9/11 landfill (or, as we prefer to call it, the STUPID thread)

[W4d5Y]

This is exagerated, a fair amount of concrete, which equaled 780,000 metric tons, together with 200,000 metric tons of steel, was pulverized in mid-air and would therefore reduce the mass the building would build up during the collapse and therefore decrease the mechanical energy (or kinetic, people always vary with the description) which would require a steady supply of mass in order to have the two towers crush themselves completely due to gravity and Newton's laws.

Once the top section and a section beneath equal in mass are consumed in the collapse and leave only dust and an amount of steel which is lighter in mass, I do not understand where (apart from loose steelbeams) the steady supply of mass came from to deliver the energy necessary to continue the collapse.

And why the hell did the outer wall of the lobby survive the collapse, yet not the mighty core collumns?

I usually do not bother consulting engineers for matters of collapse mechanics, although of course you are the ones you have the best idea of what a building can stand and what not.

(ps: Showing that the towers could indeed have collapsed in on themselves however does not disprove that secondary devices might have been involved.)

But let's ask some engineers just this time:

"Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems.

All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform."

-Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years). Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee. Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ). Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
pretty short here, sadly.

The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent "scenario pruning" was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation.

This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers.

- Eric Douglas – Registered Architect in New York and California.

In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also J?rg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

Statement from September 13th, 2001:

As Bachmann told the Neue Z?richer Zeitung Online on September 13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall of the towers. The first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had an alternative: "In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion." The article went on to say that "Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack." If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these "explosive tenants" could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building "without having anyone notice."

- Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau f?r Ingenieure. Eine Einf?hrung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002).

I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.

So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.

When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.

Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.

What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation.

- David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988).

 

[Solaris]

You have to source the bullshit quotes you make up.

How do I know these people even exist?

How dare you disagree with someone who knows what the **** they are talking about, whilst you have no qualification in the subject.

 

[CptStern]

well here's one of them ...funny how W4d5Y selectively edits things

Just for the record, let me quote the personal statement of one of the qualified architects who is a member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. He is David Johnson, FAICP, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning, the University of Texas and author of a number of books and articles on planning American cities, including New York. Dear Mr. Gage [Richard Gage is a practising architect and founder of AE911Truth], ...etc

second hand account from someone who may or may not exist


http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=998881


why cant I find any record of this guy being a professor at University of Tennessee?

 

[Direwolf]

being myself a 3rd year structural engineer, i agree to most of what you said.
as far as i know buildings are rarely designed to withstand specific dynamic loads, they just increase the safety factor of the static load to compensate for it. some dynamic loads are compensated for like (snow, wind, moving objects inside the building), but designing without computers how would a plane hit affect the structure...i hardy doubt it.

You're of course right, and not being a professional when it comes to building design I'm not 100% sure what their methodology for calculating safety factors is. I do know that quite a bit of work is thrown into wind modeling and calculations, and obviously if its an earthquake prone are that will get added in too. My point was more that although there are likely to be very generous factors of safety for a structure such as a skyscraper, it'll still mean diddly-squat when that thing starts to move.

W4d5y's post

I'm not going to refute any of those men, because I can't. Their credentials and experience obviously out-rank me by an order of magnitude. However, I would look carefully at several things:

The context in which those quotes occur. At least one of them makes mention of the fact that it's an alternative hypothesis. Having one of those is good engineering, selecting it over more likely or better tested hypothesis' is not.

Anyone claiming anything is an absolute certainty should be closely scrutinized. Simply put, collapses like the Towers don't happen too often. Controlled demolitions occur regularly enough, but actual in-the-wild collapses caused by multiple uncontrolled variables are rare on this sort of scale (that is to say gigantic). Rather than being certain that all current data is correct and that the Towers collapse should follow predictions exactly, it should be kept in mind that this disaster has taught designers a lot about the details of how and why such things occur.

My last point follows from the earlier one, and it's that many of the quotes of engineers cited here and elsewhere don't make definite conclusions. They know that saying anything definite about something this complicated would be foolish. They do point out inconsistencies and ideas that may warrant a closer look or more experimentation, but do not confuse this with any of these ideas being accepted as fact, or even very likely.

The last quote seems to me to be in violation of a few of these ideas. He throws out several hypothesis', and some of them are interesting. However, he seems overly certain on some points that would be hard to verify without a lot of testing. Also, towards the end he makes a logical jump from these hypothesis' to what seems to be a conclusion, and while he may have his reasons for doing so they aren't present in that particular quote.

I know I'm definitely in rambling mode here, but my last thought would just be to advise anyone who has actually gotten this far into the post to keep in mind that good engineers and scientists in general do not accept anything as a known factor, if they can help it. A consensus of opinion on a topic like this can be a good start, but the only real truth is going to be found at the source for these opinions and the data supporting them. You should never be completely convinced of anything, but if you want to form a good idea you should research in any and every direction outwards from a topic. Collect every single bit of data you can find and formulate a theory from all of it, not out of some of it. If some doesn't fit, then try to figure out why, and be very careful before discarding any of it. And when you've come to a conclusion, bear in mind that what you have is a theory which can and should be altered the more you learn.

 

[Que-Ever]

I like the new thread title.

 

[Direwolf]

Stern: the quote says he's from Texas, but the earlier post says Tennessee.

 

[jverne]

This is exagerated, a fair amount of concrete, which equaled 780,000 metric tons, together with 200,000 metric tons of steel, was pulverized in mid-air and would therefore reduce the mass the building would build up during the collapse and therefore decrease the mechanical energy (or kinetic, people always vary with the description) which would require a steady supply of mass in order to have the two towers crush themselves completely due to gravity and Newton's laws.

Once the top section and a section beneath equal in mass are consumed in the collapse and leave only dust and an amount of steel which is lighter in mass, I do not understand where (apart from loose steelbeams) the steady supply of mass came from to deliver the energy necessary to continue the collapse.

And why the hell did the outer wall of the lobby survive the collapse, yet not the mighty core collumns?

I usually do not bother consulting engineers for matters of collapse mechanics, although of course you are the ones you have the best idea of what a building can stand and what not.

(ps: Showing that the towers could indeed have collapsed in on themselves however does not disprove that secondary devices might have been involved.)

1. vaporizing that much concrete without a seriously big and visible explosion is somewhat unlikely. i guess the falling upper construction gradually grinded down the lower floors of concrete.
and since the core wasn't just a big lump of concrete, but instead there were columns, it means that any non uniform vertical (non symmetrical falling of upper floors) tension could result in increased shear forces in some of the columns, surpassing their strength and thus causing a chain reaction to others.
the result i'm guessing would be some fine and rough concrete rubble, like this
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

2. concrete snaps at less than a milimiter in stretch deformation (like glass), so it's not really relevant putting alot of it if the forces will be different from what it is designed to support.

3. steel (7800kg/m3) is heavier than concrete (2400 kg/m3).

4.let's suppose there is less mass to drive the structure down, what else did it pull down then? but i'm not really sure what you wanted to say with this. that some mysterious force drove it down fast enough?

5. steel is much more ductile (ability to take deformations) and tough (ability to not crack in dynamic forces), so it could survive the fall in bigger pieces (outer wall), concrete is fragile and cracks easily on the other hand

6.those "architects" you posted as sources...well that is another story i won't go into



EDIT: ****, how the hell did i make such a noobish mistake like that. mass in free fall is not (theoretically) relevant since all objects are pulled to the earth with 9.81m/s2, no matter the mass.

but in reality mass plays a role, since more mass results in more inertia which counteracts the effect of wind resistance. but in that wreck there i doubt wind resistance made the difference.

see no mass involved

 

[Ridge]

The reason the walls of the lobby withstood the collapse is they were single beams of steel mounted very securely into the ground...just like a tree, it is strong at the base, but can waver higher up...

As for my beliefs about 9/11...

I believe al Qaeda hijacked at least 3 planes...2 crashed into the WTC, 1 was shot down over Pennsylvania...

Ive never bought the plane into the Pentagon story...not enough debris, not nearly a big enough impact zone in the building...

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

This is exagerated, a fair amount of concrete, which equaled 780,000 metric tons, together with 200,000 metric tons of steel, was pulverized in mid-air and would therefore reduce the mass the building would build up during the collapse and therefore decrease the mechanical energy (or kinetic, people always vary with the description) which would require a steady supply of mass in order to have the two towers crush themselves completely due to gravity and Newton's laws.

Once the top section and a section beneath equal in mass are consumed in the collapse and leave only dust and an amount of steel which is lighter in mass, I do not understand where (apart from loose steelbeams) the steady supply of mass came from to deliver the energy necessary to continue the collapse.

And why the hell did the outer wall of the lobby survive the collapse, yet not the mighty core collumns?

I usually do not bother consulting engineers for matters of collapse mechanics, although of course you are the ones you have the best idea of what a building can stand and what not.

(ps: Showing that the towers could indeed have collapsed in on themselves however does not disprove that secondary devices might have been involved.)

But let's ask some engineers just this time:

-Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE ? Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years). Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee. Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ). Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
pretty short here, sadly.


- Eric Douglas ? Registered Architect in New York and California.


Statement from September 13th, 2001:

- Hugo Bachmann, PhD ? Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau f?r Ingenieure. Eine Einf?hrung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002).


- David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP ? Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988).

no u.

 

[CptStern]

Stern: the quote says he's from Texas, but the earlier post says Tennessee.

nope, cant find anything at University of texas either ..his name only ever comes up in 9/11 truther websites ...it's obviously a conspiracy

btw in my search on the goodle I ran into this very thread

http://www.google.ca/search?q=David...,+the+University+of+Texas&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

 

[W4d5Y]

The reason the walls of the lobby withstood the collapse is they were single beams of steel mounted very securely into the ground...just like a tree, it is strong at the base, but can waver higher up...

As for my beliefs about 9/11...

I believe al Qaeda hijacked at least 3 planes...2 crashed into the WTC, 1 was shot down over Pennsylvania...

Ive never bought the plane into the Pentagon story...not enough debris, not nearly a big enough impact zone in the building...

Yeah, well, I hope you concider this: The 80+ pieces of video footage of the 77-strike should be available. However, the fact that they are not is on one side a cover-up, yet apart from that it's suspicious as to what they are actually trying to hide.


Oilempire.us pointed out that the whole no-plane and missile thing actually is inspired by the pentagon themselves:

They could have properly faked video tapes of the crash by now.
They could have released those videos, that now start have been released, sooner.

And wtf was Rumsfeld's missile-quote about?

And the fact they claimed the five photographs they released first were not officially released makes no sense at all.
This only lead to the assumption that they had been leaked and therefore must do, or not, show something pretty important.

And also the actual video which they released in 2006 I think that was and that the five frames originated from was tampered with colour-wise.

Wtf was that about?

Why would they bother changing the colour?

OMG TO COVER-UP WHAT TEH PHOTO SHOWED!?!

No. Just to irrate us.

If you keep in mind that the government always lies, you can determine that whole no-plane thing at the pentagon (in this case I limit the agenda to the missing video tapes!) simply was disinformation because they knew exactely that some people would take this as an indication of an inside job...some way or the other.

And so people keep looking at the pentagon no-plane videos, not realizing that this actually might be what they're supposed to do...
Sense irrational acts on the side of the government, bring up questions and start suspecting a cover-up, ergo making up a conspiracy-theory...

Only to delude our perception and control our thought
The whole no-plane thing generally is a huge vulnerability of truth-seekers because it's an awesome strawman to debunk and subsequently rub in your face.


As to the damage no the pentagon, I remember how the people from populist mechanics actually contradicted themselves in their ac****s...(lol, I said c*nt)

They said on some live radioshow that the plane both struck through the fives rings of the pentagon, as many as there were anyway, AND that it melted on impact, too!

But anyway, I've always been a bit skeptic of this because 911myths pointed out that you can't actually asses how much damage was actually done...

However I do believe that is was big airliner of some sorts that hit the pentagon because you can't, can'T, can't, JUST CAN'T deny I think onehundredandthirty witnesses of the crash, one of them commenting it was beyond belief how the pentagon "ate" the plane.


However, I do not buy the story that Hani Hanjour could have flown the plane in fighter-jet manner.

I still have to gather moar information on the C130 that trailed the plane.

Hold on a second, wasn't it stated that the same c130 later saw the crash of flight 93?

*goes checking*

 

[Druckles]

nope, cant find anything at University of texas either ..his name only ever comes up in 9/11 truther websites ...it's obviously a conspiracy

btw in my search on the goodle I ran into this very thread

http://www.google.ca/search?q=David...,+the+University+of+Texas&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

I've often come across links to HL2.net while searching. It's awesome.

Oh, and you inspired me to Google "W4d5y". There can't be that many of them. Particularly those who have opinions on the WTC collapse...

 

[Glirk Dient]

Wadsy...what do you believe brought down the WTC towers? If you don't buy the official and scientifically proven story then you must have a different story that fits better. Why don't you enlighten all of us?

EDIT: Druckles link doesn't work so...
http://www.youtube.com/user/W4d5Y

Good find druckles!

 

[Eejit]

Hey wadsy, have you heard about THIS?!1

 

[Druckles]

Sorry about that, managed to crap up my tags. Fixed it now.

I'm surprised that no-one's found it before. His name also produced results in several other forums. When I get back home (and have sound) I think I'll mock his guitar playing...

 

[W4d5Y]

BLOODY ARSE FCUK!!!

I just wrote like, a begesus load of pages with a critique on the architectial engineer's statements, AND THEY'RE ALL GONE. ALL OF THEM.

I just lost them, thanks to the wilderness of firefox.
Thanks F*CK, Firefox!

Now I stand like an idiot because I cannot explain my cause, neither do I have the patients nor the time to rewrite what I elaborated on :'(

 

[Druckles]

BLOODY ARSE FCUK!!!

Language like this will not win your argument.

I just wrote like, a begesus load of pages with a critique on the architectial engineer's statements, AND THEY'RE ALL GONE. ALL OF THEM.

I just lost them, thanks to the wilderness of firefox.
Thanks F*CK, Firefox!

You can right click -> undo tab to bring back any closed tabs.

It was not Firefox's fault, it was user error.

Now I stand like an idiot

Now and before, yes.

because I cannot explain my cause

It can't be that hard.

neither do I have the patients nor the time to rewrite what I elaborated on :'(

Jokes about your "patients" aside, if you don't have the patience to explain something you believe in to someone, you can't believe in it that strongly.

 

[W4d5Y]

Nah dude, I was to post the writing, but I wasn't connected to the server anymore.
I tried getting back to the posting page, yet it was gone.

Yes, my patients are very sad about that inconvinience.

I knew you were gonna say something about the word idiot.

You are aware that there are idiots who believe their governments would be seriously bothered about preventing terrorist acts and favored their people to their own causes, you know?

Would you seriously say it was a coiincidence, or accident (whatever) that the intelligence circles managed to do nothing in order to prevent the death of 3,000 people?

Gosh, was it the port authority that closed the roof exits of the towers and told the people in the south tower that their building was secure and how they could return to their workplaces by the time a frigging airliner went into the north tower a hundred feet away, anyway?

 

[Llama]

You look stupid, you act stupid, you type stupid. Thinking about it the only logical conclusion must be that you ARE, indeed, stupid.

If you can prevent a total unpredicted and major disaster in a coherent manner, please join the US government. If not, shut the **** up.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Nah dude, I was to post the writing, but I wasn't connected to the server anymore.
I tried getting back to the posting page, yet it was gone.

Yes, my patients are very sad about that inconvinience.

I knew you were gonna say something about the word idiot.

You are aware that there are idiots who believe their governments would be seriously bothered about preventing terrorist acts and favored their people to their own causes, you know?

Would you seriously say it was a coiincidence, or accident (whatever) that the intelligence circles managed to do nothing in order to prevent the death of 3,000 people?

Gosh, was it the port authority that closed the roof exits of the towers and told the people in the south tower that their building was secure and how they could return to their workplaces by the time a frigging airliner went into the north tower a hundred feet away, anyway?

Mind responding to my earlier post on this page? I know everything was erased but I still want to see your answer.

 

[W4d5Y]

Okay, well, what I was saying basically was
1) the whole no-plane video tape cover-up going on at the pentagon is just disinformation... It's likely the whole missing video tapes are to create sensationalist conspiracy-theory mongering.
Ergo, they're doing this on purpose to make people look at the wrong things, in relation to 9/11.
2) I might mention that the case for UA93 shootdown does not add to evidence of government complicity, but it's a nice example of how our society manages to spread disinformation.
3) Explosives could not *directly* pulverize all the concrete in the towers.
Instead it's necessary to look at the possibilty that the loss of mass would have resulted in the final absence of enough kinetic energy to destroy all of the lower floors and core collumns.
4) The groundlevel core collumns should have survived in a better state than the adjacent outer walls of the lobby because surely they would be more heavily secured in the ground, after all they must guard against earthquakes and such, and that's why collumns in highrise buildings usually are planted at least three to five storeys inside the earth.

So I see no reason, other than that the outer walls were a few feet off the probably more heavily affected zone of the collapse where the core collumns were placed, why the core collumns shouldn't have survived better, despite being bigger in size than the outer lobby walls.

5) Just realized Al Ghamdi booked post 9/11 flights prior to 9/11.

Anyway, dunno what else to talk about here.

Oh yes,
6) Checked out Able Danger, at the moment I believe the atta they tracked actually was just a doppelganger, coiincidential, probably.

 

[Direwolf]

I won't comment on stuff I'm not familiar with enough to answer, but I do have a few things to mention.

My feeling on the lack of Pentagon footage is that its the Pentagon. Obviously that's not a very well supported argument, but if theres any building in the US that the government is going to be incredibly paranoid about, it would be that one. Yeah, its doesn't make a lot of sense for them to still have not released a lot of footage, but it doesn't surprise me either that they'd be so secretive. I'd be more intrigued if there was proof of any other compelling reason for them to hold it back, but as for now I'm happy just to assume someone is paranoid that they'd glean some information from the video and use it in a more successful attack.

And as far as certain parts of the structure being in worse condition than you'd imagine after the collapse: be very, very careful when considering what should happen. It is not as if this has happened before and theres a control against which it can be compared. At some level it's all just guesswork.

 

[CptStern]

My feeling on the lack of Pentagon footage is that its the Pentagon. If theres any building in the US that the government is going to be incredibly paranoid about, it would be that one.

or the ones were they're housing the remote control airplanes they use to slam into unsuspecting skyscrapers ..they're so secretive because it's alien technology that they reverse engineered from what they found at the Roswell landsite/weather balloon ..so naturally they're going to keep it hush hush


it almost comical if werent so annoying that the people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies almost always cite eviodence that is missing instead of concrete evidence that proves their theory

"OH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S MISSING TRACES OF SOME CHEMICAL THAT PROVES THAT 9/11 WASNT A HOAX??? HOW CONVENIENT, IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY"

 

[W4d5Y]

That's the point stern, absence of evidence doesn't necessarily imply presence of absence for something else.
But that's what I said, given that they already released three videos which did not show a proper boeing, we can't argue that they weren't secretive about the evidence itself, and any excuse for the actual cover-up that is going on right now simply implies the usual national-security bullcrap again.

//edit: If there's a building the US is notoriously paranoid about it's the groom lake facility...but apart from that, why would they allow footage of the actual crash-site on the news, but not the crash itself?
My stance still is, they're doing it on purpose to actively provoke questions, in order to give a wrong trace.

Yet I adapted oilempire's take because it seems more plausible for them just spread lurky, grainy video frames out of eighty others which probably would show exactely what eye-witnesses have described (unless flight 77 or whatever projectile approached the pentagon flew straight overhead through a huge cloud of explosives for psychological effect for whatever reason which I still have to imagine, but that's just a theory there) because the stereotype no-planer is addicted to interpret things into something they deem suspicious.

Result is, you hold back the evidence, and people start smelling a conspiracy, while you could just fake the impact of the boeing if there actually wasn't any footage of what the eye-witnesses described and people would shut up about it, but you do the prior for the sake of disinfo.

Imagine, the conspiracy theorists are gonna stick their noses into the completely wrong direction while everybody will be satisfied with the evidence already.
That's what they want, and I think that's pretty plausible to assume, don't you think?


Buildings...
Even I would look at my comments critically, because after all, I'm not qualified to comment on the structural aspects of named events.
But I think it's important to simulate the actual collapse, too, and not only think about the causes of the same.

Uhm, by the way, I still do believe there were secondary devices in the buildings, however it would be ironical if it turned out they wouldn't have been necessary anyway!

I just believe that explosive events on the 7th and 8th floor of the towers can't be explained with falling debris.
The three major explosions and the "gunfire" shortly before the collapse still might be, however these on the lower floors definately are not, that's my impression.


//edit: this is my myspace page with two of my songs

//editedit: debunking 911 debunking
looking forward to find weak points in turn, creating a debunk piece at debunking debunkage

 

[Jintor]

Is it just me, or has your spelling and grammar improved?

 

[W4d5Y]

Would see no reason why; probably write worse or better by chance, since I spend 60% of my time on the internet writing english for two years by now, so I see no reason why I should just surprisingly start getting comfortable with the language.
Currently looking at every debunk piece I can get my hands on, checking...I forgot what I wanted to say after dazing away at Martial Law...
Oh yes, well, I guess I wanted to find out what people have to comment on Buzzy Kongrad's alleged involvement in 9/11 insider-trading

 

[Absinthe]

Is it just me, or has your spelling and grammar improved?

He's an avatar for many.

The entire truther movement channels through his being.

 

[W4d5Y]

If you speak of truther movement as an inquisitoric entity of rabid, imperative imposture of proposterous knowledge as opposed to the individual conquest for a consent based on the information available, I feel mostly honoured.

 

[W4d5Y]

//doublepost edit:
Willie Nelson wants to "throw the bastards" out of the white house, is afraid of an future event to implement bush's executive orders, granting him even moar power, questions the 9/11 account.

 

[Glirk Dient]

W4D5Y I wasn't asking about things that seem questionable...what do you believe brought down the towers?

 

[W4d5Y]

I believe the collapse itself appeared to me, however much you might happen to know about structural engineering, by my physics-knowledge, odd.

 

[Glirk Dient]

I believe the collapse itself appeared to me, however much you might happen to know about structural engineering, by my physics-knowledge, odd.

So what do you think brought down the towers? Planes? Bombs?

Also I would take your physics knowledge with a grain of salt...a structure this complex with all of these variables acting together to bring the tower down has never happened before so we have nothing to compare it to so I doubt that unless your an expert none of us are really qualified to say what should or shouldn't have happened when the tower was under the stress that it was.

 

[W4d5Y]

No, not the structural engineering, I mean, I have the impression that some bit of the north tower actually should have survived the collapse.
It'd be worth calculating wether the concrete, falling down 1000 feet or so could desintegrate istelf upon smashing into the earth or not.
(It's worth mentioning that Cottilard's comparison of the WTC fires to a similiar incident in spain is flawed)
Can't continue right now, need to go.

//late edit: Okay, Cotillard, Oscar Winning Actress, now officially is joined by Willie Nelson, Charlie Sheen and Charlie Sheen's father in the line of celebrity conspiracy nuts. Oh yes, Mos Def is in, too. And seven former intelligence officers.

September 23, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]


Raymond McGovern

During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.

In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”

William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview[4] he said, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”


William Christison

Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote[5], “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And in an online essay[6] in late 2006, he wrote, “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”

Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of NIO’s in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.

Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “coverup” and who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[7] Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004.


Melvin Goodman, PhD

In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report[8], Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.

Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former of which was the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.


Robert Baer

Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report[9] (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers.”

In a 2002 essay[10] for The Guardian, Baer wrote, "Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I'm far more certain and emphatic: no." In subsequent interviews, Baer has suggested that support for the attacks could have come from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann[11], Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why is it not being investigated?” Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."

In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote[12]: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11.”

"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley[13]. Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.”


Robert David Steele

In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show[14], Steele said, "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress[15] expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.

Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies.


Lynne Larkin

David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency advisor to the government.


David MacMichael

Their letter read:

"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. …

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.”

And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial, and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.

Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com

see here for people you wouldn't want to be giving out briefings to presidents because since they doubt the government's stories, they evidently are crazy. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT YOU STUPID LITTLE PIECE OF CRAP

//Secondary devices in WTC 1,2 and 7
AS FOR THE TOWERS, I think there is a smoking gun, lying in those secondary explosions.
Sure some of them are collapsing trusses (I actually believe the multiple-confirmed three major explosions preceeding one of the towers' collapses was just trusses) however there were conciderable explosive events occuring way too low for it being just jet fuel.

Think about it, have you ever heard any reports of concerned security personell whenever a highrise building is in flames that there might be a terrorist involvement in it?
No?

Well, guess why, because as opposed to the twin towers (AND WTC 7) normal high rise fires aren't special and therefore don'T get to have explosions going off all over the building and flashes coming out of the sides (“Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building" (NYT, Deshore, p. 15).

Honestly, if there was an explanation excluding explosives, then we should be able to observe this as an ordinary phenomenon in every other high rise building fire.

Imagine the 91' fire, I think that was, on the 11th floor of one of the towers.

Was there any explosions?

Is there any other comparable scenario?


//Flight 77 and the pentagon damage

 

[W4d5Y]

//Secondary devices in WTC 1,2 and 7
AS FOR THE TOWERS, I think there is a smoking gun, lying in those secondary explosions.
Sure some of them are collapsing trusses (I actually believe the multiple-confirmed three major explosions preceeding one of the towers' collapses was just trusses) however there were conciderable explosive events occuring way too low for it being just jet fuel.

Think about it, have you ever heard any reports of concerned security personell whenever a highrise building is in flames that there might be a terrorist involvement in it?
No?

Well, guess why, because as opposed to the twin towers (AND WTC 7) normal high rise fires aren't special and therefore don'T get to have explosions going off all over the building and flashes coming out of the sides (“Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building" (NYT, Deshore, p. 15).

Honestly, if there was an explanation excluding explosives, then we should be able to observe this as an ordinary phenomenon in every other high rise building fire.

Imagine the 91' fire, I think that was, on the 11th floor of one of the towers.

Was there any explosions?

Is there any other comparable scenario?


//Flight 77 and the pentagon damage

Do not trust me on this one, research this yourself and doublecheck everything I say, it'll be worth it in the end, but there's something incredibly important I stumbled over concerning the pentagon damage...

We all know the boeings matched the 38 metre hole in the WTC towers.

HOWEVER, at the pentagon, the maximum damage extent was 19 metres, just the half of the WTC impact zones.

Question is; the WTC fasades were made of an array of steel bars.

The Pentagon's face (the navy department's personell usually housing there was moved to another location one week before 9/11 or so) which of course had been reinforced with all kinds of fancy things like bombproof windows in response to that particular wargame which featured a plane diving into the pentagon.

Yet surely it would have shown less physical resistance to flight 77 diving into it than flight 11 and 175 hitting the towers.

The point is, even if it went the same speed (which would be miraculous already given the adversities in relation to the maneuverability hani hanjour's been alledged to have been capable of managing) as flight 11 and 175, how could the pentagon have not allowed the wings to enter it if the wings of two other planes of the same type however managed to pierce steel frame buildings leaving such a clean imprint on the same day?


Is the pentagon made of passport paper, or why was it so tough to penetrate?

Given that according to 138 people a airliner was indeed present in that location that day, I builded the theory that actually some different munition, other than a 767, did hit the pentagon while it simply was there to play the patsy and landed six seconds later on the runway of that civilian airport, that name of which I forgot right now.

Maybe it wouldn't be used to directly hit the building because there was too much at stake, imagine the plane smashing through all five rings and coming to a rest in Rumsfeld's office!

All of this of course might be in contradiction to allegations of DNA traces in the pentagon, or even the flight data itself, or the absence of flight controller whistle-blowers.

I have to check out again when the last civilian planes were grounded, because you can determine on that information wether flight controllers would come to notice a very extraordinary event, a plane landing on their airport all out of the blue after diving through a cloud of smoke croning the pentagon. But of course it would have had to switch its transponder data, to lessen confusion among flight controllers.

If there were other planes coming into the airport, the flight controllers might not have even observed the incident at the pentagon because they were too busy and wouldn't have been startled by a plane landing on the airstrip.
Maybe you can't even see the pentagon from the airport, I dunno.
It's funny pointing out that I actually got this idea from 911myths because it was there, a few months ago, that I first learned that an airstrip would have been in close proximity of flight 77's trajectory, but at that point I just imagined this as a scenario, however the above of the above has lead me to believe (just the day before yesterday) that this might actually be a possible reality.


//possibly planted evidence?!

The information given by two policemen and employees of the gasstation facing the pentagon just next to the highway and the data obtained by pilots for 911 truth which came from the NSTB's release of flight 77's flight recorder lead to the suspicion that flight 77 took a slightly different path into the pentagon.
In contradiciton to my theory that the plane might have landed after the incident after being used as a "bait", the data of course has the plane's "final destination" in the Pentagon's west face.
Now, why does the flightpath matter?

Well, this is a very important piece to the puzzling events at the pentagon, because the flight path described by the eyewitnesses on the scene (the witnesses only number four, in comparison to 130 other accounts, however, there's several possible flight paths, because most witnessaccounts concerning the pentagon in some way directly contradict one another), which is backed up by the data from the flight recorder, could not have allowed the plane to smash through the light-poles on the high-way.

All in all, this might be evidence of planted evidence.

Why would the perpetrators, if they had bothered to add this to a huge conspiracy, bothered to knock out light poles, maybe launch 'em out of the ground with the aide of explosives, if there were hundreds of witnesses there?

Well, what would you be more intrigued about? A lightpole falling over or a huge airliner flying mere feet above your head in the middle of the daylight?

Now isn't it implausible that this would have been perpetrated?
Not completely, for example this might be used as evidence of an airliner having flown into the pentagon, since the knocked-down lightpoles created a pattern which matches a boeing 767 and could be used by debunkers as evidence later on.

Also, this MUST have some purpose, after all this is highly probable to be the truth, due to the evidence I offered you to be subdued to scrutiny.

POSSIBLE CONTRADICTION OF MY THEORY: I think I can recall that actually the lightpoles which were in flight 77's path, as it has been layed out be the NTSB data, were not knocked down, which would harm my case, however, this could be explained if it is assumed flight 77 actually overflew the pentagon and that later on the evidence had to be tampered with to create the impression its path was descending straight into the pentagon.

BUT THAT'S JUST A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Bear in mind that this theory is mere days old, it still has to go through more evalutation and scrutiny before being accepted as "fact"!!!!


//Case for flight 77 remote control
I can only tell you that I have not heard one quote of a professional pilot not telling us that the hijackers must have been flying-aces.

More on that later on, just this much, from what I have read, I have the impression Hani Hanjour was too incompetent to fly the extremely well executed 330? degree (or was it 270??) spiral down into the pentagon.

Ergo, EVIDENCE OF REMOTE CONTROL, PERIOD. KINDA.

 

[Solaris]

I managed to fly into the twin towers and pentagon on flight simulator quite easily.

 

[Eejit]

Ergo, EVIDENCE OF REMOTE CONTROL, PERIOD. KINDA.

Yeah well I'm convinced.

 

[Druckles]

I managed to fly into the twin towers and pentagon on flight simulator quite easily.

I lol'd for some reason :/

 

[Direwolf]

I'll throw out some points on a few things mentioned above:

I'm a little leery of that quoted block, because without any of the actual supporting material from the book it just reads like an advertisement for it. Unfortunately I can't find any objective reviews of the book online yet, since most seem to be written by people who already support the author. If I come across it I'll take a peek, but until then it's neither here nor there for me.

Also, a quote from later in the incident report mentioning the explosives:

So here these explosions are getting bigger and louder and bigger and louder and I told everybody if this building totally explodes still unaware that the other building had collapsed, I'm going in the water. I said I can swim...

While I'd warn against making any conclusions based on the details of a single eyewitness, it sounds more to me like what its being described is basically the building starting to be badly effected by fire and stress, since it seems to be an ongoing process for a few minutes.

And lastly I just want to point out that there are plenty of reasons that a smaller hole could be present in the Pentagon than on the towers. One good guess is simply that the Pentagon is a hell of a tough building. I don't think its a stretch to think that a lot of thought has been put into protecting it against ballistic attack. Also, the angle with which the plane impacts can make massive differences in how much energy is put into the building and how much is transfered to the ground. This won't happen with a midair collision such as the towers. All the kinetic energy in that case goes into the side of the building.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Ergo, EVIDENCE OF REMOTE CONTROL, PERIOD. KINDA.

:O :O :O

 

[highlander]

I just read this whole thread. Wow



/Leaves