What Really Happened on 9/11?

[Piggy]

Then take it upon yourself to prove me wrong. Take a look at this, and let me know what you think. It is Jones' discussing his theory. It's over 2 hours long, and I'm only 53 minutes into it, but already he shows clean evidence that fires couldn't have brought down the towers. How is this so hard to believe? We've seen it throughout history...but are we going to notice it when it happens again? Or just ridicule those who see what's not traditionally accepted...

First you need to explain to me why I need to listen to over 2 hours of opinion from an underqualified loner whose position is, as I have mentioned, repudiated by the structural engineers at his institution and his colleagues at his own department who know much more than I do about the science.

If you understand and believe his alleged "evidence that fires couldn't have brought down the towers" then please give us an abstract before we invest our time in a lone opinion that has been rejected by legitimate experts.

What little you've provided here has already been materially refuted.

Tradition, which you invoke, has nothing to do with this issue. This event occurred less than a decade ago. Waving some vague reference to historical conspiracy around like a bloody shirt is of no import whatsoever.

It is "hard to believe" because your evidence consists of marginal and dubious opinions by unqualified commentators such as Jones and King, self-serving interpretations of ambiguous records (e.g. claims of "squibs"), outright falsehoods which have been exposed on this thread (e.g. the "no Arabs" argument et al), outlandish and implausible assumptions (e.g. placement of charges in the towers), tenuous conspiracy theories (e.g., Cheney did it to get rich), and nothing of any more substance, in the face of very real, hard painstaking research into the tragedy which does not in any way support your position.

That's why it's so hard to believe. That's why no self-respecting skeptic would be fooled by it.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

So you are saying this administration is so skilled that it can plant explosives in the busiest building in the largest city in the Union without anyone noticing, but is also so incompetant that they can't plant some WMDs in the uninhabited desert?

AS I said, for the conpiracy theories to work the conpirators ahve to be the worlds cleverest dumb***es.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Then take it upon yourself to prove me wrong. Take a look at this, and let me know what you think. It is Jones' discussing his theory. It's over 2 hours long, and I'm only 53 minutes into it, but already he shows clean evidence that fires couldn't have brought down the towers. How is this so hard to believe? We've seen it throughout history...but are we going to notice it when it happens again? Or just ridicule those who see what's not traditionally accepted...

Please explain why the opinion of one guy who is no more qualified in the field of structural engineering than I am, is more convincing than that of just about every real structural engineer who has ever studied the subject.

Beyond the fact that he is saying what you want to hear, of course.

 

[Manny]

but already he shows clean evidence that fires couldn't have brought down the towers.

What specific piece(s) of evidence do you find more persuasive than all of the actual building and structural engineers who say that it fires could have done precisely done that?

 

[Piggy]

Oh come on, we know that Bush lies out his ass.

It has already been found that he wanted to go to Iraq before he got elected. It is also known that no WMDs were found.

Also, what do the FAA radio transmissions say? Do they ignore the flight heading towards the Pentagon? I will listen to them after I watch the video I'm watching.

The FAA transmissions do not ignore the flight heading. What they show is a very confused web of communications totally unprepared for what's happening and rife with misinformation as very nervous people try to head off a disaster. Tragically, the misinformation (which is not mysterious, but completely traceable) misleads them.

Yes, it has been found that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before the election. His own Secretary of the Treasury (Paul O'Neal) has reported cabinet meetings as early as January '01 in which prepared maps of Iraq were brought in, showing how the country was to be divided. The Downing Street memos and more recent UK memos confirm this.

However, your claim is that 9/11 was the primary justification for the invasion. The historical record shows that this is false -- WMD was the primary justification.

Field notes have emerged only in the last 2 months demonstrating that Rumsfeld was encouraging agents in the aftermath 9/11 to look for evidence of an Iraqi connection. Yet 9/11 still was not the principal justification. They would have invaded even without 9/11. A conspiracy to destroy the towers was not necessary.

And had the administration been prepared for the disaster, Rummie's field notes would not have been necessary. (Keep in mind, they were never intended to reach the public.)

 

[Manny]

Nyarlathotep is clearly a shill for the NWO and is probably the "e" in "They" for sneaking in ahead of me like that.

 

[WildCat]

That doesn't make sense. They were made to withstand fire, multiple plane hits, even a 150 year old storm...

Please document this claim.

 

[CptFarlow]

What, pray tell, is this 'clean evidence'. He certainly has not produced any of it in his 'paper' *spit*. In short, I am not going to waste 3 hours listening to Cold Fusion boy explain why he is smarter than the worlds structural engineers and top Fire experts without cause.

You see, this shows you don't want to know the truth. It is 2:13:40 long. Just watch the first 15 minutes, humour me. It is not bogus evidence at all. I've read his paper, and it is credible. I've researched his sources. He talks about a number of people, including structural engineers and professionals from MIT, who support his cause. I have looked at every bit of evidence that you guys have presented...and have actually refuted many things I thought were true...such as the blue tarp at the Pentagon. But it still doesn't explain how a four floor fire would collapse an entire building. It just doesn't happen. Even the NIST review didn't even attempt to model the collapses.

When it happens it is typically an event that happened by accident (Maine) or a very simple act (Burn down the Reichstag Building). NOT an immense and overcomplicated plot involving replacing planes, placing explosives in highly secure buildings with bomb sniffing dogs on patrol, etc. etc.

*Cough* Project Northwoods *Ahem*

Btw, it wouldn't have required that many people to place the explosives, if they were used. It would only take about 4000 pounds...that is about 10 men, 40 lbs each, 10 trips total. They would simply need access to the elevator shafts, which are located near the core. It is not that complicated at all.

Why is it so hard for you to beleieve that the buildings fell as a result of the damage and fire?

Because that JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. The jet fuel burnt off within the first few minutes, so how did it get so hot to make the entire building collapse? Anybody who has an iron stove knows that the entire thing doesn't collapse, or even weaken when you have a hot fire in it...so why would a fire that burnt for less than an hour take down a 110 story skyscraper? Watch Jones' video and maybe you will understand. At least indulge me.

 

[WildCat]

Steven Jones' "report" carries about as much weight as a fart in a hurricane.

A fart in a 150 year old hurricane... whatever that is!

 

[kookbreaker]

What specific piece(s) of evidence do you find more persuasive than all of the actual building and structural engineers who say that it fires could have done precisely done that?

Hey, Hey! HEY! THis is Dr. Jones we're talking about here! He proved that Concrete in the WTC couldn't pulverize (without explosives) like we saw on 9/11. His proof?

He dropped a cinder block.

 

[CptFarlow]

CptFarlow, WILL you do what Piggy suggests? It's a start. Take it one step at a time. And have you read the 9/11 Commission report and other engineering reports? If so, please be specific about how you disagree. Vague statements aren't going to help.

I fully intend on listening to them, I am happy to do any research on 9/11. But I am currently watching Jones' video. I do not have work tomorrow so I may be here for a while.

 

[WildCat]

He talks about a number of people, including structural engineers and professionals from MIT, who support his cause.

Please name one single structural engineer who supports Jones' claims.

Btw, it wouldn't have required that many people to place the explosives, if they were used. It would only take about 4000 pounds...that is about 10 men, 40 lbs each, 10 trips total. They would simply need access to the elevator shafts, which are located near the core. It is not that complicated at all.

Please document this claim.

 

[RandFan]

So you are saying this administration is so skilled that it can plant explosives in the busiest building in the largest city in the Union without anyone noticing, but is also so incompetant that they can't plant some WMDs in the uninhabited desert?

Did you miss the disconnect there?

Oooops....

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyarlathotep is clearly a shill for the NWO and is probably the "e" in "They" for sneaking in ahead of me like that.

Yep, you got me. Quite a nice job. I get my own black helicopter and once a week I get a turn at the orbital mind control lasers. Next week I'm using them on Katherine Zeta Jones. Plus they have dental.

 

[CptFarlow]

Please document this claim.

It was said by Hyman Brown, the construction manager for the WTC.

It can be found here, and many other places, but they all quote the same thing.

 

[Piggy]

But it still doesn't explain how a four floor fire would collapse an entire building.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, it was not a 4 floor fire at the time of the collapse.

The impact with the building dispersed an enormous amount of accelerant. Although the building was designed to withstand a crash, it was never imagined that a large plane fully loaded with fuel would hit the building with intentional speed. The building's designer has said this publicly, and others involved in the design concur.

The enormous hole caused by the impact allowed a high volume of oxygen to feed the fire. The airplanes penetrated to the central elevator shaft, exposing a vertical corridor. The wicking caused by the tremendous heat created a candle effect. The immense volumes of paper in the offices served as a globally dispersed ignition medium, which resulted in the fire spreading throughout the structures.

Once critical ignition points was reached for materials such as wood furniture, drapes, upholstery, cubicle walls, and even insulating materials, there was no stopping the propagation of the fire up and down the structure, which weakened the cross-hatch beam structure of the towers.

Once the upper floors began to collapse in the most fire-involved and structurally weakened sectors, the weight of the falling material produced an increasing load on the floors below, so that as the collapse progressed, less weakining was required on lower floors to induce the structure to succumb.

And that, in a nutshell, is how what started out as a fire in a few floors up top grew to a global conflagration capable of bringing down the towers.

 

[bob_kark]

I fully intend on listening to them, I am happy to do any research on 9/11. But I am currently watching Jones' video. I do not have work tomorrow so I may be here for a while.

That's great to hear! Let me suggest some other links I posted earlier:

The Towers Lost and Beyond, Civil Engineering Department, MIT

When the Twin Towers Fell. SCIAM article, similar to first, a bit more brief

Collapse of WTC Towers by G. Charles Clifton, Structual Engineer

The Collapse, an Engineer's Perspective. Nova Online.

Nova also created this site showing why the towers fell after following a team of Forensic Engineers.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

 

[CptFarlow]

First you need to explain to me why I need to listen to over 2 hours of opinion from an underqualified loner whose position is, as I have mentioned, repudiated by the structural engineers at his institution and his colleagues at his own department who know much more than I do about the science.

If you understand and believe his alleged "evidence that fires couldn't have brought down the towers" then please give us an abstract before we invest our time in a lone opinion that has been rejected by legitimate experts.

What little you've provided here has already been materially refuted.

Tradition, which you invoke, has nothing to do with this issue. This event occurred less than a decade ago. Waving some vague reference to historical conspiracy around like a bloody shirt is of no import whatsoever.

It is "hard to believe" because your evidence consists of marginal and dubious opinions by unqualified commentators such as Jones and King, self-serving interpretations of ambiguous records (e.g. claims of "squibs"), outright falsehoods which have been exposed on this thread (e.g. the "no Arabs" argument et al), outlandish and implausible assumptions (e.g. placement of charges in the towers), tenuous conspiracy theories (e.g., Cheney did it to get rich), and nothing of any more substance, in the face of very real, hard painstaking research into the tragedy which does not in any way support your position.

That's why it's so hard to believe. That's why no self-respecting skeptic would be fooled by it.

Are you kidding me? I question myself everyday. Sometimes I change my mind mid day thinking that there is no way, but that is why I continue to do research, and all of it shows that it couldn't have been fires.

As to why you should watch it. If you can't take the millisecond to click the link and find out for yourself, then you are scared. I see no other reason why you would blow it off, regardless of who it is. He is a professional that has a professional hypothesis, yet you ignore it and attack him personally, just like people have done to Charlie Sheen, and King. You don't have to be a structural engineer to realize that fire doesn't collapse entire buildings. Watch the video and form your own opinion.

And btw....I HATED Piggy in The Lord of the Flies...just a side thought. I was so happy that a rock crushed his whiny little ass...lol.

 

[kookbreaker]

You see, this shows you don't want to know the truth. It is 2:13:40 long. Just watch the first 15 minutes, humour me.

No. Sum or drop.

It is not bogus evidence at all.

Your standards are wanting.

I've read his paper,

As have I.

and it is credible.

No it is not. It has no basis in structural engineering. Its not even good physics.

I've researched his sources. He talks about a number of people, including structural engineers and professionals from MIT, who support his cause.

He has no structural engineers supporting him. None. As for his MIT guy, is that Dr. King? Nothing to do with Structural Engineering.

I have looked at every bit of evidence that you guys have presented...and have actually refuted many things I thought were true...such as the blue tarp at the Pentagon. But it still doesn't explain how a four floor fire would collapse an entire building. It just doesn't happen. Even the NIST review didn't even attempt to model the collapses.

WHAT?! THE ENTIRE NIST REPORT IS DEVOTED TO DETERMINING THE CAUSE OF THE COLLAPSE! Who do you think you are kidding?!

Yourt start reading the reports here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Rather than being a slave to 911 conspriacy sites.

*Cough* Project Northwoods *Ahem*

Ah. What year was Project Northwoods executed? I seem to have missed that. Last I heard it was on paper and nothing more.

Btw, it wouldn't have required that many people to place the explosives, if they were used. It would only take about 4000 pounds...

Bull. Bull! BULL! Where the heck did you get that figure? Did you just pull it out of your [rule8]

that is about 10 men, 40 lbs each, 10 trips total. They would simply need access to the elevator shafts, which are located near the core. It is not that complicated at all.

Wow. Tell that the demolition experts. They've been doing it all wrong.

Because that JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Why? Because you say so?

The jet fuel burnt off within the first few minutes, so how did it get so hot to make the entire building collapse?

Office fires can get very, very hot.

Anybody who has an iron stove knows that the entire thing doesn't collapse, or even weaken when you have a hot fire in it...

But tools left in a burning barn will be warped. I do not think you understand how heat and energy work. Wood fires do not actually burn that hot. Wood, after all has a signifigant amount of water in it. Also your stove has a very good way to radiate heat that it conducts, an option not available to the steel columns in the WTC. And I'm ignoring the heat loss via the chimney.

so why would a fire that burnt for less than an hour take down a 110 story skyscraper?

Office materials do burn very well. And without fireproofing, steel conducts heat. There was very little area for it to radiate away, and adjoining columns cannot conduct heat very fast. NIST tests demonstrated that office material fires could bring the steel column temps up to 700C in about an hour.

Watch Jones' video and maybe you will understand. At least indulge me.

I'm understanding that if Jones is saying his iron stove proves steel can't be weakened by fire than he's well beyond being a lousy phsyicist.

You read the entire NIST report first. Jones hasn't proven a thing to me yet except that he can pull the wool over your eyes. But what he's written is bad physics and certainly not structural engineering.

 

[CptFarlow]

Please name one single structural engineer who supports Jones' claims.


Please document this claim.

It's all in his video. Quit stalling, watch it, and get back to me on what you think. I am simply asking to watch 15 minutes of it.