WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

"Like I said, I respect everyone's beliefs. Building 7 is a different story. I think some people had a vested interest in seeing that building fall. But to me, WTC1&2 fell because of a perfect storm of structural damage, fire, weakening core columns and too much weight above the damaged floors that couldn't possibly be supported as the structure weakened. "

3 buildings fall almost exactly alike, on the same day.. a historic criminal event.. yet only one is suspicious?

Got it.

Doesn't it bother you a war profiteering politician had solved the crime before the 2nd tower even fell?.. while his cronies were on TV naming a suspect? A competent investigation hadn't even begun... yet dear leader had the crime of the century all wrapped up.

Imagine being the lead on scene investigator, weeks after 9/11 finding physical evidence that contradicts "the president" and weeks of television propaganda?.. threatening billions of war profits might be detrimental to ones career, not to mention living status... besides, you'd be fired as a drunk, then arrested as a pedophile shortly before hanging yourself anyway..lol

The public was sold a story by politicians, their cronies and the media.. people were not informed by results of painstakingly long competent professional investigations, or fair open courts.

How about the crime scene being defiled? trucked away, sold, melted..

You know why, one reason, politicians called this mass murder something else?.. the subjective "terrorism"?.. there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder.. the case is never closed to relevant & credible evidence... unless it's JFK or 9/11.

reply to post by Gando702


I was reading through your post and came across your second statement, which is false, and stopped me from reading any further because I've heard this argument so many times.

The integrity of the building material of say, the metal beams, weakens at "x" temperature. The temperature of the fire created by the jet fuel splattered in the building is "y". Now, it's easily determined (from other resources that others can clearly and quickly google) that X > Y.

Now, the structural integrity of the metal beams are ONLY jeopardized when the temperature of the beam is raised above X. And knowing that X > Y, completely contradicts your statement that the beams were weakened by the fire, causing the collapse.

@op

I think the moral here deals with far more than 9/11.


If you have a conspiracy theory, you should try to really read about the facts with an open mind. Find out why you might be wrong. If your theory really is true, it will stand the opposition of lies.

Otherwise it will fall to pieces.

Originally posted by ErgoSphere
reply to post by Gando702

 

I was reading through your post and came across your second statement, which is false, and stopped me from reading any further because I've heard this argument so many times.

The integrity of the building material of say, the metal beams, weakens at "x" temperature. The temperature of the fire created by the jet fuel splattered in the building is "y". Now, it's easily determined (from other resources that others can clearly and quickly google) that X > Y.

Now, the structural integrity of the metal beams are ONLY jeopardized when the temperature of the beam is raised above X. And knowing that X > Y, completely contradicts your statement that the beams were weakened by the fire, causing the collapse.

That's not entirely accurate. The beams don't just skip straight from full strength to weakened at point "x". They gradually weaken as they heat up. Now, the fires were certainly uneven, so some steel was hotter than other steel. This causes bowing, which can cause the loads to be distributed unevenly. Cause a few more supports to weaken/fail over an hour, and you have a collapse.

The argument with the average American about 9/11 is like having an argument with a YouTube troll YOU CAN'T WIN, but the fact that there were so many mistakes made on 9/11 there is bound to be so much theories on how or why it had all happened and how the buildings collapsed.

Steel MELTS at 2500℉ and weakens at around 1750℉ there is no way that those flames could have reached that enormous amount of heat i believe only a continuous source of explosions from those little gas heaters or what ever they're called would have weakened the steel to a breaking point

people say "well you could see the steel melting in the footage" yes that was very strange as steel does not melt like that with a weak flame and an open environment...

GO ask a blacksmith or someone who knows a lot about steel, if steel can melt from an open sourced flame or a building that is surrounded by flames with smoke coming out.

the answer will be NO, it was either some type of explosive residue that was mixed with paint "Nano thermite" or another type of flammable material that could easily boost the burning ability of fire..

why was no piece of steel ever tested from legitimate sources?? BECAUSE THEY TOOK IT ALL and scrapped it in some ware house so it could later be smelted into something else

Originally posted by GreasyApples
Steel MELTS at 2500℉ and weakens at around 1750℉ there is no way that those flames could have reached that enormous amount of heat i believe only a continuous source of explosions from those little gas heaters or what ever they're called would have weakened the steel to a breaking point

While I agree that 1000 degrees Celcius is a difficult temperature to reach, the fires probably got within a few hundred degrees. Steel doesn't just suddenly lose strength. It gradually loses strength as it heats.

reply to post by GreasyApples


No, the truth is that you can't win trying to REASON with 9/11 truthers... I don't trust the government in a lot of things, but you people claim the government lies yet your conspiracies on 9/11 are full of lies, exagerations, and rumors...

Did any of you stop to think that the molten metal you saw could have been something else and not steel?... What makes you think it was steel and not lead, or any metals or alloys that can melt at much lower temperatures?... But of course you have to CLAIM it is "steel" and nothing more..

I would also like to see the reports of "molten pools of steel"... because back a few years ago i looked at the reports from the main contractor for the clean up for ground 0 and there was no mention of any "molten steel"...

BTW, a video of some molten metal DOES NOT PROVE IT WAS STEEL...

reply to post by Varemia


What does this all have to do with Israel's involvement in the planning, execution and overseeing the attack?

BTW, did all the 9/11 truthers forgot the huge passenger plane that crashed into each tower? Such planes are made in part with aluminum ALLOYS, which makes the alloy melting point a lot lower than aluminum, from 660C for the melting point of aluminum to about 548C for aluminum alloy.

Normal residential fires have temperatures ranging from 500°C to 650°C range, and this was no normal fire, but still if we use the temperature range in normal fires, it is more than enough to melt aluminum alloys.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

What does this all have to do with Israel's involvement in the planning, execution and overseeing the attack?

wow...now Israel is also behind 9/11?

Do you have any EVIDENCE and not hearsay and rumors from blogs?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Try going over your ignorance, it has been proven that the metal seen flowing was not aluminium, aluminium, when liquid looks like, well, aluminium, or mercury. As it melts on a relatively low temp, it does not get orange or yellow. And what does have the molten aluminium, or the alloys with the molten steel pools at the basement of the towers? No report on the contractor's notes? Ya, just like that guy telling the press he never seen any molten metal, nor heard any reports. Ignorance is bliss really...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
No, the truth is that you can't win trying to REASON with 9/11 truthers... I don't trust the government in a lot of things, but you people claim the government lies yet your conspiracies on 9/11 are full of lies, exagerations, and rumors...

Originally posted by WWu777
"For some reason, when presented with the overwhelming evidence against the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, many react with ridicule and denial rather than objectivity and rationality. People seem to have some weird psychological block that prevents them from applying reason to the subject.

Oddly, they religiously cling to George Bush's conspiracy theory of 9/11 with unquestioning faith despite the fact that Bush is a proven pathological liar who has pretty much lied even about everything, even the smallest things (e.g. claiming to see the first plane hit the first tower on TV on 9/11 when that footage wasn't aired til 9/12). People seem to have some deep psychological need to believe the official story. It's very odd and irrational. They religiously cling to the words of a known pathological liar in the face of overwhelming evidence, data, testimonials, and scientific facts."

When your trusted "government" comes in the middle of the night and yanks you out of bed and ships you off in a boxcar to a FEMA camp, see how far your "REASON" will get you. Those who died on 911 died in vain if we refuse to face reality. Denying the truth actually perpetuates the crime and allows it to continue on and on like everything is normal while the NEXT 911 is being planned and carried out by the SAME perpeTRAITORs.

"This is the film that makes it impossible to accept the "official" version of the "911" tragedy any longer. So the question really comes down to: who's telling the truth - the government or this group of Italian/French/German producers? I would say, go with the one that hasn't lied to you. And that only leaves one choice."

The Definitive Primer for Exposing the Ridiculous 9/11 Fable

"Excellent film. Contrary to what the sole negative reviewer states, this film focuses solely on truth - specifically on the most significant and damning of the myriad holes in the official government story of what happened. Holes that prove - yes prove - that virtually all of the major elements of this fairy tale are lies. Put it all together and its hard not to wonder if our nation's unwillingness to confront this issue--and the true perpetrators--means we are destined for another 9/11. Wake up people. Start with this film, and then dig deeper if you have the constitution to face the real enemy."

Originally posted by Gando702
2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.

This is physically impossible, and I've never seen any verification of the suggestion, either experimentally or otherwise.

a] Jet fuel burns at a much lower heat than what will either melt or weaken beams of the kind we're talking about. If you think this is possible, you need to go and research the number of other high rises that have had multiple floors on fire for up to 24 hours, and were then cleaned and returned to service.

b] Jet fuel has a low, unsustained burn duration in open air. By itself, it can't sustain a fire for the length of time in question.

c] Even if not for the above two points, jet fuel has no possible chance of accounting for the molten metal that was present beneath the towers for at least a month after 9/11.

3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.

You'd find fragments, and far more than were found.

4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.

I don't need to do that. All I need to do is look at the incision pattern on the central beam, and compare that with the incision pattern left on a beam from footage of experimental use of thermite.



The sound observed during these tests, also matches completely with witness testimony. I am 100% convinced that the towers were brought down via controlled demolition using thermite. It is the only explanation I have seen, which accounts for all of the available evidence. Pancake theory either ignores witness testimony, or attempts to debunk it. The thermite controlled demolition model does neither, and does not need to. The gunfire-like multiple explosions, and other secondary explosions reported, are entirely consistent with, and predictable for, thermite use.

Skeptics don't seek explanations which attempt to accomodate all possible evidence. Instead, they attempt to debunk individual pieces of evidence which they do not like.

reply to post by petrus4


Have you seen this recent report by Dr J Millette ?

dl.dropbox.com...

The thermite theory is going nowhere.

reply to post by Alfie1

Have you seen this recent report by Dr J Millette ?

It doesn't matter.
They will just move on to another theory.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by petrus4

 

Have you seen this recent report by Dr J Millette ?

dl.dropbox.com...

The thermite theory is going nowhere.

Any chemical analysis boils down to trusting experts. Even if you had some WTC dust and all of the equipment necessary to do the tests would you know how to use it?

Do you need a PhD to know that skyscrapers must hold themselves up and every level must be strong enough to support all of the weight above>

Why can't the EXPERTS build a self supporting physical model where the top 15% can can crush everything below? Is experimentation obsolete in these days of computers?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Why can't the EXPERTS build a self supporting physical model where the top 15% can can crush everything below? Is experimentation obsolete in these days of computers?

You ask the same question every week and you get back the same answer everytime.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why can't the EXPERTS build a self supporting physical model where the top 15% can can crush everything below? Is experimentation obsolete in these days of computers?

You ask the same question every week and you get back the same answer everytime.

If it can't be done then some STUPID EXCUSE must be supplied.

Especially since it would mean the EXPERTS have spent ten years making fools of themselves. Of course they have to pretend that the distribution of steel in skyscrapers is unimportant also. So ultimately the whole thing depends on keeping people ignorant.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Especially since it would mean the EXPERTS have spent ten years making fools of themselves.

No they haven't, people on the internet have.

So ultimately the whole thing depends on keeping people ignorant.

TPTB don't have to lift a finger, most people keep themselves that way.

You can find a whole slew of them here on ATS.
Nibiru, chemtrails, 2012 are just filled with them.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

If it can't be done then some STUPID EXCUSE must be supplied.

You're a little confused. It can be done, its just that people with a real understanding of physics and engineering don't have to. Its like my grass at home - I don't cut it with a pair of scissors - its not that I CAN'T do it that way, its just a stupid thing to do.

Especially since it would mean the EXPERTS have spent ten years making fools of themselves.

Well, actually, you're the only one that thinks that so I don't think the "experts" are really worried about it.

Of course they have to pretend that the distribution of steel in skyscrapers is unimportant also.

They're not pretending.

So ultimately the whole thing depends on keeping people ignorant.

Apparently some more ignorant than others.