9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

[Steppenwolf]

i happened to have the same discussion about 9/11 in another forum about a month ago.

about the building collapsing as if it were an explosion:

the way the building was constructed was that it relied heavily on an external support structure in addition to support columns in the center of the building. you can see in pictures the building was just vertical lines of windows and steel. the vertical pieces of steel held the outside of the building. when the top floors dislodged a few after gigantic fucking planes hit into them, they were added to the weight of the floor below, which couldn't handle 2x the weight, so that floor gave. ad so it went on like dominoes. all the floors crashed down the tube of the exterior structure. that is why there are pictures like this:

Well yes thats the old theory and i dont say its wrong. It's just arguable imo and we will never find out if people in important positions dont start to be honest and tell everything that they know. As long as this isnt the case will conspiration theorys float around and that for a good reason.

[Bic-B@ll]

what's the new theory?

edit: what the fuck, every time i make a large post on these forums it is the last one on the page

edit 2: on melting steel: http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

[Fletch]

Oh the arrogance over other opinions here :roll:

...

Aren't you the idiot here because you believe what was on TV? You seriously think thats a better source then Internet?

...

Fact is that many many questions are not answered. The videos that i posted are from this year and i believe that they at least answer a few of these questions and proof other stuff wrong.

1) You're damn right I have a superior opinion here. I also have a superior opinion over the guy on the corner with a tinfoil hat telling me the CIA is reading is mind. turns out, I'm not fucking Looney Toons, and I can feel good about that.

2) Not that it was on TV. But the fact that FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all seem to be on the same page, as well as the architect fo the building. Seems to be that is one shitload of smart people with a whole lot of dergees and real life experience looking into this shit. Now I'll weigh all of that against some retard with a home computer, a high school physics book, and a basic knowledge of Adobe Premier and his friends that he met at the sci-fi convention.

3) Yeah, there are unanswered questions. It's a completely unprecendented event. It's why we have theories to fill in those gaps. Now there are theories in category A that have scientific backing from FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York, and there are theories in category B from crackpots on the internet. Which am I going to choose... hmmmm.... of the choices....

Do you know how I know that the govenrment isn't keeping a secret? Because when the President got a hummer, it became a wolrdwide media sensation. The US government has 100 senators, 435 representatives, the executive branch, thousands of administration level positions, thousands more researchers, secretaries, lobbyists, and interns. It's a company town. Everybody is trying to impress everybody else, and everything gets talked about. Everything becomes a story. It's how I can sleep soundly at night knowing the government isn't raising aliens in New Mexico. If somebody intentionally blew up those buildings with people inside, we would know about it. The second that piece of information got into the open, it would set off a media firestorm unlike anything seen by mankind. People would be put on trial and hung for treason on national TV.

But hey, there's this video on Google.

[Steppenwolf]

2) Not that it was on TV. But the fact that FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all seem to be on the same page, as well as the architect fo the building. Seems to be that is one shitload of smart people with a whole lot of dergees and real life experience looking into this shit. Now I'll weigh all of that against some retard with a home computer, a high school physics book, and a basic knowledge of Adobe Premier and his friends that he met at the sci-fi convention.

Let me get this straight. You call Professor Steven E. Jones who is a big number in cold fusion research a "retard with a home computer, a high school physics book, and a basic knowledge of Adobe Premier and his friends that he met at the sci-fi convention." :roll:

[Bic-B@ll]

fletch makes me feel warm on the inside

i think your vision is being shrowded by his phd in physics. fine, he has a physics phd, did you see anything in that presentation that went beyond highschool physics? every point in there has been made in some random 9/11 video on the internet. it looks like he pretty much took them all and made a bigass powerpoint presentation and wrote a paper.

look what some other professors wrote

"A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"."

"The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]"

[Kosmo]

Fletch there are some big names on your long list, but I got, God, the institute of lower level scientologists with some logistics and a segway, Steve the fanboy, The Pope, Snoop Dogg, The Undertaker, Philips and Sanyo, and they all are on the same page.

You really are confident that the way people are trying to impress someone isn't necessarily blackmailing, inside trade, pat in the back and a secret handshake.

Ofcourse you understand that if some senator goes around telling that the goverment screwed everyone over, it wouldn't mean that few guys from the high level would get das boot, but all the lower level personnel would be sacrifised first and the higher level goverment can't lose anything, their asses are secured.

Blindly believing in something is just so wrong.

[Steppenwolf]

fletch makes me feel warm on the inside

i think your vision is being shrowded by his phd in physics. fine, he has a physics phd, did you see anything in that presentation that went beyond highschool physics? every point in there has been made in some random 9/11 video on the internet. it looks like he pretty much took them all and made a bigass powerpoint presentation and wrote a paper.

look what some other professors wrote

"A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"."

"The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]"

If you quote things from wikipedia why dont you quote the whole thing?

You missed that part:

Jones has replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled"

He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.

How trustfull are his collegues who change their opinion afterwards?

[Bic-B@ll]

it doesn't say they are his colleagues.

yay, two people read his paper and said it was probable. they are looking at it from a physics and engineering perspective. id agree too, i bet the towers would fall down if laced with explosives.

[The Postman]

I cant believe you are still moderator in this forum. Thanks for participating as such a valuable discussion partner :roll:

This is crackpot bullshit. It doesn't deserve even lip service because the "science" behind it is so fundamentally flawed. Listen. Two planes hit the WTC and another plane hit the Pentagon. That's what happened. There's no two ways about it.

Anymore mod sass and I'll see to it that actions are taken against you. Your first warning.

[Steppenwolf]

I cant believe you are still moderator in this forum. Thanks for participating as such a valuable discussion partner :roll:

This is crackpot bullshit. It doesn't deserve even lip service because the "science" behind it is so fundamentally flawed. Listen. Two planes hit the WTC and another plane hit the Pentagon. That's what happened. There's no two ways about it.

I see you already run out of arguments before the discussion started.

Anymore mod sass and I'll see to it that actions are taken against you. Your first warning.

Jawohl Mein Führer! :roll:

[Bic-B@ll]

* It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result of fire. The following examples are generally cited in regards to this claim: the Caracas Tower (2004), One Meridian Plaza (1991), First Interstate Bank (1988) and 1 New York Plaza (1970), as illustrated here. The fire at the Madrid Windsor Tower has recently put more focus on this topic. In February 2005, this 32-story building burned for nearly 24 hours resulting in a partial collapse. In the aftermath, authorities observed how the steel portions involved in the fire had, in fact, collapsed. [16]). However, the Windsor Tower was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel alone, and thus, is not a close comparison to the WTC towers. While all tall buildings have differences in design and materials, all steel framed high rise buildings must follow common standards of building code specifications for resisting fire [17] and other events which could result in structural failures.

Following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures. [18] The study included in-house technical expertise and drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions for aid to include:

* Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)

* Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)

* National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

* American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)

* Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)

* Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)

Opponents of the demolition theory cite this government report which presented evidence on how and why the buildings collapsed. The report also noted that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[19]. Though this report said there was no such evidence, physicist Steven E. Jones(Professor of Physics, Brigham-Young University), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis.[20] Prof. Jones does not have a bachelor or advanced degree in engineering, is not a trained structural engineer, and has never worked as an engineer. [21]

The FEMA and NIST reports have not resolved all disagreements among engineers. In 2005 New Civil Engineer published several articles regarding the collapse. One was titled Row erupts over why twin towers collapsed, in which a party claims "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact". Another quote from the article states "WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the towers has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings." (WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation). Other articles have been titled All this work is just the start, Calls to reopen Cardington for post 9/11 fire tests rejected and Huge investigation but questions remain [22].

In 2005 fire engineers B. Lane and S. Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. However there is no evidence in NIST�s preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modelling in response to fire. It appears that only heat transfer modelling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_consp ... l_collapse

[Minos]

I love the "we could not recover the black boxes but could recover one of the terrorists' passport" part.

[Fletch]

Why do you think a Osama Bin Laden can plan these things from a rock in afghanistan and people in a administration/secret agencies full of neo-conservative religious fanatics with lots of powers and money cant?

Do you seriously believe the leaders in capitalist countrys love their people more then their power and money and wouldnt do things that harm the normal people? If so why dont they give a fuck about decent healthcare and social systems for everyone? Why have lobbyists so much power in these countrys?

He can plan them from a rock because it's so far off the grid, it's virtually impossible to get intel on threats that way. It's right out of Sun Tzu.

Yeah, I think G.W. Bush is a dick. I think he does a lot of bad stuff, but I do not think that he is evil. I don't think that he or anybody else in the government would agree to this plan. Assuming you're going to do this, you need a few guys to think it up in the first place, a few guys to do the math and planning, and a few more to plant the bombs. You've got to distract everybody working at the busiest office in the whole world. That's a lot of people you've got to make sure are 100% pure eveil and don't have a consiceince to tell somebody about it. It's not going to happen.

Also, there is no rational benefit for the government to do this. Don't give me the whole "Oh, it's so they can get oil!" bullshit. Iraq's oil reserves are smaller than a lot of other coutries. Hell, Argentina has more oil. The slight benefit that you're able to to get some oil rights is not worth the risk that you are killed as a traitor to your nation, everybody you've even known is thrown in prison, and your grave is spit upon for all eternity.

Plus, as you mentioned, Bush and his friends are very conservative Christians that believe very strongly in their faith. They know there would be a special place in hell for them if they pulled this off.

[Fletch]

Jawohl Mein Führer! :roll:

Oh, and if we're going to invoke Godwin's Law and start throwing around Nazi and Hitler references, I've got one for you. People that think 9/11 is a conspiracy are about as bad as people that say the same thing about the Holocaust. They take a human ragedy and reduce it to something trivial and petty.

[Steppenwolf]

Yeah, I think G.W. Bush is a dick. I think he does a lot of bad stuff, but I do not think that he is evil. I don't think that he or anybody else in the government would agree to this plan. Assuming you're going to do this, you need a few guys to think it up in the first place, a few guys to do the math and planning, and a few more to plant the bombs. You've got to distract everybody working at the busiest office in the whole world. That's a lot of people you've got to make sure are 100% pure eveil and don't have a consiceince to tell somebody about it. It's not going to happen.

This is only your opinion. In my opinion he is a evil person and i can imagine that he agrees to plans like that. Not to forget that he and some of his buddys are member in a secret guild or however thats called in english. Nobody except themselves knew what their targets are but it seems to have to do with money and power.

For the planning you dont have to know many people who know whats going on. Thats how secrets agencies work. You have a handfull off people know the plan, from all other involved persons the left hand doesnt know what the right hand does.

And there have been distractions. It is said that in the weeks before 9/11 were a number of unusual fire trainings in the tower (again my english isnt good enough to find the correct word).

Also, there is no rational benefit for the government to do this. Don't give me the whole "Oh, it's so they can get oil!" bullshit. Iraq's oil reserves are smaller than a lot of other coutries. Hell, Argentina has more oil. The slight benefit that you're able to to get some oil rights is not worth the risk that you are killed as a traitor to your nation, everybody you've even known is thrown in prison, and your grave is spit upon for all eternity.

When 9/11 occured was the iraq war still far away. From my point of view had the current american government a lot of benefits from the attacks. The main point is increase of power inside and outside. The whole thing polarized and extremized the society. This thread is a good example of how it changed peoples mind to not accept opinions that are against the american government.

Besides political benefits there is also the possibility that single private persons, organizations or lobbys had a advantage from 9/11. The guy who insurenced the buildings against terrorists attacks shortly before, the guys who made a shitload of suspicious money on the stock market, the guys who possibly robbed a few billions of gold dollars.

I dont know which of all this stuff is bullshit and what is the truth. From my experience truth is in most cases somewhere in the middle.