crims Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 To ashennell: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y Again... basically they say "it's all lies, trust us". The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions. A few problems with their explanation for WTC7: - no plane hit WTC7 (building 7 in the picture below) - its fire was too small - nothing there could've reached temperatures to melt steel - its steel was fireproof insulated - it collapsed by freefall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds) - it collapsed suddenly and totally (instead of portions breaking) - WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams - no steel building ever collapsed from fire (except WTC's) - FEMA was FORBIDDEN to mention demolition in their explanation - FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence." - FEMA said the examined steel had rapid "sulfidation" and "oxidation"; (sulfur is used in explosives and burning it produces sulfur-dioxide) So, by Ockham's Razor, by Laws of Physics, and by Common Sense, fire couldn't be the cause. Better explanation is that a controlled demolition created an implosion in the lower floors, collapsing the entire building. To The Peon: And if it was a government conspiracy, why havn't they detonated a dirty bomb and blamed it on Iranian terrorists? Because everybody already dislikes Iran? Because US Army isn't ready to invade another country? Because Iran isn't crappy like Iraq or Afghanistan and can defend itself? Etc... This sort of conspiracy garbage is pandered to the weak minded and uber paranoid. Speak for yourself... Can't you for once consider the fact that perhaps some cultures hate the US so much they would actually attack it? Sure... So why didn't they use WMD's? Just imagine the conversation they had: - "Shit shit! The Americans are coming!" - "Should we use the WMD's to defend ourselves?" - "No, smuggle the WMD's over the border so we have no way of using them." - "Buahahah... Bush will look like an idiot for coming here. Stupid infidels!" - "Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar!" How stupid can a person be? Look - here's the OFFICIAL STORY + SOME LOOPHOLES: Terrorists from Saudi Arabia trained by Osama hijack planes. One plane crashes into the Pentagon, dissappearing completely, making a tiny hole. For no reason, FBI then confiscate all 4 known tapes of the Pentagon crash. Another plane crashes in the middle of nowhere, leaving no remains. 9:59 AM - South Tower collapses to the ground in aproximatly 10 seconds. 10:28 AM - North Tower collapses to the ground in approximatly 10 seconds. Later, at 5:30 PM - World Trade centre 7 suddenly collapses for no reason. South Tower was hit last and only by its corner but collapsed FIRST, while North Tower was hit first and directly at centre but collapsed SECOND. 7 of 8 blackboxes (made of stainless steel and high-temp-insulated silica) are destroyed, BUT one of the terrorist's passports (made of paper) somehow flew out of his pocket, out of the burning inferno, on to the streets below, where it was found somehow by FBI amidst all the panic. Then US Army invades Afghanistan to hunt for Osama, but gets nowhere. Then US Army invades Iraq to prevent a WMD attack (even though the invasion gives them all the reason to use the WMD's). The WMD's are then never found (supposedly suicidal terrorists would rather die in battle and give Bush look stupid than to use WMD's to defend themselves), and everyone forgets about Osama.
The Peon Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 To The Peon: Because everybody already dislikes Iran? Because US Army isn't ready to invade another country? Because Iran isn't crappy like Iraq or Afghanistan and can defend itself? Etc... A> BS' date=' Iran still has plenty of allies. Maybe "everybody" is everybody in your closed little universe but I am looking at the full picture. B> The US is always ready to war monger. We are like Romans. C> I place a 6 month max to Irans effort to stop the US from invading it, although I would guess it would take a lot less time based on the fact of the general rebellious nature of the Iranian youth. Sure... So why didn't they use WMD's? Because Al-Qaeda doesnt have any yet? I will counter your question with why didnt the US use WMD's since they clearly have them? Why use jetliners instead of a dirty bomb, or some sort of chemical or biological weapon? I would place a 25$ bet that a nuke detonated in NYC would have given the whole war on terror thing a much longer shelf life than the jets did... Just imagine the conversation they had: - "Shit shit! The Americans are coming!" - "Should we use the WMD's to defend ourselves?" - "No' date=' smuggle the WMD's over the border so we have no way of using them." - "Buahahah... Bush will look like an idiot for coming here. Stupid infidels!" - "Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar!"[/quote'] That wasn't even remotely funny. How stupid can a person be? Call me stupid again... I highly dislike ad-hominems... Last piece of advice to all: Ignore Crims and let him either ban himself or get bored and leave.
crims Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Because Al-Qaeda doesnt have any yet? I will counter your question with why didnt the US use WMD's since they clearly have them? Why use jetliners instead of a dirty bomb, or some sort of chemical or biological weapon? I would place a 25$ bet that a nuke detonated in NYC would have given the whole war on terror thing a much longer shelf life than the jets did... How would I know? They just need support for war... nuking an entire city is too much. Chemical weapons and bio-attack are too risky, conspirators can get infected/poisoned themselves. Crash planes, kill a bunch of nobodies, make some cash off insurance and stocks - that's their best way to go about it.
ashennell Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Again... basically they say "it's all lies' date=' trust us".[/quote'] Isn't that exactly what you are saying? You think that the government, intelligence agencies and god know how many other people who have investigated or somehow been involved in this instance are all lying. A few problems with their explanation for WTC7: - no plane hit WTC7 (building 7 in the picture below) They did not say that one did. - its fire was too small Thats just speculation. - nothing there could've reached temperatures to melt steel - its steel was fireproof insulated - it collapsed by freefall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds) - it collapsed suddenly and totally (instead of portions breaking) From the link I posted previously : Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F' date=' not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers'] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." - WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams- no steel building ever collapsed from fire (except WTC's) - FEMA was FORBIDDEN to mention demolition in their explanation - FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence." - FEMA said the examined steel had rapid "sulfidation" and "oxidation"; (sulfur is used in explosives and burning it produces sulfur-dioxide) WTC 5 and 6 are much smaller buildings with fewer floors. I don't see how a comparison between them and wTc 7 is useful. Furthermore there is this from the website i linked to before (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y) Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report' date=' which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire'] for a long period of time." WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. Better explanation is that a controlled demolition created an implosion in the lower floors' date=' collapsing the entire building.[/quote'] Have you seen how much preparation is required to demolish a building? I have had the opertunity to walk round one, much smaller than WTC &, before it was demolished. I think people would notice, it's a massive operation. If you really wanted to create the impression of a terrorist attack on your own country then the apparent controlled demolition of a number of buildings is not very convincing. What a stupid idea! Another plane crashes in the middle of nowhere, leaving no remains. Assuming this is true, how does it support your conspiracy theory? Was part of the plan to deliberately make the whole think look unbelievable? 7 of 8 blackboxes (made of stainless steel and high-temp-insulated silica) are destroyed' date=' BUT one of the terrorist's passports (made of paper) somehow flew out of his pocket, out of the burning inferno, on to the streets below, where it was found somehow by FBI amidst all the panic.[/quote'] Ahhh... the typical "it's unlikely therefore impossible" arguement. How many other ordinary items (luggage etc.) survived from the planes? If the passport was the only one then maybe you have the beginnings of a slither of an arguement.
crims Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Have you seen how much preparation is required to demolish a building? Ben Fountain (financial analyst working at WTC) said: - weeks before 9/11 there were unannounced and strange drills - sections of Twin Towers and WTC7 were evacuated for 'security reasons' Scott Forbes (worked at Fiduciary Trust in South Tower) said: - his company was given 3 notice that 48th floor and up would have power-off - reason given was cabling upgrade to increase WTC's computer bandwidth - a power-off had never happend prior to this - because of power-off, the security cameras, ID systems, and elevators were inoperable - there were "plenty" of engineers going in and out of the WTC - they had free access throughout the building due to security being off Daria Coard (guard at Tower One) said: - security was working 12-hour shifts during previous 2 weeks because of numerous phone threats. - on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed All this was authorized by Marvin Bush (Dubya's brother). He owned Securacom, which provided security for WTC. How many other ordinary items (luggage etc.) survived from the planes? ...holy crap... you guys are ridiculous... am I even supposed to comment on this? There was NOTHING left! Not even anything to make DNA testing. Even the steel leftovers were rushed out of the country and to the smelter (FEMA got only a little time).
crims Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 And how do you explain this: - pools of molten steel found at the base of the collapsed twin towers and WTC7 weeks after - seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse There must've been explosives in the basements.
ecoli Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 And how do you explain this: - pools of molten steel found at the base of the collapsed twin towers and WTC7 weeks after - seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy' date=' caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse There must've been explosives in the basements.[/quote'] I've seen no proof that this is true.
insane_alien Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 And how do you explain this: - pools of molten steel found at the base of the collapsed twin towers and WTC7 weeks after - seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy' date=' caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse There must've been explosives in the basements.[/quote'] if there were explosives i doubt that you'd find puddles of molten steel. more likely lots of twisted shrapnel. and very few bits that are even red hot. just cause a seismometer shows a spike it doesn't mean that it was an explosive or even that it came from WTC7.
ecoli Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 if there were explosives i doubt that you'd find puddles of molten steel. more likely lots of twisted shrapnel. and very few bits that are even red hot. just cause a seismometer shows a spike it doesn't mean that it was an explosive or even that it came from WTC7. Nor have I seen any proof that these things exist... even if they do, it's not proof of explosives, of course.
insane_alien Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 I've never seen any photos of molten steel either but i haven't exactly researched the matter thourghly. i was just pointing out that molten steel is evidence against explosives.
crims Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 Appendix C of FEMA report http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/open.htm : Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation, with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible...A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severly weakening the beam... The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and Samples 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. TRANSLATION: Severe high temperature corrosion attack = EXPLOSION Iron Oxide + Sulfur = EXPLOSIVES Grain boundary penetration of sulfur = BOOM! Very unusual event = COVERUP No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur = BOMB
insane_alien Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 Appendix C of FEMA report http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/open.htm : TRANSLATION: Severe high temperature corrosion attack = EXPLOSION Iron Oxide + Sulfur = EXPLOSIVES Grain boundary penetration of sulfur = BOOM! Very unusual event = COVERUP No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur = BOMB Do you even know what you said? 1. not explosion, high speed rusting. 2. iron oxide and sulphur do not make explosives 3. not so sure cos its like 00:30 and i'm tired 4. unusual events do not make coverups 5. just cause there is no clear source does not mean it was an explosive. it could have been anything.
crims Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 1. not explosion, high speed rusting. Rusting... in an inferno! 2. iron oxide and sulphur do not make explosives"can cause explosions as it readily ignites" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide"widely used in gunpowder, matches" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur I'll say again: - pools of molten steel found at base of collapsed towers and WTC7 weeks after - huge bursts of energy picked up by seismographs, caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse There must've been explosives in the basements.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 Rusting... in an inferno! So? "can cause explosions as it readily ignites" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide"widely used in gunpowder' date=' matches" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur[/quote'] Iron and sulfur can also be constituents of the steel that formed the frame of the towers, and could have seperated when the metal melted in the flames, then forming an explosive mixture. I'll say again: - pools of molten steel found at base of collapsed towers and WTC7 weeks after Forgotten about what fires can do? The towers were bathed in burning jet fuel. What would you expect it to do? - huge bursts of energy picked up by seismographs' date=' caused [b'']unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse[/b] "Unexplained" does not mean "conspiracy!!!!!!1!!" It means "needs investigation." And besides, the collapses started at the top of the tower, near where the planes hit. The buildings didn't implode as in a conventional building destruction, the top fell down on TOP of the rest and destroyed it. There must've been explosives in the basements. Jumping to conclusions.
bascule Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 There must've been explosives in the basements. The way the buildings collapsed is completely inconsistent with explosives in the basement. The weight of the top of the building collapsed the floors beneath it, causing a top-down collapse. Had there been explosives in the basement, the entire building would've begun falling at the same time. That's not what happened.
crims Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 To Cap'n Refsmmat: Rusting... in an inferno! So? Am I supposed to comment on this stupidity? Rust... in a fire... with no water... within hours... on all 47 columns... making holes and sharp edges... No offense but, your theory SUCKS. By Ockham's Razor, Scientific Method, and Common Sense, explosives are the best explanation. Explosives perfectly explain everything. Iron and sulfur can also be constituents of the steel that formed the frame of the towers, and could have seperated when the metal melted in the flames, then forming an explosive mixture.Then obviously FEMA would have PUT IT IN THE REPORT. The towers were bathed in burning jet fuel. What would you expect it to do?What about WTC7? It wasn't hit by planes. How did it collapse? It means "needs investigation."Yes... FEMA already investigated. - FEMA was forbidden to mention demolition in their explanation (they were verboten) - FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence." bascule: Had there been explosives in the basement, the entire building would've begun falling at the same time.And all of WTC7 did begin falling at the same time. Lets see how much time it would take to free-fall 100 meters: d = distance = 100 meters a = acceleration = gravity (freefall) = 9.8 m/s/s t = time to reach 100 meters d = at^2 / 2 100 = 9.8(t^2) / 2 200 = 9.8(t^2) 20.41 = t^2 squareroot 20.41 = t 4.5 = t WTC7 fell first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds, therefore it was in freefall. A vacuum must have been created in the lower floors when explosives caused them to collapse. Which would also explain: - pools of molten steel found at base of collapsed towers and WTC7 weeks after - huge bursts of energy picked up by seismographs, caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse
bascule Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 Yay, red herring. Let me reiterate: The collapse of the twin towers is completely inconsistent with explosives.
bascule Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 Because...? Ugh The way the buildings collapsed is completely inconsistent with explosives in the basement. The weight of the top of the building collapsed the floors beneath it' date=' causing a top-down collapse. Had there been explosives in the basement, the entire building would've begun falling at the same time. That's not what happened.[/quote']
JustStuit Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 And why again must you jump mountains to cry conspiracy? Are your taxes too high or your freedom too great?
crims Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 Bascule... Are... you... re-tar-ded? I think I can help you... Please find somebody who's not retarded. Ask them to tell you what is happening here:
JustStuit Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 Bascule... Are... you... re-tar-ded? I think I can help you... Please find somebody who's not retarded. Ask them to tell you what is happening here: Are you flam-ing (insulting him)? If so you may not want to hang around here. A building has been hit by airplanes.
crims Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 WTC7. was. not. hit. by. a. jet. Look - building 7 - Understand?
bascule Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 Bascule... Are... you... re-tar-ded? I think I can help you... Please find somebody who's not retarded. Ask them to tell you what is happening here: Same red herring. Again. Here's my argument: The collapse of the twin towers is completely inconsistent with explosives. You claim explosives were planted in the basements of the towers, however it's quite obviously apparent that the top floors collapsed and the weight progressively crushed the floors below them. The twin towers collapsed from the top down.
crims Posted April 8, 2006 Posted April 8, 2006 I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TWIN TOWERS. I'M TALKING ABOUT WTC7. NO PLANE HIT WTC7. HOW DID WTC7 COLLAPSE? WHY WAS IT IN FREEFALL? WHY DID WTC7 GET SUCKED DOWN FROM BELOW? WHY WAS MOLTEN STEEL FOUND IN WTC7's BASEMENT WEEKS AFTER? HOW DID HOLES AND SHARP EDGES FORM IN ITS STEEL? HOW DID THE EXPLOSIVE CHEMICALS GET THERE? ETC...
Recommended Posts