What Really Happened on 9/11?

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Click to expand...
It's lovely how conspiracy theorists love to immunize themselves from evidence. Unfalsifiability, savior of PCTs, IDers, and woos in general.
 
conspiracybeliever said:
Witnesses Report Bombs/Explosions In The WTC

Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'

(60 second video clip):
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
Click to expand...
They were providing an analogy to describe what they saw while fleeing the seen. None of them claimed it was a demolition, only that the collapse was like what you see in a demolition.

From THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt
Click to expand...
The entire context of the statement
Q. Do you recall at any time, particularly when you were on West Street, any companies whose vehicles may have been parked near where you were?

A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the




GREGORY



building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did yc.u see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. i never met the man before in my lite. He knew who was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me



GREGORY



up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you... It was just a little strange.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Explosions can fully be expected in the collapse of such a building and again, the person quoted is not making claims as to the cause of the explosions.

NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cachia_Edward.txt
Click to expand...
This behavior is consistent with the NIST findings on the core support failing as the building was collapsing.

From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:

Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"

Source:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf

Member of the FDNY:
[qimg]http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/fdny.jpg[/qimg]

FDNY Firefighter:
[qimg]http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.jpg[/qimg]

MSNBC Reporter:
[qimg]http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/ann.thompson.2-t.jpg[/qimg]
  • "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.."

    Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.intermediate.explosions.wmv

Reporter:
[qimg]http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2-t.jpg[/qimg]

NBC reporter Pat Dawson
[qimg]http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1-t.jpg[/qimg]

Eye-witness:
[qimg]http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1-t.jpg[/qimg]

Eye-witness:
[qimg]http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2-t.jpg[/qimg]

CBS News Channel Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in WTC:
The following clips originate from CBS Channel 2 in New York. The reporter is in a helicopter as the WTC Towers collapse:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm
Click to expand...

Again, explosions occurring during the unplanned demolition of a building of this size are not unexpected.
 
Again, explosions occurring during the unplanned demolition of a building of this size are not unexpected.
Click to expand...
So, explosions being reported BEFORE the collapse? How do you explain that? I'm sure you'll think of something...no matter how inplausible. :lol:
 
CFLarsen said:
Did you ever visit the WTC before 9-11?

I did, several times. I lived in NYC at the time. You had to go through extensive security (due to the 1993 attack) to even get to the top. Of course, it was impossible to get to the offices without a proper ID.

What you are suggesting is a conspiracy on a scale so vast that it would require hundreds - probably thousands - of people:

  1. Knowing about this, way in advance - working, of course, together with the hijackers.

  2. Working on this, for many months.

  3. Hauling a lot of explosives into the towers.

  4. Placing the explosives at the right spots, with nobody catching on.

  5. Maintaining absolute silence, then and now.

Do you acknowledge this? Yes or no, please.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think your theories debunk the facts that I've posted.
 
As I understand it, the construction of a skyscraper looks like this:
The supports, whether made from steel, platinum or quantum particles (TM), are constructed to withstand substancial, but not indefinite pressure in the height. As such it is a highly complicated puzzle, kind of like creating a house of cards.
As any ever having constructed one of these will know, all it takes is one missing support and the entire thing collapses. DOWNWARD!
Now let's have a look at the events of 9/11 (which i saw live on television and which probably cost me one of my more remote email buddies all though I never knew her real name and so never can be entirely certain even if her emails went dead arround that time. Conspiracy?) shall we?
The supports of the twin towers were constructed in sections to bear a certain amount of pressure (measured in metric tons arround these parts) downwards. This can be seen in the "pyramid" patterns of the beams in the black and white photo found in post 15 of this thread which serves to strengthen the supporting (please notice this word, conspiracybeliver) skeleton by spreading the pressure in the beams over a greater area than the supports (again that word) individually covers.
Each floor is "hung" from these supports and several interfloor supports helps in spreading the pressure evenly. Again a word you should notice "Evenly".
Now lets pretend someone, say a maniac taleban leader born in saudi arabia and with the worlds worst beard not to mention a mission to prove the west that he can hit them anywhere he wants in an attempt to make them give in to his demands, decides to ram the building from the side with a fully fueled and loaded aircraft, then what would happen?
At this point, I suggest a pratical demonstration. Take 5 beercans (or sodacans if you, as I suspect, are under the legal age of consumption of alcohol) and place four of them in a square with the last dead center. Now put a piece of plywood on top of them and stand on it directly above the center can. Then have your little buddies remove the 4 "corners".
If you have done this correctly, and stands still, you should still be standing a cans height over the ground on a piece of plywood. This is the priciple behind support beams: They support your weight by distributing the weight.
Now have one of your buddies deform the can with a poker or a long metal rod. This would be the airplane.
See what happens? You fall down.
That is, roughly, what happened with the towers.
The plane that our not so theoretical terrorist from Afganistan via Saudi Arabia deformed the support system of the tower and moved the balance point of the bulding. Due to the construction of the building, the thing kept up for a while, but continious fires inside the building, as illustrated by the billowing collumns of smoke coming out through that rather big hole in the side, which also supplied the fires with oxygen, softened/melted what was left of the support system (that word again) of the building. This, combined with the skewed, and highly added weight, of the already collapsed floors caused the building to collapse into itself.
The balance point of the building were only marginally skewed, which explains the "telescope" movement, but it was skewed as a closer scrutinasation of the original tapes from that day will testify to.
This skewing of the balance point of a construction is also why it's dangerous to be inside a badly constructed building during an earthquake. Ever seen broadcasts from some of the big earthquakes? Noticed how the building have in many instances collapsed inside itself?
This is the reason.

ETA: Spelling.. Bearcans indeed....
 
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
They were providing an analogy to describe what they saw while fleeing the seen. None of them claimed it was a demolition, only that the collapse was like what you see in a demolition.


The entire context of the statement


Explosions can fully be expected in the collapse of such a building and again, the person quoted is not making claims as to the cause of the explosions.


This behavior is consistent with the NIST findings on the core support failing as the building was collapsing.



Again, explosions occurring during the unplanned demolition of a building of this size are not unexpected.
Click to expand...
Something I read about today which I had no knowledge of before was "spalling" concrete, where the warping and buckling of a concrete and steel structure caused by high heat results in loud bangs and pops as the concrete bursts from the structure. This could account for at least some of the sounds heard before the collapses.

NIST did a study on it (6MB): http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6BDraft.pdf
 
conspiracybeliever said:
NIST can't explain how box columns telescope in on themselves. Can you?
Click to expand...

Actually, NIST did,
* Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

* Fire-induced core column shortening detected. Due to heating from fires following the aircraft impacts and subsequent buckling, there was a shortening of core columns seen in both towers on floors at or near the fire-affected impact sites. Shortening of the core columns caused the floor system to pull the perimeter columns inward—the observed inward bowing that was seen minutes prior to the collapse of each tower. Significant thermal sagging of the floor system exacerbated the inward pull on the perimeter columns in WTC 2. Vertical loads carried by shortened columns were redistributed to perimeter columns, putting additional strain on their load-bearing capabilities.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom