|
|
Unleashed: Unanswered 9/11 questions
The collapse of New York’s World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.
At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training’s official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
[…]
Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.
[…]
“As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.
William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.
The New York Fire Department’s oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.
If the towers were wired with explosives by terrorists prior to the planes, that would imply a lack of security on a massive scale that would be worth hiding. On the other hand, how do you hide that much work to rig buildings like that? If terrorists didn’t do it, why would the towers be rigged with explosives? Leaving aside the wacko’s government conspiracies, are other buildings routinely wired to blow to bring them straight down if something happens to prevent them falling onto other buildings? An interesting ‘protection’ scenario for the neighborhood that would be worth hiding for many reasons.
And then there’s this article from a few months ago with quotes from military experts like this one:
“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret). With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
This lady seems on the trail of what happened.
http://www.911blogger.com/user/2926/track
What gets me? Stories like code-name-grill-fire saying that these events were planned in some detail decades ago. And wargame/terrordrills about planes crashing into towers were going on at exatly then. Quite a “coincidence theory” there.
As far as what Bush and pals are “willing” to do, look into his Pappa’s eugenics background. Personally I also think it’s like the mob; you do what you’re told by the real power brokers or bad things happen to YOU.
288 Ee. The exact same kind of people have also asked that there be a new inquiry into the moon landings, Kennedy assassination, flying saucers, you name it. GWB is against wasting money and credibility on those as well. Which must therefor prove all those things are cover ups.
As for the batteries… I’ve never gotten your point there. What is it? That they must all explode? Or they can’t explode?
So what if they do or don’t? All that matters is that the temperatures present would melt the copious amounts of lead (melting Point: 327.5 °C 621.5 °F) in them which would run down the damaged floor and out the side of the building accounting for the melted metal outflows.
In fact there are lots of aluminum parts in the jet and held in the building to add to all that as the provided links can testify.
RBG
There were more than 3,000 bodies fried in this cover up. Nearly 1,000 extraterrestrial bodies, also known as EBEs, where in that building. Bush tortured them all to death or near death in trails to perfect his water-boarding technique for his upcoming war-of-oil. The EBEs weren’t giving up any information on their bases located around our globe and Bush knew he had to get rid of them before one of them went to the press. This was his only way to absolutely make sure NO ONE KNEW…or would ever know. Just look at Bush at Ground Zero with that frail man next to him that night. They both were part of it all and they both knew that they had just saved the world from an alien take over. God Bless America!
288 Empirical evidence.
Okay, forget Steven E. Jones on your Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth! link http://www.ae911truth.org/ Let’s look at “AE911Truth.org Welcomes New Supporter – AZ State Senator Karen S. Johnson” right off the top of their web site.
From “The Arizona Republic”
http://tinyurl.com/4ca994
Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid
“The senator gave details about her theories. The World Trade Center buildings could have been rigged with thermite to melt girders. The aircraft could have been drones rather than the commercial airliners most of us thought we saw crashing into the Twin Towers. As to what became of the missing passengers in the aircraft that (theoretically) did not explode against the towers: “That’s what I would like to know,” she said.”
RBG
>>GWB is against wasting money and credibility
>>on those as well.
Heh heh. After almost eight years of driving America into the crapper, GWB has precious little money (public money, anyhow) and NO credibility. None whatsoever. Not even the tiniest little smidgeon.
Most of these 9/11 conspiracy theorists are probably whack jobs, but with Dumbya’s evil henchmen running the country, it’s hard to blame them for believing there was some kind of botched plot afoot on 9/11.
288 Ee: It’s curious that GWB was adamantly opposed to even the first inquiry… no doubt you have an explanation for that.
“In April 2002, Bush said that the investigation into 9/11 should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence.[6] But by September, the White House came under intense fire concerning the commission from many victims’ families,[7] and thus President Bush finally agreed to the creation of an “independent” 9/11 commission.” Wikipedia
#283 EvilDick. I would bet there are small errors in the NIST report. Not from anything I know about except human nature. But I also don’t believe these errors will be material to the central theme. Except the “truthers” who will obviously see this as part of the coverup.
RBG
T-Shirt,
You are overlooking a huge problem with your “explosions”. You heard them on your television.
Maybe you heard something, maybe not. The noise could have been anything though. There was debris falling from the towers. There were firefighters unloading trucks. There were tens of thousands of other little things happening that morning that might have been picked up as a quick loud noise that appears to be an explosion. Since these “explosions are not widely reported, it is most likely it depended upon where the microphone that picked the noise was. The original tape would need to be analysed before it could be explained. Don’t forget, the reporter was amid a very confused situation with a lot of noise already.
Other possibilities would include the steel supports failing and partial cave-ins right before the main collapse. The microphone itself could have been experiencing technical difficulties. There may have been a recent firetruck arriving and the doors slamming shut as the crew got out.
I wonder if anyone remembers another NYC building being hit by a plane, the Empire State building. Yet somehow, it still stands.
I am by no means a conspiracy theorist. I watched the events on television in shock and horror like everyone else. The more I thought about it afterwards, the more questions I had. Like this:
• Why did WTC 7 collapse when it was barely touched by an airplane?
• Where was the copious amount of airplane wreckage at the Pentagon?
• Why was the metal and debris from WTC 1 and 2 moved away so quickly without any kind of inspection?
• Where are the black boxes?
• Where is the wreckage from the plane in Pennsylvania?
• Can a full trained and experience pilot fly a huge aircraft in to a building at full speed, let alone someone with virtually no experience at all? Three times?
• Why is there no video of the plane hitting the Pentagon?
• What kind of back-up security/protection systems are built in to airplanes? With all the technology in a commercial jet-liner, would it even allow you to fly a plane on a suicide mission?
None of these questions have been satisfactorily answered by anyone. The current US president is too stupid to actually command such a thing, implied yes, directly, no.
And what about this war? Is it still being fought for terrorism? Oil? Something to do?
You can say it is a conspiracy, you can say it’s terrorism. You can call it whatever you want. On 9/11 and since then thousands of people have died because of those tragic events. Sometime in the future, when we’re all gone, someone is going to ask even tougher questions and expect answers. Like the Nuremberg Trials, we’re all going to be found guilty of not doing anything to stop them from happening.
285. Unempirical Evidence
“385 architectural and engineering professionals and 1489 other supporters including A/E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.”
Where is it that these “professionals” debunk or dispute the NIST report? There is no evidence presented that any of these people dispute the main findings. While there may be minor errors with the report, I truly don’t know as I’ve only read summaries, the main findings have yet to be found wrong.
Minor errors are caused by the inexact science of piecing together the evidence after the fact. There will always be unanswered questions because much of the evidence has been destroyed or further damaged by the collapse. Yet the video and basic knowledge of physics adequately demonstrate the how and approximate cause.
NOTE, Lead Acid batteries give off hydrogen when recharging or heated to boiling. Hydrogen can be explosive but more likely will just burn.
>>• Where was the copious amount of
>>airplane wreckage at the Pentagon?
Yeah, where WAS it?? That’s one question I’ve never seen satisfactorily addressed.
*BULLSHIT! bunch of weird whack jobs that still believe we didn’t land on the moon and the the government monitors all our commu
>>the the government monitors all our commu
I hate to tell you, buster, but the gummint DOES monitor our commu. No warrant required. You know what they say: “If the people can commu privately, the terrorists win”! All hail our commu-monitoring overlords! And God bless America.
It strikes me how similar the 911 conspiracy is to religion. Deny what your eyes show you and endless repeat something you have heard and have no way/interest in confirming. Find god in the gaps. Form a belief system on what you DON’T KNOW and CAN’T ANSWER. Ignore the great majority of experts and common sense.
In response to Mustards and others questions about where is the plane wreckage at the pentagon, I googled and found an excellent debunking article at Popular Mechanics. Eyewitness testimony and pictures of the plane parts and yet the myth survives thru superstitious dogmatic cantations.
http://tinyurl.com/yb6orb
I find it extremely amusing that so many of the “9/11 Skeptics” in this comment thread propose and support a theory not advanced by NIST – in fact, rejected by NIST. To wit, the “pancake collapse” theory, which even the most rudimentary reading of the NIST documents would reveal as rejected by their analysis. I also find it amusing that NIST’s own empirical testing showed the structural supports fully capable of withstanding the heat without collapse, but they reject their own findings with a hand-wave.
I don’t think “the government did it”, but not because “they wouldn’t do that!” – the US Goverment history is literally littered with stupid decisions like spraying civilian populations with viruses and putting soldiers in the line of fallout – of a general under Kennedy proposing EXACTLY the kind of thing that was 9/11.
Frankly I think the confusion comes from an attempt by various agencies to attempt to avoid being blamed for screwing up.
#305–Steve==what point are you addressing? If the government “didn’t do it” then bin ladin did do it. He had jets fly into the buildings and they collapsed. There is no controversy about whether or not Bush should have/could have stopped this attack. EVERYONE knows our government was asleep at the switch and could not connect the dots. Everyone agrees the corrective action taken to date does nothing to protect us from another attack in the future, it just makes taking flights a pain in the ass. Best security protection put into place?==locking a secure cabin door==and THAT the airlines should have done on their own years before.
So, I saw an amazing documentary on the History Chanel, or maybe Discovery, a few years ago. There were experts using beautiful computer animations explaining exactly how and why the towers fell when and how they did, and considering the circumstances (big, fast planes + impact), which I believe is unique, I’m as convinced as I can be.
Having said that, I don’t trust anyone, and in my court evidence is always admissible.
At best, so-called experts can be easily caught up in the same emotional fog as everyone else. At worst, experts are paid off all too regularly in every field. The official theory has nothing to do with common sense or facts and everything to do with endless repetition.
It isn’t that complicated:
In the more than hundred year history of steel high rises-thousands of buildings all over the world-there have only been three that have collapsed due to fire. That happened in one city, in one office complex, on one day. They all fell at free fall speed straight down through the path of greatest resistance. Because the Empire State Building had been hit years before, the engineers anticipated and designed for airplane impact. Over the years there have been many major fires burning 10-20 hours over many floors, flames shooting out the windows: real “towering infernos”. Those buildings did not collapse.
Steel is certified by Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Building inspectors require it to be sure the steel is strong enough. Insurers require it to be sure the building won’t fall down. UL certified the steel in the WTC to be able to withstand at least 2000 degrees F for at least 6 hours. The buildings both collapsed in about one hour. Jet fuel can burn at up to 1800 degrees F in an ideal environment (pure oxygen). The black sooty smoke is an indication of an oxygen-starved fire. What little steel was not illegally destroyed before it could be examined was found to have been exposed to about 1000 degrees F. To say that the steel just needed to soften a little is to repeat discredited talking points.
Why not even consider controlled demolition which easily explains every impossible anomaly in the official conspiracy theory?
#298, bruce,
These questions have been answered before. This is going to be a long post.
Why did WTC 7 collapse when it was barely touched by an airplane?
Several reasons, most notably is that it was hit by falling debris, the building held several fuel tanks contributing to the fires, and the falling towers weakened the foundations.
Where was the copious amount of airplane wreckage at the Pentagon?
Most was inside the building. Since the Pentagon has a lot of secret information and there were bodies still amid the wreckage, the public was kept away.
Why was the metal and debris from WTC 1 and 2 moved away so quickly without any kind of inspection?
First, it was a rescue operation looking for survivors and then a recovery to find bodies. All the material was first removed to New Jersey so FBI Agents could sort through it looking for evidence and any human remains.
Where are the black boxes?
The WTC planes were destroyed in the crash and subsequent tower collapse. The Pentagon (Flight 77) was found on September 14, 2001. Flight 93 (Shankville) was recovered on September 13, 2001. The FBI allowed relatives to listen to portions of the voice recorder.
Where is the wreckage from the plane in Pennsylvania?
After it was removed from the hole, it was held by the FAA and FBI. They most likely still have it as evidence. It is possible, I don’t know, major portions have been scrapped.
Can a full trained and experience pilot fly a huge aircraft in to a building at full speed, let alone someone with virtually no experience at all? Three times?
Yes. Many planes have been flown and even landed by people with no training and several pilots have flown into buildings.
Why is there no video of the plane hitting the Pentagon?
Simply because there were no video cameras pointed in that exact location. Even today, there are only a few areas covered by video cameras. Most current surveillance cameras take one to three pictures / second. This is to maximize the amount of storage space. Normal video is 30 frames / sec.
What kind of back-up security/protection systems are built in to airplanes? With all the technology in a commercial jet-liner, would it even allow you to fly a plane on a suicide mission?
Stop and think of the attitude in 2001. It was felt that any danger came from hijackers using guns to take over a plane. There had never been a hijacking where the pilots were killed and substituted with hijackers. Therefore the emphasis was on prevention – searching for guns – before boarding. Small knives were not considered a concern.
None of these questions have been satisfactorily answered by anyone.
Oh? They have all been very adequately answered. The twoofers just don’t like the answers. Within another few posts some other idiot will pop up saying something stupid like “but steel doesn’t burn” or “Cheney made them do it because he is pure evil”.
That’s compelling evidence!
Okay, let’s talk about the twin towers… as bobbo and some others on this thread see it, it’s a no-brainer: “planes hit buildings; buildings fall down.” I drew an analogy, in an earlier post, to Galileo’s problems with the Catholic Church. The dogma of his day was: “earth round; sun move across sky; sun go round earth!”
A fellow named Copernicus had advanced a heliocentric (i.e., earth orbits the sun) theory a few decades earlier but it received little attention outside of academic circles and only mild condemnation from the church. But when Galileo refined the recently invented telescope, his observations confirmed the Copernican theory and the scientific revolution was on.
Not that the Church didn’t do its best to impede it, and the details of Galileo’s trial are well known. He was forced to recant and given house arrest in lieu of imprisonment on the condition of his silence. It would be nearly 400 years before the Church would admit its error.
Back in our present day, let’s review the video at the top of the page. On the left, we witness the collapse of WTC7, an event which, until the recent advent of You Tube, was obscure(d). It is in fact just now becoming widely known that a third building in that complex fell that day, and somehow, nearly SEVEN YEARS later, there is no “official” explanation. But rest assured they tell us, for NIST is busy searching out “facts” to support its “working hypothesis” that fire ans structural damage is to blame.
Meanwhile, as government-funded “experts” ponder this thus-far inscrutable enigma, we are left to our own devices. “Hey,” a freshman physics major offers, “objects encountering anything beyond atmospheric resistance do not descend at free-fall speed.” But how can it be that there was NO RESISTANCE to the fall we wonder… “That looks just like a demolition I saw on TV”, someone remarks, “The abrupt fall, the little squibs of smoke, the huge cloud of dust…” So some techies juxtapose the WTC7 footage with that of a controlled demolition of a building of similar size and voila… the correspondence is UNCANNY. “How about that? What a coinkydink!” they marvel. “Well, there’s a logical device called Occam’s razor, also known as the law of parsimony….” a precocious eighth grader says…
Is it possible that what appears to be the antithesis of chaos theory is actually a perfect storm of sorts?
Thanks, Gawd.
WTC7 had minor debris damage. The fuel tank theory has been discredited. Both prove the point: If falling debris had caused the collapse, it would have toppled over in the direction of any weakened columns. It did not. Straight down through the path of greatest resistance at free fall speed. If fuel tanks exploded, where was the explosion? And again, why the symmetrical collapse that looks exactly like a standard controlled demolition? BTW why did BBC report the collapse of WTC7 at 5pm with a live shot of the reporter and WTC7 still standing right behind her. Oops, the building collapsed at 5:20pm, right after someone realized they goofed the timing and cut off the reporter’s signal. Youtube it.
EVOLUTION LIE
JFK WAS A LIE
JFK JR WAS A LIE
MLK WAS A LIE
OKC WAS A LIE
WACO WAS A LIE
GULF TONKIN LIE
PEARL HARBOR LIE
PEAK OIL BIG LIE
GLOBAL WARMING LIE
WTC TRUTH – Duh – I THINK NOT
This would explain the lack of reaction from Bush when he was told and the delay and action by the government. If the war on terror were really about terror we would have finished the job in Afghanistan, instead of all but abandoning it within months to begin the invasion of Iraq. If not for 9/11 Bush would have never been allowed to invade Iraq, by the apathetic American people or equally apathetic congress. I’ve been saying since 9/11 it would not surprise me if years to come if the truth was the government was complicit in the events of that day. There is precedence for such events in American history i.e. Pearl Harbor. Some believe Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to rally the American people behind the war up until that point was not a popular despite the growing threat from Japan. There is evidence to support this theory. We now know it was known about the event before it happened. By all accounts this knowledge is reported to be only hours but who is to say it wasn’t days.
All I’m saying is we shouldn’t be so quick to accept the facts that are spoon feed to us by the media and obviously corrupt and ineffective government we know today.
Anybody with eyes to see and two braincells to rub together will look at the video at the top of this page and suspect that something is amiss with the official story… that’s why more and more people are demanding a new investigation, and why the ‘deniers’ are becoming increasingly more frantic in their efforts to patch the leaks that continue to spring in the cover story…
Of course they fear reopening the inquiry… look at how much has come to light due solely to the efforts of concerned citizens. Wait until a serious, formal investigation gets under way. When the minions realize that their bosses can no longer protect them, they’ll start to roll over. It’ll go all the way through Bush up to the now faceless financiers who jerk his strings.
In spite of Gawd Almighty and his high priest RBG spreading fairy tales, there was no airplane wreckage at the Pentagon, and there is no film of a plane impacting the building. Moreover, at the following site alone, there are 110+ highly experienced pilots, mostly ex-military and now commercial, who say that the idea amature pilots performed those maneuvers seen on 9/11 is ludicrous. Check out
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
E.g., partway down the page find comments by Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which (supposedly) impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.
You’ll find a lot of compelling information on this site, both in written statements and video, by the people who know these airplanes. Lots of useful links as well
#308, Zm,
Steel is certified by Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Building inspectors require it to be sure the steel is strong enough.
Wrong. Steel is produced in grades. Different functions use different grades. Since uprights have different loads then horizontal supports, they will be different grades. There are several different organizations / qualification / standards organizations that rate steel. UL is not one of them. Try ASME, ASTM, AISI are just three that do grade steel.
The choice of steel is the architect’s. It and the structural shape will be chosen for several reasons.
What little steel was not illegally destroyed before it could be examined was found to have been exposed to about 1000 degrees F. To say that the steel just needed to soften a little is to repeat discredited talking points.
Who discredited that the notion that steel will lose a considerable amount of strength with little heat? In metallurgy, it is well understood that heat will transform the molecular structure from austensite to martensite. This can be caused by time and temperature. The more martensite, the more malleable (plastic) the steel becomes. The longer the time and / or higher the heat, the more quickly this process happens.
1,000 F is enough to soften steel. That is approximately 550 C. Steel will soften at approximately 325 to 400 C, depending upon the alloy.
Since you don’t understand steel grades, or UL, I doubt you understand molecular structure. In short, it has to do with the crystalline structure of the molecules and how they attach to each other.
The black sooty smoke is an indication of an oxygen-starved fire.
Not necessarily. Much of it depends upon the temperature of whatever is burning close to the edge and floors above. They could have been oxygen starved because of the fires below. Remember, even today blacksmiths can get charcoal to a hot enough temperature to soften iron in seconds.
*
This whole thing shows the ignorance of the conspiracy crowd. You, or some other mighty nimrod, comes up with an idea and therefore it is so obvious. Too bad most of these crackpot ideas are wrong.
It’s interesting how convincing almost any point seems when the person stating it gives the impression of believing it themselves.
#315, ZM,
WTC7 had minor debris damage.
Really? Please give a citation for that.
The fuel tank theory has been discredited.
Really? Please give a citation for that.
If falling debris had caused the collapse, it would have toppled over in the direction of any weakened columns.
It did. What you are expecting though is that it would remain in one piece and fall over like a tree or stick. Nope. As soon as the foundation collapses, the top comes down on the floor below it. This pulls the unweakened side over until those supports fail. Then it all comes down, not on its own footprint, but not horizontally in one piece.
Straight down through the path of greatest resistance at free fall speed.
Where did this come from? Please give a citation for that.
If fuel tanks exploded, where was the explosion?
Who said the fuel tanks exploded? Please cite if you claim they did or did not. My understanding is they only contributed to the fires in WTC 7.
And again, why the symmetrical collapse that looks exactly like a standard controlled demolition?
Who said it was symmetrical? Please give a citation for that. Please cite what any 50 floor building looks like with a controlled demolition.
BTW why did BBC report the collapse of WTC7 at 5pm with a live shot of the reporter and WTC7 still standing right behind her.
I don’t know. Maybe she heard wrong. Ask the BBC.
Oops, the building collapsed at 5:20pm, right after someone realized they goofed the timing and cut off the reporter’s signal.
News reports were going from the field to the anchor desk all day on all networks. Please cite a reliable source that someone goofed the timing and cut off the signal. Otherwise it is just conjecture.
BTW, Youtube is not a reliable source.
Wacko theories like this are why it was necessary to document and re-document all the evidence regarding the holocaust. Big tragedies almost always get conspiracy theory treatment. But Elvis has left the building.