what happened on 911
 

I know it is a link, but not for nonsense

http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm


they charge for a copy rather than post on the net - would like to see to make up my on mind but not paying for it :confused:

One note. I believe this group is a Christian organization. Check out the other publications and things available and look at the list of collarboratives. There are several religious books, books with reference to the Bible, and Pastors who were involved in this group.

I'm not saying anything one way or another. Just knowing where the group is coming from and what could be the motivations behind this helps confirm or question the validity of the "evidence" shown in this video. I personally am curious about it. But like you said I'm not paying to see it.

*whistles innocently*

It has been spotted online in certain P2P networks.


*walks away whistling innocently*

Sounds interesting.

Not worth buying but maybe I'll search around on some of thoes P2P things. :D

On a similar bent, I recall when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, the first day they kept talking about there being two explosions. I seem to remember seeing a printout from an earthquake monitoring site showing two distinct explosions. A couple days later, no more words about it. Or am I just paranoid?

This sounds more like conspiracy theories than anything else...

For those who don't want to click:

Cheers Latch

Do not let the face put you off - honest aas the day is long Gov

yeh yeh consolidation of the conspiracy theory.

Okay...

Now, if these people want the truth out there so freakin' bad, why are they charging for it?

media=money....(consumer money)....every1"s a consuma rite?

Assuming what they say is true, then you have to wonder; if a government can secretly dispose of all the passengers on three commercial airliners, why would they allow a couple of two-bit film makers to go this far?

Here is the video showing the flash of light right before the second plane hits the tower. I believed and still do that the Bush administration was responsible for this from day one. I have found plenty of very interesting sites regarding the matter. If I find, I will post.

EDIT: Shit, link not working, I will try to find another.

actually i was trying to fix your link....

here's what I found in your html mess ;)

http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/index2.htm

LOL, thanks, you caught it before I deleted it. What the hell was I doing wrong, I hate this new layout, very confusing for me ;).

Just watched it, and I say it's fairly convincing and appears logical. They spend most of the 52 min part (which is all I've seen) dissecting the Pentagon crash and it shows some very interesting things about the building and shows the hole that was made before the roof collapses and it's pretty damn small.


all this aside, what always bugged me about the towers falling is was too damn precise to be from the planes alone. you even see the signature buckling that is indicative of demolition charges going off. I do believe those planes weren't the main reason those towers fell...I can't see how in hell they could fall perfectly, as in a demolition, from a sideways hit from an aircraft. That is what never added up for me.

I really wish people would be more open-minded to this video. Unfortunately the American people are blind and refuse to believe anything other than "Bin Laden and all middle-easterns should be nuked" mentality. Its really unfortunate that they fail to see anything negative about their country, no matter how apparent the truth might be. Its even more unfortunate that 9/11 has influenced the world so greatly in such a negative way, that it even causes more death and hate, rather than unity and peace.

Well, I looked at everything on that webfairy site, and I can't say I'm convinced that it was a conspiracy. But you choose to believe what you want.

That site is nothing I expect to convince anyone. There are far more extensive sites with plenty more evidence of false play. If I get a chance I will look them up and post them for you, unless of course you decided to shut it down and not believe it no matter what.

I like to wander into conspiracy-ville too, but think about it... if the plane was "switched", what happened to the passengers on the real plane? Just take them out and shoot them? Organ donors possibly? C'mon...

I did hear an interesting story recently regarding the Oklahoma City bombing that was brought about by an Oklahoma City reporter. She claims to have found a connection between McVey and an Iraqi soldier, who interestingly ended up working at Newark on 9/11, in food service. She claims the FBI wants nothing to do with her and refuses to validate her info.

I wouldn’t doubt it.

they why bother with the Exec Producer of Frasier and the Congress person who said "Let's Roll."

They could have all just been anonymous nobodys.

For the same reason that Bob Lazar was allowed to speak of his exploits in Area-51 and Area-S4.

They can't just knock off people. Somewhere, someone knows that this video was being made. If they suddenly just disappeared, then everyone would know they were on to something. Its simple logic.

http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf

picked it up on another forum, its a flash, but shows some info about the pentagon crash, makes you think if nothing else.

^ Indeed.

I find it hard to believe no parts were found, no huge fire, and no pilot could fly 2 feet above the ground at 530 mph for that long. Especially not some terrorist with very little real training.

New thread to avoid threadjacking: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...71#post1382871

heh interestin'

Check out this threads 'sister' thread, the Mystery of the Dissapearing 757. I addressed most of the questions about the pentagon there. Kinda surprised the threads haven't been combined yet.

I challenge someone to explain what happened on 9/11 in pertaining to the points below. Any information would be appreciated. I think you'll be surprised.
-Building 7 information (why it colapsed, esp in on itself [took 6.5 seconds to colapse])
-blueprints for the twin towers are not available
-the team who investigated the colapse were not allowed access to the crime scene.
-rapidly recycled steel from the largest engineering failure in world history before the investigation could look at it
-south tower building falling first, despite being hit second
-firefighters were ordered to ignore building 7, despite already having a plan to put out a relitivly small fire
-twin towers falling into dust before hitting the ground (growing at 50 ft. per second)
-melting point of steel is twice what fuel could have produced
-structural (column) failure; ALL columns had to be 800 degrees in order for the theory to even be possible

Floor colapse was impossible due to any plane crash. It's time for people to know.

@WillRavel:

You need to watch one of several History Channel / TLC / PBS documentaries to answer many of your questions.

One that I can answer for you is your question as to why the south tower fell 1st. It fell first because it was hit lower. There was more weight above the point of failure (the floors which had burned). This meant that fewer beams had to fail before it reached a critical point and the entire structure failed.

Where did you get your 50 ft/sec # on the rate of the dust ?

Where was building 7 supposed to collapse if not on itself ? I mean the twin towers are fairly close and the south tower went down straight pretty much. The north tower didn't go down because the south did.

How do you know what the temperature of the fuel fire was ? There were other burnable items in the building, furniture/carpets.

Check out this site, it goes into depth about building 7 and the other things mentioned. Just poke around a bit and you should find alot of intresting reading

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

I've been glued to the HC/TLC/PBS since they started brining forward reports and specials about the subject. These is a lot of intersting speculation on these specials, and I'd reccoment to anyone to watch them.

Oh. Okay. Ty.

Calculations done by an independant research team. I'll get into that later.

No one really seems to know about building 7. It's actually a pretty big deal, despite the fact that no major news network has covered it.

Building 7 colapsed. Let's start here. According to every source available, fire colapsed this building. Chapter 5 of FEMA's World Trade Center Performance Study is what I used as the primary source of the information on what officiall happened. This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

The evidence does not support the idea that Building 7 was damaged by fallout from the tower collapses, nor that there were diesel fuel tank explosions. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

(Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxesthe imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320 degrees F.) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in highrise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

Moving on th the rubble...Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.

That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangers. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.

Unintended structural failures are less common in steel frame highrises than in aircraft. Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis.

Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.

There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study.

No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse.
The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.

This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation:
"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the the New York Times as saying:
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling."

Officials running the "cleanup operation" took pains to make sure the structural steel didn't end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.

So now we're all wondering about FEMA...The only government entity that purported to examine the collapse of Building 7 was the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) composed of volunteer engineers selected and supervised by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

In May of 2002, BPAT published their World Trade Center Building Performance Study. Chapter 5 of the report is devoted to Building 7. The report makes unsubstantiated claims and uses a variety of deceptive techniques to make the total collapse of Building 7 due to fires seem less implausible than it is. A copy of Chapter 5 marked up by an anonymous author exposes many of these deceptions. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

None of which (furnature, carpets, paper, AIRPLANE FUEL) had the ability to create the heat necessary to melt the steel frame to the extent that the building would colapse, let alone colapse straight down.

BTW, constructive critisism is appreciated. I would love to hear a plausable explaination for all of this. I love my country and would like to continue trusting it on matters this important in the future. For now, I'll be playing the part of devils advocate in this case in order to keep the conversation on track. Thanks to everyone who participates with an open mind and good ideas.
Please, no 'you're stupid' carp, this is about getting to the bottom of a question. After all, we are on the Paranoid Board.

Airplane fuel burns at about 900 degrees F. To make I-Beams become soft enough to start to lose their shape requires a minimum of 2800 degrees F. Simple physics, no airplane fuel fireball - not even augmented by carpets and wood - could've melted those I-beams and caused the collapse.

If memory serves me right (from a History channel/TLC show on the subject), the I-beams have such a high melting point because they were/are insulated. During the crash, the isulation was blown off/sheered off the beams on the levels where the plane impacted the tower. The design of the twin towers was such that all the support for the structure was/were the outside beams that went vertically along the side of the building. This allowed for the central core (stairs/elevators/piping) to be minimal since there was no need to have any real structural support there.

When the plane plowed into the building it immediately blew out the support on one side (the side it entered from). The floors were all spot welded I think to the exterior columns. It was these welds/joints that failed. And as they failed one by one they dropped to the level below (as they were still firm on the other side that was attached to the core. Anyhow, as long as the fire raged, enough beams were weakened to allow movement (thats ALOT of weight now being supported by softening metal) and when failure started it was unstoppable.

The only way to have kept the towers from falling were to have the sprinkler systems active which was impossible because the central core had been damaged and all pipes/elevators/stairways at and above the level of impact were either broken or severly damaged.

I really wish I could remember the name of the show that I saw. It was extremely thourgh in its analysis of what caused the towers to collapse.

I hope that in some way helps. If I can find anything more (name of the show and or the channel it was on) I will be back to post more.

Hehe, back again, I found the show...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

It was NOVA on PBS, and the name of the show was Why the Towers Fell

True the insulation was removed. When the insulation is intact, the melting point of the I-beams of building like the twin towers has ben tested to only be a few hundred degrees F higher. Unfortunatally, the aloly steel that the I-beams were made of, according to sources BEFORE 9/11, has a melting point of 1370 degrees C (2500 degrees F), without insulation. This far exceedes the ability of an airliner fuel fire, which even with other combustable and or burnable items in the twin towers, maxes out at about 1000 degrees F. There are no plausable variables which could have existed in the twin towers that could have more than doubled the heat of this fire.

Thank you, M_G. The more people who question this, the more possibility that I will be wrong and our trust will be restored in our government.

Well, I suppose I could throw something in here...

At the time of the attacks, I believe a Mr. Silverstein was the leaseholder on the Word Trade Center. He did an interview shortly afterward with a Public Service station - that aired only once. Basically, when he was talking about Building 7, he said that a firefighter had called him up and said that the damage was too extensive. Mr Silverstein, having no other choice, said to go ahead and "pull" it.

For those of you that don't know, "Pull" is a common term used to descibed detonating the charges in controlled building collapses.

Pretty interesting, in my opinion - so much of what happened on 9/11 is so very questionable...

Another factor that doesn't quite add up - there was a shot that was broadcast live on CNN - again, only once. Basically, what it showed was both of the trade centers still standing tall, after both had been hit. On the bottom of the screen, however, there is a giant, approximately 50 story tall plume of smoke/dust. Keep in mind, however, that the collapse had not occured yet, and as far as public knowledge goes, there never was any explosives or anything that could have caused that cloud to occur at all, much less be so enourmous.

In a very respectable magazine, "People" I believe, they interviewed some of the firefighters. I wish I could quote it, but basically it states somthing along the lines of "... as the bomb went off...."

There were many, many reports of explosions occuring in the towers. Admittedly, though, there was a lot of confusion and I am sure that many people aren't really experienced to really identify the sounds, but I would imagine that the firefighters would at least be fairly reliable in this case...

One other thing I'll delve into, but I am not really sure as to the reliability of the information, as it depends on eyewitness accounts... Basically, the first plane was descrived as a having a blue marking on it - and no windows. It was not ever really even considered to be commercial, until we were informed otherwise.

I have not been able to find this particular interview online at all, but I remember, for certain, right after the pennsylvania crash there was an interview with a lady - and she also said that the plane that she saw was not a commercial airliner. I believe that she even went as far to say that they looked like fighter jets...? If anyone could point me in the direction of this interview, I would be much appreciated.

I think the ultimate end of this conversation, after reviewing all the facts, is to find out why this was orchestrated. There was a specific reason as to why the twin towers and building 7 were demolished. This is a specific reason that something (other than the 757) crashed into the Pentagon. There is a reason we jumped on Osama Bin Ladden.
What did these things manage to do, or what were they intended to do>?
-Why the fake attacks:
1. They were meant to strike a clear and present fear in the American people, among others.
2. They were meant to give a reason for tighter control over 'security' by those who are most likely guilty for the lies and attacks.
3. They were meant to bring about sympathy from our allies, drawing them closer to us so that they would support us.
-Why the sudden blaming of Osama Bin Ladden:
1. They thought that there could be a sudden hatred of all things Middle East. With everyones hatred going that way, doing terrible things over there would seem justified.
2. He was once a good friend of America and the Bush family. He turned.
3. He would have been a likely leader of an attack on the US, as was being said by political commentators.
-Why the war on Iraq?
1. Direct control over the second largest oil source in the world. If you look at American troop deployment over the world, you will notice that we control most of the worlds natural resources. The American Empire needed Iraq's oil, and to have Iraq as a staging area for the attack on Saudi Arabia and Iran.
2. George Bush was almost assasinated because of Saddam Hussain, once a close family friend of the Bushs.

Of course this is all IMO.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...1_02_lucy.html

alot of answers to why and who benifited from 9/11 attacks.

Frighteningly enough, this is the official story. The stuff on that site was the same things the 9/11 commission (which was either fake, or the worst investigation in history) was investigating in order to determine if we made huge mistakes and needed to rethink some of our policies. I'm afraid it's much worse.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are quite probabally fake. They were carried out by fringe parts of the government in order to fool and lead the people of our country and the world. Read above for some details.

ARGH, I can not believe you crazies! How can you seriously believe this stuff ?

I wonder if the history channel's "conspiracy" show would cover this?
it might be worth someone's time to email them and see what they say.

Attention all conspiracy weirdos: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT OUT TO GET YOU!

Seriously, do you know the scope of the cover up would be and the absolute unbelievable number of people that would have to keep quiet about the murder of 3000 Americans for them to pull this off? Also, why would anyone want this to happen to further their business. The obvious economic downfall that follows this type of catastrophe overshadows any gain they would recieve, not to mention the personal investment money lost after the stock market dropped.

Use your head and actually think about this for a moment.

You sure have a real grip on reality, summerkc. I'm glad you are here to set our heads straight. Just because the melting point of the steel of the twin towers is roughly 2,800 degrees F and the maximum heat airline fuel can produce is about 900 degrees F (PLEASE look these facts up if you don't believe me, I sure did), I'm sure that there is a perfectly good explainaton for the whole supprt system of the building coming down at almost one time and straight down! You must have a ton of research to disprove all of the evidence that is listed here by myself and others. I look forward to reading it!

All sarcasm aside, all you did was say some of the people in this thread were crazy. Did you think to check out the facts listed here, or did you simply assume that our frienly neighborhood government was looking out for us? I’m guessing no (based on the fact that you did not address ANY of the evidence). All you did was dismiss a lot of research and painstaking work. I personally have spent a lot of my time to try and figure this out. You might think it’s sad, and that’s okay I suppose. I think that there is a good enough chance of foul play in this to try and figure out what really did happen. I'll bet if you were able to open your mind for a fraction of a second, you might be surprised.

Bottom line: until I see you add or disprove information to this discussion, I don't see the need to read your threads. I think that a lot of other people would agree. If you can't open your mind, then what are you doing to advance the paranoia thread? This whole section of TFP is obviously on the fringe of rationality. Some of the things listed might be totally bogus. What if just one of the things listed is true? What if this thread is true?
If you can’t consider that, I pity you.

Money, honey. Plain and simple.

Okay you wanted additional info, here you go...

Jet FUEL BURNS HOT, HOT AS H@LL

I remember this from my aerospace engineering classes and I want to share it with you conspiracy wonks. Jet fuel is burned in a jet engine. That engine is designed to take the extreme temperatures of burning jet fuel. This primarily takes place at the COMBUSTOR section of the engine. According to NASA http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/parts.htm#combustor the temperature in the combustor AVERAGES UP TO 2800F. Now, couple that with the fact that not all STEEL is created the same. I will assume your steel melting point numbers are correct (even though I'm sure none of us here made the steel that was used in the WTC). Given the 2800F burning temperature of jet fuel, that is MORE than enough to weaken steel.

As for your point about the entire building support structure coming down on its self at once, I mentioned to you before about this and I'll say it again. Each floor support is designed to support a certain amount of weight. IF a load GREATER than that is put on the support structure it will fail, and once ONE fails, all the rest below it will fail because they are all designed to support the same load (each floor is designed to support the load of the floor above it with some factor of safety). That factor of safety varies and is probably at least 2 or 2.5. Meaning that if a floor above weights 10 tons, it would be designed to support 20 to 25 tons. Lets not all forget that a 767 weights ALOT and it was spread out over probably 5 floors.

Oh and just FYI about how jet engines work, in case your interested in opening your mind for a fraction of a second. http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/Engines101.html

But of course, NASA is a government entity so all this is just BS anyhow, right? :rolleyes:

FINALLY SOMEONE IS TAKING THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS SERIOUSLY. Thank you, M_G.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the fire burned at 3,000 degrees F. That should be enough to warp and begin to melt the steel frame. Let's say the fire producing this heat is spread across the floor pretty evenly. That would possiby account for the floors complete colapse at the same time. Now go ahead and pull up some pictures of the WTC right before the colapse. They are readely available on line. Notice, if you will, the ALUMINUM SIDING of the WTC did not warp or deform other than the initial impact. You see wwhat I'm getting at? Given the constant exposure - over time - to any escaping heat, it is difficult to imagine the fires being so hot as to cause either catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC vertical support structure. None of the images of the outer steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow. All images show the outer shell mechanically destroyed, versus collapsing from thermal cause. Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link.'

Or, if one cares to argue that the core structure was acting as a chimney, it is necessary to realize than any catastrophic temperatures which "chimneyed" would have caused the contents of the upper floors to burn violently - which is not seen in the images, versus the white smoke, indicating a relatively cool temperature.

By this reasoning, the fires were obviously too cool to collapse the towers, let alone abruptly.

Oh, I am well aware of how jet engines work.

I await your defence.

The steel structure, aluminum sideing, etc would not have to get the the point of melting red hot and glowing. As the temperature of the steel increases, its strength continues to decrease until it collapses, which I would think is well below of the temperature of it starting to glow and warp. I also assume that you are a materials or structural engineer and don't really know the thermal dynamics that were occuring in the building at the time.

The steel in only a small area would have to lose its integraty to start the domino effect of bringing all of the floors down, you would not have to see on the outside of the building massive warping and melting of the aluminum.

What stikes me that you jump from the observation that outside aluminum is not melted to the premise that the government set up the whole thing. Combine this with the fact that the WTC was attacked a few years earlier and that it was fully understood that islamic militants planned and carried out the whole attack.

christian conspiracy theorists?

Um...I'm confused. You say that the steel will bend long before it warps. Warp means to bend. The structure would have bended in order to colapse. The problem is that aluminum wouyld bend, or warp, long before steel would have. Aluminum has a much lower melting and warping temperature than steel. Aluminum melts at about 1220.666 degrees F.

I dabble in a lot, but I am in fact neither. My main studies are in the arts, psychology, and philosophy. I do however have a terrible habit of submerging myself deeply and completly into my hobbies. In this 'hobby' (the facts around 9/11), I have studied structural engineering, (specifically in steel reinforced buildings), plane crash physics, demolition (specifically the use of Thermite, as it pertains to what I think may have happened), and politics.

That's not enntirely true. The ultimate key in the matter is the reports of the "pools of molten steel." The issue being that between the molten steel reports and the relative silence, Thermite is the next best candidate for sabotage. It is vitally important to realize that if the metal had been heated by ANY conventional fuel, it would – by the dictates of physics - have to be heated from below - ONLY! Again, jet fuel, burning in open air, will reach roughly 1,100 degrees at it's absolute hottest - insufficient to actually MELT steel. Certainly it can weaken the steel, but not melt it down. The WTC jet fuel did not burn in open air, thus a lower temperature may reasonably be assumed.

Too many sources acknowledge the molten steel. However, the major mystery is that some incredible and enduring temperatures were recorded, for approximately a week after the collapse. So far, there is little to account for such reports. That's one of many reasons I think thermite migght be the more likely source of the heat.

The center-section supporting structure of the buildings broke apart as it collapsed. Therefore, an argument for ‘mechanical energy transmission’ doesn’t hold up. It’s not the same as hitting a nail with a sledge-hammer. A ‘shattering’ sledge-hammer would not carry the force to strike, deform and ‘heat’ a nail. In other words, the force of the collapse couldn't/didn't melt the bases of the core columns.

That was one hell of a jump! Haha. You are good to point that out. There is a lot more to this whole discussion. I only mentioned the government as a possible suspect in what happened. It is possible, though. I think that it would be wrong to rule out any group at this point. I admit that it would have been difficult for Islamic terrorists to plant thermite throughout both towers. It would have been difficult for anyone. I am just considering all the possibilities.

willtravel, what exactly is YOUR point?

By the way, summerkc. I do appreciate your honestly contributing. Your post yesterday afternoon really made me mad, not because you dissagreed with me, but because all you did was make fun of me and others. I don't think I deserve to be made fun of, and my response (while coming from an angry person) was intended to try and explain that this is no simple aliens-are-out-to-get-us story. There has been a lot of research that has gone into this. Your dissmissal of said research made it seem as if all that I had done was worthless.

Remember that the simplest solution is usually the answer, the more elaborate the events get, and as of now they are very elaborate, the more unfeasible it becomes.

First remember that the structural integraty of the towers had already been severely compromised by two 300,000 lbs jets carrying 20,000 lbs of fuel hitting it at over 500 mph, these top floors are not being held up by very much at this point. Then you have the slight further weakening of the steel by the fire. At this point a gust of wind could have even brought them down.

I don't really believe "pools of molten steel". First, you are in a building that was just hit by an airplane and you are trying to save your life, how observant are you really to know what you briefly see. Also this could be any number of things melted by the crash, aluminum, copper, office supplies, etc.

I never said anything about bending, when the structural stenghth of the steel gets to a certain amount that it can no longer support the weight on it, it is coming down and the final bending will not happen for longer than a split second, this is not a play-doh tower comming down over time and sort of slowly collapsing, this is full out structural failure of the entire super-structure at once. Remember that the superstructure comprised of both the outer steel walls and the inner core, if it was the inner core that ultimately failed, there could be perfectly normal temperatures on the outside aluminum and steel. But as soon as the inner core started to fail, it would but additional stress on the outer steel which would be more than it could support and it would also immediately fail no matter what temperature it was at.

What I am trying to communicate is that the colapse according to the official report put foruth by the investigating team and the media is much less likely and more complicated than the facts present.

My answer might not be right, but it is closer to fact than what they reported.

Well the WTC was designed to take a crash from a slightly smaller plane. The planes were not going 500 miles per hour. Please read the reports. The planes did not strike the center supports. There is no physical evidence to explain why the towers both essentially fell straight down on a windy day.

The pools of molten steel were found and tested by the investigation team. They were composed of the exact same alloy of steel as were in the supports. They were found after the colapse. I never said they were seen durring the colapse.

You said warping, which means bending. I am suggesting that the steel reinforced structure would not all burn at exactly the same rate over the entire floor. That is the only way each floor would have collapsed completly at the exact same time, as was seen in videos from the massacre.

If you watch the collapse of the North Tower, it is aparent that there are "puff lines" of smoke, above the aircraft impact entry hole, from the top floor, down to the impact point. "Puff lines" ONLY occur, if the floor BELOW the "puff line" is solid, allowing the necessary compression, which pushes the smoke outward. No solid floor = NO "PUFF." The floor has a "puff line", then colapses on the floor below it, then it repeats.

Any significant fire would have been at least one floor below the last "puff line". That indicates the collapse of the cooler upper floors; (core column collapse) not the heavily fire damaged floors - immediately above the fire.

The nearly simultaneous occurrence of the "puff lines" - and the light smoke color - indicate that the alleged fire/heat would need to be uniform to the top-most floor. That is, independent fires burning on multiple floors; producing simultaneous and identical temperature profiles. IMPOSSIBLE!

Watch the video or look at pictures. The fire is not fanned, in other words there are no flames escaping, until after the "puff lines". Timeline: the antenna collapses by 10-20 feet, the puff lines occour, then the fire get's fanned. The collapse of the antenna proves that the events started from the roof, not the burned floor or immediatally above the impact. All 47 columns could NOT have given way at once, at least not from fire damage. Looking at any visuals from the collapse, everything started from the top. The roof collapsed first.

The North Tower antenna weighed 353 TONS! Thus, the 47 core columns would need to be strong enough to not only support that weight, but be able to endure the effect of wind (100 Knots - plus) swaying the antenna, in addition to some value for earthquake shock. Any such 'safety factor' would have otherwise served to also guard against thermal damage (loss of vertical support) from a fire.

On the engineering end of the antenna mounting, its weight would have rested upon some type of "plate," thereby distributing its weight over a broad area. The antenna weight would not be limited to something on the order of a single 'pole.' In some fashion, that 'supporting plate' area would have been distributed over a high percentage of the 47 columns. That design would protect against both gravity (vertical forces) and wind (lateral forces). Thus, the early - and near vertical - antenna collapse singly attests to nearly the ENTIRE 47-column core collapsing FIRST!

Additionally, later images attest to the antenna landing almost vertically; it didn't topple. (The top of the antenna was standing so vertically that the fire fighters used it for a flag pole.) That image attests to the LACK of any significant resistance until reaching the ground. Such does NOT attest to a "progressive" one-floor-at-a-time collapse, versus a near simultaneous collapse of ALL floors - the core!

The outer shell was fitted with "outrigger" segments, extending for approximately the top ten floors. Thus, the outer shell was designed to carry part of the antenna weight. Hence, the added rigidity of the upper floor walls attests to a radical and rapid collapse of the core - not the outer walls.

In the "official" account, the floor-plate attachments are supposed to have let go, (on cue - given the images) causing the accelerating cement "pancake" mass. According to that theory, only the first floor above the fire initially collapsed, causing the floors below to progressively collapse; one-floor-at-a-time. That requires a sequence of delays - however brief.

According to that presentation, the core columns would be left standing - however briefly - as the floor panels released from their attachment points. In theory, as the floor panels let go from their mountings, the load would be relieved from the core columns - leaving them to stand/balance, momentarily. We can be certain - just from the timed duration of the collapse - that such was NOT the factual collapse progression. In the case of BOTH buildings, everything let go at once. Thus, with the core columns obviously collapsing first, there had to have been SOMETHING to breach the vertical integrity of the 47 steel columns - EARLY in the collapse, not later.

Given the undeniable sequence, the floors fell as a consequence of the core column collapse, not the reverse.

Remember that THREE buildings collapsed in this fashion. Beyond the description of the collapse, it should be noted that ANY mechanical dynamics which approach this description betray an extensive and remarkable engineering and operational feat; make no mistake about it. Such an effort couldn't possibly have come from the "Loyalist Islamic Caves of Afghanistan!"

That is why I have ruled it improbabl that Ossama and his group of thugs could have been responsible for all of this.

ut yourself in the shoes of a terrorist hijacker. Your last mission on Earth is to induce "terror" into the heartland of America - the "evil Satan" of the planet. So, what better way than to attack the symbol of America's wealth and power - The New York Stock Exchange! The blow would induce a radical and global economic depression and take years to recover from! But NO! Images are more important - prestige is the key! (Huh?) So, that leaves the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. (Image? Well, okay.)

With that decision, the mass casualties are the key, along with the toppling of the towers. As the towers fall over, more thousands will be killed on the streets below, and still more within any additional "financial" buildings that can be struck down by the falling mass! Of course; that's it! (So you hit them at the top??)

ONLY - if you want minimum physical damage and loss of life! That's called the "Least-Risk" point.

Just give that a moment of thought. Three amateur Cessna 172 pilots are supposed to have crashed three complex jetliners into three buildings, flying at over 300 Knots, at the "Least-Risk" point - on the first attempt!

Oh, BTW, no one has gotten near the 7-WTC (or building 7 of the WTC) mysstery. FEMA, in their report on the attack, basically said that they have no explaination for it's collapse. None. No fire, no planes, almost no debreis.

Sorry, I rambled on there a bit.

You call THAT a simpler solution? A mass governmental conspiracy and coverup is not a simpler solution.

Okay, lets get away from the buildings collapsing and I want you to explain to me why our government would do something like this and how they would accomplish it without not one person coming forward or one person seeing all of the preparation it would take to pull this off.

As far as the pilots being able to hit the buildings, I happen to know something about this as I am a flight instructor and commercial pilot. I also have 100 hours in a 727 full motion flight simulator. You give me 2 or 3 hours of your time and I could teach you to fly into a building no problem. These guys had at minimum 40 hours and also had done some simulator flying. Once you get up to normal cruise speed a plane is a plane, and flying a 172 is not really differnt than flying a 757. Flying into a huge building like that would be very easy.

The simple solution is not supported by science. It is not a solution if it is impossible. My explaination might seem complicated, but ask me to explain the roman empire; it's complicated, but it's real. Just because something is complicated, does not make it untrue. You are on a computer. It is very complicated, and you (like me) probably only understand a fraction of how it works, but it does work.

I also am a pilot. These guys were not pilots. Their insructer failed them both. Have you ever failed a student? Would you expect that they could not only fly a 757, but fly it into a target at 300 Knots turning? It stretches the imagination pretty far.

So, as to avoid the complications, why don't we concentrate on one thing at a time. The puff lines, the antenna, the instantanious 47 column collapse, these were my main points. Let's leave the conclusion for the end. Let's just concentrate on the collapse itself. I know it, in and of itself, is complicated, but I feel it's necessary for people to understand that the physics just don't add up.

Take 2 spoons. Put them in a vice at their handles. Put a source of heat in the center of their handle. Put a potato in one spoon and leave the other empty. Before the empty spoon melts the spoon with the potato in it will bend and dump the potato. Yes this works even without government tampering of the spoon with the potato.

Sorry but it makes about as much sense as this conspiracy theory.

Wow, you sure showed me! That's so simple!
Actually it's so simple that it has nothing to do with what's going on. I don't suppose you have read ANY of the posts before you posted, did you? That's a great way to join in on a conversation.

Take a steel reinforced building with outer supports and an inner core of supports that was designed to take a plane crash, and crash a plane into it. Let it burn and watch to see how it collapses. That's the only applicable test.

My worst student could fly a 757 into a building. flying one is the equivalent of flying a 172 into a building that is about 100 feet wide, about the same as a runway. You could see the WTC probably about 20 miles away that day, plenty of time to align up fairly well and just make one final correction right before hitting it. Again, pointing an airplane directly at a building when you have that much time is not hard, even for a horrible pilot. I don't know why you are even arguing this point, they obviously flew into the building.

As for the core collapsing first, why is this not feasable? The core has a much smaller foot print as compared to the outer shell, a much smaller amount of structural failure would start its collapse, and the beams are much closer together so that any destruction of one beam would be likely to also cause damage to other beams. Basically, the core could be brought down much easier than the outer structure, which it did. THis accounts for the initial shift of the antenna down 10 ft along with all of the core beams above it shifting down to the next lower floor. The core then continued to collapse basically straight down, being contained by the outer core. This downward pull while it was collapsing started the outer core down also, only lagging slightly behind it.


As for the "least risk point" this is where the pilot's inexperience comes in. Of course they had preferred that they hit them at the bottem, but because of the rest of the New York skyline and buildings around the WTC you would have to initiate your descent at a fairly high altitude are really drop it in at a perfect angle to miss other buildings below you and still hit the tower. Now this would have been tough for crappy pilots to do.

Still, the 60 or so floor that they did hit still isn't the "Least risk point" in the towers as well above it would be.

I really dont understand though the "least risk point". I assume that you are saying that the actual perpatraitors didn't really want very many casuaties so they hit the towers higher than you would assume, right?

Someone obviously hit the building. It was just odd that they found one of the terrorists passports at the wreakage. I am say it is possible that someone else was doing the flying. I obviously do not have near the expertise that you have on this subject, so I will let it rest at this: there is just as much possibility that Islamic terrorists were flying, as oppsed to someone else. I conceede.

The fire that was responsible was supposed to melt the frames, both inside and out, according to the report. Why did it collapse from the top? Why did the top floor come down before the point of impact collapsed? The footprint of the core supports, relative to the outer supports, has no connection to the amount of structural failure bringing it down. If that sentance didn''t make sense, let me put it this way: the core has a smaller footprint, but that doesn't mean it takes less structural failure to bring it down. The outer supports by themselves are much easier to take down due to pressure or melting. The center is actually stronger than the outer supports.

Remember the "official" position? Remember those "heated and deformed bolts," which we're to believe gave way, almost simultaneously? In chapter two of the FEMA report, it is revealed that the bolts of the "weakened" floor beams were lateral (sideways) supports; not vertical. The vertical support plates (L-shamed "hanger brackets") for the floor joists were welded!

By inference, we are to believe that the 'corner' bolts (heavier insulation with greater adhesion) ALL lost their thermal insulation, that no heat was radiated away by the steel-on-steel contact and that no significant volume of heat was ventilated out through the shattered windows - along with all that smoke. The "manufactured presumption" is that the heat totally accumulated to produce the cited temperatures - not from burning jet fuel, per FEMA - but from burning furniture, interior finish materials and paper! With all that 'contained' heat, the cooler outer steel walls are supposed to have heated and expanded sideways - independently of the heated & expanded steel floor joists... - That's not how fire physics operate.

FEMA also glosses over another detail - the analysis/emphasis should have been on the stronger MAIN floor trusses, not the "transverse" (90-degrees to the main joists) floor joists. The floors were supported by an "x-y" grid of vertical supports, not a single row of trusses - as otherwise suggested.

The reality is that the expansion of the heated/expanded floor trusses and joists would have added strength, not taken it away! The heated floor structural elements would have 'snugged-up' to the cooler outer walls. The outer walls [cooled by external convective air currents], being vertically channeled, would not have "expanded-away" from the steel floor joists; leaving the floor panels to collapse.

While any expansion of the trusses and joists would have definitely affected the outer walls, the effect should have been neligible. The imagery of the outer walls being the last to collapse attests to the validity of that argument.

This brings us to another interesting point - the windows ran to the top of the full ceiling - thus the heat accumulation would have been relatively negligible, given the open ventilation from the volume of broken windows - evidenced by the wind carrying the smoke away. The internal components and the outer walls would not have been subject to a massive "heat treatment," relative to a reasonable time which should have been required to cause ANY significant collapse.

These counter-arguments radically diminish the proposition that the rigidity of the cement floors and their deeply corrugated steel containment 'pans' were somehow 'destroyed,' with the subsequent 'dead weight' causing the floor joists to abruptly 'bow' downward and inward and collapse. The 'official' presentation also ignores the insulated steel pan acting as a contact 'firewall' for the cement floor, as well as an effective 'heat-sink.' It must not be forgotten that the deep corrugation of the steel pans constituted additional vertical support, similar to rebar.

Again, the obviously limited time of intense heat exposure limits the inevitablity of a collapse - in part; or in whole.

A heat induced floor collapse may be possible - for limited numbers of local floor segments, affecting one floor at a time. Given the surviving thermal insulation - in some part - around the steel, the heat could NOT have been universally distributed over an entire single floor, let alone over ten floors - in the case of the North Tower, in particular.

It's elementary logic that any significant heat would have caused a weakening of the steel. However, it's ludicrous to believe that the heat uniquely accumulated, versus ventilated, so as to disastrously diminish the strength of industrial steel - in such a short period of time.

It must also be considered that the elevator shafts and the stairwells acted as chimneys. The fires on the floors above the impact floors attest to the probability of those fires being started by the "chimney effect." What started as a conduit for flame, later became a conduit for ventilation.

Such ventilation would also have acted to cool the 47 vertical columns, diminishing any tendency to weaken & buckle - to any appreciable extent. Again, it's necessary to remember how quickly the collapse occurred - if the purported cause-and-effect was factual.

In evidence of the heat escape, one picture of the events shows a woman STANDING at the edge of the burned-out North Tower entry hole (Illustrated in figure 2-15 of the FEMA report). If she could have stood upright at that station, it's academic that the internal temperatures couldn't have been hot enough to produce an abrupt event - such as the nearly instant collapse.

To be fair, the pictures do show what is apparently a well-fed conventional fire on a floor approximately two stories upward from the woman. Again, the building was designed and 'rated' to deal with that temperature level.

The aircraft impact would have taken out approximately 30 exterior shell columns, weakening the face of the building. However, it is clear that the exterior collapsed in consequence of the building core collapsing, with the interior material having enough lateral energy to shatter the outer shell, as the core collapsed - with the cement flooring shattering into so much dust.

Returning to the argument of the mechanics of a basement "core collapse," the lowest floor in the buildings would only have traveled the distance of the missing “basement” segment - whatever that level may have been. [For the sake of argument, again, let’s call that eight feet - literally at the last level.] The lower floor would have traveled eight feet, then stopped. However, with that collapse (transmitted the full length of the core – to the very top of the building) the upper segment would experience an acceleration effect in the classic ‘mass-times-acceleration’ equation. Thus, with the aircraft impact and fire damage, at the top, the weakened and ‘segmented’ upper portion would be dynamically converted into a “plunger.” Gravity did the rest. *

To keep the concept of such an operation simple, it’s necessary to entertain the idea also that ONLY the base of the columns were rigged with Thermite charges. With enough induced force (collapse), the upper “core” column attachment joints (bolts/welds) could conceivably shear/shatter in a vertical 'accordion' effect from the downward accelerating mass.

In all the images of the collapse, there is nothing seen to suggest that the segmented upper "caps" (in their entirety - including the outer walls) collapsed onto the lower floors (making contact with the lower floors) - until impacting the ground. The South Tower "cap" tilted onto the lower floor, it did not pancake onto that floor. What is NOT seen is a solid initial "crunch," of the upper floor collapsing onto the lower segment.

Ordinarily, one would expect to see a solid initial "crunch." Absent such an event, logic goes to the argument, "No pancake from above; no pancake below." The "caps" could only BOTH fall - "in formation" - if the lower sections were falling at an equal speed - identically timed. Both sections would need to be subject to the same "trigger event" for that kind of timing. TWO such occurrences are too much for coincidence.

Maybe. In this area I am still quite unclear and I am not done researching. This was working off the asumption that Islamic terrorists were not flying. If they were (as I said above), then this is possible.

Ok, lets finish with this collapsing thing, I still think that the airplanes could have provided enough structural failure to bring them down, but for the sake of argument, and my sanity, lets just assume that the destruction was aided by the use of some type of explosive material some where else in the building.

Ok, you you have 4 airlines, two hit the WTC, one the pentagon, and one in a field in Penn. In order for even a part of this to be done by a differnt entity other than Islamic terrorists, they would all have been involved together and coordinating together. Islamic terrorists are not going to cooperate with the U.S. Government especially if they promise that they are going to distroy the WTC in a mock attack, they are not that trusting for one thing, and stupid for another. You then have to find at least 4 pilots be willing to die for this government attack on itself and a few others to handle the passengers, pilots, etc. These pilots would have been trained very well probably.

You then have to have people to rig the explosives in the 2 WTC buildings, and the building that fell for no reason across the street. (This is one hole in your thesis, if the planes hit at the "least risk point" why make the buildings fall all the way down?)

The planes hit the WTC and then a long time afterwards they actually fall down. Sometime during the time the planes hit and them falling, the other explosives had to be triggered, but I don't recall any mention of secondary explosions. They couldn't have been rigged to go off upon impact because of not know exactly where the airplanes would hit and even if they did the buildings would immediately collapse. So some other people had to be involved to detonate them.

The other planes for some reason miss the White House and hit the pentagon instead, minimally damaging it in an area that is for the most part vacant and under construction. You would think that a highly trained pilot would be able to hit his first target.

The other plane crashes in a Penn. field for some reason.

By now you have a huge number of people involved, which all of them know that this is going to cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

What is the motive of the government, or anyone else, to do this.

who here has actually done research? including but not limited to documentaries such as Farenheit 911 and In Plane site?

There was a show on the Discovery {I think} channel about when the WTC was built there was some sort of problem with the bolts or ?? {can't remember really :eek: } that was discovered several years later by a graduate student I believe. Anyway, rather than ramble, to fix the problem they went in at night and welded all the outer joints to prevent a failure during hurricane force winds.
Not to hijack such an interesting thread but does anyone else remember seeing this ?

Okay. I appreciate your humoring me.
We have proof that when our troops were within several miles of where Osama Bin Ladden was hiding, they were pulled out and finding him became more the responsibility of warlords. This fact opens up the remote possibility that this group, the al'queda, could still be working with the US. *Remember* the US government trained the Al'Queda. We were once allies with them, back when we called them freedom fighters; back when they served our ends. What if an opportunity came up where they could aid us again, and we could take out a local leader, Saddam, who would not harbor the Al'Queda. Just a theory. This end, with the ability to kill many americans, could have been enough for Bin Ladden to order two trained Al'Queda soldiers to give their lives.

Imagine that the towers did not fall. Think of the picture of the holes being patched up. Would that be even a fraction as devistating as an image of the towers being gone from the NY skyline? To me, that picture defined that period in my life. It was that image that was shown thousands of times.

The least risk point. If the plane had hit above the least risk point, the building's top may have slid off. That would be tons of material falling in an incalcuable direction. Whoever planned the supposed controled demolition wanted control. If the plane had hit too low, the possiblity of a topple entered the equasion. Can you imagine WTC North falling on it's side? Tens of thousands would have died. This was meant to simply kill the people in the building and some extras.

The explosives (probably thermite) were triggered and the building immediatally fell. Have you ever seen a building demolition? The first charges are set off and the structure begins to fall an instant after they are set off, the cascade is assited by the continuing demolition so as to use the weight of the collapse as an aid to the explosives. The top floor is detonated, this sound can be head on tape. Then the resulting collapse is very very loud. It could have covered the charges going off to at least a decent degree. Any charges that were loud enough to be heard over the collapse were simply dismissed as a support snapping or some nonsense.

Maybe we were meant to think that was his first target. The white house being hit may have simply been too much. The white house represents democracy for the western world. The twin towers was more than enough to trigger the proper response, but the fact that it could have been hit was enough to keep people on their toes. Then the plane goes on the hit the pentagon. I will not go into this. If you want to know what I have to say on the pentagon attack, go to this threads sister thread, the Mystery of the Dissapearing 757. It's a good read.

This did not cost billions of dollars. I doubt it costed more than a few hundred thousand. Thermites, planes, secrecy; where did you get this figure?

The motives are up for grabs at this point. There are several explainations, but I have no way of knowing which is the most likely. The facts themselves are so utterly fantastic and mind boggeling, that even the most reasonable explaination would sound absurd. Think about it: it's possible that we were lied to about the true happenings on Sept. 11th. It's possible that there is an actual cover up.

While I can't be certian, I'll bet that there is a direct correlation between the second gulf war and this attack.

I remember that! Unfortunatally, I don't remember the name of the special. I actually made reffrence to the welding in my long and rambling explaination. In the official report by FEMA, they try to explain how the bolts melted. Well, it was welded too!

A lot of people died on 9/11, no matter how you look at it. It was a tragedy, a travesty, and no one is soon going to forget. I just don't see a point in debating it to the point of pointlessness.

The debate is about who was responsible. In the memory of those who died, we owe it to ourselves and them to make sure that their memory is not being used by someone of some group.
No one is arguing that it wasn't a tragedy. It was a massacre, in which thousands of innocent Americans lost their lives. It was a great injustice, and those who are responsible will be brought to justice. Anyone against bringing those responsible to justice has no empathy.
Ther debate is important to me because things about something this serious don't seem to add up. I, personally, am looking for an answer. I would like to erase all doubt from my mind about what happened. I don't think ignoring questions about it is pointless.
If you want to see what I'm talking about, get a hold of a copy of the official report put fourth by FEMA. Specifically check out building 7 of the WTC. Draw your own conclusions. There's a point to the discussion.

there's considerable talk of the melting point of steel and how the fire could not have reached a heat high enuogh to melt it. this might be true, but you are completely ignoring the fact that steel can structurely fail long before melting. to fail it doesnt have to melt, just lose its structural integrety. any substance doesnt maintain its structural integrity until its melting point and then PRESTO-CHANGO fail. the collapse of the building being so neat is also completely understandable with a knowledge of structures. the method of construction for the twin towers was unusual and based on a tube within a tube. typically skyscrapers are constructed using a box-like/erector-set method of columns and slabs. the second method allows for sections to become weaker unevenly allowing for uneven failure leading to falling structures. the tubular structure failed evenly on the floor of impact which as M_G noted lead the failure of the floor below it leading to failures gaining momentum.

i will admit the whole ghost plane thing just boggles me. is the idea that it supposed to be a fake plane? some super incredible special effects? the fact that there wasnt a fireball apparent immediately after impact to me doesnt seem the slightest bit weird. i did look at one of the sites linked or found a link within the linked site that showed crashes where fires erupted immediately, but to compare the instances seems rather unscientific. they show a much smaller plane hitting the ground and who knows what in the second clip. its so blurry i cant see much useable visual info. either way, the comparisons are not accurate. 911 has a very large plane traveling at a high rate of speed penetrating a pourous surface. the one clear clip on that site has the much smaller plane trying to crash land. the major differences being the 1) the speed, a landing plane is going as slow as it can and not drop out of the sky, 2) the impact surface, a plane hitting the ground has no place to disperse it energy created by its movement which means it must be redirected back into the plane. the surface the 911 plane hits is essentially pourous as glass is not a stuctructural element. the plane was shredded as opposed to crushed. also the fuel which is necessary for the fire has plenty of oxygen as an accelerant in the case of the ground crash. in the closed space if an office building, the available oxygen must be less. in addition to this, the manner in which the planes hit also vary. i can not say that these difference as why they look different, but i can say that you comparison with so many different variables become moot.

To address the melting point, in the official report done by FEMA they reported finding puddles of melted steel (tested to be the same alloy as the steel used in the frame of the building, and nothing else in the building had that alloy of steel). Also, the buildings structural failure was complete at almost the exact same time over each floor, even in the case of a tube within a tube design. One floor completly gave all at the same time, then the next, then the next. The problem with that is that when steel weakens from a fire in a building, all the steel does not deform or lose its strength at the same rate. It's so improbable that in 10 million fires it would only happen once.

i never said that each member failed at the same moment.. but it is quite plausible that the structure as a whole failed built upon the momentary failures of each individual structural unit. upon the complete failure of the originally damaged floor, it could have collaped creating that domino effect where each successive floor just collapsed upon itself.

in regards to the molten pools of steel. i have not read that nor am i refuting it. i am addressing the issue of whether 1,000* heat could create a structure failure in steel that has a melting point that far exceeds that temperature. i recall that i did read that there was disbelief that this was possible. my point is that it is very possible and very likely.

also to address the notion about the exterior skin not warping. first, i dont believe that i have ever seen a close up of that skin. the views i have seen are very distant video shots or vid captures. true details are not clear being distorted by unclear footage and by distance so there might have been some warping but it was jut not visible using our sources. another factor might have been its exposure. the interior structural members had no way to disapate heat. the exterior members had a constant fresh supply of september air funneling the escaping heat of the building. the exterior steel or aluminum would not warp until the air around it had reached its deflection degree. a good example of this would be to boil water in a paper cup. place a paper cup directly into a flame, which far exceeds the burning point of paper, and you will see that the paper does not burn until the resevoir of water has boiled off. the water disperses the heat even throughout the unit til it reaches 212* whereupon the temperature of anything in contact with it, i.e. the paper cup, will not exceed that.

did you have any thoughts on the 'ghost plane' ideas?

First off, I want to thank you for having an open mind about this.
As far as each member failing at the same time, I was referring to several videos of the actual collapse. There were puff lines that started as the top floor collapsed on the second to the top floor and so on. These occour as an entire floor gives and the trapped air between the floors gets forced out via the windows. That, in and of itself, means that the floors fell all at once. The originally damaged floor was not the first floor to give. The top floor's supports suddenly failed all at once. Then a cascade effect brought each successing floor down. There was no cave in of the original holes created by the initial plane crash. Theose floors that were hit gave in the same way as the floors above it, with the exception of the other tower's top sliding off and to the side.

I do suggest that anyone intersted get a hold of the FEMA report, it's really interesting. It is possible that the heat from the airline fuel could have started to weaken the steel to some degree, but it is unlikely that said fire could have collapsed the top floor so completly.

http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/5088.jpg is a good picture of the impact point. This is a pic from the FEMA report. The problem is that the outer supports gave supposedly due to the heat, but if it was hot enough to cause the steel to give way, it should have done a number on the aluminum.

You're referring to the 757 hitting the Pentagon, yes? If so, I have even more long-ass rambling posts on this threads sister thread, 'the mystery of the dissapearing 757'. I apologize ahead of time for more ramblings...I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around this.

go-bots, that link makes you wonder about the decision to let friendly Afghanistan forces encircle and "capture" Bin Laden instead of the best trained troops in the world.

I love the video going around about the Pentagon and how it was a missle not an airplane....

Really then how come when I was sitting in my car in traffic on 395 outside the Pentagon and I saw the plane fly over my head and into the Pentagon that day as debris rained down onto the road and we all paniced to hell.

So unless the governement can get into my head and implant some memory changer, anyone who says it wasn't a large passenger plane is insane. That was a scene that I witnessed with my own eyes that day and one that I still and will forever have nightmares of. So anyone who thinks conspiracy was part of that can shove it!!!

Plus our government is not run smoothly enough to be able to pull off any conspiracy.

You really shot your argument in the foot. I'm going to go on record as saying you were CLEARLY not on the 395 on that day. You see, there were NO debris that were anywhere near the highway (that is according to eye whitness acounts, police and firement accounts, paramedic accounts, photographs, and the FEMA report; in actuality, you are the only person ever to say on record that there were debris on the highway). In actuality, there were no debris on the lawn between the Pentagon and the road, the road and the brush, and the brush and the highway. Anyone who would be willing to lie about being at a terrible thing like that has no dignity, and should reconsider why he or she would lie about such a thing. Your blatent lie is an embarassment to all Americans, and disrespectful to those who died during the attacks.

As far as shoving things, you might consider what is up YOUR butt. Clearly you have something to prove, as you would try to use a blatent lie to change peoples opinions about something that is already suspect with most that read it.

I can appreciate that 9/11 probably hit you just as hard as it hit any American, and I can also appreciate that you live in Silver Spring, which is relativly near. That's no excuse for what you said. This is Tilted Paranoia. Paranoia is, according to the dictionary, a psychosis marked by delusions of persecution or grandure. My 'delusions' may be of persecution, but yours are clearly of grandure. You want to be important because you know those who were directly effected by 9/11 are empathized with more than those who were not. *Nwes flash* You were not involved. I'm sorry you can't deal with the fact that you have no more real ties to the tragety than any other American.

Interesting page regarding the structure of the inner core of WTC 1

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html

Having worked for the federal government for 20+ years, all I can say is that you guys have way, way, WAY too much confidence in the ability of our governement. To think they could pull this off, in broad daylight while simultaneously controlling and manipulating the news media is just comical at best. I will say this: if there is an organization that faked this - it is certainly not the US government - but a group much more globally powerful. And a stealth group at that. A group like the old white guys in the X-files.

Onewolf, I have to remind you that most of the theorys about who are responsible are just that; theories. I personally have my suspicians about who was responsible, but the necessary information is not as redaily available as it is seemingly redaily available as far as the mistakes made in the attack. It's easy to apply physics to what we all saw on tv on 9/11. While they did a pretty poor job of actually carrying out the fake attacks, they have done an amazing job hiding in plane site the details. People wanted to move on, not only because it was to terrible in and of itself, but because they were told it was the best thing to do by the government and the media. I remember seeing the evolution of the entire 9/11 process - which is still evolving and living today - and the stage after acceptance was to move right into vengance. Ossama Bin Laden was suddenly on the tip of Americas collective tongue. Why did the 9/11 Comission take so long to begin? Because even as we were attacking Iraq, we were still in collective shock.

Now my shock started to wear off about 14 months ago. I accepted that we were attacked by Ossama and that we needed to get him, but we were in Iraq. I blame that for my recent 'paranoia'. I was wondering about why the government clearly was not taking the Ossama threat serioiusly. The conclusion I drew was that either he was no longer a threat, or that he was never a threat. Based on the latter, the government probably knew that someone else was responsible. I went back to square 1 and started to review all of the pictures and videos that we were bombarded with by the news networks. I looked for Pentagon pictures and video, but there is very very little. That's how my 'independant investigation' began.

I know that on the surface this seems completly absurd. People have finally accepted 9/11 and are getting ready for the election. You, onewolf, probably were just as saddened by the attacks as any other good American person. I think I'll refrence a different thread to explain why it is so difficult for people.

Dissonance ( see at thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=72423 ) is a psychological term that describes a situation where a person learns something by hardship and being uncomfortable, and becomes more connected with the learned information because of the struggle. Value is given to learned facts and experiences if there has been difficulty in the learning process. On 9/11 people gave up the long standing feeling of safty that Americans have had since the end of the cold war in the 80s. We gave up the belief that the rest of the world loved and reveered us. We gave up those 3000 brave souls. It was difficult. We had a fundamental change of what 'American' means. We were then bombarded with video of the horrific event and all of the supposed facts surrounding it, though for the first 6 months, it was all media speculation. Actually it was the media that named Ossama as the guilty party, not the government. Becuase we had to give so much in this aweful situation, we are more connected to the reality of it all. We think that we finally know everything there is to know about 9/11. Unfortunatally, 99% of Americans (that's not an exact percentage) only know what is on the surface.

The official government stance on what happened on 9/11 can be found almost solely in the 9/11 Comission Report and the FEMA report done at the crash sites. I strongly suggest you read these. I was particularly facinated with what the May 2002 BPAT: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, in which BPAT (Building Performance Assessment Team), a group composed of volunteer engineers selected and supervised by FEMA, wrote in chapter 5 of the report. The official stance of the government in that chapter is riddled with blatent lies that I, not even being a licenced engineer, could see right through. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm is a good site that basically picks the claims apart.

You have to know that you were either lied to in grade school about basic basic physics and very basic engineering, or you were lied to by the government. Facts were altered, and that is why I have done my research. I would never force my findings on anyone, but I have posted a lot on TFP because I've found that a lot of people on here are pretty open minded and level headed. I admit that I have been surprised by some people's response (see mmiller0617's post, claiming he was actually there on the highway in front of the pentagon when it was attacked). I've been equally dissapointed by some people, and very much impressed by others. Coming to the realization of such a foundation shaking lie is quite a thing. I am not 100% certian that I am right, but I'd put myself at 95% as far as certianty.

There are bad people working in our government, and there are bad people working outside of our government. The bottom line is that we don't know who was responsible. I would like to get a decent number of people to understand why I think it wasen't Ossama before we move on to who really did it. We have to allow people to accept that the offical story does not add up at all.

Edit: Spelling and grammer were a bit off. Content is the same otherwise.

Hey I have a crazy theory about this whole thing. I know I'm going out on limb here but this is what happened. There were some twenty evil boys from the middle east who throughout their lives were led to believe very nasty hateful things about America. These boys were then told a tall tale about how their place in heaven would be secure and their families would live on in honor if these boys would do something to bring down the this nasty vile and hateful America. I know...crazy so far but it's really going to get bad now...hang with me okay!!

So these twenty dudes get all fired up and on one seemingly normal day in America they board four different flights in teams of five (minus the one jack ass we actually aprehended because he's not nearly as brilliant as the rest of these mutants). Still with me? These flights take off at roughly the same time from different cities and while in the air these mutants take over the planes :eek: -- crazy talk I know -- and then here's where I really go out on a limb so hang on tightly -- THEY CRASH THE PLANES INTO TWO AMERICAN ICONS OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILIRTARY MIGHT!

HOLY CRAP!! I can't believe I said it...but that's my theory.

You could have just said that you didn't believe. That's fine. No harm, no foul.

OR you could have read the whole thread and actually challenged the claims of those who are questioning the attacks (like my claims, for example). I'd prefer the latter. This is a discussion, after all.

I appreciate this thread for the solid arguments...
but all the people who blindly trust their government and defend it to the death without trying to research some info (that doesnt come out of CNN's American Morning or FOXNews) should try to open their eyes... The govt. can't be trusted all the way..you can trust your friends and family, but can you really trust what American Media feeds you..
another issue is the bias from the news sources here...on CNN all the democratic reporters get the stupid non political cases, like the Laci Peterson story, while the republican reporters give the stories about 9/11, Iraq, all that.
So. Open your eyes. Read and respect what willravel and others are trying to say. Just because they don't give 100% trust in the US Govt and they have their own opinion doesnt mean their wrong. Because to believe that "America is always right because their army can kick anyone's ass" is just plain "I have a bigger dick than you" type of reasoning.
So let's all grow up. The TFP is about being mature. So research your shit a bit and back up your stuff.
OK, I'm done bitching.

Thank you biznatch. I appreciate your positive input.

no problemo brother, keep up the good work :thumbsup:

Willravel - you pretty much hit the nail on the head, IMO. I downloaded and watched "In Plane Site" as a result of this thread. Being Canadian, I had never really paid much attention to the conspiracy theorists in this matter but after I started following this thread, it seemed worth looking into.

Based on that video, which is comprised of publicly aired news footage from major media outlets, a thoughtful person can only come to the conclusion that a conspiracy beyond that which was related to the public was (is?) afoot. There are just too many unanswered questions:
- What happened to the 757 that supposedly hit the Pentagon? The hole was far too small to have been caused by a jet of that size - why no debris? What about surveilance footage? Every inch of the place is on closed circuit television - let's see the tapes!
- What other explanation could there be for the bright flashes that occurred immediately prior to both planes impacting the towers? What was attached to the belly of the second plane?
- Why is it that all the emergency services personnel on-site describe the events as "bombs going off" and use phrases like "controlled demolition"?

Bush and his cronies (and these are obviously not all necessarily American!) have put into motion a plot to remove Freedom from the Common Man. Here in Canada, they're spending BILLIONS to force law abiding citizens to register their firearms. There's only one reason for it - so they know where they are when they come to take them away.

My opinion? Be prepared for a revolution. It is coming. Perhaps even another World War, but between factions that are not geographically seperate - essentially, a Global Civil War.

Of course, I might just be paranoid.

Not sure about the quality but in plane sight can be downlaoded here:

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-g....html#download

^DOWNLOAD THIS MOVIE^ (please)

I would like to bring another aspect to the table. I do not know if any of you have nitced, but the planes where not American Airlines passanger planes. Several reporters and eyewitnesses stated that the plane had no windows and was too bulky to be a passanger airliner. One CNN reporter said that, to him, the plane fitted the profile of a cargo plane. With this information I have been led to believe that the media, and goverment's, report that the plane was hijaked is a cover-up as well. The phone calls from the plane, the report of hijakers with box knifes, and the goverments description of how they were hijaked are all called into question.
Also, right before the planes (both of them) crashed into their tower there was a momentary flash just off the nose of the plane. Many call it a possible reflection of sunlight, and I would believe that were it not for the four different angles it was seen from and the reflection of the flash down the side of the plane. Eyewitnesses and photos also tell that a large object was mounted underneath the plane. Surely airport security or maitenence would have noticed a large object stuck to the bottom of a plane, that is, if the plane was American Airlines, which is very unlikely. This object could be some sort of incinutory device but I cannot speculate on that with my limited understanding of what it actually was. I will post the pictures and give you links to my information shortly.
If anyone can please find more information or help adress this topic that would be fantastic.

Most of my information is from the movie link above.

Yea, it's a fantastic movie. I hope more people are exposed to it.

I really dont understand how some people (not anyone here particularly, just in general) can not even stop to think about this stuff or even care. I showed In plain sight to a friend and all he could do was complain about how boring the guy talking was and how he would rather go to church. After he saw it he didn't have any comments and just wanted to play video games (and I know hes a smart person). I asked if another friend wanted to see it (he's an avid bush supporter, though he never gives any reasons for it.. more like blind fiath) and he showed no interest what so ever. It boggles my mind.

I know. I've shown it to a good 20 people, and 2 others have actually been able to look at it with some perspective, and were able to admit that it is a possibility. I'm not sure if there is a direct connection between being intelligent, having an open mind, and knowing a lot of facts. I think that some people have some of those triats, but it takes an open mind to accept this. When I first started to question this, I was skeptical. It was only after discovering a lot of inconsistancies in the governments reports that I started to come around.

If you show it to 20 people, and 2 come areound, then maybe those 2 will show another 20. It's worth a try.

Wel...I just saw the video and I don't say this a lot... but OHMYGOD. wow. how can anyone watch that and still unconditionally trust their media and gov't. Come on! please! Americans! open your eyes...since when does being a good american mean swallowing everything they feed you on the media? you can't watch 30 minutes of CNN per day and called yourself informed! watch the video! its there!
oh god.. this really sickens me, I can't believe that associations and media sources can hide so much from the people.. and I can't believe that people completely trust them....
Remember, what defines a man is his ability to question what another tells him.

that was the CITICORP building not the WTC.

This movie definitely raises some questions that have yet to be answered. Naysayers can nitpick willravel's arguments all they want, but I doubt anyone on this board can provide answers to the questions the movie asks.

Excellent movie, just scratches the surface, but very well done.

yup however i have tried passing the links around...but my republican friends didnt even wanna watch it entirely, they called it bullshit as soon as the movie started to play
Its annoying they call themselves openminded, and don't even wanna see the other side of the argument. So w/e, i guess im sick of dealing with their asses, but I'll go on trying to pass the message, not to prove that the govt is behind this, just that they shouldnt trust their media as much as they do.

There are plenty of secrets in this world. This is just one. If your friends don't want to know something more about the world around them, I suppose that's their decision. I, personally, can't understand why people would stop listening before ever getting the message. The only advise I can give you is to not tell them what they're watching before hand. It'll help them keep an open mind for a few extra seconds.

You - "Do you wanna watch a movie I downloaded?"
Him/Her - "Sure, what's it about?"
You - "You'll see...you'll definatally be interested."

I know the way it stars can turn off people. Try starting the movie in the middle. I like starting at about 46 minutes in where Bush is quoted lying about how he responded to the attacks. That, in and of itself, is a bomb to drop on people. "...I had seen this first plane fly into the first building..." Well actually, there was no footage of the first attack. Bong!

Obviously not all people will accept this. It's hard to take in in one sitting. If you think the cause is just, give it your best effort.

Ok well sorry, I was thinking it was the WTC. Thanks!!

Yea, the TWC was bolted, and welded.

Until the thermite charges went off, that is.