|
|
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.”
Ariane, don’t you know? There was some sort of security drill a few days before 9/11 that was cover for planting explosives, and the person in charge of security was MARVIN BUSH!
Meantime, for TWA 800, the evidence shows that there were Navy boats in the area, with the whole military on high alert. The official stories about these boats kept contradicting each other.
The official explanatory video of a fast rise followed by a drop after a fuel tank explosion is not believed by aviation professionals. Then the government decided to prosecute a journalist who reported that he found explosive residue on the plane. The FBI explanation of a dog training exercise for the DEA was found to be false. Twice John Kerry has gone on TV and called it a ‘bombing,’ as have Dick Morris and George Stephanopolous. And to top it off Sandy Berger was caught carrying documents out of the National Archives. Perhaps these were notes about an attack by plane or missile in 1996?
Then Clinton, Sandy Berger, and co go out of there way to defeat Curt Weldon for reelection, recruiting his opponent, hosting fund raisers, and Clinton mentioning him by name on his Fox News rant (the only guy he named), all because Curt Weldon was studying intelligence failures, and asking too many questions about the previous administration as well.
Bush just got lucky with this perfectly-timed, perfectly-covered up 911 plot here. But could he pull off something really difficult like, say, hiding a WMD in the Iraqi desert?
RBG
It’s amazing how effective mass media brainwashing can be. Is there really anyone left who thinks the millions of people who doubt the official story are “wackos”? Watch “loose change”, or an Alex Jones documentary. The evidence is overwhelming if you bother to look. Besides we all know how they tore apart our constitution and bill of rights since the attack, starting with the Patriot Act then wiretaps and so on. Oh but it’s the terrorists that hate your freedom right? Not the government…who has been doing nothing but taking your freedoms left and right.
Is it really THAT far fetched to believe those in power would engineer false attacks to get the people to support what they do? I don’t think so. They wanted endless war, and they got it. Hitler attacked his own people in the same fashion. Sadly, America is closely following in his footsteps.
134 abolu
…not to mention the security of our precious bodily fluids.
Since I know at least you bother to look at such things, I won’t mention my links just above to sites that, shot-by-shot, show each loose change point to be basic hooey.
Okay, so there are other words besides “wacko” to describe the millions of people who doubt the official story re flying saucers and ghosts.
RBG
I hate it when John asks for stories that will get alot of comments. Sigh.
BUNK BUNK BUNK BUNK.
Next, watch for an anti-Jesus post… watch for it… watch for it…
i feel sorry for all the people that had to breathe all that asbestos contaminated dust from the towers falling. i bet it would have cost a fortune to clean the buildings and then the lawsuits from all the people that spent years working in the contaminated buildings claiming mesothelioma …. what better way to drop that hassle than drop the buildings ? ? ? you idiots who think fires burn or melt super steel beams encased in concrete are a pretty dumb and gullible bunch…… i just hope the the actions of those in the past succeeded in making the future better for us still here and in the future… there is a reason for everything and sometimes it’s for the better even though sometimes it doesn’t look like it is. like the old saying goes you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. regardless of how or why it happened it was a sad day for all.
#128, Ah, Yeah,
LOL, well made point.
#137, gloabal,
See #128. I think they might have had you in mind during that conversation.
“I guess we need to believe that the world we live in is fine,”
Some people seem to have the need to believe the world we live in is bad. No facts will dissuade them. It seems to make them feel smarter them the rest of us idiots. Me I,d rather be a happy idiot.
I meant to reply to this yesterday, but it got a bit busy…
That page linked from #2: goes on about how there’s not enough energy in fuel to heat the concrete in the floor slabs. Um… what floor slabs? The concrete just had a large plane fly in to it, and is now in bits well BELOW the fire, leaving vertical “wind tunnels” to fan the flames.
#137:
i) the beams were not encased in concrete, but in fireproof cladding that wasn’t designed to withstand an explosion.
ii) Do your homework about the structural properties of steel. It does not need to melt, or burn, to fail. It progressively loses its ability to carry loads as the temperature increases.
The writer of the above page linked from #2 cites a British Steel study of a small (8-storey) building, while the beams of the WTC were carrying 1400 tons of concrete for every floor above a point. The condtions were not directly comparable.
In the interests of fairness, one must admit that an aluminum tube, even one full of explosive fluids, will not appreciably affect steel columns. Hence, the only real mechanism that can be blamed for the collapse is the removal of insulation and weakening from the fire.
Here is a shot of the internal steel columns for your edification. The “hollow tube” construction everyone points to only referred to the outer ring. the internal core is reinforced steel. This internal core would have to have completely collapsed for the building to come straight down.
I admit I just don’t know about the entire situation. Both sides’ stories suck. Anyone who has read about the Syphilis experiments and think-tank operations like Northwoods can believe our government is capable of almost anything. However, pulling off such a massive disaster is a pretty huge scam for a government to pull, even one that started wars in the past under similarly shaky grounds (remember the Maine).
My guess is that we’ll all know all the details in 60 or 80 years.
#142–SmartAlix==you say: “My guess is that we’ll all know all the details in 60 or 80 years.” /// Really? Like what kind of info could turn up in that time???
I can see two==a building built to the specs of WTC is crashed by airplanes in the same way and the buildings do or don’t pancake==still no proof.
or-
some dude(s) come forward with detailed info on how the sabotage was done==still no proof.
Let me go out on thin ice. 100% proof is never available, so like the rest of your life, what scenario do you think is most likely and for all intents and purposes the case is closed?
143,
Bobbo,
I lean towards something along the lines of people in our government knowing about it and letting it happen. How it happened is up for debate, but nether camp seems to have the lock on reality. I do believe the truth will be stranger than any fiction.
3144–SmartAlix====hahahahahah! Really? Given a choice between the obvious and the ridiculous you take it up a notch to ridiculous X 2?
Given the quality of so many of your posts, this surprises me. I hope this is not humor not fitting thru the webitudes, or a quixotic change in persona for this thread–otherwise, you add paranoid lunacy to nutbag conspiracy theory.
But to be fair–your evidence for this position is?????????
142 Smartalix
I should have mentioned that
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
above is also a page that goes into great pictorial detail about the WTC tower construction, further to your point.
RBG
145,
My opinion is my own, and you are free to hold yours.
#148–SmartAlix==yes of course. And one can come to this blog to post one’s opinion and discuss it, or not.
My opinion is based on video’s taken of the planes running into the WTC and a few hours later, they collapse. Seems completely definitive.
I am just curious how you think something other than what happened right in front of your eyes is the potential reality of the situation?
Its on film!!!!!
These “experts” are all hawking DVDs. To those who say that fire can’t bring down a skyscraper, I ask, “Why do they fireproof the steel? Is it just for fun?” The fireproofing was stripped from the steel, it weakened quickly, and could not hold up the load of the building above it (about 30 stories in the case of the South Tower, about 15 in the case of the North Tower). WTC 7? Hit by tons of debris from the collapse of two 110-story buildings next to it. It was expected to collapse eventually; Fire Chief Nigro cleared a collapse area around it so that people could continue to work searching for survivors in the rubble of the towers.
Seriously, this entire article had not appeared on DU until today on my computer. It wasn’t here yesterday.
Hmmm… Verizon’s fault or… conspiracy?
You make the call!
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf
THIS So SO LAUGHABLE!!!
on one hand BUSH is a total liar and idiot who cannot get good grades.
on the other hand Him and his VP (who is not safe to even hunt with) can mastermind and pull off a terrorist attack framing Osama and getting Him to take credit for it.
Science clears this who thing up over and over – but the other side keeps tearing it down with quick objections, but no substance.
We have forgotten how to reason.
Shame on dvorak.org/blog for lending a forum to this nonsense.
Back in the day if someone did this we would have built bigger better plane proof towers by now.
Where is the pride and belief in the good we used to have?
Actually, I heard it was the Good Times virus!!!
High rises are designed for 50 year lifespans, and most are up significantly longer than that. You would not prebuild explosives into buildings as chemical explosives change in composition over time — a disaster for the predictability needed for building demolition. Also such aging explosives tend to be more unstable not less as they age, and could detonate if shocked such as earthquake, impact, etc. Again not good.
Buildings do not fall down (pancake) as the towers and especially Building 7 did. Building 7 was designed in traditional manner and at worst — as claimed (bogusly no doubt) by Popular Mechanics editors — was damaged severely on one hidden side. If there was a collapse it certainly would not be pancaking in upon itself.
All three buildings were “pulled.” The non-government terrorists sure as heck didn’t spend months sneaking around the infrastructure rigging it. So that just leaves the government terrorists.
I’m far from being a fan of GWB, but the part about flame’s heat not being hot enough, is false:
I work in a plastics company that suffered a fire some 3 years ago and remember being impressed by the deformed steel beams and the caved in steel roof. And they didn’t have the weight of another fifty floors on them.
That the USA government used the WTC tragedy as an excuse … that’s another story.
I really don’t know about whether our Gooberment “fiddled while Rome burned” so to speak, if they turned their backs while the hijackers did their evil deeds, but I’m pretty sure that the structural damage and fire would have caused the towers to collapse. Notice that the second building was crashed into lower down than the first building was, and the second tower collapsed first. Once the top third or so of the building started downward, gravity turned it into a pretty good approximation of the “irresistible force”. Once that sucker fell more than ten feet, the steel and concrete structure below may as well been made out of toilet paper and scotch tape. And every floor it smashed beneath simply added energy to the hammer blow. You could almost certainly build a structure six or seven feet tall out of toothpicks and glue that would hold up a concrete block, but pick the block up an inch or so and drop it back on the top of your toothpick tower and it will pretty much “free fall” to the ground. Most of any tall building’s strength is designed mainly to keep gravity from making it fall down. Although it would really take only a few hundred pounds of high explosive to take either of the towers down, they have to be shaped charges that literally “cut” the steel support beams at an angle so that the upper section of the cut beam can slide “downhill” past the bottom cut. And they would have to be sequenced precisely as well. You don’t do controlled demolition of a large structure with the traditional Hollywood block of C4 and a detonator. Unless it’s a carefully designed shaped charge, it probably would leave most steel girders kind of bent a little. The big problem our troops are having in Iraq with IED’s are that they are shaped charge munitions, that can punch a hole in armor with a concentrated jet of hypersonic plasma concentrated on a very few square inches of area. The whole thing that really throws me though, is that the video of the collapse of Building 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition. So, WTF?
154 Facist Nation “Building 7 was designed in traditional manner…”
As long as it is traditional to retro-build a building over an existing transformer station like WTC7 was.
Firefighter & eyewitness accounts & info re building 7 on this page: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
“So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.”
Hayden: “By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.”
Wait, wait…go back. Did he say “pulled?” Like in the past tense of the verb “pull?” Whatever could he have meant by that? Except demolition companies, everyone else knows that pull can only be used to describe knocking down a building. So when the order to “pull” was given, what could that fire chief possibly mean? He knocked over all his people?
From the same debunking911.com page:
Silverstein’s quote:
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
So you’re saying Silverstein was meaning “We’ve had such terrible loss of life. maybe the smartest thing to do is just destroy it so that there’s even more loss of life.”
And then in the next breath he must have said, “Doh! After all the meticulous planning and paying out loads of hush money, I go and publicly let it slip out my order to demolish WTC7. Stupid! stupid! stupid!”
RBG
#154, FN
Building 7 was designed in traditional manner and at worst — as claimed (bogusly no doubt) by Popular Mechanics editors — was damaged severely on one hidden side. If there was a collapse it certainly would not be pancaking in upon itself.
So, why did Popular Mechanics “claim” WTC 7 was damaged? Do you have any evidence to present that PM’s “claim” is bogus? Do you have a link to any photos showing all four sides of WTC 7 undamaged? Do you have any of the inspection reports of the foundation? And, if the collapse wasn’t a pancake type failure, what should the building have done?
You idiots come up with all these retarded “questions” and then turn around and ignore the answer in order to say “see, this is what must have happened”. The fact is WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris and the foundation was damaged by the collapse of both WTCs. The same thing happened to several other buildings in the immediate vicinity. There were also fires out of control in the building.
What is public record is the G.W’s BROTHER was in the firm that was in charge of security at the WTC .He also resigned Sept.10 Marvin Bush.When you step in dogcrap do you have to taste it to make sure it wasn’t dogcrap.
If there are some who still think that we who do not go along with the offical GW Bush story, then please explain the flash just before the planes hit the building?
Can anyone that believes the GW Bush story explain why there was no plane parts, no seats, no bodies, or body parts, no luggage, and a hole just 16 feed wide, when the 159 foot wide plane hit the Pentagon? However, I can show you footage of FBI agents picking up debre from the grownds of the Pentagon, but under canvas covering.
And what about the 110 video camaras outside the Pentagon, not encluding the security camaras from the Pentagon itself that would show without any doub what really it the Penagon. But you have never seen that now have you, why? Because they don’t want to to see it. They don’t want you to know the truth.
I have three PhD’s in the engineering sciences, four PhD’s in mathematics and three PhD’s in criminology. I am also a retired major general, U.S. Army, Aerospace Division, in charge of various kinds of exotic weaponry that none of you have ever heard of. With that, I SAY 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. Dispute me at your peril, as I eat government shills blogging cyberspace just flogging their dongs.