National Geographic program called Inside 911

Pointbreak did you watch the video in my link?

I'm reading yours but some of this math stuff is mind boggling.

In a good way.

But what about building 7?

 

that's a poor guess. i did you the courtesy of reading some, not all, of your links.

what i saw was a collection of competing theories from university departments that had no evidence to base any defintive claims upon other than the evidence all other competing theories enjoy: that is, none b/c all evidence was removed from the crime scene with undue haste and illegally.

for example, the website of the civil engineering department of sydney university offers an opinion by tim wilkinson, who is a lecturer in civil engineering, with the following caveat:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
so, this initial theory of four years ago has not been revised, presumably b/c like everyone else they have no further information upon which to base anything more substantial than wilkinson's original theory which was written blind. in fact, that is the best you will find in the information provided in all your links. theories. which is fair enough, that's what academics do: theorise. and each theory must compete with other theories until we arrive at a theory that fits most closely with the known facts.

i'm willing to concede i may be wrong about this. since, no doubt, you are more familiar with your links than i am, pointbreak, will you point to any university, anywhere, that has produced a report under the imprimatur of the university, that claims to be definitve? and if so, how was this research done?

i'm sure the genmtleman feels the same way about you.

 

Looks like you picked one you had an easy answer for and then disregarded the rest. That was useful.

Competing yet not contradictory. Furthermore, in all the theorising, nobody seems to have felt the need to claim that explosives would have been necessary to bring the building down. Also, the idea that the evidence was removed "illegally" is entirely made up by conspiracy theorists and repeated by their followers.

Right, so you choose a few brief paragraphs written the same day as the attacks and based on this speculate that studies running to 150 pages written well after the event must be invalid. You know what, you're getting good at this conspiracy stuff james. All it required is totally sealing off your brain from contradictory information.

Right so you can ignore all the MIT studies and all the societies of engineers which have produced reports, because they don't call themselves definitive? What does definitive mean in this context? Do reports normally claim to be definitive? Do reports which do not specifically claim to be definitive have no worth? Is evolution a definitive theory? Again, this is like the million dollar prize - ask for proof, but make sure you leave yourself room to reject any conceivable evidence brought forward. Thus despite the fact that I have a huge lineup of engineering magazines, journals, societies, and universities supporting my theory, compared to your labor department economist and some jenga blocks, you are apparently standing there saying "where's the evidence? i just don't see any evidence!"

Who cares? I'm not offering my engineering expertise, unlike you who thinks they can dictate how and when the "pancake theory" (named and defined by you) can be valid.

I think you're right Maggie.

 

Anyone here read David Ray Griffin's books yet? I bet not...

 

A nice collection of links.

Conspiracy theories will continue no matter what, much like JFK and the 'fake' Moon missions.

.

 

Did you ever consider all those sources receive OUTSIDE funding, and would likely lose that funding if they presented information that was outside the status quo, suggesting the buildings were blown from within by explosives?

There are so many physicists and structural engineers who have come forward since 9/11 and said that the official story is a lie, and that the fires which resulted from the planes hitting the towers in no way produced temperatures capable of melting steel.

How do you explain the scores of firefighters and eyewitnesses who reported hearing explosions prior to the collapse of the buildings? Are they conspiracy theorists, too? Let us keep in mind that they were there when this happened. Were you?

Keep in mind, the collapse of the towers is the first time in history steel-structure buildings have ever collapsed from fire. Never before 9/11 has this happened. You do understand this, correct?

To me, the idea that burning jet fuel brought the towers down is absolutely ludicrous.

Before you jump to any more premature conclusions, please read this report by Brigham Young physics professor, Steven E. Jones, who totally rips apart the "official" government-supported explanation for the collapse of these buildings. This guy was actually on MSNBC a few weeks ago talking about his findings before he was cut off by corporate media lapdog, Tucker (my bowtie is too tight) Carlson:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_buildings_collapse_steven_jones.htm

 

NBC and the rest like to edit out anything that might embarass the White House. Here's an example of editing during the Katrina aftermath:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#_note-92

"This was perhaps crystalized on September 2, when, while presenting on the NBC Concert for Hurricane Relief, music producer and rapper Kanye West strayed from his script and addressed what he perceived as the racism of both the government and of the media, stating: "George Bush doesn't care about black people". During these comments NBC cut filming on West and footage resumed with Chris Tucker. (West's comments were heard in the entirety in the eastern U.S., where the telecast was shown live; NBC later removed a portion of the comments on the tape-delayed telecast shown in the west. NBC also issued an apology for the comments.) [93]"

.

 

Watch the video (that you probably didn't see due to MSNBC censoring) here :

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2678975?htv=12&htv=12&htv=12

.

 

Mike Myers didnt look terribly comfortable with the emotive comments himself, true as they may be.

 

the biggest fact about the twin towers coming down is that it is physically impossible since they were built to withstand a direct hit from a missile or jet liner. 1st>the "mosquito net affect of its structure, they would actually receive less damage the faster the object was going. 2nd> jet fuel is nothing more than really clean, dry kerosene, i don't care how much air you pump into it like a forge it will not burn hot enough to melt steel, much less overheat it all to the point of liquifying all of it at one time. the buildings would have bent over from a slow heat up before collapsing and the design would have supported most of if not all the weight of the top 3rd of the building easily. hollywood has trained the public through movies of what a devasting explosion is supposed to look like> the reality is that slow-moving, low ordinance explosives are used> lots of boom, lots of flame, lots of stuff flying all over, not much real damage. for an implosion of a building, fast-moving,high ordinance explosives like c-4 are used to cut all the supporting beams at once, causing the structure to fold into itself. hollywood can't and won't use this type since its so fast its really hard to catch on film. no boom, no flash, just a barely noticably pop! the world has been "hollywooded" by the U.S. government! it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact! they have been doing it for years and will continue to do so until we put a stop to it. doesn't it amaze anyone out there that there is always legislation, eroding our constitutional rights, that magically appears right after a horrible, but questionable disaster? it takes months, if not years, for those monkeys with ADD, to write up that confusing lega-sleeze. how come every answer they come up with takes another shot at the constitution? why don't we just give our constitution to some other country like Iraq, that really needs one? our's worked for over 200 years... and we don't seem to be using or needing it anymore.

 

That's not true. The McCormick building in Chicago which was heavily reinforced with a steel structure collapsed due to a fire. The fire in that case actually started out as a small electrical fire. Also, that building collapsed without any initial severe mechanical damage and without the addition of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, in contrast to WTC buildings 1 and 2.

In any event, the fact that there aren't many cases of steel structure buildings collapsing from fires doesn't prove that it was impossible for the WTC buildings to collapse.

.

 

Actually shaggie that is a fallacy. The McCormick building's collapse only involved the roof of the building, not an entire structural collapse into its own footprint.

 

It's true McCormick wasn't a highrise collapse but it's an example of what can happen when trusses and joints fail as a result of a fire.

Eager's paper summarizes some of the structure of the WTC towers. It used a box within a box design with floor trusses coupling the two.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
.

 

No shaggie, it only shows how an entirely differing structure could lose its roof whilst remaining essentially intact solely from fire, unlike the WTC which defied all laws of physics and materials science by collapsing entirely, vertically, in a fashion only logically consistent with controlled demolition.

 

McCormick didn't remain 'essentially intact'. Take a look at the photos.

Nothing defied the laws of physics or materials science in the WTC collapse. Controlled demolition wasn't consistent with what was observed, although some like to interpret what they saw as being the result of controlled demolition to make it consistent with ideological views.

.

 

Considering that seismic spikes beneath the WTC, having nothing whatsoever to do with plane impacts tens of stories above, were recorded indicative of massive detonations in the subbasement (consistent with the very thermite charges needed to remove the central supports of the towers and the only plausible explanation for the affadavits of molten steel pools found by site crews many days after the event), yes the coverstory of oxygen starved jet fuel-based fire as the cause is contrary to the laws of physics.

Suggest you scrutinise more carefully the only story proferred (and without any substantive supporting proof) to underpin a clearly recognised ideological agenda, namely the official lie.

 

Regarding the seismic data, people have misinterpreted the graph, either intentionally or unintentionally. If you look at the graph, time increases on each horizontal line from top to bottom. If one wrongly assumes that each horizontal line begins at the same time as all the other lines, and look at the long timescale version of the graph, it appears that there are spikes preceding the aircraft strikes, which isn't true. Those are actually the rumblings of the ground as the towers fell compressed on the graph.

 

The molten metal was aluminum. The fires weren't hot enough to cause steel to melt as far as people know. There was plenty of aluminum in the aircraft. Aluminum alloys melt between 500 and 600 C, low enough to be melted by the fires which where around 600-800 C. Pure Al melts around 660C. The was also an aluminum facade on the outside of the buildings. People could also see what looked like molten aluminum running off of one of the towers near the floors which were on fire before it collapsed.

.

 

Prove that, and without citing those most likely to have been involved in the longrunning whitewash themselves (i.e. "official" proclamations). Please also provide your source for the charts above.

The charts themselves do nothing to but blur the fact that the largest spikes preceded the actual collapse of the buildings (since seismic spikes of that magintude would only be possible to tremors rooted to the ground).

http://uscrisis.lege.net/911/

Your logic on the molten polls is also flawed since the lower melting point of aluminum would also necessitate faster cooling and solidification. The molten metal found at the site was still molten upwards of 5 weeks later.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

Again this does not answer the other exposes of plausible demolition charge placement with the "security" shutdown of the building just prior to the day itself whilst work crews were present throughout the critical structure. Moreover the fact that Marvin Bush (youngest Bush brother) headed the security firm responsible for the towers adds additional plausibility to a preplanned gurantee that the buildings would fall and provide the public trauma and outrage upon which the PNAC manifesto had intended its inauguration.

Sorry shaggie, the coverstory remains a laughable conspiracy theory.

 

The source of the seismic data is stated right on the charts. (LDEO Columbia University). Conspiracy advocates should take some time to read these things.

A lower melting point doesn't mean a higher cooler rate. A molten pool of aluminum would actually stay molten longer than iron all else being equal. If steel and aluminum were molten at say 1600 C, the steel would have to cool to about 1500C to solidify whereas the aluminum would have to cool all the way down to near 600C to solidify. It would take longer for the aluminum to solidify.

As I mentioned earlier, the fires were more than hot enough to melt aluminum. Claiming that molten metal was caused by thermite intentionally placed is a much more extraordinary claim. As Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/


.