9/11 Evidence?

[Abyssalwhip]

NOOOO! ANOTHER IDIOTIC CONSPIRACY THREAD!!!!111!!1!!!SHIFTONE111!

 

 

 

Seriously it isn't a huge thing, some terrorist hijacked a plane and flew into a building, nothing special.

[Viktorkrum77]

NOOOO! ANOTHER IDIOTIC CONSPIRACY THREAD!!!!111!!1!!!SHIFTONE111!

 

 

 

Seriously it isn't a huge thing, some terrorist hijacked a plane and flew into a building, nothing special.

 

 

 

Exactly. People overestimate America's security and the strength of steel, and underestimate the power of fire especially fueled by oil.

[angryjoe]

2. There was damage including an 18 story gash in the lower corner, and intense fires.

Hahaha LMAO im so immature.

[pault]

Exactly. People overestimate America's security and the strength of steel, and underestimate the power of fire especially fueled by oil.

 

 

 

The Bush Administration underestimated the ability of the 9/11 Commission to cover up the truth. Little tidbits do escape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for the "Steel/fires" issue, take a look at this video:

 

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... lapse2.mpg

 

 

 

Does this look like a building collapsing because of fire?

 

 

 

Edit: And an "18 story gash" caused by debris which fell at 10:28 does not explain the sudden collapse of the building at 5:20 PM.

[Viktorkrum77]

Exactly. People overestimate America's security and the strength of steel, and underestimate the power of fire especially fueled by oil.

 

 

 

The Bush Administration underestimated the ability of the 9/11 Commission to cover up the truth. Little tidbits do escape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for the "Steel/fires" issue, take a look at this video:

 

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... lapse2.mpg

 

 

 

Does this look like a building collapsing because of fire?

 

 

 

Edit: And an "18 story gash" caused by debris which fell at 10:28 does not explain the sudden collapse of the building at 5:20 PM.

 

 

 

We'll wait for NIST's official WTC7 report. You know, the nonconspiracy theorists are actually doing indepth heavily funded research, I've yet to see your sides research, and what you have found has been disproved anyway.

 

 

 

BTW "does it look like" does not count as a valid fact. :wink:

[Kryptic]

^^^ Explain the Kinetic Energy point you made earlier, if you dont mind :)

 

 

 

 

 

Edit

 

 

 

I know what kinetic energy is, KE is inversly related to Potential E, but I don't see how it plays a role with 9/11. Instead of assuming most of us would know, could you clarify?

[Viktorkrum77]

^^^ Explain the Kinetic Energy point you made earlier, if you dont mind :)

 

 

 

 

 

Edit

 

 

 

I know what kinetic energy is, KE is inversly related to Potential E, but I don't see how it plays a role with 9/11. Instead of assuming most of us would know, could you clarify?

 

 

 

Think about it, how heavy were the upper portions of those buildings, above the impact zone? Once the impact zone gave way there's no way the floors or the core held any resistance and so they were "pancaked". The kinetic energy of the falling buildings together with gravity were no match for the floors below so one by one they collapsed under the pressure. Though some of the core did remain standing after the buildings collapsed, and then later fell down after being so stressed.

[Kryptic]

Your suggesting the wieght of the building brought the building down perfectly down like a "pancake"? Doesn't sound natural. I would think the building would tip to one side more than the other due to the fact that one side of the building would be more damaged than the other. If one side is more damaged, therefore weaker and will tilt towards the weaker side. Am I wrong?

 

 

 

Thats an arguement I heard a physics proffessor say, but ofcourse I left out a lot more. He also mentioned the usual; bombs in the building making it fall like a demolition and the steel arguement.

[Viktorkrum77]

Your suggesting the wieght of the building brought the building down perfectly down like a "pancake"? Doesn't sound natural. I would think the building would tip to one side more than the other due to the fact that one side of the building would be more damaged than the other. If one side is more damaged, therefore weaker and will tilt towards the weaker side. Am I wrong?

 

 

 

Thats an arguement I heard a physics proffessor say, but ofcourse I left out a lot more. He also mentioned the usual; bombs in the building making it fall like a demolition and the steel arguement.

 

 

 

Almost 70% of leading conspiracy theorists agree with me. They are more or less in an uproar about WTC7, Pentagon, and the Bush Administartion.

 

 

 

It's pointless to even investigate this because once the impact zone gave way, collapse was inevitable. The way the building was designed, with pressure and stress converted to exterior columns is why it didn't fall over.

 

 

 

Do a little research on the buildings design before making assumptions. You'd be surprised at how innovative it was.

[pault]

We'll wait for NIST's official WTC7 report. You know, the nonconspiracy theorists are actually doing indepth heavily funded research, I've yet to see your sides research, and what you have found has been disproved anyway.

 

 

 

BTW "does it look like" does not count as a valid fact. Wink

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... lapse2.mpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From:

 

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... llapse.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also related to 9/11 truth:

 

 

 

James Fetzer from Scholars for 9/11 Truth appeared on Hannity and Colmes (watch). Colmes accidentally asks him an open ended question, and Fetzer explains how Cheney knew the plane was coming in toward the pentagon and how there were orders not to shoot it down. Proof was in the testimony of Norman Mineta

.

 

 

 

 

 

The next day, Mineta was fired from the Bush Administration. This is not a coincidence.

[cyco]

I don't really care about the other stuff, since it can be proved and disproved. I just have one question. I saw a real video of people standing on the edge of the WTC building where the plane had crashed and it show them standing on the edge looking out and down and it showed the fires were almost out. So this is pretty much the only thing that doesn't make sense to me anyone want to elaborate?

[Viktorkrum77]

I don't really care about the other stuff, since it can be proved and disproved. I just have one question. I saw a real video of people standing on the edge of the WTC building where the plane had crashed and it show them standing on the edge looking out and down and it showed the fires were almost out. So this is pretty much the only thing that doesn't make sense to me anyone want to elaborate?

 

 

 

The collapsed floors and office walls untouched by fires made certain areas cool enough for people to still habit. In one hall you may have a blazing inferno, but behind a door a few short meters away would be a perfectly habitable office, and this coming from a survivor of the attacks. Sometimes areas had cooled down since having fires, and some untouched. Remember, if you know anything about skyscrapers you will know tenants divide off floors, and some of the interior alabaster walls were left standing.

[magekillr]

in case any1 is cba to go back to the beginning pages:

 

 

 

lol...there is no conspiracy

 

 

 

1.) it's true that lots of people used words like "explosion" and "bomb" to describe what they heard, but none of that proves actual explosives were used. You can hear an "explosion" without a bomb being required, and saying something was "like a bomb" doesn't mean it was one...gun explosions sounds like explosions...doesn't make it a bomb

 

 

 

2.) Many readings in newspaper quotes are not nearly the exact thing that is originally said. Newspapers edit what the people say for their favor. You ever been in the newspaper? i have...i gave them comments, read the paper the next day and went "That's not what i said AT ALL". they edit it man

 

 

 

3.) There were numerous accounts of people claiming "i was running down the stair well, heard one explosion, then a few floors down i heard another"

 

 

 

-a.) This particular woman i am referring to was on the 74th floor at the sound of the second explosion, yet she somehow made it out. Controlled explosions do not have a 30 minute delay before bringing down the structure.

 

 

 

-b.) all they have is...sounded like a bomb...that's it

 

 

 

4.) it has been suggested that there was smoke that people could see outside the towers. There were no accounts of seeing this smoke INSIDE the towers...why not? There were people who survived in the stairwells and lower levels, and weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve yet to see any of them talk about explosions or smoke from below as the buildings collapsed. And if the buildings were weakened at the basement levels, why did the very lower stories remain standing?

 

 

 

No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.

 

 

 

The reason why the buildings collapsed downwards was due to the fact that the buildings were actually designed to take an airplane hit. However, the impact of the airplane damaged the central structure of the building as well as stripping away some of the insulation protecting the steel columns.

 

 

 

If you notice, the south tower fell first, even though it was hit last. If you look, the south tower was hit much lower than the north tower. This is evidence that the collapse was due to the steel structure weakening because of fire.

 

 

 

When you heat steel, the yield strength drops. With burning jet fuel around a steel column, the design limit and even the safety factor built into the beam is totally meaningless. The column will buckle and the building will collapse.

 

 

 

Now, the fact that the south tower fell first is proof that the impact of the plane wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the reason it collapsed (south tower was hit last and fell first). If you look at the impact points, the south tower was hit much lower than the north tower. This means that there was more load on the columns that supported the damaged section of the south tower than the north tower (more floors above it).

 

 

 

Now, regardless if there is insulation or no insulation on a column, the fact of the matter is, according the laws of heat transfer, you will still get some heating of the steel inside even insulated columns (there is no such thing as a perfect insulation). When you heat steel, its yield point drops. Even though buildings are designed with a safety factor (general between 2 and 4, but 4 is usually reserved for bridges) the fact that the columns were being heated to undersigned levels and the fact that the airplane's impact had physically taken out some of the support columns justifies the fact that it was fire that caused the collapse.

 

 

 

Now, because fire caused the collapse, you would expect the columns to buckle and then give way. Since there is NO more horizontal load on the building (the building already absorbed the airplane's horizontal impact energy and dissipated it through vibrations) the only load left is a vertical load. This is the reason why the buildings fell perfectly straight down.

 

 

 

However, even though fire was the cause of failure of the columns of the floors that were hit, it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain why the building collapsed the way it did (i.e., straight down!).

 

 

 

The reason for the building's demolition style collapse is due to simple physics. An object in motion tends to stay in motion; an object at rest tends to stay at rest. In this case, since the building has just begun to collapse, we can consider the building as 2 separate masses, first, the mass still stuck the ground, second the mass that is now falling.

 

 

 

If you perform a simple experiment, you stand on a scale and measure your weight. Now, jump as high as you can and land the same scale, what is the reading on it now? Due to the fact that you jumped into the air and landed on the scale, you have now exerted an effective force much greater (for your jump, the scale will read roughly around 3 times your regular weight) than if you just stood on it. This is the reason the building collapsed the way it did.

 

 

 

The large mass landing on top of the remaining building has a lot of momentum (lots of speed, think you tripled your weight by jumping at best, 1 meter up, you measure your height by your center of gravity, not how high your feet are off the ground. The building has fallen at least 2 stories (6-7meters) by now) and this momentum is translated to a force on the building. According to NewtonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s laws, the section of the building is still standing must exert a force against the falling section of the building (an impulse). However, the building's design was probably only a 2 to 4 safety factor (2 or 4 times is regular weight) but with the falling section of the building moving so fast, will overcome even the undamaged safety factor of the original building, thus the building collapses downwards. There is no horizontal forces on the building, hence, no horizontal acceleration (force = mass x acceleration), thus thereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s no way it can fall horizontally! This is simple physics.

[Viktorkrum77]

However, even though fire was the cause of failure of the columns of the floors that were hit, it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain why the building collapsed the way it did (i.e., straight down!).

 

 

 

Minus core columns there were no columns on any floors. Part of the WTC's innovative design was to move all the vertical load originally exerted through floor columns (like in any normal skyscraper) to all the exterior columns ie. the vertical bands that go around the building (55 on each side). This gave tenants free open office space. But this did make the building weaker because these columns were damaged by the impact, but as Magekillr says did not directly effect the collapse, that was due to what he said above.

[pault]

The collapse of WTC7 is something that the "True Believers" around here cannot respond to.

 

 

 

In fact, even the government can't explain it.

 

 

 

...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

 

 

 

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

[Viktorkrum77]

The collapse of WTC7 is something that the "True Believers" around here cannot respond to.

 

 

 

In fact, even the government can't explain it.

 

 

 

...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

 

 

 

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

 

 

 

Building 7 is a scientific anomaly, within time a true answer will be reached but it's going to take a lot of research and experiments, and NIST is doing so right now. But I can tell you that it did not collapse due to explosives or thermite, so if you can come up with an alternative that gives control over the collapse good luck, you'll need it.

 

 

 

*Edit* Designing a way to bring down WTC7 without even knowing how it was going to be effected would be impossible. Especially for those who don't believe the government was involved in 9/11 and that it was a surprise.

[pault]

*Edit* Designing a way to bring down WTC7 without even knowing how it was going to be effected would be impossible. Especially for those who don't believe the government was involved in 9/11 and that it was a surprise.

 

 

 

It's not our job to wonder about things like this. It's obvious at this point that the government is lying to us. The major problem is apathy.

 

 

 

http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html

[Viktorkrum77]

*Edit* Designing a way to bring down WTC7 without even knowing how it was going to be effected would be impossible. Especially for those who don't believe the government was involved in 9/11 and that it was a surprise.

 

 

 

It's not our job to wonder about things like this. It's obvious at this point that the government is lying to us. The major problem is apathy.

 

 

 

http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html

 

 

 

By not supporting your side you are admitting that you are either a; not right, or b; hiding something. You're just like someone unwilling to testify in front of the law. Support your claims, pointing out inadequate faults means nothing until you propose a hypothesis. So your side should come up with an exact plan for bringing down WTC7 using explosives. Find a way to hide the explosives in the building without gutting it or anyone noticing, find a way to keep the building standing and habitable by 1000's despite major beams being cut, as normal in a controlled demolition, and find a way to hide a set up like this which would take months from the public.

[pault]

I'm just not going to speculate about "Designing a way to bring down WTC7".

 

 

 

Obviously it was brought down by something other than fire or structural damage from the North Tower. What was that something? It seems pretty clear it was explosives.

 

 

 

How? Why? We need a new investigation into 9/11.

 

 

 

It's not my job to figure these things out. As a citizen it's my tax dollars paying for the FEMA and NIST investigations, don't forget that. It's my duty to protest the government when I think it's screwing up, though, and it's sure screwing up right now.

[Viktorkrum77]

I'm just not going to speculate about "Designing a way to bring down WTC7".

 

 

 

Obviously it was brought down by something other than fire or structural damage from the North Tower. What was that something? It seems pretty clear it was explosives.

 

 

 

Ok, then do it. Tell your 9/11 Truth people to stop rallying and hire a CD who's insane enough to take on a project like this. You have no right to say anything until you have a working hypothesis that fits together 100%. Obviously you believe someone already designed such a plan years ago, so it should be no problem for your side, get to work!

[pault]

You have no right to say anything until you have a working hypothesis that fits together 100%

 

 

 

The official version is crap. My tax dollars have paid for several multimillion dollars worth of investigation. Do you read? I don't have to hypothesize and I'd rather not. All I'm saying is: The official version of what happened to WTC7 is crap and it appears to have been demolished with explosives. This needs investigation.

[Viktorkrum77]

You have no right to say anything until you have a working hypothesis that fits together 100%

 

 

 

The official version is crap. My tax dollars have paid for several multimillion dollars worth of investigation. Do you read? I don't have to hypothesize and I'd rather not. All I'm saying is: The official version of what happened to WTC7 is crap and it appears to have been demolished with explosives. This needs investigation.

 

 

 

Oh sorry, it's too bad they already are and have done so for the Twin Towers as well. You know, your conspiracy organizations have plenty enough funding to do this on their own, why have they not already? Hmmm...:-k

[pault]

There has been no definitive investigation into what happened to WTC7.

[Viktorkrum77]

There has been no definitive investigation into what happened to WTC7.

 

 

 

Exactly. Tell me, what buildings killed 1000's? Hmm, maybe the Twin Towers? Their first priority were the Twin Towers, now that that's over they are currently moving onto WTC7 and expect to have a report out by 2008.

 

 

 

You still never answered my question as to why your side doesn't just fund it's own study. After all, it their that desperate then what do they have to loose? Are they afraid of something? Maybe being wrong? I mean, the majority of their evidence already has been disproved.

[magekillr]

pault did you even read what i typed? that took a long time and i feel like you just said "i don't care what the laws of physics say...i still say the government did it!"