Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

[_Z_Ryuken]

(First, notice that I have edited out the rest of your response because it was slippery-slope speculation. The possible motives you proposed are not beleivable, because you have made no effort to explain them.)

I really don't care to explain. If you can't think for yourself don't expect me to think for you.

"Nature" is not a subject either of us are qualified to talk about. Just because people of power do what they want does not mean they will.

Uh, hello. They crashed passenger jets into skyscrapers. If that's not people in positions of power doing what they want for the sake of their nature (culture, religion, purpose in life) I don't know what is.

There is nothing simpler than what I am asking, this is what 80% of a criminal case is based on: Where was the intent? Where was the motive? You should be spending pages trying to prove this to me, not backwards scientific evidence from conspiracy websites.

This series of observations is merely a quest for truth. Noone is pointing fingers calling criminal. Motive is irrellevant if we have noone to blame.

So far blame is concentrated in Al Queida (sp), and that's fine. Nobody here is ruling them out. The evidence presented here is not under the assumption the majority government is in league with the Taliban.
So far the motive is terrorism.
You'd think that would rule out any major US parties but that widely accepted motive is vague and pointless, as is the war against it.

At any rate, the important thing here is an open mind. None of us are going to change the common view of the event, but most of us believe in the importance of displaying all credibible evidence, and that is the purpose of this article.

 

[NotATool]

What? lol, do you understand geopoltical relation's, or what the basis for war was.. its because Al queda is based in Afghanistan, and they wanted to go 'get em', So naturally you go to their suspected base of operation's it was what the war was intially all about, till they got fixated on saddams WMD, does anyone here remember?.

You are not making a connection between.:

"o naturally you go to their suspected base of operation's it was what the war was intially all about,"

and

"till they got fixated on saddams WMD"


I can only assume there is none until then.

In addition, the pursuit of the Al Qaeda is aftermath and not necessarily Mens Rea, unless you can make the connection more distinctly.

Its not a Red hearring im expressing my viewpoint, no one has to try and convince you further if they dont want to.

I can only imagine the prosecutor coming to the court: "I don't have to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty if I don't want to!".

That's forfeit.

 

[clarky003]

in your mind its forfeit maybe.. but there's nothing that important at stake like in a court case, especially when there's all the material out there for you to make your own mind up.

ou are not making a connection between.:

"o naturally you go to their suspected base of operation's it was what the war was intially all about,"

and

"till they got fixated on saddams WMD"

I was making a generalisation..

here, knock yourself out, there are better timelines out there.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...omplete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq

 

[NotATool]

I really don't care to explain. If you can't think for yourself don't expect me to think for you.

I think well enough to see that the "motives" you presented are farcical at best.

Uh, hello. They crashed passenger jets into skyscrapers. If that's not people in positions of power doing what they want for the sake of their nature (culture, religion, purpose in life) I don't know what is.

Circular reasoning. You are using a conclusion (people in power crashed the jets into airplanes) as a premise. Your argument is fallacious.

This series of observations is merely a quest for truth. Noone is pointing fingers calling criminal. Motive is irrellevant if we have noone to blame.

I was under the impression the conspiracy insinuated the USA government was responsible.

So far the motive is terrorism.
You'd think that would rule out any major US parties but that widely accepted motive is vague and pointless

I would ask "why?" but if it is for you to be condescending as you were at the beggining of your post, then nevermind. It is very easy for me to present an argument, then let you prove it for me and call you unable if you do not.

Usually people have to prove and explain their own reasonings.

 

[NotATool]

I was making a generalisation..

here, knock yourself out, there are better timelines out there.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...omplete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq

Just because two elements are successive in a time frame does not mean they are connected.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Look we didn't write the damn article, merely agreed with it and found it plausible.

If you don't agree with it, you should read it and e-mail the guy.

Don't pick our posts apart just to be an ass.

All you are doing is baiting people into a one-sided argument where you don't have to do anything but refute everything without presenting your side.

Present your side or stay out of it.

 

[Fliko]

Haven't you guys heard?
Tetris Did It!
http://wtct.ytmnd.com/

Ontopic, there had to be explosives in the building. There just had to be.

 

[NotATool]

Look we didn't write the damn article, merely agreed with it and found it plausible.

If you don't agree with it, you should read it and e-mail the guy.

Don't pick our posts apart just to be an ass.

All you are doing is baiting people into a one-sided argument where you don't have to do anything but refute everything without presenting your side.

Present your side or stay out of it.

Here's what I was waiting for, the desperate yelp of a debater who just no longer has anything to say: The Ad Hominem.

It seems to me I have stated my stance quite clearly, a number of times actually:

The United States Government did not cause 9-11 because they do not have the motives, disregarding the fact that the physical evidence is questionable.

This is how debates work: The intial argument is presented, then it is a struggle for the other side to refute the argument. If you don't like it, you can leave.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Here's what I was waiting for, the desperate yelp of a debater who just no longer has anything to say: The Ad Hominem.

It seems to me I have stated my stance quite clearly, a number of times actually:

This is how debates work: The intial argument is presented, then it is a struggle for the other side to refute the argument. If you don't like it, you can leave.

In fact you were just pissing me off.

But you forget something.
Without 2 sides of an argument, you have no debate. You have to present AND defend your side but so far you have made no attempt.

Not that I was debating, more so clarifying this side of a situation for those that cannot see all sides.

So far you have proven your inability to do so.

There will be no leaving. There is no rule saying everyone must debate or forfeit posting priveleges, but realize you are not contributing anything to the topic.

/conversation

 

[McFace]

This will go on forever because there is only circumstantial evidence that the "offical" story presented is fabricated/lieing/wrong etc. This is enough to raise eyebrows, maybe say "Hmm, that is kinda wierd" but you can't prove anything and most likely we will never know the truth. People in this debate have grounded themselves on either side of the topic. To make either side believe the others views you will need concrete evidence, something that they can not explain, but of course we have none so...

I think this thread should burn in hell.

 

[NotATool]

_Z_Ryuken, you are ridiculous. My side of the argument was that the US was not responsible for the attacks, and I must have said it at leat three times now. I have repeatedly defended my side, as a matter of fact, everytime it has been attacked.

But go ahead, let go of your conscience and let your anger condemn me. No one is stopping you.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

_Z_Ryuken, you are ridiculous. My side of the argument was that the US was not responsible for the attacks, and I must have said it at leat three times now. I have repeatedly defended my side, as a matter of fact, everytime it has been attacked.

But go ahead, let go of your conscience and let your anger condemn me. No one is stopping you.

I clearly stated I have no opinion on who is responsible, yet you are arguing with my neutrality without grounds for argument other than you don't think it was the US government.

I am just putting possible motives of our (corrupt) goverment out there. I do not believe one way or another who the guilty administration is because I don't know, and I don't pretend to know,...

...but most of us believe in the importance of displaying all credibible evidence, and that is the purpose of this article.

I regret being overcome with anger but realize it's very frusterating to be sucked into a battle I have no intention of fighting.

 

[NotATool]

I was under the impression you were arguing with me. I apologize if you were not.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Huzzah for NAT!

Clarky, how many people have to ask you to stop just randomly quoting conspiracy websites and actually put forwards a compelling argument?

Your "theory" is full of far too many holes to be taken seriously.
It's not even really a theory, since you are not putting forwards any conclusions.

That, Clarky, is the biggest hole of all.
You have no conclusion, you have no process, you have no argument.

In the end, it comes down to this:

there's all the material out there for you to make your own mind up

If that's the case, we don't need you.

Also:

Clarkys

Clarky's

Clarkys

Clarky's

Clarkys

Clarky's

(Hint hint).

 

[K e r b e r o s]

-The thermate (what have you) charges were set knowing the jets would not bring the buildings down.
This is evidenced by the fall of WTC7. The jets also provide a wonderful distraction and cover story.
Not all variables were accounted for, so "truth" at this moment is questionable.

We also must consider the Planes impact into the structure. The Plane itself, though extremely light when compared to either of the World Trade Center buildings, might have, on impact with the building, severed several things nessecary to keep the tower intact.

If Jet fuel does burn at 800c and constantly, and when it burned, covered the four-six floors of impact with it, then I can see how certain parts of the structure melted and collasped.

 

[Glirk Dient]

You know your conspiracy theory sucks when you have no proof of something other than the reported event happening. All you have are a bunch of un answered questions that seem logical but in reality if you look into it or think ofr a second it makes no sense. I still don't understand how anyone can support these conspiracy theories. They have no proof of another party being directly involved, only un answered questions which they don't know the answer to.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Exactly. ^ Its just convient to there Paranoia, so they follow it dogmatically. To any end, unfortunately.

 

[CptStern]

You know your conspiracy theory sucks when you have no proof of something other than the reported event happening. All you have are a bunch of un answered questions that seem logical but in reality if you look into it or think ofr a second it makes no sense. I still don't understand how anyone can support these conspiracy theories. They have no proof of another party being directly involved, only un answered questions which they don't know the answer to.

nations have been invaded on less evidence ..hardeeharhar

 

[clarky003]

Well before I started commenting on the subject matter I read the NIST and FEMA report's, If other's can be bothered to do it then you'll see why theres so much to talk about, even they cant explain or simply havnt bothered to explain or prove they are correct about the collapse, no global collapse model's where built, and they cannot offer a good explaination for WTC7's collapse under their theory, and they accept that and say further investigation is needed.

No strong evidence of fire temprature was in use it was estimated to be as hot as it could be, although the black smoke is a strong indicator of the temprature being around 600 - 800 C a standard hydrocarbon fire, they also fudged their damage model's moving the second planes impact more towards the center rather than its actual glancing blow to create more internal damage in their model, and instead of actually including damaged support's which have some structural integrity they took those totally away from their model thinking they dont make a difference, but dont mention why. also read the whole report on the first page.

Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11. The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is in fact ruled out with high probability.

It's a strong possibility that its molten steel, an indentical result is seen when a thermite reaction is taking place.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Hardly a "glancing blow" when it penetrated the entire superstructure.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

nations have been invaded on less evidence ..hardeeharhar

Well, dang it, if Bush had'nt come to office we may have had you explaining yourself. Damn him! Damn that man!

 

[CptStern]

I may have had to explain myself? .......come again?

 

[clarky003]

Hardly a "glancing blow" when it penetrated the entire superstructure.

Well if you watch it , the fusealage misses the core section, and comes out the other side of the corner at an angle with the fuel mostley going up in an external fireball.. at most, glacing the core. My point was in the model diagram's they have clearly shifted its position more towards the core than is seen in the video's.

I do get the feeling that people try to make point's on the subject matter without reading through the origional report's and then going on to the critique such as the article in the first post on what NIST and FEMA have and havnt done.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Steel melts at around a low of 1370°C (2500°F).
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
The melting point of concrete varies between 1800-2500°C.
http://www.meg.co.uk/meg/app10.htm

"Jet fuel at high pressure is injected into the combustion section of the turbine engine through nozzles. This system is designed to produce a fine spray of fuel droplets that evaporate quickly as they mix with air."
http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/2_at_fuel_perf.shtm
It is a widely known fact jet fuel evaporates very quickly. There is no way it could have been burning in the tower for more than ten minutes. The black smoke billowing from the building was from low energy conventional office paper and plastic products.

Conjecture that noone can prove:
How much damage was done by the plane itself?

A lot. That much is evident by the top of one of the towers toppling over just above the impact sight.
Remember three buildings fell. Only 2 were hit by jets. This presents a problem. The heart of this article is to understand how a simple fire caused WTC 7 to collapse.
It is noted debris from the other buildings could have weakened the structure, even at a horizontal distance of some 350ft.
So we assume one side of WTC7 suffered impact damage, but nowhere near the scale of a jetliner.
So far we have established nothing in the building burned hot enough to weaken the superstructure of the buildings by themselves. The buildings were designed to resist and survive fires, and this is evidenced by the WTC fire of 1975. The fire hit one building, and the damage was obviously repairable and superficial at best.
Other factors to consider are the speed linearty at which the buildings fell.
It is identical to a controlled demolition. Perfectly identical. This point is irrefutable. The buildings fell perfectly. What does this mean? It means the main support columns fell first in a somewhat controlled manner.
Why?
Impact from the planes? Sure the impact could have cracked the concrete pillars through vibration. The steel superstructure would not have cracked. The building would have fell instantly if that were the case. The impact was far too high up in the building to damage the lower structure, minus some cracks in the concrete, but realize these buildings were also designed to withstand/resist small earthquakes to some degree, as is all recent architecture.
Fire is being blamed for the collapse. We have ruled out jet fuel as it would be expened before the fire could break through even one floor. Each floor is separated by a steel plate, and the fire could not burn hot enough for long enough to compromise even one in-tact floor.
Each floor is designed with multiple pillars and braces staggered althroughout the building. The support beams to not stack linearly through the building.
For this reason impact alone is ruled out. We have ruled out fire. Weight of the building above the impact is a factor.
As is evident by the footage, the buildings stood for a length of time after impact. It should be assumed the WTC2 did not suffer as much damage as WTC2 as apparent to it not toppling over, again fire is blamed for it's collapse but we have ruled that out. There is no reason the lower areas of the building could not support the weight above the crash site. It was not shifting and we have ruled out fire and impact due to the fact the building fell uniformly.

Again the only possible explanation is the total and complete failure of the central support column for the entire length of the building.
There are no apparent factors for this. Fire is ruled out. Impact is ruled out. Gravity is questionable.

Then you just take into account other factors such as eyewitnesses at ground zero and the insurance thing.
Here we have grounds for conspiracy, but without hard evidence we only have what we started with, which is physics. I light of this fact motive for this discussion is irrelevant. We have to delve into possible scenarios for the collapse starting with most plausible, which is demolition.

Now is the time to invoke Occam's Razor. Demolition at this point with these facts is the simplest possible explanation that answers all questions concerning the physics.
Superheated Fe2O3, oxidized iron erupts violently with molten aluminum. A granule or powder mixture is currently a mainstream solution for explosives, known as thermite. Thermite burns extremely hot at up to 2500°C (4500°F), depending on how quickly the heat can expand. This is more than hot enough to take out steel and even concrete, and is readily available to the right organizations, such as body shops for welding.
Thermite charges could easily rip through the structure of the buildings.
One remaining question however is how could these charges have made it inside. The only possibility is it was an inside job.
Well I work for a moving company, and you'd be suprised at all the places I've been given access to for the sake of pushing furinture around, and I have bee n left alone to my own devices on many occasions. Similarly I have observed maintenance poeple in these areas, even less restricted with access to the interiors, walls, ceilings, and maintenence shafts.
Considering this, recall the owner of the buildings took out an insurance policy on the buildings not too long before the impacts.
This person could have easily bypassed any security and worked with any group wiht official business to gain access to any area in any building.

It adds up all too well.


---

Here we have drawn multiple conclusions and shed light on some irregularities. Use the information how you like. Try to disprove it if you think you can, it is encouraged.
Come up with a better explanantion if you must.

---
I think this is an entirely plausible explanation but don't claim allegiance to anyone or anything regarding the discussion.
Have fun dissecting.
---
Ignore the various spelling errors. I read over it. I see them. Ignore it. Thx.

 

[Icarusintel]

Why in the world was this thread revived?

There's no PROOF of anything, merely conjecture. Until someone shows me incontrovertible proof that something else destroyed those towers I have no reason to believe it wasn't the planes.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Why in the world was this thread revived?

There's no PROOF of anything, merely conjecture. Until someone shows me incontrovertible proof that something else destroyed those towers I have no reason to believe it wasn't the planes.

So explain how 3 buildings fell when only 2 were hit by planes and the third suffered no major impact damage?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The last, the Pentagon, is made of stronger materials then the World Trade Centers I'd conjecture. It is one of America's largest military nervous systems, and its no suprise that a plane appeared to disintegrate upon impact.

It only makes sense that its material could withstand loosing shape against an oncoming plane.

 

[clarky003]

The photo's of engine component's on site match something more similar to a 737, I remember watching a documentary where they compared the physical appearance of the engine on site to a modern 757 and it was similar in shape but was slightly smaller and didnt match in appearance.

WTC7 is probably the most open for debate.

I'll quote what FEMA said about the issue.

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis (fire/debris-damage-caused collapse) has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5)

Lets quote some more from NIST in the report for those who cant be bothered to read it.

1

Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, p. 142)

2

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted (NIST, p. 142)

Critique

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests… indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)

3

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, p. 180)

4

Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, p. 142)

Critique

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005)

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct.

5

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, p. 141)

Critique

So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.

 

[Icarusintel]

So explain how 3 buildings fell when only 2 were hit by planes and the third suffered no major impact damage?

I can;t because I've hardly got any knowledge of building structures or of exactly what went on that day. All I'm saying is, I'm not going to put any blind faith in anything either way. All I know is what I saw and what I read, and it doesn;t solidly answer anything for me. I'm going with the simple answer - I saw planes hit two buolding and they collapsed. A third building also came down, I don't know how.

 

[baxter]

Lets quote some more from NIST in the report for those who cant be bothered to read it.

Ok let’s just do that. Let’s have a look at this three year 16 million dollar, 485 page reports. That you’ve read page by page.

This report that was not only complied by independent technical advisers who only interviewed 1200 people, yes that's correct 1200 people who actually witnessed the event. Not only that they studied in detail over 150 hours of video footage to establish exact time lines.

I guess in that three years they weren't actually developing global impact models, or doing impact analysis, nor did they analyses the aircraft impact into WTC 1 and WTC 2 using global tower and aircraft models. Or even look at the static preloads of the buildings or even analysis of the load characteristics required to damage core columns compared to the potential loading from impact of aircraft components.

Oh wait a minute they did, and much more but of course anybody who as actually read the entire report would know this.

If you seriously want to debunk this report then I suggest you do similar, re interview the 1200 odd witnesses, study in minute detail over 150 hours of video footage and countless photographs. Carry out all the relevant global modelling you wish and incorporate the very questions you seem to think as so important.

After you have done that post it here, or even better submit to the entire scientific community and wait for some dumbass to start asking you pointless and silly questions

 

[clarky003]

Well accuse me all you want Ive read alot of the report's key point's, the fact of the matter still remain's.

Oh wait a minute they did, and much more but of course anybody who as actually read the entire report would know this.

I dont know how many times its been repeated, They did not produced any simulation's of global collapse and their severe case model's went outside of the evidence and witness's so quoting large number's seems impressive but its ultimately irrelevant in the case of the tweaking of the model's to fit the desired result as they even admit, and there are scientist's supporting and submitting paper's, im just trying to make some argumentative point's, that some people try their best to ignore.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/professor-jones-is-right-government.html

Professor Jones is Right: Government Refused to Examine Trade Center Collapses
BYU Physics professor Steven Jones has stated that the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any evidence regarding the buildings’ impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses, apparent demolition squibs, the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air, the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings, or the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.

I just ran across an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal which backs up Professor Jones' claim that the government did not really examine the conditions immediately prior to collapse or the collapses themselves. Specifically, the article from the journal of the 180-year old UK Institution of Civil Engineers states:

"World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers".

The article goes on to state "a leading U.S. structural engineer said 'By comparison [to the modelling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated' . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.'”(free subscription required; copy posted here).

In other words, the U.S. structural engineer is saying that even the non-visual computer models which NIST used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty.

So this article from an old and respected engineering society shows two things:

(1) NIST (the government agency examining the collapse of the world trade centers) refuses to show any computer visualizations of the collapses themselves, while NIST has released models of much of the pre-collapse events with extravagant (even if incorrect) animation; and

(2) NIST pushed its software "to new limits", and used "simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls" to reach a pre-established conclusion: that the towers collapsed due to fire and jet impact alone (a tricky feat, since the data actually indicates controlled demolitions).

WTC investigator's resist call for collapse visualisation

 

[Angry Lawyer]

You have to admit, whether he's right or wrong in his assertions, you gotta respect Clarky's willingness to question the commonly-held beliefs. It's a fresh change from a world full of people who think like "I believe this because the TV told me".

<3 Clarky.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'm telling ya, Clarky's gonna rule the world one day. Or the EU. Whichever.

For now, I agree with Icarus. At the moment, it is up in the air if some of this happened, but I do know two plane's crashed into the twin towers and supposedly into the Pentagon. At the moment, until true, concrete evidence comes up, that's what I believe.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Clarky and Kirovman will one day do battle at the top of the Earth with their SCALAR WAVE emitters.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[clarky003]

Hehe, That would surely be an uneventful battle.

 

[baxter]

To be quite frank I didn't read the entire report, I simply got lost in a maze of technical information that is way above my head, but the point I was and have tried to continually get across is that that whether you agree or like yourself disagree with official version of events, unless somebody comes along with cast iron evidence, undeniable prove and scientifically proven facts to disprove the findings then the NIST (and the FEMA) report has to be taken at face value.

This report is in the public domain and as such it is open to scrutiny and question but does that make it any less valid. I have no doubt when it first came out that engineers and scientist from the entire planet read it and cast judgment upon. It seems to me that the majority agree with the findings and that only a minority questions it.

This report has probably been subject to the same scrutiny that the authors of the report put their finding to. They would have known that any mistakes would have been scoffed at by the scientific community as a whole and not by a small minority. How many angles could a report like this possibly cover, bearing in mind the massive task that it set out to do?

Two planes hit two towers and two towers fall down, everybody knows that but from what I understand of this report is that it actually puts into engineering and scientific context the precise sequence of events. Again bearing in mind the mass of information that had to be looked at, it is believable that things got over looked, maybe they did get looked at and it was thought tiny anomalies where not that important in the bigger picture. Maybe they simply dismissed the smoke at the base of the towers as falling debris, maybe they thought the seismic reading nine seconds before one tower collapsed was simply metal fatigue, or maybe some gas tanks inside the building exploding. Maybe they felt that motel metal evident at the base of the buildings days after really wasn't that important given the over whelming evidence that a combination of the planes impact and the ensuring fires were responsible. And maybe they did look at the alleged free fall of the tower, and simply deemed it irrelevant, or that the speed they collapsed tied in perfectly with the evidence that they had. I really couldn’t give you an answer as to why they would leave this out but I really couldn’t imagine that is was for any sinister reason and certainly not to cover up explosions.

Given the enormous public interest in this event I believe that this report would have quickly condemned any parties had there been a wiff of a conspiracy. There seems no logical reason as to why a bunch of independent, scientists and engineers would possibly purposefully and maliciously exclude this from a report of this magnitude.
Surely to do so would mean that they were involved themselves. Call this report, incomplete, call it lacking but nobody is going to suggest that it was compiled simply to cover a conspiracy of this size. If that was the case why bother going to all the trouble of actually compiling it in the first place, why not simply keep quiet?

You will notice that all the above is maybe, simple speculation. It is easy to speculate after the event and if you are technically minded it is simple to question, what I would consider to be a pretty accurate and reasonable account of what actually happened, but that's all it is speculation.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I can;t because I've hardly got any knowledge of building structures or of exactly what went on that day. All I'm saying is, I'm not going to put any blind faith in anything either way. All I know is what I saw and what I read, and it doesn;t solidly answer anything for me. I'm going with the simple answer - I saw planes hit two building and they collapsed. A third building also came down, I don't know how.

Fair enough.
Make that 4 buildings though. I forgot about the Pentagon. It got smacked pretty good.

WTC 1, and 2, the tall ones got hit. WTC7 supposedly caught on fire, and in the videos it can be seen collapsing seemingly under it's own weight in a very controlled manner, with very little smoke billowing from the building.

If you've ever seen a building catch on fire before you know it doesn't simply collapse until it has been almost completely engulfed, and that's because it is not made almost completely of steel and concrete.

Questions are raised and thus far noone has answers.

 

[Eg.]

diesel fuel, which was being stored in WC7 does not emit that much smoke, and burns longer. if the central core of a building burns out, or melts, then it will collapse thusly. my dad works with the dept of buildings in new york, as i have said before in this thread. really its easy to understand the report if you have just a meager amount of technical knowledge.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Its just curious....the world trade towers signed the biggest insurance contract just weeks before these attacks and the pentagon installed reinforced building material days before the attacks.

 

[NotATool]

Its just curious....the world trade towers signed the biggest insurance contract just weeks before these attacks and the pentagon installed reinforced building material days before the attacks.

That could be absolutely unrelated and there is no way you can prove it is.