9/11

[Redstar]

Hardly substantial evidence. The molten metal would also be found if it had been cut with a torch.

This was the conclusion reached by Dr Steven E Jones from a paper he wrote after extensive research into the collapse of the WTC 9/11 Collapse paper

 

 

 

I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high- temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled- demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as "junk science" because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony. It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated.

A truly independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel should be formed. Such a panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. If possible it would question, under oath, the officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed.

None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.

And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did. The implications of what happened on 9/11/2001 clearly supercede partisan politics. Physics sheds light on the issue which we ignore to our peril as we contemplate the wars that have been and may yet be justified on the basis of the 9/11 tragedy and its "official" interpretation.

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Evidence relating to WTC 7 and its mysterious collapse must not be held back. In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.

[tup]

I imagine the freemasons would be keen to quash any talk of conspiracy.

 

The perpetrators will never be revealed but it's safe to assume that 20 ragheads didn't orchestrate this from a cave in the poorest country on the planet, the very notion is preposterous.

[tup]

I gave a cracking book on this to Phoenix it rubbishes the official nonsense.

[delta1red]

[RUL]

I think it's fairly obvious as RS that he meant he seen the TV pics of the first tower on fire and assumed it was pilot error, not that he actually seen the plane hit the tower. That video is proof of fk all.

[Redstar]

My mate that I go to games with works for the big red - a fat tool technician who wanks off over his car

 

How did the terrorists take over the planes in the first place? I'd have thought the cockpit would be locked and that guys just can't saunter up and take control, so how'd they do that?

It is now widely acknowledged that there were no terrorists...there were some Arabic looking gents on the payroll of the CIA at the time...this may be what you are thinking about

[tup]

The smoking gun here is the fighter plane orders after the first plane.

 

The pilots were utterly baffled at their instructions. The nearby air base was not used. Why not?

 

They would have been too effective is the sinister answer.

[RUL]

It is now widely acknowledged that there were no terrorists...there were some Arabic looking gents on the payroll of the CIA at the time...this may be what you are thinking about

 

LOL widely acknowledged by who exactly? A small group of conspiracy nutjobs?

 

At that time there were differnet rules in regards to accessing the cockpits.

[Westhill Red]

This isn't dismissing the theory but how could the CIA or whoever wanted to destroy the twin towers plant explosives in the two biggest buildings in New York without raising suspicion from anyone that lived and worked in the towers?

[Westhill Red]

This isn't dismissing the theory but how could the CIA or whoever wanted to destroy the twin towers plant explosives in the two biggest buildings in New York without raising suspicion from anyone that lived and worked in the towers?

[The Boofon]

This isn't dismissing the theory but how could the CIA or whoever wanted to destroy the twin towers plant explosives in the two biggest buildings in New York without raising suspicion from anyone that lived and worked in the towers?

 

 

I raised this point earlier about the other building and never got an answer so don't hold your breath waiting for one from all the David Ickes currently posting on here.

[Guest milne_afc]

I raised this point earlier about the other building and never got an answer so don't hold your breath waiting for one from all the David Ickes currently posting on here.

 

 

CIA acting as regular maintenance mannies. Whole levels were closed off for weeks at a time in the months leading up to 9/11.

 

David Icke has also been proven to be spot on.

[Redstar]

The smoking gun here is the fighter plane orders after the first plane.

 

The pilots were utterly baffled at their instructions. The nearby air base was not used. Why not?

 

They would have been too effective is the sinister answer.

NORAD were conducting an exercise on the morning of 9/11 and one suggestion is that it was difficult for the pilots to tell real events from excercise...hence the slow response to the Red Alert...coincidently the same thing happened on 7/7 ...anti-terrorist special forces were holding an excercise dealing with a terrorist attack on the Underground at exactly the same time as an actual terrorist attack took place...

[DD1903]

I raised this point earlier about the other building and never got an answer so don't hold your breath waiting for one from all the David Ickes currently posting on here.

 

Now there is a man with some interesting theories! I take it you have watched some of his videos? Interesting...

[DD1903]

NORAD were conducting an exercise on the morning of 9/11 and one suggestion is that it was difficult for the pilots to tell real events from excercise...hence the slow response to the Red Alert...coincidently the same thing happened on 7/7 ...anti-terrorist special forces were holding an excercise dealing with a terrorist attack on the Underground at exactly the same time as an actual terrorist attack took place...

 

At which point did Broon (old) get involved with all this RS?

[tup]

Now there is a man with some interesting theories! I take it you have watched some of his videos? Interesting...

 

He gets ridiculed but nobody can take on the hidden forces he identifies and hope to triumph.

 

The freemasons are a massive element of these unseen authorities and are the most powerful secret society on the planet.

[tommo1903]

I imagine the freemasons would be keen to quash any talk of conspiracy.

 

The perpetrators will never be revealed but it's safe to assume that 20 ragheads didn't orchestrate this from a cave in the poorest country on the planet, the very notion is preposterous.

 

I meant to plus one this, very good point.

 

He gets ridiculed but nobody can take on the hidden forces he identifies and hope to triumph.

 

The freemasons are a massive element of these unseen authorities and are the most powerful secret society on the planet.

 

Agreed, he's much like Romanov.

[robbojunior]

They don't actually

 

They do. And you also clearly have nothing but a 5th hand knowledge of the properties of steel and construction which you have garnered from Wikipedia.

[tommo1903]

robbo, you will understand one day.

 

I will not be smug at all.

[Redstar]

They do. And you also clearly have nothing but a 5th hand knowledge of the properties of steel and construction which you have garnered from Wikipedia.

Really...I'm only saying i believe there is more than a suspicion that covert forces ,orchestrated by the State ,were probably involved...you on the other hand believe you are the all seeing eye and know everything...poor approach Chief

[Terrorfex]

I'm not going to offer much of an opinion on the politics of it all; If it was a conspiracy, then I find it difficult to believe it'd be such a lazy, half-arsed effort that the world is drowning in the "evidence" of its dubiousness. The technical facts behind it are more easy to discern though.

 

I think most people agree this was no ordinary terrorist attack, the Pentagon hit had only one visual account.....a petrol station camera, fuck off! lol

 

One of the most heavily guarded buildings in the World had a 3 foot hole in it where a jumbo jet hit it and not one camera spotted the action.

 

There were plenty of cameras trained on the Pentagon and, indeed, the side that suffered the impact. The reason none of them recorded the actual impact was less to do with conspiracy and more to do with the fact that in the striking aircraft was travelling in excess of 500MPH; at that speed a camera with an effective viewing range of 200 metres respective to the impact point would have only 0.89 seconds to capture the aircraft. This was 2001 - your average surveillance camera simply didn't have the necessary frame-rate.

 

In Britain we'd have got a sea king and winched people off the roof, I can't believe a sophisticated city like NY didn't even attempt it, I don't believe they were incompetent just that something more sinister was going on that day.

 

 

Firstly, the kind of helicopters available to the NYPD and the nearby services in New York were VFR aircraft only; Visual Flight Rules - you can only go where you can see. That rules out the top of a burning skyscraper where not only is the entire thing ablaze and giving off acrid smoke that's a thousand degrees in the shade, but also sports an enormous television transmitter that may or may not come down on your head at any time if you push on ahead. Thermal imaging is useless because the building's on fire, and even if you could your winch operator doesn't have any sensory-enhancement goggles so as soon as he opens the door, he's blind too. Throw in that the helicopter's going to quickly become filled with that same acrid smoke that's obscuring the roof of the skyscraper, and any rescue attempt is sheer suicide. Worse, if you go down, you might well end up killing those on the ground.

 

There was a tape from another nearby building which was swiftly confiscated by thugs under the guise of the CIA, for obvious reasons.

 

This tape has been available for years. You can find it here; showing absolutely nothing.

 

Trade centre 7 wasn't even hit by a plane...all 3 buildings were brought down by having strategically placed explosives (most likely thermanit) planted weeks before the actual attack...buildings the height of the Trade Center towers are designed to withstand multiple impacts by planes and stay standing...The only way to bring down buildings at free fall speed like the trade towers did is to cut their steel core columns...something a plane is incapable of doing

 

Thermite doesn't explode - it's not an explosive, and it's virtually silent when in operation. Thermite also only burns downwards it can't simply burn across the x plane and cut vertical columns; that's not how thermite works.

 

Also, out of curiosity, given that in order for this stuff to be effective it has to be - by its very nature - highly unstable, how was it that the impact of an airliner or the resulting fire didn't detonate the charges, but that they remained perfectly stable for over an hour after impact until they were "deliberately" detonated?

 

The fundamental misunderstanding about the WTC collapse is the belief that an airliner impact couldn't fatally compromise the underlying steel structure of the building. This is actually correct. In fact, the WTC was originally designed to survive an impact with a Boeing 707-sized airliner. The issue is, however something that was never taken into account during structural simulation and design and remains an issue that isn't taken into account by many people discussing this topic. Fuel.

 

Jet A-1 (Jet Fuel) burns between 400 - 800 Centigrade. This isn't hot enough to melt steel, but as anyone in the materials / civil engineering business will know, steel softens and trades structural strength for ductility as temperature increases. At temperatures approaching 800 steel has less than 20% of its room temperature structural strength. In addition as steel heats up (like any metal) it expands. In a skyscraper, it doesn't have much room to do this before it begins to crack the concrete it's reinforcing and other building materials. The fact is the WTC, already seriously damaged by enormous impacts, was doomed the moment tens of thousands of litres of jet fuel was sprayed onto its internal skeleton and set alight.

 

So, in fact, a plane is perfectly capable of doing it.

 

 

What about building 7...it wasn't even hit by a plane

 

 

Building 7 was 400ft from the nearest of the "Two" towers - towers which were over 1300ft tall individually. What's conveniently forgotten about Building 7 is that it was on-fire, and those fires were unchallenged during the entire crisis. Also, every building as far away as WTC 7 was from the two towers was also hit by debris and damaged. All those buildings, however were both shorter in height than WTC 7 with a much reduced load on their foundations and critically, not on fire.

 

For me, the biggest smoking gun is the Pentagon. It has been proven that the plane they said that hit the Pentagon wasn't the plane that hit the Pentagon.

 

It is not possible for the whole fuselage to have evaporated with the heat. Yet they found passports and other "supporting evidence" of the official account.

 

What proof is this?

 

An aicraft is nothing more than a pressurised metal tube with skin less than a millimetre thick in places. It offers absolutely no resistance to external loading beyond aerodynamic forces generated in flight; impacting a reinforced concrete structure and then being subjected to an intense kerosene-based fire will reduce most of the airframe to slag. There are numerous file photos - available online - of parts of the aircraft thrown clear at the initial point of impact. I'd also like to point out some debris has even survived aircraft crashes in which the aircraft has dived from altitude, at terminal velocity, before striking the ground at an extreme nose-down attitude.

 

This video

an F-4 against the reactor wall of a nuclear core. It doesn't end well for the F-4.

 

 

Evidence can be seen on photographs of the columns from the rubble of the World Trade Center.

 

In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite.

 

Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.

 

This is simply not how thermite works. It cannot cut the way you're suggesting. If you could make thermite cut at the angles you're talking about, you're going to die a very wealthy man.

[fatjim]

With any good conspiracy you have to look at who had most to gain.

 

Clearly it was skip hire companies.

[The Boofon]

Anyway you said a plane cannot knock down a building.

 

The trade centre proves otherwise.

 

Building 7 is irrelevant.

 

 

What about the molten metal found in the rubble weeks later...it is scientifically impossible to melt structural steel with aircraft fuel...it doesn't burn hot enough...thermanit on the other hand will cut thru steel like a knife thru butter...have a look at the 45 degree cuts in the steel core that was left standing...

 

 

 

 

 

There is substantial evidence that thermite was used to cut the central support columns, which caused the towers to fall.

 

Evidence can be seen on photographs of the columns from the rubble of the World Trade Center.

 

 

Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.

 

 

Hardly substantial evidence. The molten metal would also be found if it had been cut with a torch.

 

 

I'm not going to offer much of an opinion on the politics of it all; If it was a conspiracy, then I find it difficult to believe it'd be such a lazy, half-arsed effort that the world is drowning in the "evidence" of its dubiousness. The technical facts behind it are more easy to discern though.

 

 

Thermite doesn't explode - it's not an explosive, and it's virtually silent when in operation. Thermite also only burns downwards it can't simply burn across the x plane and cut vertical columns; that's not how thermite works.

 

Also, out of curiosity, given that in order for this stuff to be effective it has to be - by its very nature - highly unstable, how was it that the impact of an airliner or the resulting fire didn't detonate the charges, but that they remained perfectly stable for over an hour after impact until they were "deliberately" detonated?

 

The fundamental misunderstanding about the WTC collapse is the belief that an airliner impact couldn't fatally compromise the underlying steel structure of the building. This is actually correct. In fact, the WTC was originally designed to survive an impact with a Boeing 707-sized airliner. The issue is, however something that was never taken into account during structural simulation and design and remains an issue that isn't taken into account by many people discussing this topic. Fuel.

 

Jet A-1 (Jet Fuel) burns between 400 - 800 Centigrade. This isn't hot enough to melt steel, but as anyone in the materials / civil engineering business will know, steel softens and trades structural strength for ductility as temperature increases. At temperatures approaching 800 steel has less than 20% of its room temperature structural strength. In addition as steel heats up (like any metal) it expands. In a skyscraper, it doesn't have much room to do this before it begins to crack the concrete it's reinforcing and other building materials. The fact is the WTC, already seriously damaged by enormous impacts, was doomed the moment tens of thousands of litres of jet fuel was sprayed onto its internal skeleton and set alight.

 

So, in fact, a plane is perfectly capable of doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

Building 7 was 400ft from the nearest of the "Two" towers - towers which were over 1300ft tall individually. What's conveniently forgotten about Building 7 is that it was on-fire, and those fires were unchallenged during the entire crisis. Also, every building as far away as WTC 7 was from the two towers was also hit by debris and damaged. All those buildings, however were both shorter in height than WTC 7 with a much reduced load on their foundations and critically, not on fire.

 

 

 

What proof is this?

 

 

 

This is simply not how thermite works. It cannot cut the way you're suggesting. If you could make thermite cut at the angles you're talking about, you're going to die a very wealthy man.

 

 

 

BOOM.

 

Hud at Redstar.

[ChutneyLove]

Too much fuckin' soap operas and red-tops. Can no-one ever accept things for how they are reported nowadays?

 

Does anyone actually think it is prudent of any government to release all details of security breaches or terrorism intrusion etc. to the general public? Are you the same people that think Wiki-Leaks was a good idea? Releasing confidential documents about security is in the public interest? Wise up with your conspiracy tosh. An "expert" said this, a "scientist" said that. There are "experts" in all manner of fields - some of whom will tell you that God created the Earth in 7 days (well, 6 with a chill-out). Do you believe them too?

 

If you look hard enough into anything you will find randomness as well as repetition. Simple fractal physics and geometry can tell you that.

 

I have no doubt that there is corruption at the highest level in every government in the world, but to suggest the US government staged an attack on their own people to gain oil wealth they could squeeze out anyway is preposterous. The conspiracists have already said that the set-up was in place to give them a mandate to invade countries - so the WTC attacks would not be a necessary part of the jigsaw.

 

A pile of shit usually believed by new-age twats who need to use their brain power on something more useful. Making lentil soup for example.

 

I won't entertain a discussion with anyone to the contrary, since my belief is that any argument pro-conspiracy is ridiculous, so no response to this required.

[Ke1t]

the thing about my post is that it is nothing more than a simple timeline of very easily verified fact.

 

There's no opinions, 'expert'or otherwise. There's no conspiracy theory involved. Just the events that actually happened, sorted into chronological order.

 

in the light of simple chronology the events is September 11 2001 look very suspicious, call them convenient, indeed.

 

There's no possible way to refute these facts, because they are facts, so if you have a problem with the facts then I'm afraid that's.something you have to deal with.

 

Saying "Shit happens", shrugging your shoulders and saying, " What government would do such a thing" is, however, an attempt at refuting fact with opinion.

 

The American government has done bad shit to its own people on more than one previous occasion, and it only takes once to set a precedent and dispel the myth that the American government wouldn't sacrifice its own people for its own agenda.

[AndrewW]

the thing about my post is that it is nothing more than a simple timeline of very easily verified fact.

 

There's no opinions, 'expert'or otherwise. There's no conspiracy theory involved. Just the events that actually happened, sorted into chronological order.

 

in the light of simple chronology the events is September 11 2001 look very suspicious, call them convenient, indeed.

 

There's no possible way to refute these facts, because they are facts, so if you have a problem with the facts then I'm afraid that's.something you have to deal with.

 

Saying "Shit happens", shrugging your shoulders and saying, " What government would do such a thing" is, however, an attempt at refuting fact with opinion.

 

The American government has done bad shit to its own people on more than one previous occasion, and it only takes once to set a precedent and dispel the myth that the American government wouldn't sacrifice its own people for its own agenda.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Ke1t]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

The problem with that idea being that there's not two sides to my chronological list. It's merely a recitation of actual events, not open to interpretation one way or the other. That these things happened is beyond dispute,

 

If, however there are events which somehow change the context of this list of events then feel free to post them up.

 

...so, over to you.

[Ke1t]

Wiggy wanted to build flats on the site.

 

Was seen in New York a week before it happened with a big bag of Devil Bangers and a bottle of Turpentine.

 

I can't see Milne springing for the BIG bag of Devil Bangers. Sounds a bit hokey to me.

[BrianFaePerth]

A thread about 9/11 and the American govt cover-up followed by this site going wonky