9/11: What Really Happened

I'm not sure if you didn't read what I posted or maybe there's some confusion on what "ratings" are for steel... the rating you quoted isn't accurate, and isn't use accurately.

Let's see if this example helps (and by the way, I have read plenty on the site you've referenced before, and have picked it apart over the years).

I own a gun safe that's "firepoof", for up to 2000 degrees for 6 hours. All this means is that the ambient temperature inside the safe is not going to exceed "X" - however, it does not mean that I'll need a drill to unlock the safe, and a crowbar and sledgehammer to get the door off, because it will have warped to the point where it'll be jammed...

sort of the way structural steel can warp... and start popping rivets, cracking concrete, etc...

 

Let's assume that the some of the rivets that were under extreme heat did pop, what about the thousands of other steel joints throughout the building that weren't heat compromised? Don't forget, NIST has already retracted their pancake theory.

 

Doesn't require a pancake, just uneven weight shifting internally, which would give an outward appearance of a "pancake fall". In an internally destructive setup as I described, all interior supports would break apart first, so as the floors shifted and broke internally, that weight would be transferred outwards, increasing load from - for lack of a better term - "unsupported" angles, which causes more structural deflection, which causes more weight shifts and collapse... and it can all happen very quickly.

My understanding of the pancake theory is that floors were falling like the ingredients in Burger Time (anyone else remember that game?), whole floors falling at once, and the sudden impact/weight caused the next floor to fall, which is definitively different than what I (tried) to explain.

Imagine the "Exploding popsicle sticks snake" phenomenon, only set off with fire, which caused all the "unnatural" stress and eventually started popping.

 

Characteristics of destruction by fire, none of these occurred on 9/11.:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

These did:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

 

Destruction by fire:
A building engulfed in a blaze.

The rest of your statements, while true, do not apply, as it was not destroyed by fire. Fire (and impact of a plane) was only a trigger.

 

That's for sure. Neither fire nor a pancaking of the floors or steel structure explain what happened on 9/11. The only logically explanation is a controlled demolition. It's the only conclusion that actually fits. You've got molten steel and thermite found at ground zero. Nuff said.
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 2:11 AM ---
This is why NIST claims they never researched or considered a controlled demolition:

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives."

The first paragraph is a complete joke. There are countless interviews with firefighters and police in which they discussed hearing several concussive blasts and booms. One need only do a quick google search to find these interviews and eyewitness accounts as well as video footage of the concussion blasts.

 

I've already given you another explanation other than controlled demolition that fits in with all the evidence, and the official story. As you seem to be unable to disprove my explanation (seeming to ignore it completely once I shot down your fire theory) any further discussion will likely be circular, and no longer productive. I am now done with this thread.

 

It's not my fire theory, it's NIST's. And yeah, sorry if I didn't pay a lot of attention to your "the steel structure just got too hot after cooking in kerosene for 60 minutes, buckled and fell to the ground" theory. And then, I'm supposed to apply your theory to all 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11? Even though not a single steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire. Your theory might work if the structure was made from plastic but not steel.

And again, because apparently you missed them the first time I posted them... these 13 points reinforce my theory while diminishing yours further:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 3:24 AM ---

According to who? You?

 

There are over 250,000 mechanical engineers and materials engineers in the US and over 101,000 architects. Assuming that every one of those 1600 you're talking about are employed as architects or any kind of engineers and they all agree that it was a controlled demolition, that's half a percent of people in the fields who support it. Thousands of joints failed because the weakened structure produced a cascading failure. "Concussive blasts" is a fancy way of saying "loud noises" because there's no evidence of explosives being used.

Nobody is advocating pancake theory. Pancake theory is a strawman you keep attacking. Please shut the fuck up about pancake theory.

 

That is certainly one theory, albeit not a very likely one given the overwhelming evidence against it.
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 3:46 AM ---

 

So been there, too.

So been there, too.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor, Eddie?"

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

Look at the two theories

Theory 1 - planes piloted by pissed off American hating suicide terrorists hit the WTC causing structural damage, fires occur, the towers collapse as a result of the structural damage (the extent of the damage has been analyzed and deemed sufficient to cause collapse)

Theory 2 - A covert plan is devised by unknown US government or US government affiliated entities to take down the twin towers for the purpose of causing shock and outrage in order to justify attacking a middle eastern country.
Some days prior to the twin tower's attack, the towers are emptied and a demolition crew of undetermined numbers and affiliation, risking confrontation and subject to questioning before and after the fact, plant demolition explosives at critical resistance points in the buildings.
It's determined that the attack must occur when businesses within the structures are open and filled with employees and clients. These covert entities want to make sure onlookers from below witness poor souls jumping out of windows to their death, judging that this and a high death toll will be needed to make the case for war.
On the day of the scheduled attack the "real" planes with passengers on them are rerouted to other airports and the passengers are never seen or heard from again. Fake transmissions are sent disguised as cell phone calls from the passengers to loved ones on the ground or maybe there are no calls at all and loved ones claiming to have received the calls are all lying because they're all in on it. Empty planes or missiles are guided via remote control into the twin towers, exploding in a huge blast seen for miles around.
The world is tuned in. Shock and disbelief is overwhelming.
The grand finale - a few hours later, in a remote location somewhere in Manhattan, a covert operator detonates the explosives seconds after the first tower starts it's descent. Talk about precision. Then he does the same thing again. Oh what a show - totally unnecessary, but in cowboy terms it's "go big or go home".

And that's not even getting into the theories surrounding the Pentagon and PA.

In all reality, they could have accomplished the same thing by putting a dummy and a bomb in pickup truck and letting it explode in the middle of Times Square.

I'd say theory 2 is a bit too complicated to fit the criteria and sounds more than a bit crazy all laid out.

 

The presence of incendiary thermite found in debris and dust post 9/11 is probably the only issue out there I have been unable to get an adequate answer too. NIST did not and has not tested for it (which is at odds with national fire standards, requiring testing for these sorts of agents) and all I've been able to find on the subject is the debunking opinions of amateurs who I trust no more than truthers. The claim is FEMA's (the folks who also gave us the pancake theory) but if it was truly present, has any legitimate scientific lab or organization been able to verify and explain it's presence? It doesn't change my belief that this was not some grand conspiracy and I've been going on the assumption that it either wasn't there to begin with, was a by-product of a building material, was created by a heat related chemical reaction, or was generated outside the event (fire extinguishing efforts maybe). I would sure like to know for sure, if anyone has a link.

Eddie, please don't link me to bogus truther sites - I've seen them all.

 

I didn't read the thread, but was it Satan? Did Satan do it?

I only make fun, because, even IF there was a conspiracy to do these things, we will never find evidence, or be able to prove anything, so... maybe it was elves.

 

Works for me. At the very least they should have to answer for holding Congress hostage for the past year.

 

I certainly agree with your opinion...what boggles me is how more people don't see what's right in front of their eyes...in fact, they embrace it.

 

Nice threadjack, mod.

 

With the evidence of stock trades, 'terrorist' insurance, and buying the WTC a few months before or something (I'm too busy to look up the exact details again). And knowing we had remote control drones, and putting in an autopilot path would be easier than flying a 747 for the first time... No need to let anybody off the plane or reroute planes, or have fake planes.

Shaped charges are pretty small and could have been placed, but the thing is that you need to have the fewest number of people involved.

In 1993, the terrorists tried to use a truck bomb. It didn't lead to the defense budget going from $298 billion to $800 billion, 2 wars, a few covert wars, and big oil contracts. In the 90s, I thought the DoD/GOP was crazy when they kept complaining about not being able to fight two wars on different fronts...