9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Edgecrusher26
Oh btw, its all very conclusive - you just have to forget the made up parts of the official story, and accept the truth for a change.

The problem inherent is that the Controlled Demolition theorists here do not know how to convince my mind. Using "It's obvious" and "anyone can see that this is etc." and "it looks similar to this..." will not cut it. I need proof of demolition such as residue or opportunity for the planting of it, an explanation of how the fire and damage could have done nothing (my brain refuses to think that large holes and lengthy fire are harmless to steel).

Where's your proof of extensive fires in either the Twin Towers or WTC 7?

I hope you've looked at the building that was engulfed in flames for a comparison to WTC 7 alone. Apparently you haven't seen any of the pictures of the Twin Towers with people standing in the openings the planes entered before they either fell or jumped to their deaths. The thing that brought me back to wathcing the video Tupac showed about just before the weekend was an email from someone about the falling man that focuses on this issue alone.

This documentary is something everyone should watch, and yes it will prove their were fires, smoke, and damage inside preventing the escape of these poor souls, and that they broke the windows because of the smoke causing flames to spread, as they were fighting for air to breath. It will also show very visibly they were standing in areas the plane had flown through.

So my question is how hot was the steel?

On youtube
www.youtube.com...

On top documentary films
topdocumentaryfilms.com...

reply to post by Varemia

Never assume that you are absolutely correct. Always leave room for error and accept a possibility for reversal of your view. This is how I get along, and it has worked fairly well so far. With regard to 9/11, I have personally found the evidence to lean in favor of the official story (in terms of mechanics) rather than the conspiracy with explosives. I like to think I'm open to new evidence, but so far it has not shown itself.

You should check the OP, it has 7 posts worth of evidence.

The problem inherent is that the Controlled Demolition theorists here do not know how to convince my mind.

Convince your mind?

Using "It's obvious" and "anyone can see that this is etc." and "it looks similar to this..." will not cut it. I need proof of demolition such as residue or opportunity for the planting of it, an explanation of how the fire and damage could have done nothing (my brain refuses to think that large holes and lengthy fire are harmless to steel).

Uh....check the OP of the thread you're posting in dude.

We have plenty of burning buildings, some with partial collapses, yet we have no damaged burning buildings of the variety of 9/11. It is simply something which never happened before.)

:shk:....Just read the OP dude, you clearly didn't read it.

reply to post by wecanthandlethetruth


Deeper in the building? Probably hotter, where the fire was not as exposed to the outside air. Obviously the volume of the smoke was evidence of something burning inside, right? It didn't seem like a tiny fire. Same with WTC 7. That was a LOT of smoke! Are you trying to imply that the fires were burning cold?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by wecanthandlethetruth

 

Deeper in the building? Probably hotter, where the fire was not as exposed to the outside air. Obviously the volume of the smoke was evidence of something burning inside, right? It didn't seem like a tiny fire. Same with WTC 7. That was a LOT of smoke! Are you trying to imply that the fires were burning cold?

You obviously haven't viewed any of the original post as Tupac pointed you back to, nor the posts of the outright flames engulfing the Windsor building in Madrid Spain for over 24 hours and didn't bring the building down in demolition style.

So where's your arguement and proof of the flames. Go watch the running man video and see the people standing in the openings where the planes when through. Funny, no one was standing in any of the openings of the Windsor building. Regardless if there was anyone in the building or not (just before someone makes a snide comment), no one could have been because of the obvious flames, unlike that on WTC 7 (which again no plane struck), or the Twin Towers.

Please go review the evidence before making these comments, or it will prove pointless in having a discussion with you.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by downunderET

 

Excellent post, my compliments, however I'm still going with Dr. Judy Wood.

The is a video at Utube which shows a steel "spire" falling down vertically, however when you look at the top section you can "clearly see" the steel turning to dust, and thermite doesn't do that.

Stay away from that Judy Wood stuff, it makes the truth movement look bad.

The video you're referring to doesn't show the spire turning to "dust", it just looks that way because as it falls down it leaves some dust behind. Here, watch it and see what I mean:

The 35 second video you refer us to shows the spire turning to dust. Further, the spire was more than 50 stories in height. The scant remains of the towers, consisting in a virtually flat ground zero, show no evidence of a 50+ story spire.

Those who claim the spire fell, rather than disintegrate, have an obligation not merely to suggest to others what is or is not shown in a video. Rather, there is an additional obligation to show some evidence of a structure that large on the ground. It was nowhere to be found at gz.

Mind you, I am not here saying truthers need to bandy this about back and forth, inconclusively. The point is, there exists no valid official determination of how or by what means the WTC complex was destroyed. Dr. Judy Wood painstakingly demonstrated her concept in numerous forms, including, most recently an incredibly well documented, 500 page book entitled "Where Did the Towers Go?". That book is, in my view, the most comprehensive presentation on what happened on 9/11 at the WTC complex that has been done to date.

reply to post by jplotinus

The 35 second video you refer us to shows the spire turning to dust. Further, the spire was more than 50 stories in height. The scant remains of the towers, consisting in a virtually flat ground zero, show no evidence of a 50+ story spire.

Those who claim the spire fell, rather than disintegrate, have an obligation not merely to suggest to others what is or is not shown in a video. Rather, there is an additional obligation to show some evidence of a structure that large on the ground. It was nowhere to be found at gz.

I gotta say you made some pretty good points. I believe it's most likely an illusion caused by the spire falling, and the dust is really just slower to fall than the steel giving it the appearance of disintegrating. However when I watch this video....it seriously looks like it turns to dust:

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by jplotinus

 

The 35 second video you refer us to shows the spire turning to dust. Further, the spire was more than 50 stories in height. The scant remains of the towers, consisting in a virtually flat ground zero, show no evidence of a 50+ story spire.

Those who claim the spire fell, rather than disintegrate, have an obligation not merely to suggest to others what is or is not shown in a video. Rather, there is an additional obligation to show some evidence of a structure that large on the ground. It was nowhere to be found at gz.

I gotta say you made some pretty good points. I believe it's most likely an illusion caused by the spire falling, and the dust is really just slower to fall than the steel giving it the appearance of disintegrating. However when I watch this video....it seriously looks like it turns to dust:

It's dropping and leaving a dust trail. I remember the first time I saw this video and read the evaporation theory. To be honest, at the time, I saw what I wanted to see. You have to be careful not to let others plant a mental impression in your mind to cloud what you are actually seeing.

I watched this all unfold on television while at home nursing a broken ankle. Before there was a "911 truth movement." It was just common sense to me as I watched the twin towers fall that it was a controlled demolition. In fact, I was a little beside myself when I watched the second tower fall. And when I watched tower 7 fall later that day ... it clenched it for me ... and I have had no reservations otherwise since that day.

It is unfortunate that the "truth movement" has been infiltrated with the loons (psyops?) who claim such things as holographic planes and such. I believe that planes did hit the twin towers, but I am not entirely convinced that they were common passenger jets, nor am I entirely convince that a passenger jet hit the pentacon. It is absolutely BS that showing ALL the videos confiscated would be detrimental to "national security".

Short version.


Long version.


Anyhow, you have done a great job and I tip my hat to you.

1. Formulate a question.
2. Perform research and record observations.
3. Construct hypothesis and make predictions.
4. Test with experiments.
5. Analyze results, draw conclusions.
6. Determine whether or not hypothesis is corrobrated, then either try again or report results.

Better yet,

1. Formulate questions you have predisposed answers for.
2. Perform research and record observations from biased websites who agree with your deluded mind state.
3. Construct hypothesis and make predictions based on an "official" report that refused to answer the important questions and made blind assumptions labeled "evidence" instead.
4. Test with experiments that are falsified and fail to use all available information, in order to fit the current agenda.
5. Analyze falsified results and draw inaccurate conclusions.
6. Pretend the hypothesis has been corroborated, and report results immediately as an obvious explanation.


Sad but true,
Strype

reply to post by AgentC

It's dropping and leaving a dust trail. I remember the first time I saw this video and read the evaporation theory. To be honest, at the time, I saw what I wanted to see. You have to be careful not to let others plant a mental impression in your mind to cloud what you are actually seeing.

Yeah I feel ya, watching it with the preconceived notion that it will turn to dust....well makes you expect to see it turn to dust.

I watched this all unfold on television while at home nursing a broken ankle. Before there was a "911 truth movement." It was just common sense to me as I watched the twin towers fall that it was a controlled demolition. In fact, I was a little beside myself when I watched the second tower fall. And when I watched tower 7 fall later that day ... it clenched it for me ... and I have had no reservations otherwise since that day.

When the attacks initially happened I didn't even consider such a thing. But you know how the word eventually gets around, so I heard of it and decided to look into it. All it takes is a couple hours of research to really give you something to think about, but IMO the vast majority of Americans don't even look into it. They just accept what they were told, and constantly hear the MSM attacking crazy conspiracy theorists and laughing at them, so it's gotta be a bunch of nonsense.

It is unfortunate that the "truth movement" has been infiltrated with the loons (psyops?) who claim such things as holographic planes and such. I believe that planes did hit the twin towers, but I am not entirely convinced that they were common passenger jets, nor am I entirely convince that a passenger jet hit the pentacon. It is absolutely BS that showing ALL the videos confiscated would be detrimental to "national security".

Yeah like I said earlier in the thread, the whole space lasers and holographic planes have seemed to me like dis-info to make people who question the official story seem like insane idiots who believe anything they hear on the internet.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Scientific proof of demolition you say pity you didn't uses scientific methodology on your post.

Lets see of your other hi-rise fires is the following true

1)Are they ALL steel framed?
2)Are they all tube in tube design?
3)Did they all have around 110 floors
4)Were the floors one acre in area with around 700+ tons of concrete on each floor?
5)Were they hit by a large passanger aircraft at 500mph to cause structural, explosive(fuel) and then fire damage?
6)Was the floor system supported by an open truss system.
7)Were the floors held up by small sections of angle iron on exterior and interior steel.
8)Did the respective fire departments tackle the fires/or sprinkler systems if installed work?

Let me answer

1)NO!
2)NO!
3)NO!
4)NO!
5)NO!
6)NO!
7)NO!

Not a very good start for your scientific standpoint ?

Now number 8 if you look at your examples some are concrete framed and if you read the reports lots of steelwork either collapsed or threatened to collapse also they either were tackled by the fire departments or sprinkler systems worked!!!

That didn't happen at the towers did it? Lets look at a couple of your buildings.

The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns.

Lets look at the First Interstate Bank Fire, Los Angeles

The total burnout of four and a half floors did not cause damage to the main structural members due to a good application of spayed fire protection on all steelwork

Without the effective fire fighting on the 16th floor by the fire brigade, the fire could have spread to all floors above.

It was also shown that if fire protection to structural members is adequately designed and applied with quality control, fire damage to fire exposed members will be minimised and structural collapse can be prevented

Impotant parts in bold!

More info here.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

There are also problems with the others you gave, not got time to show those will do when I get back from a business trip and we can also look at at your other scientific proof.

I mean when these guys can watch videos of the WTC 7 collapse and not even come close to the time it took to collapse how scientific are they!

Apples with apples or its BS and YOU KNOW THAT!

reply to post by jplotinus


It didn't turn to DUST it was covered with DUST!!!! So your LOW RES youtubed video makes it look like it crumbles to dust.

Can you please explain how you think it would turn to dust?.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Lol OSrs talking about BS... Love the ignorance huh. Why do you mention the windsor? I saw that pile of concrete and steel burning for hours, it almost looked like the twin towers, ah no nevermind, the twin towers collapsed because of less than 2 hours of fire, my bad. Ah yes a plane hit them, but they were designed with that in mind (not for some here, ignorance=bliss). Now whatwere you going to say about the windsor? Because it did what we all expected it to do, keep the concrete-steel structure, and drop the extra external floors that were built afterwards, and that is the very reason they use steel in buildings, you cant burn it.

Will say that again, because it seems you OSrs have a hard time reading, or the IQ is far below the 50 score I gave you a few pages back: uneven scattered fires do not bring buildings down in a controlled demilition manner, not even close to it. Oh btw, too bad the video on the OP is using the scientific method, and that is what we discuss here. Ad hominem is getting old really, you should get new ideas.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by jplotinus

 

It didn't turn to DUST it was covered with DUST!!!! So your LOW RES youtubed video makes it look like it crumbles to dust.

Can you please explain how you think it would turn to dust?.

Lol you really did not see the towers turn to dust? Pyroclastic clouds running through manhattan? Man must have been another 9/11...

reply to post by Varemia


Sorry Verm...the fires in the interior of the building would be cooler than the fires outside the building...in almost ALL situations....do you know why....OXYGEN.....fires become starved for oxygen in the interior...and they will always burn towrds the oxygen...why do you think it is drummed into peoples head from a very young age...NEVER open a door if fire is suspected....feel the handle for heat....because if you open the door the fire will race towards the oxygen....and i know it will literally race to it.....if your in a room and a fire is in another room...you close your door before opening the window to escape...why...because again the fire will race towards the open window.......fires need two
things...FUEL AND OXYGEN.....as anyone will tell you...it is the fuel to air mixture.

VERY WELL DONE TU PAC!! - All anyone needs to know about this OBVIOUS inside job!

I wouldn't worry about these very weak attempts at debunking. I think you'll find that these are the same people that think aliens are really Demons...

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia

 

Sorry Verm...the fires in the interior of the building would be cooler than the fires outside the building...in almost ALL situations....do you know why....OXYGEN.....fires become starved for oxygen in the interior...and they will always burn towrds the oxygen...why do you think it is drummed into peoples head from a very young age...NEVER open a door if fire is suspected....feel the handle for heat....because if you open the door the fire will race towards the oxygen....and i know it will literally race to it.....if your in a room and a fire is in another room...you close your door before opening the window to escape...why...because again the fire will race towards the open window.......fires need two
things...FUEL AND OXYGEN.....as anyone will tell you...it is the fuel to air mixture.

edit on 023030p://f44Tuesday by plube because: (no reason given)

Very correct. I caught my mistake as I was reading the thread over, so now I feel a bit dense.

So... would it be logical to assume the fire would be more intense nearer to the windows and a source of fresh air?

As for the discussions over the spire, agreed about the falling. The most likely situation is that the base of it crumpled, and gravity took it straight down. Anyone who denies this has not seen higher resolutions of the spire from multiple angles. It is clearly visible that it falls downward (which would naturally not leave an intact spire on the ground lol), and that is a very silly way to support Judy Wood, whose science is "Look, dust! Must be laser weapons!"

Any person who has seen controlled demolitions or other collapses knows that even in the case of small buildings, you have a ridiculous amount of dust and debris go into the air. Concrete has a knack for pulverizing under pressure, and tons of collapsing steel and other materials fit the bill for pulverization. This one doesn't even need to be debated between controlled demo and plane/fire-caused collapse. Both situations lead to the collapse in which you have the massive dust cloud.

Very well put together thread. I can't see anyone debunking this besides the usual weak "it's not true" argument. Certainly it can't be debunked with facts. Some comments indicate the posters are unfamiliar with the scientific method. This tells me they are under-educated government cheerleaders who just parrot whatever their dear leaders tell them, not to be taken seriously.

I'd never seen the clip of the police chief saying that there was no plane at the Pentagon. According to him he arrived minutes after the alleged crash but saw no pieces of a plane. Yet, I've seen pics of plane wreckage including a wheel and a part of an engine. Anyone know if they were brought in later or photoshopped in?

reply to post by TheComte


Ahh yes, more sillyness... there's been many posts on this thread with facts refuting many Truther claims.

I'm sure you've just learned to ignore them to proctect your worldview... not healthy, but not uncommon...

As for the pentagon, if you google Pentagon Witenesses Statments you'll find the statements of dozens of folks, most of them not gov employees who WATCHED THE PLANE HIT.

Your photoshopping question just shows your ignorance... go inform yourself.

Originally posted by Saltarello
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Lol OSrs talking about BS... Love the ignorance huh. Why do you mention the windsor? I saw that pile of concrete and steel burning for hours, it almost looked like the twin towers, ah no nevermind, the twin towers collapsed because of less than 2 hours of fire, my bad. Ah yes a plane hit them, but they were designed with that in mind (not for some here, ignorance=bliss). Now whatwere you going to say about the windsor? Because it did what we all expected it to do, keep the concrete-steel structure, and drop the extra external floors that were built afterwards, and that is the very reason they use steel in buildings, you cant burn it.

Will say that again, because it seems you OSrs have a hard time reading, or the IQ is far below the 50 score I gave you a few pages back: uneven scattered fires do not bring buildings down in a controlled demilition manner, not even close to it. Oh btw, too bad the video on the OP is using the scientific method, and that is what we discuss here. Ad hominem is getting old really, you should get new ideas.

Yeah, different construction technique, no plane impact, etc.

But sure, if yo think you're very clever comparing apples and oranges, good for you.

Originally posted by Saltarello
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Lol OSrs talking about BS... Love the ignorance huh. Why do you mention the windsor? I saw that pile of concrete and steel burning for hours, it almost looked like the twin towers, ah no nevermind, the twin towers collapsed because of less than 2 hours of fire, my bad. Ah yes a plane hit them, but they were designed with that in mind (not for some here, ignorance=bliss). Now whatwere you going to say about the windsor? Because it did what we all expected it to do, keep the concrete-steel structure, and drop the extra external floors that were built afterwards, and that is the very reason they use steel in buildings, you cant burn it.

Will say that again, because it seems you OSrs have a hard time reading, or the IQ is far below the 50 score I gave you a few pages back: uneven scattered fires do not bring buildings down in a controlled demilition manner, not even close to it. Oh btw, too bad the video on the OP is using the scientific method, and that is what we discuss here. Ad hominem is getting old really, you should get new ideas.

Yeah, different construction technique, no plane impact, etc.

But sure, if yo think you're very clever comparing apples and oranges, good for you.