September 11th

[TruthSeeker]

A Response To Popular Mechanics
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

There's nothing wrong with the collapse of the twin towers from the plane crash and ensuing fires, and there's everything wrong with the idea that there were explosives used to bring them down in a controlled manner. Why couldn't it have been explosives? As you can see by watching the collapse of the towers, the collapse in each initiated at the point of impact.

Not true. The collapse of the North Tower was obviously at the top, above the impact line. The South Tower isn't as clear, but also looks to have collapsed from above. Clearly, WTC 7, not hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint starting from the complex on the very top of it, which had not even a fire insicde of it. Before you can dismiss anything being wrong with 9/11, you have to answer the collapse of WTC 7. If WTC 7 fell from small fires, then all of the world's buildings are in trouble. Once again, I also point to Larry Silverstein's own words.

Let me ge this out of the way now. It sounds like you're a very critical individual, but I have to bring up the fact of your prejudices or biases in this argument. You must be equally critical of both sides to properly use critical thinking. I'd love to hear your response to the full Martial Law 9-11 or 9-11 Road To Tyranny videos at the above linked site, www.supportthetruth.com

Don't allow the extremism contained in them to shut off yoru critical thinking.

Blasting caps contain some compounds, like lead azide, that will detonate after being dropped a mere 150 milimeters or being exposed to 7 milijoules of static discharge. It's safe to say that a plane impact would've been more extreme than either scenario, so it would've been impossible for a controlled demolition to cause critical failures the impact zones, as they would've gone off as soon as each plane smacked into them.

That's assuming that the planes did, in fact, reach close enough to these charges. My Guess is merely that they were stacked somewhere along the center coloums, but I can't say anything positively. As well, if we're considering government involvement, they may have used technologies or techniques that are uncommon. I'm not trying to give myself a "Get out of arguement free" card here, but I'm leery to dismiss all of the other evidence of bombing I've come across.

Also, as the video pointed out, there was a seismic event picked up quite a ways away after the collapse of the towers. Unfortunately, the activity picked up were S waves, which would be expected from debris falling to the ground, rather than P waves, which would be expected in the case of a controlled demolition.

What says that the S-waves simply didn't overshadow the P-waves?

See below for analysis on the seismic records and the evidence they bring for a demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

Now, after each plane crashed into the towers a lot of the fireproofing was stripped from the steel support beams, exposing them to the raging fires. Jet fuel burns anywhere between 800-1500ºF; however, after the impact other combustables inside the building were igniting, leading to isolated pockets reaching in excess of 1800ºF (1832ºF being the highest NIST recording). At this point, steel is at 10% of is strength. At 1100ºF, which was more commonly distributed throughout the buildings, the steel is still only at 50% of its strength. In either case, the beams that were still intact expanded and sagged, ultimately to the critical point. Keep in mind that the impacts also took out some of the support columns right away, so there was an increased load on the remaining columns while they were being weakened by the fire.

Your calculations differ from other sources. I'm simply going to put up this link for the time being and note that we do not know how long steel must be exposed to a source of heat for the heat to take full effect, and that the towers collapsed in approx 1-2 hours.

"This is an article published in December 2001 in the number 53 of the monthly review JOM made by the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society : "Why Did the WTC collapse?" (www.tms.org/jom.html). "

On top of that, if it's true that the steel structures weakened, it's most likely that the floors would collapse, as said, but the skeletal core of the building would remain generally intact. This did not occur.

As can be seen at the beginning of the collapse of the South Tower in particular, the building started to lean into the impact zone, which was it's weakest point. Unfortunately, although the building was designed to support itself in the vertical position, it wasn't able to maintain its structural integrity at a severe angle. As a result, the upper section was not able to sustain the angle at which it was protruding itself, and the upper section lost all integrity and succumbed to the force of gravity, bringing it crashing down into the floors below. Remember, it wasn't upper section of the building vs. the entire lower section of the building; rather, it was the upper section of the building vs. the floor immediately below it. Although it would normally be able to hold the static weight of what was above it, with the added velocity and acceleration came momentum and force. Repeat the effect for each floor until you reach the ground level.

If the top portion was so critically bnt, then it's more likely to have tipped itself over, and, upon collapse, to have rolled off of the top of the building or shaken the building to a non-vertical fall.

On top of this, it's apparent that you haven't actually seen the building's impacts closely. I invite you to do a yahoo or google search on the actual recordings of the impact with a near-zoom so that you will both see how minimal the impacts were, and so that you can see the people who came up to the impact zones after collision. If the people were able to do so cognitivly, and if I recall correctly, three of them did in one particular video, thent he fires must not have been that great, and it's unlikely that jet fuel had as much of an effect as you're claiming. At least, not right away. As well, how does this affect your theories on the explosives being triggered?

As far as the pentagon is concerned, there really isn't anything to discuss. Because of the manner in which the light poles were knocked down, whatever crashed into the pentagon had to have had a wingspan of at least ninety feet, which is far longer than any missile I know of. I also found the video amusing when it tried to compare the reaction of what a private jet experienced after hitting a light pole to what a Boeing 757 commercial airliner should experience. Either way, I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.

You'll hear no argument from me on what hit the Pentagon. However, there's still been no explanation given to me as to why the plane changed course from striking Rumfeld's office to attacking the rennovated side of the building witht he least amount of people. As well, I'm concerned as to why the SAM sites weren't activiated.

 

[Sogeking]

your last link didnt work TS.

...

how conspiracy sites that claims to be more reliable than popular mechanics, a rival of popular science(a magazine that came out in 1872, popular mechanics coming out in 1902), is beyond me.

 

[Durr]

Being older automatically makes them right?

 

[Undead Cheese]

Being older automatically makes them right?

They have a reputation to lose, and the conspiracy theorists don't. Not only that, but popular mechanics updates its criticisms of the conspiracy theories as new information comes out.

Clearly, WTC 7, not hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint starting from the complex on the very top of it, which had not even a fire insicde of it. Before you can dismiss anything being wrong with 9/11, you have to answer the collapse of WTC 7. If WTC 7 fell from small fires, then all of the world's buildings are in trouble.

I already addressed this. Some of the buildings surrounding the twin towers (WTC 5, in particular) partially collapsed from the damage sustained by the collapse of the towers. Several more buildings had to be demolished because of the damage they sustained. The fact that WTC 7 collapsed outright entirely is not an amazing event in light of the rest of the damage sustained to surrounding buildings.

Let me ge this out of the way now. It sounds like you're a very critical individual, but I have to bring up the fact of your prejudices or biases in this argument. You must be equally critical of both sides to properly use critical thinking.

I don't really understand your point to this, because the last line of my first post clearly shows a lacking of bias in favor of the government. I'll quote it for you.

Although, the above does not suggest that I think the government is totally innocent. Even though there wasn't the vast, major conspiracy that everyone talks about, I still think that it's entirely possible that, while not initiated by the government, they allowed the whole thing to happen.

I'd love to hear your response to the full Martial Law 9-11 or 9-11 Road To Tyranny videos at the above linked site, www.supportthetruth.com

I don't really know what to think about the martial law issue. On one hand, it's a serious showcase of the government exercising its extreme authority, which I don't necessarily think is a good thing. On the other hand, they wanted to try to keep as many people safe and out of the chaos as possible.

That's assuming that the planes did, in fact, reach close enough to these charges.

I don't think you grasped the insignificance of those numbers and how little is required to set them off. A drop of less than six inches will cause one of the substances found in blasting caps to explode. That's how unstable the compound is. 7 millijoules can be written as 0.00516 foot pounds of energy. Not very much at all, and I'd say a plane smacking into the side of a building will generate that amount. Also, keep in mind that the people flying the planes could've screwed the entire thing up by accidentally crashing into wherever they had planted the explosives. It isn't a very well thought-out "conspiracy" if it even happened, and, despite what you may think, the government isn't that incompetent.

My Guess is merely that they were stacked somewhere along the center coloums, but I can't say anything positively.

Well, burning jet fuel went down the center columns. I'm going to think that packs more energy in it than 7 millijoules.

As well, if we're considering government involvement, they may have used technologies or techniques that are uncommon. I'm not trying to give myself a "Get out of arguement free" card here, but I'm leery to dismiss all of the other evidence of bombing I've come across.

Yeah, well, I don't tend to believe in things if there's no evidence supporting them. :/

Your calculations differ from other sources.

"My calculations" are in alignment with the relevent professionals in the fields of structural engineering and physics, rather than solar energy and nuclear fusion theorists, which is what composes of most of the professionals in the conspiracy theory camp. At this point I would just like to break each side of the camp down based on profession. On the conspiracy theorist side, you do indeed have some structural engineers and physicists; however, the grand majority of their "professional" supporters have degrees in irrelevent fields. In contrast, the people referenced by popular mechanics are structural engineers and physicists. It's analogous to the ID vs. Evolution debate. The Discovery Institute has an ongoing list of "scientists" that would err on the side of caution when it comes to teaching evolutionary theory. When you break the list down, though, you see that about 90% of the people on the list are from irrelevent fields.

On top of this, it's apparent that you haven't actually seen the building's impacts closely.

Don't worry, I have.

If the people were able to do so cognitivly, and if I recall correctly, three of them did in one particular video, thent he fires must not have been that great, and it's unlikely that jet fuel had as much of an effect as you're claiming. At least, not right away. As well, how does this affect your theories on the explosives being triggered?

Not at all.

 

[Sogeking]

Being older automatically makes them right?

of course not.

does being a conspiracy site automatically make the conspiracy legit? does being a professor with credentials make a person right in the way they think? im thinking you get the idea

 

[KCspdracer]

re

Lets see here, the fire didnt burn nowhere near melting temp so how could the fires have melted the support collumns. The WTC's had a central support but also had 46 other smaller support collumns throughout them.

And if the fire was so hot then why were there people standing in the holes that were created by the planes?

Steve Jones a professor at BYU did a test on a piece of steel that was exactly like the steel used to make the columns. He wanted to see how long it took for it to melt under melting temprature. It withstood the heat for 6 hours!

Other skyscrapers have caught fire. One in Italy burned for a week with flames shooting out 100 feet. It didnt collapse!

Engineers have came foraward and said that there was no way those towers could have collapsed and could not have collapsed in the manner that they did.

By the way. The first tower that was hit. Was the last to collapse.

The Pentagon. So some hijackers managed to fly an airliner into the most restricted airspace in the world, flew mere feet above an interstate, totaly missed tree's and power lines, and flew the plane a few feet above the ground and right into the side of the Pentagon where NONE of the cameras were functioning that day.

Not bad for some people who according to their flight instructors. Couldnt even get a Cesna off the ground.

Oh and it also turns out that on that very day, the CIA was running a drill. The drill consisted of...............hijackers taking over airplanes and flying them into buildings. Even USA Today had an article on that.

 

[Acid Reign]

No conspiracy - what happened happened. There isn't always a way it CAN'T happen. Sure, a building was on fire in Italy, but did a jetliner smash into it first?

 

[_Ace]

errr... if some of the metal was molton, you would have leaking while the blacksmith was hammerin' away.

Melting doesn't occur until it's at the melting point because the metal cannot gain any more kinetic energy at that point and therefore, begins gaining potential energy. Which is why metal melts.

You do not need molten metal to have a building collapse because metal is ductile. The more kinetic energy the molten metal has, the easier it is for it to change its shape.

Err... you are full of bullshit. Kinetic Energy = (mv^2)/2. Did the steel have any speed? roflcopter. And Potential Energy is energy stored by the action of a field so you are pretty much wrong. Even if the steel melted, it needs around 6 hours to completely melt, and you would say "oh, but it can collapse without completely melting". Yes, it can collapse, BUT NOT AT THAT ****ING SPEED. A building can only collapse at that speed if ALL the supporting columns are blown away at the same time. Plus, if the "hole" from the plane helped it collapse, it would have only collapsed from the hole and upwards.

 

[x42bn6]

Lets see here, the fire didnt burn nowhere near melting temp so how could the fires have melted the support collumns. The WTC's had a central support but also had 46 other smaller support collumns throughout them.

And if the fire was so hot then why were there people standing in the holes that were created by the planes?

Steve Jones a professor at BYU did a test on a piece of steel that was exactly like the steel used to make the columns. He wanted to see how long it took for it to melt under melting temprature. It withstood the heat for 6 hours!

Other skyscrapers have caught fire. One in Italy burned for a week with flames shooting out 100 feet. It didnt collapse!

Engineers have came foraward and said that there was no way those towers could have collapsed and could not have collapsed in the manner that they did.

By the way. The first tower that was hit. Was the last to collapse.

The Pentagon. So some hijackers managed to fly an airliner into the most restricted airspace in the world, flew mere feet above an interstate, totaly missed tree's and power lines, and flew the plane a few feet above the ground and right into the side of the Pentagon where NONE of the cameras were functioning that day.

Not bad for some people who according to their flight instructors. Couldnt even get a Cesna off the ground.

Oh and it also turns out that on that very day, the CIA was running a drill. The drill consisted of...............hijackers taking over airplanes and flying them into buildings. Even USA Today had an article on that.

Test only works if you model the World Trade Center tower as a block of solid steel...

Given the fact the building isn't, that 6 hours is reduced quite considerably.*

 

[prezdead]

Twin Towers = Happened, there was additional explosives used, demolition xperts around the world agreed. Bush planned it.

Pentagon = US missle. ALL the people who saw it happen INSTANTLY said they thought it was a missle. No time to make up a new story and spread it.

I found a site with amazing proof. Im gonna look for it and see if i can post it.

 

[LS[ZeRG]]

Twin Towers = Happened, there was additional explosives used, demolition xperts around the world agreed. Bush planned it.

Pentagon = US missle. ALL the people who saw it happen INSTANTLY said they thought it was a missle. No time to make up a new story and spread it.

I found a site with amazing proof. Im gonna look for it and see if i can post it.

I argued this in college 2 days ago. Look at the planes as they hitt he towers. The belly markings show a block oval on each plane. What is that oval you ask? It is said to be the shadowing of the plane from the sun but how is it the same on every plane? Military refuleing planes have such a tank on the bottom of thier planes to hold the fuel. This could be why the explosions were so large.

Look at the pentagon. Do you see any wing damage on the sides of the building beside the initial damage? No. There is no wing damage and with witnesses saying its a missile. It could easily have been one. The camera that "caught" the footage of the pentagon attack blacks out the key part. The hit. It just shows the flames and its claimed to be a motion camera. pfft, we all know its not motion camera they watch that place like a hawk. It was fully automated they just ****ed with it.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Twin Towers = Happened, there was additional explosives used, demolition xperts around the world agreed. Bush planned it.

Pentagon = US missle. ALL the people who saw it happen INSTANTLY said they thought it was a missle. No time to make up a new story and spread it.

I found a site with amazing proof. Im gonna look for it and see if i can post it.

Is this post supposed to be interpreted as sarcasm?

 

[Lights]

Eh, it's easy to say a missile hit the Pentagon. Unfortunately, it's a bit harder to shrug off the 64 passenger's bodies recovered from the crash site. :rolleyes

 

[LS[ZeRG]]

Not really, how many homless people can the goverment take before someone notices? As many as they want.

 

[Lights]

Not really, how many homless people can the goverment take before someone notices? As many as they want.

That would have been a really great point if all the passengers had been homeless people. At least put some effort into it, honestly.

http://www.legacy.com/nytimes/Sept11.asp?Page=SearchResults&Location=AA77

 

[Undead Cheese]

Look at the pentagon. Do you see any wing damage on the sides of the building beside the initial damage? No. There is no wing damage and with witnesses saying its a missile. It could easily have been one. The camera that "caught" the footage of the pentagon attack blacks out the key part. The hit. It just shows the flames and its claimed to be a motion camera. pfft, we all know its not motion camera they watch that place like a hawk. It was fully automated they just ****ed with it.

 

[littlesaltz]

I'm a lurker, so I'm not allowed to post links, but google "loosechangeguide."

Should be worthwhile reading for everyone.

 

[Laharl]

A few thoughts, 'though nothing 'serious':

!. Bush has already done something illegal, immoral. The fact this might've been planned isn't that much of a stretch.

2. If the statement about the CIA running a drill regarding planes hitting buildings... I find that a little suspicious, or to be a very happy coincidence.

3. Why would they alter an the footage if they have nothing to hide?

 

[Master.America]

Whether or not there is a conspiracy, I still don't get why people blame Bush. They must know something I don't know--like that Bush is really Stephen Hawking, with his "voluntary human extinction" principle, using Bush's image as a front for his diabolical plans, or that Bush is just a really, really good actor. You know, he just pretends to be silly and dumb and senile. Anyone care to share this knowledge?

Preferably, someone who is aware of the fact that he just recently compared Hezbollah to Nazis, likely in an effort to beat to the punch other countries' inevitable and no doubt well-supported claims of US's own oddly Nazist behavior?

 

[Laharl]

I believe that Bush is really quite intelligent; he just puts up the act of being an idiot. Because, after all, who would fear an idiot?

The 'Terror Alert System', by the way, isn't to inform. It's to scare. And scared/confused people are the easiest to control.