you've not found a photo of either the pools of molten metal

Access was restricted to the cleanup site, and molten pools of steel generally run downwards, so they are hard to get pictures of directly. There is a USGS thermal imaging photo, taken 5 days after the collapse, 4 days after fire-fighting efforts began, that shows hot spots on the surface of the debris piles, as hot as 1000K, 1300 F. Something very hot must have been underneath the piles to keep surface temperatures that high days after the attacks and days after the fires were put out.
hotspots september 16 2001.gif
hotspots september 16 2001.gif (68.27 KiB) Viewed 7045 times

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... l.r09.html
JazzPenguin wrote:but it DOESNT show molten steel, it shows hot steel,

The photo I showed earlier "excavation_molten_metal_closeup.jpg", does clearly show metal bright yellow/white metal dripping from the pile being picked up by the crane. That, to me, indicates molten steel.
JazzPenguin wrote:doesn't form spheres like it should

Perhaps this picture, after appreciable free-fall time, shows the metal forming into droplets or balls.
Molten flow.JPG
Molten flow.JPG (15.87 KiB) Viewed 7047 times

JazzPenguin wrote:unreliable eyewitnesses(atleast regarding metals at temp.

I don't think it takes a metals expert to recognize flowing/dripping/running bright yellow molten metal when you see it.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby oxoiron » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:10 pm UTC

jwthomp2 wrote:According to wikipedia, lead vaporizes or boils at (1749 °C, 3180 °F), well above the temperatures achievable by office fires(1800 F). Something must have been burning hot enough to vaporize this lead.
That is not true. I don't give a damn about conspiracy theories, but if you are trying to defend or refute them, get your facts straight. All materials in liquid form exert vapor pressure. This means they maintain equilibria with their gas phases. The gases enter the atmosphere and can condense in new locations. Once lead has melted, it immediately starts to enter the gas phase. When cooled to room temperature, it either deposits or condenses then freezes.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby 22/7 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:33 pm UTC

jwthomp2 wrote:
22/7 wrote:Surely you have a reason why suddenly the building is collapsing at, maybe, 30+%

Yeah, its called uncertainty in measurement, no measurement is perfect, so it is a good reason to look at more than two data points.
I'm looking at your data and telling you that it's physically impossible for a falling object near the face of the Earth to exhibit that kind of acceleration, and that the uncertainty in measurement you're quoting is on the order of 1/3 faster than is physically possible. So an extra 10 ft/sec2. I'm fully aware that you'd never simply take 2 data points in a scientific study, but when I see 2 data points that bitchslap Newton, I have to start questioning the validity of the data.
jwthomp2 wrote:
22/7 wrote:I'm currently unaware of any commercial buildings that have ever been designed to withstand the impact that comes from a 10+ story free-fall.
Assuming that for some reason the lower 16 stories in the 47 story building "magically disintegrated", allowing the top 30 stories of the building to simply free-fall downwards, what would be the result?
I'd imagine it'd look a lot like that picture of WTC7 you've been so kind as to post below here. Do you see how that picture looks nothing like "controlled demo rubble" picture (also below)? Do you notice how WTC7 has all these massive chunks of building that are still relatively in-tact, whereas the controlled demo picture has essentially none? I'm counting 5+ stories on most of those chunks. And again, WTC7 was not a steel reinforced concrete structure like, I would wager, the vast majority of those structures were, nor are any of those even close to the height of WTC7. I could build a 10 story gingerbread house and knock it over, but studying the debris wouldn't give us any insight into whether or not WTC7 fell over the way it was "supposed to" or not.
jwthomp2 wrote:Would we see the crushing of maybe, the lower 10 of the top 30? The disintegration of the entire top 30? When you are at the last top 10 stories, what is left to do the crushing?
Aaaaaaaaand you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about. Why on earth would it matter that there's nothing above it to "do the crushing"? Go get yourself a hunk of concrete, preferably from a cinder block or something similar. Now chuck it a hundred or more feet into the air above, say, a road or sidewalk, and let me know if, when it hits, anything happens. Clearly nothing should happen, as there's nothing above it to do the crushing, right?
jwthomp2 wrote:Shouldn't all of the energy have dissipated?
Dissipated how and to where and in how much time? And no, all the energy hasn't all dissipated, if it had, you wouldn't have molten steel 3 days later (remember, that energy will probably end up as waste heat). There is a lot of energy being released in a falling building, and even though that last few stories doesn't have quite as much potential energy at the very end of the fall, it does have a lot of kinetic energy, which gives it a metric shitton of momentum, which will do quite a bit of damage when it comes to the sudden stop at the end of it's fall.
jwthomp2 wrote:Why don't we see something that looks like an accordion-style crushing, rather than a pyramid-shaped pile of steel beams?
Do you have an example of a falling/fallen building looking like an accordion? I'm serious, I've never heard of that. In addition, it doesn't look like a pyramid of steel beams. It looks like a bunch of large chunks of a building piled on top of and underneath a bunch of rubble.
jwthomp2 wrote:It's qualitative speculation, but my experience in this world just doesn't see this kind of thing as being possible from fires, and history bears that out.
First of all, your lack of knowledge of elementary physics and your inability to provide an example of a structurally similar building indicates to me that your experience in this world isn't particularly relevant. And again, how does history bear this out? See my gingerbread example.
jwthomp2 wrote:Remember that the NIST is trying to prove that in all the history of tall-building fires that have raged longer and hotter, this is the first time anything like this has ever been attributed to fire.
Remember, it's not a steel reinforced concrete building of 10 or 20 stories that simply has a fire and no exterior damage due to debris from a neighboring falling building.

Edit: removed spoiler, I didn't catch that you attached those pictures. If you'd like to see the pics again, see jwthomp2's previous post.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Azrael » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:45 pm UTC

Has this become enough of a circular, escape-proof soap box for anyone else?

Replay917
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

xkcd and 9/11

Postby Replay917 » Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:11 am UTC

Spoiler:
I have two subjects to discuss here :

To avoid personal attacks and the inevitable shit-storm, he now only has one topic to discuss. Discuss the part that is relevant to the thread title, rather that what's under the spoiler, please.


1) I absolutely enjoy the utter majority of Randall's comics, which are witty, funny, insightful, silly, and profound by turns.

2) That being said, the utter condescension and self-absorption of his posts about "conspiracy theorists" is so incongruous with the intelligence he displays the rest of the time that seeing it happen to him breaks *my* heart - if I can borrow a phrase from this comic :

http://xkcd.com/258/

-------------

I've seen several of these now, where Randall regards any and all conspiracy theorists with a condescension dripping in pity and mockery.

Randall is obviously of a engineer's mindset, and I've seen this a lot in discussions about conspiracy theorists coming from engineers and the scientifically trained. There is a very, very, very, very disturbing tendency in a lot of trained engineers to assume Occam's Razor always slices - i.e., there are no conspiracies out there, conspiracy theorists are just looking for attention, et cetera.

It is a belief that one is following scientific rationalism, that the "simplest explanation that takes all the facts into account is the best".

It also ignores history in a way that is absolutely not scientific, or rational.


------------------------

For one thing, I'd like to point out that Randall has no degree in psychology or psychiatry, yet posits that because of his "logical mind" and ability to recognize "confirmation bias" that he's qualified to judge the mindset of anyone who thinks the world works differently than he does.

I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist either, but if I was, I might posit that this has something to do with the fact that engineers like the world very, very logical, and like to assume that because they understand physics, engineering, and et cetera that they have everything under control and that unexpected theories or results are just fictions. Things that deviate from "the norm" or accepted theory have a tendency to scare "scientific rationalists" who are neither acting scientifically, nor rationally, about this. I also think a lot of this has to do with the fact that a lot of engineers think they are bright because a lot of teachers tell them so, but don't realize this. This produces a tendency to look to "established wisdom" about anything, and to look for external reinforcement from mainstream theories, and to regard anyone who disagrees with pity and condescension.

It strikes me that a lot of people who take the condescending and mocking stance Randall does are acting a lot more emotionally than the "conspiracy theorists". Truth, as I heard it said once, does not need embellishment. If Randall is right about something, there's no need to get emotional. Rational arguments don't need the weight of condescension on their side in order to stand up.

-------------------------

But you all can disregard that, as I said, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist either.

I've butchered the OP a bit. It will not be discussed further in the thread. So why leave it at all? I'm not sure, honestly.

-Az


Conspiracies happen. They especially happen in intelligence agencies and at the highest levels of government. They have happened throughout history. They will continue to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK-ULTRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

And many, many others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occam's Razor does not slice when it comes to 9/11. The debunks do not fit the prerequisite for Occam's Razor, in that they do not take all the facts into account.

These are facts such as :

--Five Israeli men were caught filming the attacks from a nearby rooftop that day, cheering. One later went on Israeli TV and said "we were there to document the incident."

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

--Joe Lieberman (head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee) said, years after 9/11, that he had "no evidence that [the collapse of WTC7] ever occurred".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvTIEUXhHv8

--Donald Rumsfeld is on an official Defense Department transcript with Parade Magazine referring to the Pentagon attack as "a missile". This is the same attack that features no wing holes where a large plane is supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/tran ... iptid=3845

--Dozens of YouTube videos feature footage of the Towers collapsing that include supplementary explosions just before the collapses, well after the planes hit :

http://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+ ... b93dfbbf72

--Both Towers (and in particular the South Tower) fell at speeds approaching free-fall. Given that I am quite sure Randall has had the same training in basic Newtonian physics that I have, this strikes me as a particularly glaring fault line in his thinking on this. The Towers' internal structure seems to have offered no internal resistance to their tops, and even though the planes struck the Towers on a side and corner respectively, they fell straight down, not to the side at all.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... efall.html

--At least two of the supposed hijackers turned up quite alive and well after the events, reported on by the BBC. As far as I recall, Mohammed Atta's father also claims he is alive and went into hiding after the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

--George W. Bush said to Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper on May 13, 2008, "I'll be long gone before some smart person figures out what happened in this Oval Office."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

---------------------

In addition, if you look up the death certificates for the supposed passengers on American 77 and United 93 (the Pentagon attack and Shanksville crash), about two-thirds of them simply aren't there.

Try it on a genealogical site or another site with access to the Social Security Death Index some time. Before you laugh, mock, patiently try to explain to me that I'm just seeking attention - go look up the death certificates. Find me a convincing explanation as to why most are missing and some of those people never seem to have been born or died within the United States at all.

--------------------

It is not scientific, nor rational, to insist that the official story takes all facts into account and thus is protected by the mighty Razor - not when stuff like that is going on.

I am not a dunce, nor a scientific layman myself. I took two years of computer science as well as international relations at Stanford University before I left early to join the workforce, including a class from former Secretary of Defense William Perry on international security and several more on Arabic and the Arab world. I also had all sorts of college-level classes including three Advanced Placement classes in Physics while still in high school - Physics B in 8th grade, AP Calculus AB and then C as well as calculus-based AP Mechanics and E&M by 12th, as well as Linear Algebra.

I do not say these things to make anyone think I'm smarter than others, but on a set of forums like xkcd's, my guess is that some kind of background statement like this is necessary to avoid mockery.

My guess is that most of you couldn't tell me the flight numbers for all four flights off the top of your heads.

Nor could you tell me what agencies were housed in WTC7 (the so-called "third building collapse") before it fell, without looking it up.

Try it, it's a very, very interesting list.

I can tell you a great number of them.

Yet many of you will insist you are more informed, more rational, and more competent to discuss the issues than I am.

I joyfully refused to look at the piles of evidence for eight years, insisting that these conspiracy theories were "too farfetched" and that some things about the situation were weird but that a conspiracy of this size was just a bizarre concept. I was not looking at the evidence, nor did I consider it my job. I was absolutely ready to abdicate my responsibility for thought to the mainstream news reports and assume that such a great number of people could not possibly be wrong (as I now recall, the Earth was considered flat once too).

I don't do this anymore. After the last nine years of watching our government dissemble I can no longer let other people do my thinking for me. I HAVE to look at the evidence myself.

I urge you all to, as well.

--------------

Or, to put it another way -

"Don't worry about those silly rumors that Nixon used the power and apparatus of the Federal Government to spy illegally on his own people. After all, how many people would that take? And nobody was saying anything about it? How could they keep that a secret? Conspiracy theorists are so stupid, they're just looking for attention."

I only ask that you think about it. Best to you all.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Azrael » Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:25 pm UTC

Two years later, I'm guessing that the OP isn't still kicking around. So I'm merging this newest thread (with some reduction in scope) into the old one, because much of it has already been covered.

As a word of caution: This was originally locked for becoming a magnet for hit-and-run posts by people interested more in orating loudly from roof-tops rather than joining a discussion. I am reluctant to reopen this thread as it is, and will not tolerate further circular shouting matches.

Replay917: For your part, I expect you to read the entirety of this thread before continuing to participate. I'll add that this is not assigned as the opportunity for you to write a book report. There is, however, a lot more here than can be presented in a single comic panel.

Welcome to the forums, please read both the SB section and forum rules at your earliest convenience.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: xkcd and 9/11

Postby Diadem » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:02 pm UTC

Replay917 wrote:--Five Israeli men were caught filming the attacks from a nearby rooftop that day, cheering. One later went on Israeli TV and said "we were there to document the incident."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

Why on earth would you want to document your own devious conspiracies? If you want to keep something hidden, you don't take notes. And are you saying that Israeli apparently professional enough to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude would really be so amateuristic as to cheer at their succes out in the open for anyone to see?

I see arguments of this type a lot from conspiracy theorists. But they just do not make sense. The argument doesn't support your theory at all. Even if there was a conspiracy I wouldn't expect people to be filming it!

--Joe Lieberman (head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee) said, years after 9/11, that he had "no evidence that [the collapse of WTC7] ever occurred".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvTIEUXhHv8

A meaningless quote that's clearly taken out of context. The building used to be there, now its not. Either it collapsed or it was transported to the moon by aliens using water magic. Since The Doctor has not yet been sighted, my money is on the former. I don't know what Lieberman was talking about, but i doubt he was really trying to deny the obvious. Even if he was, how is that proof of a conspiracy? How does this datapoint fit a conspiracy better than the standard explanation?

--Donald Rumsfeld is on an official Defense Department transcript with Parade Magazine referring to the Pentagon attack as "a missile". This is the same attack that features no wing holes where a large plane is supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/tran ... iptid=3845

Either he's misquoted or being poetic or whatever. Either way again I fail to see how this quote, even if true, would support a conspiracy. If Rumsfeld was part of a conspiracy he would be careful to not reavel the truth, wouldn't he?

All of these pieces of 'evidence' you presented so far, they all make the same classic mistake of data mining. You heap together lots of data, but without a coherent theory. But data is meaningless without a theory! So first give us a coherent overall theory of what happened. What is the conspiracy, who are involved, and for what reason. How was it carried out. Then you can look for arguments supporting this. But so far your three arguments so far each point to a different person. So who did it? The Israeli? Lieberman? Rumsfeld? All of them? Not everybody can be involved in a conspiracy you know, because if everybody knows, it's no longer a secret. And each of your arguments are things I wouldn 't exactly expect to find even if there was a conspiracy. So they do not proof anything.

I could go through the rest of the list, but I've hopefully made my point.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Replay917
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Replay917 » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:56 pm UTC

First off, can I ask that you drop the hyperbole?

Diadem wrote:Either it collapsed or it was transported to the moon by aliens using water magic. Since The Doctor has not yet been sighted...


If I were going to respond to you in the same language you responded to me in, I would say something like this :

"Maybe the red spiders carried it away, or people were too busy avoiding diagonal floor tiles to notice anything odd."

I don't do this. I don't need to do this nor do I want to. Language like this just distracts everybody. This isn't about the good Doctor; there is no TARDIS; nor did I give you a reason to want to drag this stuff in, so I'd ask politely if we can keep it out.

Diadem wrote:Why on earth would you want to document your own devious conspiracies? If you want to keep something hidden, you don't take notes. And are you saying that Israeli apparently professional enough to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude would really be so amateuristic as to cheer at their succes out in the open for anyone to see?



Yes, I think that is exactly what happened; a few Mossad agents decided everything was in the bag and so there was no risk to cheering around on a rooftop. Given the public response, they don't seem to have been wrong.

The Mossad is fairly well known for amateurish operations at times. In addition, you make the assumption that the mindset behind this is composed of rational actors. If there were indeed a conspiracy in which Israelis are involved, and they were arrogant enough to attack their own allies in order to foment war in the Middle East (our foreign wars have, in general, been very good for Israeli interests in the region, as the Taliban and Saddam represented very hostile forces to that state), it strikes me that they could easily have been arrogant enough to believe it didn't matter if they jumped around on rooftops cheering either.

And indeed, they seem to have been right. You certainly don't seem to see anything odd about it. In point of fact, you've given no explanation for why these men might have acted this way.

Diadem wrote:Even if [Lieberman] was, how is that proof of a conspiracy? How does this datapoint fit a conspiracy better than the standard explanation?


The question Lieberman was asked was not whether or not there was a conspiracy, it was simply whether or not Lieberman had any information on the collapse of WTC7. In response, he said he had no evidence it ever happened. The gasps are audible throughout the synagogue.

If the notion of the Senate Homeland Security Chairman insisting that he has no evidence that a building that fell down ever fell down does not strike you as odd, I'm not sure we'll be able to bridge the gap.

I am not "proving" a conspiracy to you. I am asking you to consider that the evidence I present means there is reason to question the official story.

Diadem wrote:Either way again I fail to see how this quote, even if true, would support a conspiracy. If Rumsfeld was part of a conspiracy he would be careful to not reavel the truth, wouldn't he?


The authenticity of the quote isn't in doubt. That's an official Defense transcript. In general the relevant actors in this drama have been very careful to stick to the party line, but this may indeed be a slip.

If American 77 were actually a missile and not a plane ( which would be consistent as well with the lack of wing holes in the damage), you don't see how it would support a conspiracy?


Diadem wrote:All of these pieces of 'evidence' you presented so far, they all make the same classic mistake of data mining. You heap together lots of data, but without a coherent theory.


I don't consider it my job to do the thinking for you, Diadem. The whole problem with the situation is that nobody is doing their own thinking. They rely on the NIST report, the 9/11 Commission report, the major cable news. What I want is not to give you a theory about what happened - though certainly I have one - what I want is for people to take a look at what I present, themselves, and think about it, and stop letting other people do the thinking for them.


---------------------

I would love to see you go through the rest of the post. But since these discussions tend to bog down, I will limit myself to a single aspect of it I want to see people address :

If there's nothing wrong with the official story, why do more than two-thirds of the names on the passenger lists for American 77 and United 93 simply have no death certificates on 9/11?

Many of the rest that ARE there, in fact, are for very old people who died far from Washington or Shanksville that day.

Here's a site that searches the Social Security Death Index :

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/

And here are the passenger lists for AA77/United 93, as given by the Bush Administration during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evid ... ngers.html

If you can explain to me why this is the case - and please don't just go "well you must have been looking them up wrong" and then blot it out of your mind - I will find this debate much improved.

The country has a serious mental block about all this stuff. Things that don't fit are pushed to the side. Again, I'm not trying to prove to you that there was a conspiracy, I am claiming that what I have presented is enough to indicate reasonable doubt that the official story is itself a "proof".

--------------------------------------------------

As a final note, both the official story and alternate explanations involve conspiracies. The official story alleges that there was a conspiracy by Muslim radicals to blow up the Towers (now unmasked); the alternate explanations allege that the conspirators were not as we were told they were. There's no way to discuss 9/11 without discussing a conspiracy. The question is who you believe the conspirators were, or weren't, and what exactly the conspiracy was.

As a final note - in response to the "well why would they ever say these things if they did it" kinds of questions - the kind of mentalities that carry out false flag operations and/or attack their own people tend to be arrogant in the extreme. After the years of work that usually go into a major conspiracy, they often can't resist bragging a little bit.

See under : "Why did Nixon tape himself talking about his civil rights violations?"

There's no logical reason for that, either...yet it happened. There is, however, a psychological reason for it, having to do with the arrogance I mentioned.

Replay917
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Replay917 » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:04 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Azrael wrote:As a word of caution: This was originally locked for becoming a magnet for hit-and-run posts by people interested more in orating loudly from roof-tops rather than joining a discussion. I am reluctant to reopen this thread as it is, and will not tolerate further circular shouting matches.


Duly noted.

Azrael wrote:Replay917: For your part, I expect you to read the entirety of this thread before continuing to participate. I'll add that this is not assigned as the opportunity for you to write a book report. There is, however, a lot more here than can be presented in a single comic panel.


There is, as well, a lot more than can be presented in a single paragraph, so please forgive the length of my posts. There is much more than can be presented in a single comic panel, which is why it frustrates me to see Randall attempting to dismiss those of us who don't hop on board with the official explanation in a single comic or single comic panel.

I will do my best to read the thread in its entirety; however, as you've noted, there is a lot of static and a lot of shouting, so please forgive me if I miss anything. When I skimmed it, it seems as though most of the existing discussion has revolved around thermite and physics-based arguments; as most of what I'm presenting is new as well as non-physics-based, I humbly ask that it be allowed to stay.

Azrael wrote:Welcome to the forums, please read both the SB section and forum rules at your earliest convenience.


I shall, and thank you.

As a final note, I'm not here to be hostile or be an asshole. I'm not your enemy. If you had to spend even a day going through the treatment that 9/11 truthers get, you might understand why a lot of us shout and stay on edge (which I try not to do).

I've been told I should be tortured, dropped over Afghanistan, sent to Gitmo, killed, the whole lot, by the more extremist "patriots" out there. It's not pleasant.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby nitePhyyre » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:46 pm UTC

Can't we just all agree that the official truth makes about as much sense as the conspiracy theories and move on?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby ++$_ » Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:24 am UTC

I'm going to address the points of Replay917. In particular, I do address the point about the death certificates, and it has (in my opinion) the most interesting answer of any of these things! But I want to make a general point before I start. Namely:

It's not appropriate to dismiss a conspiracy theory based on psychological arguments or based on what we think conspiracies should look like. For example, to argue that Israelis participating in a conspiracy probably wouldn't choose to film the event doesn't actually prove anything, or even make a compelling argument, because you can also suggest that they just made a poor decision. It's a heuristic argument, perhaps, that suggests we shouldn't be too willing to accept the conspiracy theory, but it's a very weak argument if you are trying to disprove the existence of the conspiracy, or even to show that it is unlikely. But the corollary to this is that the conspiracy theorists also have to agree to this. If Rumsfeld said "missile" one time instead of "plane", that doesn't prove anything either, or even suggest that anything is likely, because people sometimes misspeak. At best, it's a heuristic argument that suggests we should be a bit wary of whatever Rumsfeld is saying, and maybe investigate the possibility of a missile causing the damage. But it doesn't actually provide any evidence for the missile theory. Now, as I point out below, Rumsfeld didn't say "missile" when he should have said "plane," so this particular case is moot, but you get the idea.

What I'm trying to say is that if your best argument against a 9/11 conspiracy theory is that it doesn't fit the way you think people involved in a conspiracy would behave, then you don't really have a very strong argument against the theory. If someone claims that Israelis had set up a camera ahead of time to film the attacks, saying "Pah! If the Israelis did them, they wouldn't risk their secrecy by filming them" is missing the point. IF it's true that the Israelis set up a camera ahead of time to film the attacks, then they were probably aware of them beforehand, and that would contradict the standard theory of how the attacks occurred. Whether this was good or bad strategy is beside the point. HOWEVER, the Israelis didn't set up a camera ahead of time to film the attacks. THIS is the argument that refutes the conspiracy theory, NOT the fact that the Israelis would be blowing their cover.

So, now to address the points:
--Five Israeli men were caught filming the attacks from a nearby rooftop that day, cheering. One later went on Israeli TV and said "we were there to document the incident."
First of all, the facts you asserted are wrong. The description of the video links to a page at whatreallyhappened.com that provides "references" for its statements. Almost all of these refer to itself, or to the website fpp.co.uk, which is maintained by a conspiracy theorist and is definitely not a primary source. However, they do cite at least one external reference: this ABC news article. The witness quoted in the article saw the men on the roof of a van, not a building, immediately after the attack. They were not filming the attacks -- rather, they took photos of themselves AFTER the attack, with the burning towers in the background. She reported them to police because they appeared to be happy, and she felt this was suspicious. The rest of the story is pretty much correct -- the van, which was owned by a company called Urban Moving, was tracked down that afternoon and the people in it were arrested. There was speculation that Urban Moving may have been a front for Israeli intelligence, but nothing was proved.

Now, you might say that these differences are small, but they completely change the relevance of the story. If the people HAD been filming in advance of the attacks (capturing them on video), then that would be some evidence that they knew about them beforehand. However, that is NOT what happened. They only began to film AFTER the attacks, just like thousands of New Yorkers did. The only thing, then, that is remarkable about them is that eyewitnesses thought they didn't seem upset by the events. That doesn't suggest foreknowledge, or in any other way suggest a weakness of the standard explanation.

The quote about documenting the incident doesn't in any way suggest foreknowledge unless you hold a preconceived idea that it does. When asked "Why did you decide to take those photos?" they said that they were not intending to gloat about anything; rather, their purpose was merely to document the incident.
--Joe Lieberman (head of the Senate Homeland Security Committee) said, years after 9/11, that he had "no evidence that [the collapse of WTC7] ever occurred".
Joe Lieberman's ignorance has literally zero bearing on what actually happened. (For those wanting the full context, Lieberman is responding to a question by someone about the collapse of WTC7. He says that he has been asked similar questions before, but that he has no evidence it ever occurred.)

--Donald Rumsfeld is on an official Defense Department transcript with Parade Magazine referring to the Pentagon attack as "a missile". This is the same attack that features no wing holes where a large plane is supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon.
This one is pure nonsense. Here is the relevant paragraph from the official transcript:
Spoiler:
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.
Notice that the sentence containing the word "missile" makes no sense. This is because of a transcription error. The sentence obviously should read, in part, "...using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens as a missile to damage this building," which is a perfectly apt description of what happened. Notice that whoever was transcribing the interview obviously had some problems (there are an awful lot of "inaudible"s); this is one of them (or perhaps a typo).

--Dozens of YouTube videos feature footage of the Towers collapsing that include supplementary explosions just before the collapses, well after the planes hit :
Unfortunately I can't comment intelligently on this because you haven't provided a specific source. I have watched several videos and not seen anything that appears to be an explosion. I have seen one video of an object being ejected from the tower at a speed of perhaps 6 m/s (14 miles per hour). Is this your evidence for an "explosion"? Because it's pretty thin.

You can see in NCSTAR 1-5A (Chapters 8-9) that puffs of this kind began as early as 9:30. This doesn't fit with the theory that they were caused only by explosions occurring just before the collapse. It fits very nicely with their explanation (namely, that they are caused by pressure changes inside the tower due to collapsing walls or opening doors). In addition, the greatest intensity is reached in the middle of the "puffs." This does not fit the theory that they were caused by explosions.

Maybe you're thinking of something else, but I can't be sure because you haven't provided a specific example.

--Both Towers (and in particular the South Tower) fell at speeds approaching free-fall. Given that I am quite sure Randall has had the same training in basic Newtonian physics that I have, this strikes me as a particularly glaring fault line in his thinking on this. The Towers' internal structure seems to have offered no internal resistance to their tops, and even though the planes struck the Towers on a side and corner respectively, they fell straight down, not to the side at all.
Uh, they didn't fall at anything like free-fall speeds. I'm not sure which video you're looking at, but in basically every video you can see that debris ejected horizontally from the tower reaches the ground well before the top of the tower does. For example, in this video of the south tower, you can see some falling debris easily outpacing the top of the tower. In this one, you can also see that the bit of the tower that falls sideways (towards the left), and therefore is not above a supporting structure, easily outpaces the rest. In this video, you can see (when the person holding the camera looks back towards the building) that (1) the debris separated from the building is falling faster than the building, and (2) the tower has only come 70% of the way down, despite it being well past the tower's "free fall time" of 9.25 seconds. That's just the South Tower, which you said was closer to free-fall speed. In fact, the collapse of the South Tower took at least 13 seconds. So this idea that they fell at free-fall speeds is nonsense.
--At least two of the supposed hijackers turned up quite alive and well after the events, reported on by the BBC. As far as I recall, Mohammed Atta's father also claims he is alive and went into hiding after the attacks.
The pictures of the hijackers do not match the pictures of these people. Some of these were cases of people whose names were the same as the hijackers' names. As this article points out, there are thousands of people named Said al-Ghamdi. In fact, there are so many of them that one attended a pilot school in the US (causing the case of mistaken identity), and a man named Saleh Saeed al-Ghamdi also became a terrorist in Saudi Arabia.

--George W. Bush said to Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper on May 13, 2008, "I'll be long gone before some smart person figures out what happened in this Oval Office."
Here's the complete quote (from this article):
Spoiler:
I'm not running for the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm just trying to be a guy to use the influence of the United States to move the process along.
I hope that history will say that this is a guy who clearly saw the world the way it is. I can assure you that al-Qaida, Hamas and Hizbullah don't think about the comforts of life. They are driven. And the fundamental challenge facing this world is, well, countries like the United States, be prepared to continue to stay in the lead.
I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office. But one of [those legacies] has got to be, he clearly saw the threat and he did something about it.
Now, perhaps Mr. Bush is sending us all a cryptic hint that 9/11 was an inside job. However, that theory makes no sense in context. He is talking about his legacy, and he is saying in a rather bizarre way that he doesn't know how history will regard his legacy, but he hopes that it will be that "he clearly saw the threat [of terrorism] and he did something about it."

In addition, if you look up the death certificates for the supposed passengers on American 77 and United 93 (the Pentagon attack and Shanksville crash), about two-thirds of them simply aren't there.

Try it on a genealogical site or another site with access to the Social Security Death Index some time. Before you laugh, mock, patiently try to explain to me that I'm just seeking attention - go look up the death certificates. Find me a convincing explanation as to why most are missing and some of those people never seem to have been born or died within the United States at all.
You've neglected to include a control data set, and as a result, your measurements are right, yet your conclusions are completely wrong.

Look up people from the list of passengers on AA Flight 587 in the SSDI. (Obviously, don't bother to check those who aren't US citizens.) While I haven't tried every single one of them, I've been able to find fewer than half of those I tried. This isn't a phenomenon that's specific to 9/11. Note that AA Flight 587 crashed on Nov 13, 2001, so this is from the same period in history. The same happens if you check TWA Flight 800 (1996).

It's probably worth noting that the SSDI says they do not include names if "[s]urvivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse." So that may be the reason for some of these exclusions. However, it's ALSO probably worth noting that if you check the list of people who died on Comair 5191, 5 years later, they appear at a much higher rate. Something probably changed in the intervening time.

I don't know exactly why people who die in plane crashes in 1996-2001 are unlikely to show up in the SSDI. What I do know is that the results you got are nothing out of the ordinary, and therefore not evidence of anything weird going on.


Spoiler:
It is not scientific, nor rational, to insist that the official story takes all facts into account and thus is protected by the mighty Razor - not when stuff like that is going on.

I am not a dunce, nor a scientific layman myself. I took two years of computer science as well as international relations at Stanford University before I left early to join the workforce, including a class from former Secretary of Defense William Perry on international security and several more on Arabic and the Arab world. I also had all sorts of college-level classes including three Advanced Placement classes in Physics while still in high school - Physics B in 8th grade, AP Calculus AB and then C as well as calculus-based AP Mechanics and E&M by 12th, as well as Linear Algebra.

I do not say these things to make anyone think I'm smarter than others, but on a set of forums like xkcd's, my guess is that some kind of background statement like this is necessary to avoid mockery.

My guess is that most of you couldn't tell me the flight numbers for all four flights off the top of your heads.

Nor could you tell me what agencies were housed in WTC7 (the so-called "third building collapse") before it fell, without looking it up.

Try it, it's a very, very interesting list.

I can tell you a great number of them.

Yet many of you will insist you are more informed, more rational, and more competent to discuss the issues than I am.

I joyfully refused to look at the piles of evidence for eight years, insisting that these conspiracy theories were "too farfetched" and that some things about the situation were weird but that a conspiracy of this size was just a bizarre concept. I was not looking at the evidence, nor did I consider it my job. I was absolutely ready to abdicate my responsibility for thought to the mainstream news reports and assume that such a great number of people could not possibly be wrong (as I now recall, the Earth was considered flat once too).

I don't do this anymore. After the last nine years of watching our government dissemble I can no longer let other people do my thinking for me. I HAVE to look at the evidence myself.

I urge you all to, as well.
This isn't about our relative amounts of expertise, or the degrees of information we each have, or even about our intelligence. These days, the Internet means that we have access to roughly the same amount of information. I don't see how much information you have memorized about the agencies in WTC7, or about the flight numbers, matters. I have memorized the entire periodic table, but that doesn't make me a chemist, let alone a good one.

As you can see from my post above, my objection to the conspiracy theory has nothing to do with it being "too far-fetched." I do think it is far-fetched, but that's not really the point. My objections stem from the fact that the evidence to support it is remarkably thin. In addition, the evidence to support the standard theory is quite robust. It reminds me very strongly of the moon hoax theory, actually. In both cases, conspiracy theorists have come up with an astounding array of "weird things" that they put forward as an evidence for a conspiracy. It turns out that none of them are actually inexplicable. In fact, they all have perfectly reasonable explanations. Nevertheless, when you refute some of them, what you have is a big pile of explanations. The conspiracy theorists look at that pile, on the one hand, and compare it to the "simplicity" of the conspiracy theory on the other hand, and are not convinced.

The same thing is true with this conspiracy theory. For example, I've given you what I consider to be a pretty darn good explanation as to why so many of the 9/11 airplane victims don't show up in the SSDI -- namely, that this seems to be par for the course for airplane crashes in that time period. I don't know whether you'll accept this explanation or not, but I do know that it's just one more explanation to put on a very big pile. Please remember, when you consider things like Occam's razor, that the big pile is only there because you asked for it. You said, "If your theory is true, I don't understand this and this and this." I and others have tried to explain some of those things, and as a result you get a big pile of explanations. The point is, the big pile is there because you asked an awful lot of questions, not because the theory needs a lot of "patching." It's not evidence against the theory.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: xkcd and 9/11

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:15 am UTC

Replay917 wrote:This is the same attack that features no wing holes where a large plane is supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon.
There are no complete *holes* because the wings are made of thin aluminum and the Pentagon is made to withstand car bombs. There are, however, linear damage markings in the facade that correspond exactly to where the wings were said to be in the "official story". Which wouldn't be there in a missile attack. Also there's the 20 ton generator that was knocked toward the building. Which wouldn't have happened in a missile attack. And the plane parts that were found all over. Which wouldn't have been there in a missile attack.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Spambot5546 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:24 am UTC

Oh, then why was there no wreckage?

Look at this picture from that day
Image
Do you see any aircraft wreckage?

What about this?
Image
Or this?
Image
See all that not wreckage? The stuff that isn't clearly scattered all over the lawn of the pentagon? Yeah, try to explain that with your precious science!

(images shamelessly stolen from David Wong's article on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's probably been mentioned in this thread before, but here's a re-link)
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

Headshrinker
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:18 pm UTC
Location: My location has been known to fluctuate

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Headshrinker » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:02 pm UTC

There are no complete *holes* because the wings are made of thin aluminum and the Pentagon is made to withstand car bombs. There are, however, linear damage markings in the facade that correspond exactly to where the wings were said to be in the "official story". Which wouldn't be there in a missile attack. Also there's the 20 ton generator that was knocked toward the building. Which wouldn't have happened in a missile attack. And the plane parts that were found all over. Which wouldn't have been there in a missile attack.


This extract claims that the wings would have been torn off by hitting the lamp posts before impact with the pentagon.
It appears that some of the light poles were ripped completely out, base and all.

Safe Breakaway Light Poles:
http://www.transpo.com/Transpo_Sheets_PDF/Pole_safe.pdf
Pole 1 may have been a Breakaway type light pole, but the other 3 poles we have pictures of don't appear to have this kind of technology designed into the them.

Note there is no pic I can find of Pole 2. So for now we will analyze these pictures.

*

In all the pictures I saw of these down poles I did not see any pictures of the where they poles were ripped out or broken. Another explanation of why the poles were knocked down is that C4 explosives could have been used to take out the poles. If you notice the pictures the clean cuts. It may be difficult to prove, but it is an idea that may have creedance. I need to investigate this area of thought further.
*

Witnesses claim that the poles were taken down by the wings of the 757. In every case where a pole was hit no aircraft metal or objects seemed to have come off where the poles were.
*

A piece of Airplane Debris Found by a downed lamp post. Yup it's a real smoking gun right? Well please explaining where on the American Airlines Boeing 757 wing is there paint that is white? There is some white on the nose cone and on the upper sides of the plane. Now the Global Hawk however does have some versions that are painted white. To further this if this is all that was found after hitting 5 poles I am truly amazed! I don't believe that this would be off any plane that hit 5 poles as I discuss bellow.
*

Considering the sheer strength of the poles I find it hard to imagine that wing wasn't severely damaged. The other thing about the light poles is that the plane was traveling very fast, about 400 MPH. If the plane hit the poles going that speed the poles wouldn't be close the road or on the road, rather they would be thrown a long way from the road, providing they didn't sheer the wings off.
*

If you examine the area where the poles are lying down you will not see any damage to the grass and the one on the road the glass is

Considering the sheer strength of the poles I find it hard to imagine that wing wasn't severely damaged. The other thing about the light poles is that the plane was traveling very fast, about 400 MPH. If the plane hit the poles going that speed the poles wouldn't be close the road or on the road, rather they would be thrown a long way from the road, providing they didn't sheer the wings off. Hence we are talking about 5 poles here not one!

If they did its not supprising that there would be no wing left to hit the wall.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:10 pm UTC

For all those claiming that the pentagon was designed to withstand carbombs so it should withstand a 500-mph jet, well, is your skin able to withstand being hit by cigarettes? What about a shotgun loaded with cigarettes?.

100 tons of anything traveling at 500 mph, even kleenex tissues or packing peanuts, would do serious damage when it hit.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby Spambot5546 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:58 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:For all those claiming that the pentagon was designed to withstand carbombs so it should withstand a 500-mph jet, well, is your skin able to withstand being hit by cigarettes? What about a shotgun loaded with cigarettes?.

100 tons of anything traveling at 500 mph, even kleenex tissues or packing peanuts, would do serious damage when it hit.

The Pentagon didn't withstand being hit by the plane, it withstood the plane's wings.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:46 pm UTC

That's the point. Some conspiracy nuts claim that, if the Pentagon was built to be blast-proof (i.e. withstand car bombs), then it should have been undamaged by a jet.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Postby uncivlengr » Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:48 pm UTC

Stepping back a bit from the particulars of this one issue (which is always a good idea in these discussions), why would they use a missle and then go through all the hoops required to pretend it was a plane?

The options are:

1. Someone hijacked a plane and flew it into a building, or
2. Someone hijacked a plane, stashed it somewhere, launched a missle into a building, then a bunch of other people went around chopping off some lampposts, hauling plane engines into the crash site, throwing parts around the lawn, and hoped nobody noticed them doing so.

Even if this were possible, why would someone plan to do that, given the alternative?

edit:
++$_ wrote:Whether this was good or bad strategy is beside the point.

I don't think this is necessarily always the case - in most situations, these conspiracy theories take little bits and pieces of seeminly curious data to demonstrate their point, but don't take those points to their logical conclusion - you end up with a jumbled assortment of discontinuous lines of thought that never really add up to a single picture of the situation. You end up working from the premise that the conspirators are this amorphous entity that would necessarily behave in whatever ridiculous manner prescribed by your concoction of mini-theories. That's why I think it's worthwhile to look at the problem as part of a whole, which includes the logistical and strategic problems raised by the convoluted theories proposed.
I don't know what to do for you


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests