9/11: What Really Happened

I already have, in this thread.

 

By whom? I think I'd remember that.

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

Go to FAQs #8:

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

 

Eddie, I'm not an engineer but I can read the first paragraph about WTC 1 and understand it well enough to picture how it might have played out when projected against an image of that tower collapsing. Same for the second paragraph explaining the demise of WTC 2.

What exactly is it you take issue with regarding these explanations?

Getting back to the NIST pancake theory "retraction". Was the theory ever more than that to NIST? No. Did they ever put it out there formally? No. Was it put out there by over-anxious "others" before NIST had a chance to investigate its merit? Yes.

FEMA was first to float the pancake idea after a preliminary performance study. NIST came in behind them and officially announced the true cause of the tower collapses. How can NIST retract something they never made assertions to?

 

The same thing that over 1600 certified, professional architects and engineers have a problem with; steel structures don't simply collapse at free fall speed unless every resistance points is eliminated simultaneously. Thousands of steel joints don't just fail because there's a fire raging dozens of floors above. And it's been well documented that concussive blasts were here just before the collapse of the towers. All of the evidence points to a controlled demolition.

 

Yeah, I've seen the "concussive blasts" on video and though it's interesting it doesn't adequately contradict the explanation that it was the result of extreme pressure from above forcing out windows and debris at those locations, as the towers were beginning to collapse. I can't answer to the free fall aspect. All I know is that there was a whole lot of weight bearing down on those floors.

Obviously these may very well have. Not being an engineer and being asked to choose between opposing opinions from those who are engineers, I can't conclude that one opinion is right and the other wrong.

The concussive blasts seen on that video did not appear to me to be adequate and sufficient to cover "every resistance point" either. (I can't remember how many there were but I don't remember seeing more than half a dozen blasts - but I could be wrong) Of course, I'm not an engineer or demolition expert and have no knowledge of the architecture or of how many resistance points there were. Was each floor a resistance point? Every 5 floors? Every 20? What was normal weight bearing resistance at each point without structural damage from the impact? Did that resistance factor change with the impact due to the weakening of the core columns and damage to the thermal insulation? I don't know the answer to any of these questions. I don't even know if I'm asking the right questions. Do you?

 

I don't know what happened on 9/11. All I know is that there's too much evidence pointing to a controlled demolition to ignore it.

 

At some point, one has to say that the work of discovering and debating this has all been done to death, that all objections have been answered, and that further dinking with it is unnecessary duplication of effort. I am well beyond that point. I am to the point where I just ask "Who do I trust more, Truthers, or these guys?"

For the record, it's These Guys. And yes, I make judgements and draw conclusions when I find someone is a truther. Among them being "They think the Bush Administration was competent enough to pull it off." And we'll just leave it there.

 

Have you come to the conclusion that there is too much evidence for controlled demolition because you've analyzed the evidence yourself or are you relying on the opinions of others?

Have you sought out opinions and evidence that contradict the controlled demolition theory? Have you analysed that evidence yourself, as well?

Or have you simply decided, as a layman, that the opinions and evidence of others trying to debunk the official story must be correct because they fit your own pre-conceived notion that it must have been an inside job?

 

The research and professional analysis of over 1600 professional, certified architects and engineers from all over the world provides a substantial basis for controlled demolition.

Because Al Qaeda could not have gained access to the WTC or had the time to plant nano-thermite explosives throughout all 3 WTC buildings. Not to mention Al Qaeda doesn't have access to nano-thermite in quantities required for the controlled demolition of WTC.

 

Needed something extra dramatic and shocking to justify two wars and massive oil grab, not to mention multi-billion dollar private contracts and patriot act which gives government unbridled power.

 

Two planes full of passengers flying into the WTC wasn't extra dramatic and shocking? (Especially in a country that hasn't really been attacked on its own soil). Wow. It got my attention!

 

Controlled demolition to bring the towers to the ground and staging the event on a weekday (rather than a weekend) when there was bound to be a greater loss of life would be overkill measures when the mere image of two planes exploding into the WTC would have been adequate to cause public and worldwide shock and outrage - adequate enough to justify the government's military and national security responses.

If I were those planning such a thing, I would look at risk, knowing that every unnecessary "flourish" as Baraka says, increases the risk the plan would be compromised or backfire. I would be looking to get as much low-risk, bang for my buck as I could.

It would be like a doctor cutting off someone's arms and legs to treat a gangrenous toe.

Pulling this off would have required very smart people - smart enough to know that you always minimize risk, where you can.

 

For the first few years after 9/11, I did quite a bit of reading on the matter - including a video by Boeing showing that an aircraft smashing into something designed to take as much abuse as the Pentagon, would practically disintegrate from a combination of the compression (From the impact) and the explosion ripping those compressed pieces apart.

On the "jet fuel can't melt steel" argument - it didn't, and the rubble had plenty of steel in it still. So what happened? This:

Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

I peeked through the old thread until I got a message that I hit my "Guest" page view limit for the day, and it seems that most of my other "anti-Truther" evidence/lines of logic were brought up there, so I'm going to bow out now. (BTW, I have seen the video you posted before, much of it induced face-palming at the oversights of related logic, like how the metal didn't need to melt, just flex, to tear the building apart).
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 12:58 AM ---

And to take that one step further - not only why did we let Al Qaeda take credit for it... but why, why would they do so, knowing that we'd come after them the way we did? That tips the scale from "Crazy" to "Stupid". Okay, bowing out again. For now. Damnit.

 

^^if only the steel used in the WTC wasn't rated to withstand 2000degree heat for up to 6 hours you might have some sound logic as to why a few floors collapsed. But seeing as the entire steel structure collapsed at freefall speed into it's own footprint with no resistance, the official story simply doesn't make sense. Don't believe me? See what these guys have to say about it. They're over 1600 certified, professional architects and engineers from all over the world. And they all know that the official story is quite laughable and impossible.