|
|
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 is a GREAT story. I thought we had bin Laden on tape in his tent saying he was surprised the buildings came down?
I recall some report saying the steel melt because the impact of the plane blew the fireproof insulation off thereby exposing the steel to the heat of the flames===not usually the case otherwise without explosions.
So==an easy check would be the burning temperature of aviation fuel compared to the temperature when steel loses its structural integrity.
I’ll google that if time permits.
Occam’s Razor until more proof.
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
That was easy. Seems avgas can’t burn steel.
Who knew?
Actually, the big conspiracy theory that no one is talking about is that the World Trade Centers are still there.
The video was edited by all the major new networks and the pictures were edited in Photoshop.
That’s why they wouldn’t let Ahmadinejad go to the WTC memorial site when he visited New York because there is no memorial site.
The World Trade Centers existence are shielded from view via optical technology discovered at Roswell to visually remove the World Trade Centers from the skyline.
Similarly, this is why visiting the World Trade Center site is restricted.
/Hey, why not! My theory isn’t any more of a stretch than the existing conspiracy theories.
It would of been nice to let the building evacuate before blowing it up if that is the case.
>>My theory isn’t any more of a stretch than
>>the existing conspiracy theories.
Uh, well it is. Read the article.
I wouldn’t be terribly shocked if the government was hiding some crucial information about 9/11 – intelligence info, people who benefit, etc. But as much as I dislike some of our government officials I just can’t fathom them intentionally killing 3000 civilians.
Before someone else says it, I know GW has now killed more than that number of soldiers so I suppose he is capable of giving the order, but seriously – I just can’t believe our government would condone the WTC collapse.
Generally the conspiracy fanatics are just that – fanatic. They seek some sort of personal validation by coming up with wild ideas to solve seemingly simple problems.
We’ll probably never know the full story being 9/11 but man do I hope there is no grain of truth to the theory that our own government had a hand in it. That thought just makes me lose faith in humanity.
Most of Uncle Dave’s articles are on the loony side, but this one takes the cake.
It boggles my mind that people actually believe that 110 story steel core building can collapse, at near free-fall speed, without the structure needing to be detonated in order to weaken it. The “official” story simply defies logic…
http://tinyurl.com/4ujuyk
>>But as much as I dislike some of our
>>government officials I just can’t fathom
>>them intentionally killing 3000 civilians.
Yes, intentionally killing them is unfathomable. But Dumbya and his hired lackeys and acolytes fucking something up with horrific consequences? Given his historical record, that starts to make sense….
#6–michael==you scare me. You “hope” the government wouldn’t kill 3000 folks? Even the main thread above says if there was an explosion the theory is that the terrorists did it.
Hence, the tendency of even educated people to lean towards lunacy.
We even have it on film. Theres the building on fire for 2 hours and it collapses. Right there in front of our eyes. Now, lets cook up some conspiracy theories, aliens from space, bad chakra. Anything but the simple evidence.
>>bad chakra
Bad chakra? wtf is that? I would agree that all 7 of Dumbya’s chakras are bad. He sure has fucked up a lot of things during his reign.
#2 “That was easy. Seems avgas can’t burn steel.”
It would be Jet A not Av gas but that is beside the point.
Maybe the heat from the fire was not the central problem but kinetic energy. You take the mass of a 757 at 200+ mph and run it through a network of steel columns and you are going to get serious weakness.
Some Complete and Utter Moron said:
Most of Uncle Dave’s articles are on the loony side, but this one takes the cake.
———-
Oh really? And what are your credentials? Are you a Physicist or a Structural Engineer?
Inquiring minds need to know.
From a peer reviewed paper by Physicist Steven Jones…
http://tinyurl.com/5k9eoo
5. Essentially in Free Fall
NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”.3
We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.)13, 14 Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask – how could that be? NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion.
Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)
Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis.13, 14 NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives.
We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.
Whatever one might think of the conspiracy theories, the collapse of WTC 7 has always been, for me, the most bizarre event of the whole day. It wasn’t hit by a plane and yet just collapsed like that? It defies belief. Perhaps the strangest thing that happened on a day of very odd occurrences.
The NIST report never covered How the collapse started, just what happened after the initial chain reaction began.
There was also a lot of work supposedly that took place in the buildings months prior to the planes hitting.
What about an Insurance scam? Might be easier to believe than say…your government blowing something up?
Either way….its only a “Conspiracy Theory” until its proven to not be. Without all the evidence and examination needed after the event, in that the mayor and other officials removed the debris immediately, without any preservation of the ‘crime scene’.
#9–Bryan==I agree. I read the article quickly twice trying to find out what the definition of T was==but I’m not trying to prove anything, just get the ball rolling. I lazily hoped that T would be the relevant value in the modeled collapse? You sure it wasn’t? I take your word for it.
I certainly hope no one looks to any blog for information, but rather to leads for information???
Still, thanks for the correction.
Experts say… and still look how often said experts are wrong and are mystified by reality. Still, the experts say it so it must be true.
BryanP said
It didn’t burn it. It didn’t melt it. All it had to do was soften the steel a bit. A floor collapses, chain-reaction pancaking ensues.
———-
For the building to fall at near free-fall speed, that would mean that the entire length of the whole 110 stories, of the buildings steel core had to soften/collapse at once, for it to fall without any resistance.
Sorry, the “pancaking” theory is complete and utter bullshit.
Not to mention that the plane that hit the second tower, jettisoned nearly all of it fuel on the outside of the building anyway. If you’ll notice, the smoke from that building was black, indicating an oxygen starved fire.
The “official” story does NOT “wash” at all.
You are all so pathetic! Go back and smoke more of your weed. Don’t worry, maybe Obama will win later this year and together with the rest of the looney left, they’ll legalize weed and you’ll be able to enjoy it without fear that Dick Cheney and his thugs will come after you.
Actually, I think I saw a tape earlier on 9/11/01 that showed Cheney, Bush, Condi, Powell, and OBL smoking a joint and cracking jokes about how they were going to fool us into believing that this ever happened. Blah!
Seriously though, if this were the case then the Democratic majority in Congress, who has held that majority for 2 years now and a very close majority for 6 years before that, would’ve investigated this — don’t you think? Unless, of course, they also know what went on and we were all fooled by everybody in the Fed.
This is such utter rubbish. I bet the same people that believe this crap are the same that believe Global Warming is the highest threat in the world right now, that we never went to the moon, that Roswell really happened, that the auto industry giants shelved a 100 MPG engine back in the 70’s, that weed is doesn’t damage the body, etc, etc, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/5k9eoo
3. Pancake Theory Not Supported
NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”.3
Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7 The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.
Some Complete Idiot said
You are all so pathetic! Go back and smoke more of your weed. Don’t worry, maybe Obama will win later this year and together with the rest of the looney left, they’ll legalize weed and you’ll be able to enjoy it without fear that Dick Cheney and his thugs will come after you.
———-
Oh, I see that another renowned Physicist has joined the discussion with some very important facts to contribute.
Total and complete BS, you’ve gone a long way to completely invalidate anything you ever post here from now on. Why is it so hard to friggin’ believe that two 1300 feet buildings falling 350 feet from a building that they share a subfoundation with would, I don’t know, make it a bit unstable!?!?!?! The collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 made the foundation and substructure of WTC7 unstable, and it fell. That’s not even taking into account the fire created by the fuel oil for the generators in the building. All these conspiracies look at everything above the ground, and nothing beneath it. Idiots. Friggin’ end of story.
Dismissing questions about 9/11 as “conspiracy theories” is the intellectual equivalent of a 4 letter word, without looking at the evidence presented. Did you know that over 40.000 cases of ‘Conspiracy’ go through our courts every year? Have you ever opened a history book? Conspiracies are as common as it gets.
“I can’t believe the gov could do this? They are so incompetent! What was the movite? So Bush did it right? BAlbalbalba” Stop jumping to conclusions. First, look at the questions raised. They are valid and demand further investigation. That’s how it works in a court of law, not hearsay and speculation.
In any case, it’s just a matter of who’s conspiracy you believe: the governments or 9/11 Truth’s.
I’d like to remind you that the government doesn’t have any evidence to prove its case. Nada. Look it up. Even the FBI doesn’t have any proof linking Bin Laden to 9/11. Check out their most wanted page. No joke! If you dwelve into any aspect about 9/11, you’ll quickly find something fishy or glaring contradictions.
Oh and that’s the same government that lied about Iraq, Saddam, Yellow cakes, renditions, torture, spying, Halliburton, Enron etc… yes they lied about everything, but somehow their account of 9/11 is magically trustworthy. Pleaaaase.
The masses just never learn.
>>that weed is doesn’t damage the body
I thought everybody knew that. Wtf?
So when are they going to stop calling it a “conspiracy theory,” and call it the conspiracy that it is. All one has to do is look at the Project for a New American Century’s statement, whereby they were calling for a “new Pearl Harbor,” to justify the securing of all of the Middle East’s oil resources.
Google “laughing Israelis” some time. If you come across the story in the Scotsman, where they documented the Mossad agents, who were in Liberty State Park, in New Jersey, who were video taping the ‘attack.’
This was a big set up. If it wasn’t a setup, they let it happen on purpose.
There is a fundamental issue at the base of the various conspiracy theories I’ve heard from JFK to WTC. I’ll focus on WTC but the same could be said about the “LBJ/CIA did it” crowd. Events of this magnitude imply two elements that I simply can’t believe: (1) given the essential incompetence displayed by “W” and pals, how/why is it they didn’t screw up the WTC situation as badly as they have everything else they touched? (2) Assuring the silence of the number of people who had to be involved “taxes the credulity of a rational man” (to quote Howard Cosell).
Until those two showstoppers can be explained to my satisfaction, it’s highly unlikely JFK was assassinated by a right wing cabal or the twin towers were toppled by a crew assembled by Dick Cheney. Think Watergate and how that fiasco played out for real insight into what happens when evil lurks in the hearts of men.
My apologies to those who don’t know their history and “Remember the Maine”.
It’s not av-gas, its jet fuel, a completly different fluid. Av-gas is like gasoline, jet fuel is like kerosine.
It doesn’t need to “burn” the steel, only make it loose it’s temper.
Conspiracy theories offer simple solutions to complex problems, unfortunatly, they are the wrong solutions.
Cheney and the Neo-Cons wanted a “NEW PEARL HARBOR” – to attack the Arab Oil States and THEY ENGINEERED THE 9/11 AIRLINE ATTACK !!!
Well, the PNAC site is gone, but see the Wiki:
http://tinyurl.com/36f9tg
Anyway, the 9/11 Cover-Up Commission, which said it WOULDN’T TRY TO FIND OUT WHO DID IT OR WHY OUR DEFENSES WERE DOWN ( NORAD, which stood watch for 50 years against the Soviets, was STOOD DOWN ON 9/11 – Coincidence ??? )
There are TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 AND THE BUM’S RUSH THOSE WHO TRIED TO INVESTIGATE IT GOT !!!
[Please use TinyUrl.com for overly long URLs. – ed.]
Hey #25 JPV, how about you show us your PhD, expertise in the subject and evidence to prove it. If not, then you’re nothing more than another blog reader like the rest of us; except that you probably smoke weed all the time, have a pony tail, are balding, probably take it in the seat or wish you did, and are a heavy Obama supporter.
If this were really a conspiracy, don’t you think it would’ve made it’s way to the court system? With the left hating this administration so much, I’m sure Schumer and his colleages in the Senate, as well as Pelosi in the House would’ve called for a criminal investigation in the matter! But so far, nothing! Other than a bunch of alarmist coming up with these frustrating stories. If you hate the country so much then why not move to Canada or Mexico or hop on a plane and move to Burma. I hear they need help over there. What’s next, what happened in Burma was an experiment of a secret weather bomb being conducted by Cheney’s military? Version 2.0 of the Katrina experiment? Wouldn’t surprise me.
@#9–bh28630
“(1) given the essential incompetence displayed by “W” and pals, how/why is it they didn’t screw up the WTC situation as badly as they have everything else they touched?”
I guess getting away with Iraq, Saddam, Yellow cakes, renditions, torture, spying, Halliburton, Enron etc… is just plain incompetence right? No, these guys are f*cking magicians! Not only did they get re-elected but they’re laughing all the way to the bank while you stand there smirking at them for being incompetent… Hahaha. Geeezzz. Wonder who looks foolish now?
“(2) Assuring the silence of the number of people who had to be involved “taxes the credulity of a rational man” (to quote Howard Cosell).”
So according to your statement a succesful conspiracy cannot exist then. Ever. Wonder why we have a word for it then?
Bet you don’t know that 10.000 people were involved in Manhattan project. But hey, the public only first heard about atomic bombs when the first bomb blew up…
Military operations use compartmentalization, state secrets and court marshalling to reduce leaks. That’s why we mostly have no idea what the CIA/NSA/Military are up to most of the time.