It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

13 Reasons To Question The Official Story

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
journalof911studies.com...

This paper written by Steven Jones and published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies explains why everybody should question the government sponsored reports explaining the 9/11 attacks. I'm going to summarize the main points and post the evidence that he includes as well as some of my own that backs up what he's saying. I would recommend reading the whole paper if you're interested in this topic because he explains it much better than I could ever try to.

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools


There were dozens of witnesses who reported molten steel, both in pools and in streams, in the rubble of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Witnesses
More witnesses

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. A by-product of thermite reactions is molten iron. Thermite mixed with sulfur is called thermate, and accelerates the destructive effects of steel. Sulfidation of structural steel was observed in some of the few recovered pieces from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report.

Several images were taken of this molten metal:
This website describes the temperature of metal based on it's color. In the above image, the metal is bright yellow at the bottom, which would mean it's temperature is right around 1900°F. An exception to this chart would be aluminum, because it's mostly silver when molten, at best glowing slightly pink or orange.

Here's an image showing an extremely bright flame through the gash in the building:
Notice the white smoke? Near that corner of the building, molten metal soon proceeds to flow out of the tower until it collapses:
Both white smoke and molten metal are by-products of thermite reactions, as seen here:
That molten metal seen dripping from the tower would be consistent with a thermite reaction that's occuring nearby. It wouldn't however be consistent with jet fuel melting the steel.

Could it have been the aluminum from the airplane frame? No, because if we refer back to that metal temperatures chart, the yellow color indicates temperatures of around 1000°C. Aluminum has a melting point of 650°C and couldn't reach that yellow color that we see. Since it's seen near the hole in the tower, Frank Greening suggest that a thermitic reaction could be occuring due to molten aluminum making contact with rusted steel. Steven Jones tested that theory and observed no "violent thermite reactions" as suggest by Greening:


NIST suggest that the molten metal seen actually may have been liquid aluminum mixed with "large amounts of partially burned, solid organic materials which can display an orange glow". Steven Jones put that theory to the test and proved it to be incorrect. There are two videos of his experiements at the bottom of this page.

NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission ignored the molten metal seen in the basements of the buildings. Perhaps the molten metal found in the basement of the 3 buildings was created by underground fires? There are no known historical precedents for this, even though there have been dozens of building fires. The theory that thermite created this molten metal shouldn't simply be dismissed as a wild conspiracy, since there is a good amount of evidence backing it. It should be treated as a scientific explanation for the cause of the molten metal and properly investigated as such.

2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel


An odd piece of steel was taken from the rubble of WTC 7 and studied.

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

Professor Thomas Eagar explains the temperatures reached by certain types of fires. Here is a snippet of what he said about diffuse fires:

There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the
best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke....


How could the steel reach a temperature of 1000°C and rapidly deteoriate due to the presence of sulfur? Thermate could reach those temperatures, and account for the sulfidation. As mentioned earlier, thermate reactions are much more rapid and degrade steel much quicker than thermite.

Sulfidation was also observed in steel beams taken from the World Trade Centers as well as WTC 7. The presence of gypsum in the twin towers could be a possible source of the sulfur, however an experiment put that to the test and proved that it couldn't produce the eutectic steel which was recovered.
Thermite on the other hand can create razor sharp eutectic steel which has a swiss cheese appearance:


3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7


Fires were scattered randomly throughout WTC7, yet it collapsed symmetrically.
Compare the right side of WTC 7 with that white building in front of it. On the second step of that white building, the right side of the building stays situated in that corner during it's entire collapse.

Here is a diagram of the core columns as well as the perimeter columns, provided by NIST and FEMA:
The columns that are circled are the ones which would have suffered damage from falling debris. For the building to collapse as it did, most of the columns would have to be simultaneously pulled. This isn't something that can be accomplished by simple fires, they have to literally be pulled milliseconds apart from each other for the building to fall as smoothly as it does. Tom Sullivan, an explosives technician completely annihilated the official explanation and explained in great detail how it had to have been a controlled demolition:

We were told by the NIST report that fire caused one column to fail, and from that point we had a global collapse of the building in a classic implosion. I don't see how this could actually happen in real life. When we load a building, we have to have all of the support columns on a given load floor fail at the same time, within milliseconds of one another, and therefore the entire building comes down in a synchronized implosion.
Here's another explosives expert, Danny Jowekno, that agrees with him:


Implosion World has many videos of controlled demolitions. Watch the Phillips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower demolitions, then compare that to WTC 7.

FEMA even said it themselves in Chapter 5 of their report:

the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damagecaused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
The theory of a controlled demolition as the cause of the buildings collapse was ignored by FEMA, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission.

4. No Previous Skyscraper Complete Collapse Due to Fires


A steel skyscraper has never completely collapsed due to fire damage, yet that happened on 9/11 three times. Steel buildings have collapsed symmetrically dozens of time before though, and this only occurs in a controlled demolition.

5. Plume-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7


Horizontal plumes were seen occuring in regular sequence on the upper floors of WTC 7 just as the building begins to collapse.



The timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors (see Chertoff, 2005) is evidently excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.


6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna


The antenna actually began to drop slightly before the tower did, and FEMA dropped the ball and mentioned that in Chapter 2 of their report:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building.
This link allows you to go through frame by frame and observe it for yourself. The antenna begins falling at frame 6, but the tower starts to fall at frame 8.

The core column of the North tower failing first backs up an implosion, because in an implosion the core is cut first to ensure that the building falls in on itself, as is explained by Tom Sullivan.

I would expect the center of the building to start moving first, and then as the implosion progresses, then the sides come in.
What could have caused the 47 core columns to simultaneously fail? Fire damage? The odds of most if not all of those columns failing within less than a second of each other is astronomical, and for that to happen three times in the same day is quite possibly the most unlikely series of events that have occured in human history.

7. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions


Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by several people who were near the towers during the collapse. A Fox news anchor reported the following:

There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom…something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.
Firefigher Edward Cachia said the following:

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit.
Here are dozens of witnesses reporting those explosions.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST stated:

The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.
So those explosions couldn't have been caused by jet fuel.

8. Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris-plumes from the Towers


The horizontal ejection of extremely massive steel beams, and the completely pulverization of concrete further backs up a controlled demolition:
Horizontal plumes were also seen during the collapse of the twin towers:
Compare those to the horizontal ejections seen during the collapse of the Southwark Towers:
These squibs seen in the world trade centers indicate a top-down demolition, which is completely possible and can be done.

9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy


Steven Jones puts it best:

The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official "pre-collapse theory."

WTC 7 falls to the ground in approximately 6.5 seconds ( +/- 0.2 seconds ), while an object falling in a vacuum from that height would reach the ground in 6.0 seconds, as is calculated in the equation t = (2H/g)^1/2. There is no delay from the upper floors striking the bottom floors, as would be expected in congruence with the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

The fall must be impeded by the impacted mass below, but this is not observed. The resistance would have been less if the central support columns remained intact, but that isn't the case. How can the upper floors fall so quickly, and also conserve energy and momentum? NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission didn't address this conservation of momentum and energy. A controlled demolition would account for this, because explosives could remove the lower floor material allowing a near free-fall collapse.

Explosives could also account for the odd collapse of the twin towers. Rather than the concrete and materials piling up and shattering, they are turned to a fine powder while the buildings are falling. Then there's the top section of the South tower falling at an angle and turning to dust in mid-air:

But of course NIST didn't address the structural behavior of the tower after collapse began in their "open and thorough" investigation.

10. Controlled Demolition “Implosions” Require Skill


The symmetrical collapses of the tower cannot be accounted for by random fires within the buildings. Even with the use of controlled demoliton, for a collapse to be symmetrical it takes much planning and expertise to execute such a precise demolition.

[A good] option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward....
This phenomenon explained here and by Tom Sullivan is seen in the collapse of WTC 7.

There's the classic kink which means that the center core fails first
First the Penthouse falls, then the entire building falls in on itself.
A kink or fault, which occurs when the core columns fail, is seen during the collapse of WTC 7.
FEMA agrees with this in Chapter 5 of their report:

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward,
suggesting an internal failure and implosion…
The core columns failing first in WTC 7 matches up with the core columns failing first in the World Trade Centers, as is seen with the antenna dropping first. The evidence backing up thermite weakening the columns of the World Trade Centers and then explosives finishing the job cannot be denied or overlooked.

When we look at the demolition of the Landmark Tower, 364 pounds of explosives were used to bring it down. Scale that up to the Twin Towers, and it's around 1300 pounds of explosives. Despite claims that a controlled demolition would require miles of wires, Tom Sullivan says otherwise:

You wouldn't need miles and miles of det. cord, you could have used wireless remote detonators, and they've been available for years.....and of course the military has them as well. Contractors don't use them on the other hand because they're just too expensive.
There are also claims that steel casings and evidence of the explosives would be all over the debris piles, however once again Tom Sullivan proves those claims to be false:

Well you wouldn't have found steel casings to be left in the rubble, they haven't been used for years. What we use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges, and when they're initiated there's nothing left of those charges. And in the case of thermite, well thermite self-consuming cutting charges have been around since they first patented it in 1984.

It's completely possible that linear cutting charges could have been placed on the core columns all around the floor, since one cannot know exactly where the aircraft would strike. This could be used to simulate a collapse caused by the entry and damage of the aircraft.

This image shows a steel column that appears to have been cut by thermite.
The angle would be consisent with an implosion, because by cutting the core columns in certain ways, you can control how the tower falls.
Many claim that the angle of the cut was caused by workers using torches during the clean-up, however since I see piles of evidence suggesting an implosion, I believe that it was like that before the workers touched it. A testimony from firefighters who cut that steel column at that angle would be nice, but just saying that's what happened to it doesn't cut it.

WTC 7 has a fault implying the core columns were severed to trigger an implosion. It also fell at free-fall speed:
It also fell symmetrically, and the debris was in a fairly neat pile. All of those things are characteristics of controlled demolitions.

11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou


Bazant and Zhou said the following in their paper which supports the official story:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C…
However NIST explained how the jet fuel would only be present for a few minutes in ther report:

The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes
So the burning jet fuel wasn't capable of heating the steel to temperatures above 800°C. NIST also mentions in their report how the burning office materials would be consumed in 15-20 minutes.

Bazant and Zhou continue to fail in their paper:

Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…
Notice anything? They didn't explain how "more than half of the columns" could "suffer buckling". There were 47 steel core columns, as well as 240 perimeter columns. Don't forget, these 24+ failures would have to occur simultaneously to cause the near-symmetrical collapse that we see. The likelihood of fires causing this damage is next to impossible, however the likelihood of a controlled demolition causing this damage is 100%.

The Bazant/Zhou model of the collapse would require at least 24 steel columns reaching temperatures of over 800°C, however the NIST report brings up a crucial flaw in this theory: It didn't happen:

NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.


Bazant/Zhou explained how burning natural gas could account for these temperatues in WTC 7, but FEMA says otherwise in Chapter 5 of their report:

Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true.


12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models


Shockingly, NIST actually performed an experiment to put one of their theories to the test.

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing......Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.
Despite the fact that the experiment showed their theory doesn't play out in reality, they stuck with it. Not only did they ignore the experiment, but NIST manipulated the computerized models until it fit their theory. That's what I call science

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events.

To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.) The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns.
So they tweaked their models until the building collapsed. This is the extent of the "open and thorough" investigation that our government provided. This is the evidence backing their theories, and yes, millions of people believe it, and call anybody that questions it crazy. Unbelievable.

13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations


An article in the journal New Civil Engineering lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
So they manipulate the simulation until they reach the desired outcome, and then refuse to show it to anybody.
Can somebody who believes the official story remind me why exactly you do?

Steven Jones paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies completely destroys the official story. The evidence shows that fire is incapable of doing what it supposedly did on 9/11, however all of that evidence backs up controlled demolitions.

The government investigation of the 9/11 attacks was a completely corrupted and biased joke. They didn't address the actual structural behavior of the Twin Towers of WTC 7 after collapse initiation was reached. Their experiments proved their own theory to be false but they stuck with it. They manipulated the computerized data until it fit what they wanted it to. They didn't address the molten metal in the basements of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. They didn't address the explosions heard by dozens of witnesses during the collapse. However, millions of Americans believe their flawed theory to be fact, and think that anybody who suggests a controlled demolition is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Don't approach 9/11 from an emotionally and patriotically biased perspective through which you try your hardest to believe the official story, approach it from a scientific perspective where you instead look at the facts and evidence and draw your own conclusion.

Please stay on topic, because 9/11 threads always go in another direction, and sure enough 2 pages into the discussion people are talking about Lloyd England or something that's not even addressed the OP.


edit on 30-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Another excellent thread and too much to just browse through, great work,

The United States... since 1979 (has) attacked El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008),

I don't know what to add, it's really a sickening joke, keep working hard



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Thanks.


The United States... since 1979 (has) attacked El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008)
.....Wow, that's like a third of the world. I was actually thinking about this the other day, all of the countries that we've invaded. You know how back in the day, armies would just go around trying to conquer the world and take other countries over to get more land/power? What if that's still how it works today, but we don't just primitively invade like Neanderthals, and instead we orchestrate complicated excuses to invade?

There have been quite a few American false flag attacks in the past that have gotten us into wars, such as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that got us into Vietnam, so IMO 9/11 was just another false flag attack to get us into the Middle East, among other things. I mean the evidence is all there in the OP, the official story is bogus, and it had to have been a controlled demolition.

But this thread isn't about why our government would do it, it's about the official story being false and controlled demolition being the only possible explanation to back up the evidence.
edit on 30-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Great job. This thread was very well put together, and the evidence is presented in an impeccable fashion. Don't you just love the fact that the evidence needed to prove that the towers were indeed demolished in a controlled fashion is available in the government investigation reports? It blows my mind how whoever perpetrated this atrocity actually knew they would get away with it.

When all is said and done, I do not see how anyone can deny what so many have been saying for so long; that this was a controlled demolition. If there are so many architects and engineers, professionals who actually have much to lose, who claim this as fact, how can anyone who doesn't design or build structures for a living be comfortable in stating that they know what they are talking about? Conceited much? Again, great thread. Flagged.
edit on 7/30/11 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 

Thanks, but Steven Jones is the one that wrote the paper, I just summed it up and included some evidence of my own.


Don't you just love the fact that the evidence needed to prove that the towers were indeed demolished in a controlled fashion is available in the government investigation reports?
I know, their experiments prove that fire cannot damage the building in the way that it must have in order for the official collapse theory to work. But all it takes is manipulating some computer models, withholding those models from the public, and millions of people believe what you say.


If there are so many architects and engineers, professionals who actually have much to lose, who claim that this as fact, how can anyone who doesn't design or build structures for a living be comfortable in stating that they know what they are talking about?
One argument I always hear official story believers say is "Oh, wow 1,500 architects and engineers, what about the millions of other architects and engineers that believe the official story", but it's not like that at all. The 1,500 number is the amount of architects and engineers that are actually a part of that group, and that number is steadlily increasing as more information becomes available.

AE911 is actually making a documentary in which all of those experts will tell us why the official story is false and how it had to have been a controlled demolition:
It comes out September of this year, and I can't wait! This is going to be huge!
edit on 30-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
journalof911studies.com...

This paper written by Steven Jones and published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies explains why everybody should question the government sponsored reports explaining the 9/11 attacks. I'm going to summarize the main points and post the evidence that he includes as well as some of my own that backs up what he's saying. I would recommend reading the whole paper if you're interested in this topic because he explains it much better than I could ever try to.


Man, there aren't enough "LOL"s in the world to address this piece of garbage. The same-old, same-old, 10 year-failure record trotted out, and you don't even have the courtesy to dress it up in a new outfit to try and make it at least *seem* different. I'm sure on the 20 year anniversary we'll get someone pushing a wheelbarrow of these tropes, with another 10 years added on.

These laugh lines have been debunked more times then Carter has pills. In a nutshell, that one where you keep on saying that no skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire - WITHOUT MENTIONING THEY HAD ALSO BEEN HIT BY 7X7-class AIRCRAFT is enough to highlight the intellectual dishonesty and really childish thought process that goes on with these fantasies. Bldg 7 was hit and damaged by a falling 1,300 tall building a couple hundred feet away. Consolidated Edison's unique cantilevered support structure for Bldg 7 is ignored, as well.

Keep it up, boys! You crack me up!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Man, there aren't enough "LOL"s in the world to address this piece of garbage. The same-old, same-old, 10 year-failure record trotted out, and you don't even have the courtesy to dress it up in a new outfit to try and make it at least *seem* different. I'm sure on the 20 year anniversary we'll get someone pushing a wheelbarrow of these tropes, with another 10 years added on.


Very true, truthers seem to think by them repeating the same much debunked garbage it somehow means it will become true

I love this sttatement
"This image shows a steel column that appears to have been cut by thermite."

Except of course the truthers ignore the fact that it was cut during the clean up process, as has been explained and shown here many times before, but that would destroy their silly conspiracy!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TupacShakur
journalof911studies.com...

This paper written by Steven Jones and published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies explains why everybody should question the government sponsored reports explaining the 9/11 attacks. I'm going to summarize the main points and post the evidence that he includes as well as some of my own that backs up what he's saying. I would recommend reading the whole paper if you're interested in this topic because he explains it much better than I could ever try to.


Man, there aren't enough "LOL"s in the world to address this piece of garbage. The same-old, same-old, 10 year-failure record trotted out, and you don't even have the courtesy to dress it up in a new outfit to try and make it at least *seem* different. I'm sure on the 20 year anniversary we'll get someone pushing a wheelbarrow of these tropes, with another 10 years added on.

These laugh lines have been debunked more times then Carter has pills. In a nutshell, that one where you keep on saying that no skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire - WITHOUT MENTIONING THEY HAD ALSO BEEN HIT BY 7X7-class AIRCRAFT is enough to highlight the intellectual dishonesty and really childish thought process that goes on with these fantasies. Bldg 7 was hit and damaged by a falling 1,300 tall building a couple hundred feet away. Consolidated Edison's unique cantilevered support structure for Bldg 7 is ignored, as well.

Keep it up, boys! You crack me up!



proof your words, please?


meanwhile.....




also, 3 buildings went down in a very symmetrical way....none did fall sidewards.....means all support beams must have been broken more or less at the same time to get that kind of collapse
edit on 31/7/11 by bing0 because: extras



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bing0
 


I see smoke/steam emerging from area uncovered by the grappler

Column is not on fire so much as the vapor cloud is emerging from around it - the column creaes a chimney
where the smoke/steam from the underground fire can come to the surface.

Did you miss the part where FDNY Firefighters hosing down the area.....



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



and we are talking about 8 weeks later.....



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 

These laugh lines have been debunked more times then Carter has pills.
If that's the case, why didn't you debunk at least one then? Because this thread makes a very strong case that the destruction of the towers had to have been a controlled demolition.


In a nutshell, that one where you keep on saying that no skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire - WITHOUT MENTIONING THEY HAD ALSO BEEN HIT BY 7X7-class AIRCRAFT is enough to highlight the intellectual dishonesty and really childish thought process that goes on with these fantasies.
Intellectually dishonest? No, the paper isn't hiding the fact that an airplane hit the building. The jet fuel burned out in a few minutes anyway, so it was just a plain old fire in those buildings.


Bldg 7 was hit and damaged by a falling 1,300 tall building a couple hundred feet away. Consolidated Edison's unique cantilevered support structure for Bldg 7 is ignored, as well.
Building 7 also fell symmetrically at free-fall speed, a feat only achieved by controlled demolitioins. The idea that fires scattered randomly throughout the building can make it uniformly collapse is what deserves your "LOLs".
edit on 31-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Very true, truthers seem to think by them repeating the same much debunked garbage it somehow means it will become true
You say it's been debunked....but where's the debunking?


Except of course the truthers ignore the fact that it was cut during the clean up process, as has been explained and shown here many times before, but that would destroy their silly conspiracy!
That's why I addressed just that in the OP:

The angle would be consisent with an implosion, because by cutting the core columns in certain ways, you can control how the tower falls.
Then I include an image of a charge being set up at an angle which would cut it to look just like that one. After that, I addressed the point that you just made:

Many claim that the angle of the cut was caused by workers using torches during the clean-up, however since I see piles of evidence suggesting an implosion, I believe that it was like that before the workers touched it. A testimony from firefighters who cut that steel column at that angle would be nice, but just saying that's what happened to it doesn't cut it.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by trebor451
Man, there aren't enough "LOL"s in the world to address this piece of garbage. The same-old, same-old, 10 year-failure record trotted out, and you don't even have the courtesy to dress it up in a new outfit to try and make it at least *seem* different. I'm sure on the 20 year anniversary we'll get someone pushing a wheelbarrow of these tropes, with another 10 years added on.


Very true, truthers seem to think by them repeating the same much debunked garbage it somehow means it will become true

I love this sttatement
"This image shows a steel column that appears to have been cut by thermite."

Except of course the truthers ignore the fact that it was cut during the clean up process, as has been explained and shown here many times before, but that would destroy their silly conspiracy!


Who cut the steel column afterwards? Why? Who are the witnesses? There should be video or a couple of pictures of their work. What agency or company do they work for? I have not seen the information posted in any of the threads. Don't make a statement unless you have the facts to back it up. Post a link at least with the external text.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 




Then I include an image of a charge being set up at an angle which would cut it to look just like that one. After that, I addressed the point that you just made:


The biggest problem with the cutting theory is the problem of the slag around that column. There is a lot of slag, more than would be expected from using an oxy-acetylene torch (if you could use it to cut things that thick).

The slag IS consistent with a thermic lance, but thermic lances don't cut straight edges like that.

But Tupac is right The most likely hypothesis at this point is demolition, and this is consistent with demolition but not consistent with known cutting techniques that I have been able to track down.

So in my eyes the burden of proof is with those trying to prove it was cut post facto.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 



The biggest problem with the cutting theory is the problem of the slag around that column. There is a lot of slag, more than would be expected from using an oxy-acetylene torch (if you could use it to cut things that thick).

The slag IS consistent with a thermic lance, but thermic lances don't cut straight edges like that.

But Tupac is right The most likely hypothesis at this point is demolition, and this is consistent with demolition but not consistent with known cutting techniques that I have been able to track down.

So in my eyes the burden of proof is with those trying to prove it was cut post facto.
Yes sir, you nailed it. Steven Jones actually made the exact point that you just made in his paper, but of course I didn't want to put every single point he made into the thread.

Here is the image in question followed by Steven Jones analysis:

(Notice especially the uneven cut at the back of the
column and the clinging previously-molten metal on both the outside AND the inside of the
column, left photo, suggesting this was NOT cut using an oxy-acetylene torch, but rather that a
highly exothermic chemical reaction was involved in cutting through this steel column.)


Here is some steel that was cut by an oxy-acetylene torch:
From here. The differences are pretty noticeable, primarily the sloppy previously molten slag that's all over the first one versus a nice clean cut that didn't leave molten metal dripping all over the steel in this image.

However this website makes a pretty strong case that it was caused by the torches used during a clean-up. The thicker the steel, the more slag is produced, and that steel column in the first image is very thick and coincidentally has lots of slag. So the idea of that being a product of the clean-up efforts is completely possible. Also, you have to look closely to see it, but underneath that steel column, there is a little bit of slag on the debris that formed after the collapse, which further backs up that it was cut by the torches during the clean-up.

BUT let's not forget that one image, which is just one miniscule relatively insignificant fraction of that entire paper, being potentially debunked does not automatically conclude that all of the other evidence in this thread is also debunked. That's a common misconception that official story believers hold dearly.

This is what the thread is for though, either debunking the evidence presented in the OP, or acknowledging that for the most part it's true and backs up a controlled demolition.
edit on 31-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakurWhen I look at that column, the first thing that comes to mind is why, would the 'burner' cut at an angle and take longer to do the job than was necessary? They were'nt felling trees. Great job once again, Tupac. As the dog and pony show they call the anniversary approaches, this time feels a wee bit different. We are getting stronger every day.
 



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
We are getting stronger every day.



Something is getting stronger....the stench that is the decaying Truth movement. Looking at the absolutely hilarious efforts of the 9/11 "Truth" movement to gather up some sort of enthusiasm for a NYC Ground Zero protest (imagine that... a "protest" on a commorative anniversary.....talk about a classy move) keeps me chuckling day in and day out.

"Gettign stronger every day." Yep. Sure.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff


Who cut the steel column afterwards? Why? Who are the witnesses? There should be video or a couple of pictures of their work. What agency or company do they work for? I have not seen the information posted in any of the threads. Don't make a statement unless you have the facts to back it up. Post a link at least with the external text.


By that logic you can claim that the column was cut by aliens. There's no precise evidence of either event but you're just going to believe the more outlandish scenario just because it suits you.

Your words apply just as much to the notion that the column was cut by thermite. Where are the facts to back that up?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by dillweed
We are getting stronger every day.



Something is getting stronger....the stench that is the decaying Truth movement. Looking at the absolutely hilarious efforts of the 9/11 "Truth" movement to gather up some sort of enthusiasm for a NYC Ground Zero protest (imagine that... a "protest" on a commorative anniversary.....talk about a classy move) keeps me chuckling day in and day out.

"Gettign stronger every day." Yep. Sure.



that's the only cheap talk guys like you can use.....debunking takes more skills, i know

so you cover it with hollow words with 0% strength



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 
I stand by my comment, because it's true. Laugh now, because people like you are an endangered species. What bothers me most is the motivation for you guys. What good can come of your participation in this thread? If you were genuine we might engage in a debate with you, even take what you have to say seriously. For anybody to still stand by and not question the official explaination of the events of 9/11 is retarded. Guess where that puts you? Still laughing?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join