Skip to main content

Here is a video titled, "The Ultimate Con- 911" and "9/11 revisited: were explosive used?". For those of you who really believe that it was just Al Qaeda responsible for 9/11, how naive one can be. But it's up to you the viewers here to decide what you want to believe. For the war in Iraq is proof of George W. Bush power trip and it's not getting any better.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM



http://youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU
Original Post
Interesting video:

I didn't watch all of the video but I was curious; If the US government were repsonsible for the destruction of the twin towers as the video claims, why would they be setting off explosions AFTER the building had already fell? Seems to me all the explosions should have went off at the moment the planes impacted the buildings. Also If the Bush administration is repsonsible for such an atrocity, with as many political enemies that he has (not the nut jobs that also deny the Holocaust or that the moon landing never happened) how come none of them accuse him of this? As a matter of fact, many of his worse critics are offended by people who claim he is responsible for this. Why do you think this is?

Kevin
Penn & Teller made a video where they compared "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists" to people that believed the moon landing was a hoax. I say they have it backwards. The people who believe a 200 ton airliner can LEVEL a 500,000 ton 110 story skyscraper in less than 2 hours are similar to the people who claim the moon landing was a hoax.

Getting to the moon was a physics and engineering problem. Designing the World Trade Center was a physics and engineering problem. Figuring out whether or not an airliner can LEVEL a 500,000 ton 110 story skyscraper in less than 2 hours is a physics and engineering problem.

I KNOW that every level of the WTC had to have enough steel to support the weight of all of the levels above it. No one should need a PhD in physics and a Masters in structural engineering to figure that out. The 80th floor of the south tower had to have enough steel to hold another 30 stories of that building. It did it for 28 years without a problem. Have you heard how many tons of steel the fuel from the plane had to weaken in 56 MINUTES in the last SIX YEARS?????

So why is it after SIX YEARS of this bullsh!t we don't have a table telling us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of those buildings?

At this point I no longer care who did it or why. I consider it TOTALLY RIDICULOUS that the nation that put men on the moon and has computerized MP3 players in almost every pocket is populated by people that can't comprehend a grammar school physics problem.


http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

The base of this building had to be strong enough to hold that building swaying in an 80 mph wind. It was designed to handle up to 140. I haven't found a number for the maximum it ever withstood. But the wind blows for hours and even days though not constantly at maximum. So how could a plane do that in less than 2 hours??? Even if the plane could start a collapse there should have been a 20 or 30 story stump of the building left standing.

umbrarchist
Last edited {1}
Umbra,
What are your thoughts about the Popular Mechanics Report:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.


By The Editors
Published in the March 2005 issue.


False Witness: Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation. (Photograph by Rob Howard)

From the moment the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Background
For background on this investigative feature, please click here.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

The Planes
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.

Where's The Pod?
Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images "” the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

No Stand-Down Order
Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked "” the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Flight 175's Windows
Claim: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."


Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories "” specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

Flight 175 fuselage windows at World Trade Center Ground Zero wreckage
Plain View: Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage. (Photograph by William F. Baker/FEMA)

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied "” including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine "” as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

Intercepts Not Routine
Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

The World Trade Center
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers "” and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later "” initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel "” and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800˚ to 1500˚F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750˚F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength "” and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100˚F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800˚ it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832˚F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

Violent Collapse: Pancaking floors "” not controlled demolition "” expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air "” along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse "” was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Seismic Spikes
Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."


Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear "” misleadingly "” as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves "” blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower "” start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom "” approximately 10 stories "” about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors "” along with the building's unusual construction "” were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

The Pentagon
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

Pentagon 9/11 Damage

HQ Attack: Taken three days after 9/11, this photo shows the extent of the damage to the Pentagon, consistent with a fiery plane crash. (Photograph by Department of Defense)

Big Plane, Small Holes
Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile "” part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

Hole Truth: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. (Photograph by Department of Defense)

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide "” not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Intact Windows
Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece "” even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do "” they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Flight 77 Debris
Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

Flight 77 debris lies next to Pentagon on September 11, 2001

Aftermath: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn "” proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Flight 93
Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.

The White Jet
Claim: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever "” alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity "” a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft." "” not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

Roving Engine
Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

Indian Lake
Claim: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it "” winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."

Flight 93 9/11 Map

(Map by International Mapping)

FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater "” not 6 miles "” easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest "” toward Indian Lake.

F-16 Pilot
Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes "” it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

Reporting Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS.

Photography Research Sarah Shatz.

Sources: For a list of experts consulted during the preparation of this article, click here.

PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories. The following were particularly helpful.

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O'Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane's Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week


Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology
quote:
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100˚F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800˚ it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832˚F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


I have been over this with people before. I have downloaded and burned the NIST report to DVD. The funniest thing is that the number sequence 1-8-3-2 only occurs once in the entire report and it appears as 0.1832 and it is referring to the quantity of water that the sprinkler system can distribute. Now 1832 deg F is 1000 deg C. The jetfuel is kerosene and that is the maximum temperature it can reach but it can only do that at 100% burn efficiency. That cannot happen under accidental conditions in a 20% oxygen atmosphere. It may occur for fractions of a second at random spots in a large fire but the overall average temperatue should be around 800 deg F at most.

But that still leaves the problem of this supposedly weaking steel. Yeah the steel can weaken but THE CORE TEMPERTURE of the steel has to rise to 1100 deg or whatever. Steel conducts heat away from the point of application so either the heat must be applied faster than it is conducted away which requires extremely high temperatures or nearly all of the steel must be heated which TAKES TIME. But the amount of time is going to be affected by the quantity of steel. If someone asks you how long it takes to cook a frozen turkey aren't you going to ask the size of the turkey? The south tower came down in 56 minutes. They say there were 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. Evenly distributed that would be 820 tons per floor. The distribution of steel had to taper toward the top but for all of the searching I have done I cannot tell you the tons of steel on the 80th, 81st and 82nd floors of the south tower.

I believe in skepticism but I decide how to apply it. I am skeptical that an airliner could make the towers collapse in less than 2 hours so until I have accurate info on the distribution of steel and concrete and the maximum load each level could support you can forget my believing it. As for conspiracies, the laws of physics don't give a sh!t about human beings and their motivations. I don't care about pods or windows or NORAD.

What are your thoughts about the Popular Mechanics Report?

umbrarchist
Last edited {1}
Popular Mechanics is certainly a joke compared to this:

quote:
WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS
By Wayne Trumpman
9 September 2005
Version: 0.4

This paper analyzes the first moments of the WTC 1 collapse on 9-11. Phenomena are documented that is impossible to explain by a natural gravity collapse and point to the use of high explosives. Discussion focuses on the top 13 floors, 110-98, and the collapse of floors 97, 96, 95, and 94. Features of the fires, the behavior of collapse, and the produced clouds are looked at in detail. It would be helpful for you to review the NIST final report before continuing since this paper assumes you have some knowledge of the WTC 1 collapse. You can find this on the Internet for free. See the References section at the end of this paper for internet links.
.............
I just pointed out a problem. When two objects of different strengths smash, science says the weaker object will yield. Floor 98 did not buckle when it hit the lower structure for at least 8 floors. To overwhelm these lower floors requires the mass of the upper building section. So when floor 98 allegedly hit these lower floors to apply the energy of that falling mass why did the columns of floor 98 not absorb some of the impact?

There is another problem. The WTC 1 collapsed "pancake" style at floor 97 but the columns had varying load capacities. The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. There is a large variance of load capacities between columns, over 30% difference. How could columns with such differing load capacities fail at the same time by random office fires? Science says no way.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

umbra
Skyscrapers have a rather obvious design problem. Every level of the building must be strong enough to support the weight of all of the levels above. In addition to that it must support them even if they are swaying in a 100 mph wind.

This picture demonstrates the problem:



Now of course the designers of the World Trade Center knew all of this before they put the first line on the first drawing. So a couple of the things they had to decide were how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level of the building.

So obviously the 80th floor of the south tower had to have enough steel to support another 30 stories. I don't know how many tons that would be, but I would guess quite a bit. But the south tower came down 56 minutes after impact. How many tons of steel can jet fuel and furniture heat to 1100 deg F all of the way to the core in 56 minutes? Who cares about fire proofing? It takes TIME to heat lots of steel.

So that is the really peculiar thing about 9/11. Why aren't the EXPERTS bringing up a question that simple and obvious after SIX YEARS? Why don't we have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the WTC? Is this question going to haunt the halls of every engineering school in the United States for decades to come?

umbra
This certainly puts an interesting spin on things if true.

http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=x2upl977dsY

But lots of people involved with large commercial planes should have known this years ago. Aeronautical engineering students should have known it. If it is true what does it say about our engineering schools?

This is a site with info on aerodynamics:

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sflight2.htm

It says the air density at sea level is 4 times that at 30,000 feet therefore the drag on the airliner would be 4 times as great. The engines would need 4 times as much power to overcome that drag. It seems unlikely that a normal airliner would have engines that over powered.

These are videos of large aircraft at low altitudes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQBC0U6Mcw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzidphcp6N8

So if the planes in the videos were doing 300 mph and drag is proportional to the square of velocity.

300 * 300 = 90,000 500 * 500 = 250,000

250,000/90,000 = 2.8

Going from 300 mph to 500 mph at the same altitude means 2.8 times as much drag. But going from 700 feet to 30,000 feet means 1/4th as much drag.

2.8 * 0.25 = 0.7

So doing 500 mph at 30,000 feet is less drag on the planes than 300 mph at 700 feet. So if the engines were only using 50% of their maximum thrust when cruising at 30,000 feet they could not produce enough thrust to do 500 mph at 700 feet. I think there is a very good chance that ex-Boeing engineer is correct. Since MIT says the plane that hit the south tower was doing 503 mph this make 9/11 look very weird.

And the weirdness just doesn't stop.

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

umbra
Last edited {1}
No ... the administration blew up the buildings in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq so he could be in the position to transfer Billions to his backers [Read: Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.], consolidate power into the executive branch and force through anti-democratic policies {read: suspension of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments].

And it worked for a bit.
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
So do you think the Bush administration purposely blew up the buildings in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq so he can become one of the most unpopular presidents in history?

Kevin


I am going to try to get something across that seems to bother a lot of people.

I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHO DID IT OR WHY!!!!!

After this much time it is more important that America as a society cannot get something this simple resolved than who did it.

Imagine what would have happened back in June of 2002 if 80% of the deans of our engineering and architectural schools had come out and said, "It is IMPOSSIBLE for a NORMAL airliner to have destroyed those building in less than 2 hours." What kind of shit storm would that have started back then? But if it is IMPOSSIBLE how can they come out and say it now? After this much time they are accomplices after the fact.

How do we EDUCATE CHILDREN about physics with this mess unresolved?

An airliner weighing less than 200 tons totally destroys a building weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than 2 hours and we can't tell children the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on each level even though they were designed before the Moon landing??? What kind of computers did they have back then?

So I don't give a flying fuck about the Bush administration.

Physics is more important than the United States of America.

There is no Black physics or White physics or Yellow physics. How can people evaluate automobiles if they don't comprehend enough physics to figure this out? No wonder people have been buying junk for decades and the auto industry and the economy are falling apart.

um
Kweili4real
quote:
“the administration blew up the buildings in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq so he could be in the position to transfer Billions to his backers [Read: Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.], consolidate power into the executive branch and force through anti-democratic policies {read: suspension of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments].”

So let me see if I’ve gotten this straight:

So evil Bush got some evil men to plant exposives at the world trade center buildings, then got a few evil suicide terrorists to hijack some planes and fly them into the buildings so it will look like they are responsible for their destruction, then they blew up the buildings in a way that causes them to collapce from the top down, killing thousands, so he can have an excuse to invade Iraq, and become one of the most hated presidents in history, and he did all this so the companies Haliburton, and Blackwater can get a couple of construction gigs?

Oh yeah,;and all of Bushes political enemies, (lawd knows he has plenty of ‘em) and the deans of our engineering and architecural schools agreed to be a part of this conspiracy by remaining silent because they don’t want to know what might happen if the truth got out.

Is that about it? Or did I leave anything out.

Kevin
quote:
and become one of the most hated presidents in history


it's not about 'love' or 'hate', it's about the expansion of the West into the East, securing resources like oil, destabilzing the East and dividing the world. It is the pretext for an 'eternal' war by the West, creating a new "other", Muslims, where the West feels justified to use all means to remain in power. It laid the foundation to declare every nation as a terrorist state which is not obedient to the West, which allegedly justifies any other intimidation or invasion
Bush only become 'hated', because Iraq wasn't the shock and awe Blitzkrieg Bush promised. He isn't 'hated' because of starting an illegal war.
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
So do you think the Bush administration purposely blew up the buildings in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq so he can become one of the most unpopular presidents in history?

Kevin


Most likely there is a Shadow Government and it is more important than the Republican or Democratic parties and Bush was just a pawn like Obama. But the Shadow Government can't change the laws of physics either.

If it is IMPOSSIBLE for the top 10% of the north tower to come straight down and destroy the rest of the building then something else was involved. If the American people can't comprehend that impossibility then there is something seriously wrong with the nation that put men on the Moon. But this has many other negative manifestations involving physics and technology. Like the inability to think straight about global warming.

um
quote:
it's not about 'love' or 'hate', it's about the expansion of the West into the East, securing resources like oil, destabilzing the East and dividing the world. It is the pretext for an 'eternal' war by the West, creating a new "other", Muslims, where the West feels justified to use all means to remain in power. It laid the foundation to declare every nation as a terrorist state which is not obedient to the West, which allegedly justifies any other intimidation or invasion
Bush only become 'hated', because Iraq wasn't the shock and awe Blitzkrieg Bush promised. He isn't 'hated' because of starting an illegal war.


Thank you, Listener.

And it wasn't about "a few companies getting a few jobs" It was about a few companies getting billions for the undeterminable future AND the erosion of domestic civil liberties.
Umbrarchist:
quote:
“Most likely there is a Shadow Government and it is more important than the Republican or Democratic parties and Bush was just a pawn like Obama.”

Okay so there is a “Shadow Government” in charge of everything now! So this shadow Government brought down the towers, seized control of our military and got them to invade Iraq and they did all of this while convincing stupid Bush that he was still in control? Daaay-umm!!!
How do you suppose this “Shadow Government” got those buildings to collapse from the top down? If the fires didn’t do it; if explosions didn’t do it, how do you think it was done?
quote:
“If it is IMPOSSIBLE for the top 10% of the north tower to come straight down and destroy the rest of the building then something else was involved.”

What do you suppose this “something else” is that was involved?

Kevin
quote:
if explosions didn’t do it, how do you think it was done?


I did not say "explosions didn’t do it". I am saying airliners and fires COULD NOT DO IT. So obviously something else must have. But I am not saying what did it. I am discussing the physics of understanding why the planes could not have caused that much destruction that fast.

Talk to this dude about what did it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

um
quote:
Originally posted by listener:
quote:
and become one of the most hated presidents in history


it's not about 'love' or 'hate', it's about the expansion of the West into the East, securing resources like oil, destabilzing the East and dividing the world. It is the pretext for an 'eternal' war by the West, creating a new "other", Muslims, where the West feels justified to use all means to remain in power. It laid the foundation to declare every nation as a terrorist state which is not obedient to the West, which allegedly justifies any other intimidation or invasion
Bush only become 'hated', because Iraq wasn't the shock and awe Blitzkrieg Bush promised. He isn't 'hated' because of starting an illegal war.


Sorry I just can't understand what more people need. You Osama Bin Ladin confessing, suicide tapes left by the hijackers, family members on the phone with the people on those planes while they were being hijacked, video and audio recordings, eye witnesses, flight school records, DNA.............Did the people who framed OJ plan this?
quote:
Originally posted by joeodd:
Sorry I just can't understand what more people need. You Osama Bin Ladin confessing, suicide tapes left by the hijackers, family members on the phone with the people on those planes while they were being hijacked, video and audio recordings, eye witnesses, flight school records, DNA.............Did the people who framed OJ plan this?


20 laugh 20

The Fake 2001 bin Laden Video Tape

http://whatreallyhappened.com/...ICLES/osamatape.html

More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

People don't even question the obvious. How ridiculous can some of this crap get?

But can a 150 ton airliner containing 34 tons of jet fuel destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours? How can the nation that put men on the Moon not tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of those buildings in SEVEN YEARS?

Reading is Fundamental but THINKING is MANDATORY.

Reading just gets the information into your head. It then has to be processed. You don't just BELIEVE any idiotic crap you READ. Do you need a PhD in physics to understand that the people who design skyscrapers must figure out how much steel to put on every level? [550]

um
Last edited {1}
UM
quote:
“But can a 150 ton airliner containing 34 tons of jet fuel destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours?”

Why not? If the 150 ton airliner causes a big fire, and there is enough stuff in the building to fuel the fire (paper, insulation, office equipment, etc.) why can’t it cause a fire so hot that it causes the structure to weaken?

Kevin
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
How can the nation that put men on the Moon not tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of those buildings in SEVEN YEARS?


Maybe so that they don't alert other terrorists to buildings that are also vulnerable in the same manner?


quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
UM
quote:
“But can a 150 ton airliner containing 34 tons of jet fuel destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours?”

Why not? If the 150 ton airliner causes a big fire, and there is enough stuff in the building to fuel the fire (paper, insulation, office equipment, etc.) why can’t it cause a fire so hot that it causes the structure to weaken? Kevin


yeah

Umbrarchist, I'm trying to hear you on this and I do understand the physics you raise... but I just can't see it.
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:


How many tons of steel can jet fuel and furniture heat to 1100 deg F all of the way to the core in 56 minutes? Who cares about fire proofing? It takes TIME to heat lots of steel.

So that is the really peculiar thing about 9/11. Why aren't the EXPERTS bringing up a question that simple and obvious after SIX YEARS? Why don't we have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the WTC?
Probably because the question is irrelevant. You have forgotten that a really big airplane crashed quite a bit of the reinforcement structure of each building. That impact obviously crashed through and destroyed a significant amount of the steel that supported the towers. The support that remained was asymmetrical as a result. So not as much of what was left needed to be heated. Plus, not all of it needed to be heated anyway; if you asymmetrically destroy enough of the beams and overheat others, it's logical that the building would still fall even if much of the rest of the steel remained untouched.

The southern half of the reinforcement structure would not have held the whole building up if the northern half of it was either crashed through or melted by a jet fuel explosion. And once the initial collapse begins, the impact from that would have created a chain reaction pancake flattening, floor by floor.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:


How many tons of steel can jet fuel and furniture heat to 1100 deg F all of the way to the core in 56 minutes? Who cares about fire proofing? It takes TIME to heat lots of steel.

So that is the really peculiar thing about 9/11. Why aren't the EXPERTS bringing up a question that simple and obvious after SIX YEARS? Why don't we have a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the WTC?
Probably because the question is irrelevant. You have forgotten that a really big airplane crashed quite a bit of the reinforcement structure of each building. That impact obviously crashed through and destroyed a significant amount of the steel that supported the towers. The support that remained was asymmetrical as a result. So not as much of what was left needed to be heated. Plus, not all of it needed to be heated anyway; if you asymmetrically destroy enough of the beams and overheat others, it's logical that the building would still fall even if much of the rest of the steel remained untouched.

The southern half of the reinforcement structure would not have held the whole building up if the northern half of it was either crashed through or melted by a jet fuel explosion. And once the initial collapse begins, the impact from that would have created a chain reaction pancake flattening, floor by floor.


You mean fire can melt steel? You must live crazy land.......
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
UM
quote:
“But can a 150 ton airliner containing 34 tons of jet fuel destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours?”

Why not? If the 150 ton airliner causes a big fire, and there is enough stuff in the building to fuel the fire (paper, insulation, office equipment, etc.) why can’t it cause a fire so hot that it causes the structure to weaken?

Kevin


The planes had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, or 34 tons. In the case of the south tower a significan amount of it exploded in a fireball OUTSIDE of the building. It looked impressive but did practically no damage. The fuel, kerosene, can burn at 1800 deg F. But that requires a 100% efficient burn. That will only happen inside an engine or stove that are deliberately designed to mix the air an fuel properly or in a 100% oxygen environment. The atmosphere is only 21% oxygen. An ope air fire produces lots of black smoke. Jet trails are white because they produce CO2 which is invisible and water vapor. Inefficient fires produce carbon monoxide.

The WTC fires only lasted 56 and 102 minutes. How could they heat the steel sufficiently in that time when that Beijing hotel fire burned all night and did not collapse the building?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...rtner=rssnyt&emc=rss

um
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
UM
quote:
“But can a 150 ton airliner containing 34 tons of jet fuel destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours?”

Why not? If the 150 ton airliner causes a big fire, and there is enough stuff in the building to fuel the fire (paper, insulation, office equipment, etc.) why can’t it cause a fire so hot that it causes the structure to weaken?

Kevin


The planes had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, or 34 tons. In the case of the south tower a significan amount of it exploded in a fireball OUTSIDE of the building. It looked impressive but did practically no damage. The fuel, kerosene, can burn at 1800 deg F. But that requires a 100% efficient burn. That will only happen inside an engine or stove that are deliberately designed to mix the air an fuel properly or in a 100% oxygen environment. The atmosphere is only 21% oxygen. An ope air fire produces lots of black smoke. Jet trails are white because they produce CO2 which is invisible and water vapor. Inefficient fires produce carbon monoxide.

The WTC fires only lasted 56 and 102 minutes. How could they heat the steel sufficiently in that time when that Beijing hotel fire burned all night and did not collapse the building?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...rtner=rssnyt&emc=rss

um


Dude why don't you argue this with Physicists, who support the official conclusions? I don't see the point of arguing this on a board not dedicated to physics. Why don't you have more support from scientific and mathematical community?
quote:
Originally posted by joeodd:
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
UM
quote:
“But can a 150 ton airliner containing 34 tons of jet fuel destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours?”

Why not? If the 150 ton airliner causes a big fire, and there is enough stuff in the building to fuel the fire (paper, insulation, office equipment, etc.) why can’t it cause a fire so hot that it causes the structure to weaken?

Kevin


The planes had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, or 34 tons. In the case of the south tower a significan amount of it exploded in a fireball OUTSIDE of the building. It looked impressive but did practically no damage. The fuel, kerosene, can burn at 1800 deg F. But that requires a 100% efficient burn. That will only happen inside an engine or stove that are deliberately designed to mix the air an fuel properly or in a 100% oxygen environment. The atmosphere is only 21% oxygen. An ope air fire produces lots of black smoke. Jet trails are white because they produce CO2 which is invisible and water vapor. Inefficient fires produce carbon monoxide.

The WTC fires only lasted 56 and 102 minutes. How could they heat the steel sufficiently in that time when that Beijing hotel fire burned all night and did not collapse the building?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...rtner=rssnyt&emc=rss

um


Dude why don't you argue this with Physicists, who support the official conclusions? I don't see the point of arguing this on a board not dedicated to physics. Why don't you have more support from scientific and mathematical community?


What makes you think I'm not.

I emailed this dude last week:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

And I emailed professor Sozen at Purdue last year. Purdue produced this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

That video just shows the plane going into the building but since skyscrapers sway in the wind the building also moved as a result ot the plane impact. So the distribution of mass of the tower must be taken into account. They say nothing about that. I have never gotten a response from Sozen.

Why aren't you smart enought to ask those physicists about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers. What do you think holds skyscrapers up? So why haven't those physicists supplied that information in SEVEN YEARS.

I downloaded the NIST report two years ago. It does not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers. It is a snow job. How much control does the government have over scientists careers? Physicists don't study skyscrapers. The physics of skyscrapers is old Newtonian junk that grade school kids should understand.

The NEUTRON was discovered in 1932. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. Skyscrapers are NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. The fact that a problem this simple has dragged on this long in the nation that put men on the Mooon is highly suspicious by itself.

um
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Probably because the question is irrelevant. You have forgotten that a really big airplane crashed quite a bit of the reinforcement structure of each building. That impact obviously crashed through and destroyed a significant amount of the steel that supported the towers. The support that remained was asymmetrical as a result. So not as much of what was left needed to be heated. Plus, not all of it needed to be heated anyway; if you asymmetrically destroy enough of the beams and overheat others, it's logical that the building would still fall even if much of the rest of the steel remained untouched.

The southern half of the reinforcement structure would not have held the whole building up if the northern half of it was either crashed through or melted by a jet fuel explosion. And once the initial collapse begins, the impact from that would have created a chain reaction pancake flattening, floor by floor.


So you are going to tell me what I have forgotten. How do we know how much you ever knew about it? Is this just a matter of you trust authority and I don't?

I downloaded the 10,000 page NIST report and burned it to DVD two years ago. Have you downloaded it?

You say "really big airplane" but airplanes are hollow and have to fly therefore the density is much lower than a buildings. The plane was less than 150 tons which included 34 tons of jet fuel. The building "averaged" 862 tons of steel on every level. The south tower may and moved 15 inches when the plane smashed into it at 540 mph.

Now I emphasize the "average" because that does not explain how skyscrapers must be built. Some of the core columns in those building were 20 times as heavy at the bottom as at the top. I don't know how many tons of steel were on the 4 or 5 levels where the planes hit the building. It is because of the taper that we should have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level.

But this business about heating the steel to weaken it is some of the most ridiculous crap in the WTC business. Can you imagine how man millions of tons of steel have been produced in this country in the last 100 years. Doesn't tht mean there must be plenty of people who know how much TIME it takes to weaken how many tons of steel if they know how thick the steel is. The steel on the 81st level of the south tower had to be thick enough to support another 29 stories. What did the temperatures have to be to weaken in 56 minutes? UL had guaranteed the steel for TWO HOURS at 2,000 degrees.

But all of that is irrelevant because we have video of the top of the south tower tilted, regardless of what caused it. So if it was tilted didn't it have to put more weight on one side of the building than the other? Doesn't that mean it would have crushed one side more than the other? Shouldn't that have caused it to tilt even more until it was so far over that it fell down the side of the building? But that isn't what happened. It came straight down and disappeared in a cloud of dust. Sorry dude, the fire does not explain that even if it did weaken the steel enough to start a collapse.

It is obvious from the grade school physics of any skyscraper and the videos of that day that more was involved than airliners and fire.

This 9/11 Psychosis is based on people HATING the inevitable conclusions that facing the obvious facts would require. When this crap is finally accepted the psychologists and psychiatrists will have a field day and plenty of them will have to put themselves on the couch.

um
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
This 9/11 Psychosis is based on people HATING the inevitable conclusions that facing the obvious facts would require.


yeah


Of course people on both sides of the issue can say that. A lot, maybe most, of the so called Truthers concentrate on conspiracy crap instead of physics.

um
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
This 9/11 Psychosis is based on people HATING the inevitable conclusions that facing the obvious facts would require.


yeah


Of course people on both sides of the issue can say that. A lot, maybe most, of the so called Truthers concentrate on conspiracy crap instead of physics.

um


You can see the flaw in your argument can't you? you argue that Planes could not have caused the towers to fall the way they did, but you also admit that you have no idea what could have done that. Without a second explanation, apart from the most obvious, you kind of leave your argument undefended. A second explanation as to how it may have been done would make your assertions more credible.
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:

So you are going to tell me what I have forgotten. How do we know how much you ever knew about it? Is this just a matter of you trust authority and I don't?
Not if you've ever read posts of mine about what I feel were the real motives behind 9/11.

quote:
You say "really big airplane" but airplanes are hollow and have to fly therefore the density is much lower than a buildings. The plane was less than 150 tons which included 34 tons of jet fuel. The building "averaged" 862 tons of steel on every level.
That doesn't address my point about the "really big plane," which was that the plane sliced through a hefty chunk of the support system when it crashed through the building. Because of that, your entire argument assumes that the remaining uncrashed-through parts of the support system would have been able to support the building. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm no expert on this stuff, but surely if part of the support system of a quarter-mile tall building is sliced through, it wouldn't take much in the way of fire or anything else to cause the rest of the building to collapse.
quote:
But all of that is irrelevant because we have video of the top of the south tower tilted, regardless of what caused it. So if it was tilted didn't it have to put more weight on one side of the building than the other? Doesn't that mean it would have crushed one side more than the other? Shouldn't that have caused it to tilt even more until it was so far over that it fell down the side of the building?
Gravity pulls straight downward, though, and unless the support system immediately below the initial downward impact was strong enough to support not only the weight of the building above it, but also the extreme force of all of that weight impacting downward upon it, I would think you'd expect it to collapse downward the way it did.

quote:

This 9/11 Psychosis is based on people HATING the inevitable conclusions that facing the obvious facts would require. When this crap is finally accepted the psychologists and psychiatrists will have a field day and plenty of them will have to put themselves on the couch.
Wow. I almost couldn't resist the obvious rejoinder, Commander Tuvok... but I will.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×