top
US
US
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S.
The Fall of the World Trade Center
by BBC Horizon
Thursday Apr 6th, 2006 3:39 PM
A documentary that looks at the why the World Trade Center towers collapsed. Anyone who says there must have been explosives in the buildings either has no understanding of the basic principles of construction or is an agent of disinformation bringing ridicule to the 9/11 movement.
[46 minutes]
Copy the code below to embed this movie into a web page:
The Fall of the World Trade Center
BBC Two 9.00pm Thursday 7 March 2002

The World Trade Center was built on revolutionary design principles. It turned conventional architectural and structural techniques on their head. Built from a thin web of steel, its design was efficient, cost-effective and would inspire a new wave in modern building techniques.

The result was two towers that were both lightweight and strong. When they were completed they were the tallest in the world. They were also milestones of architecture for another reason. The two towers were the first skyscrapers explicitly designed to withstand being hit by a jet plane.

'The impact'

Although they had considered an aircraft impact, the designers of the World Trade towers had not anticipated the effect of an aeroplane's fuel load. British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

Survivor, Bill Forney, recalls the instant that the 767 aircraft hit the North Tower one floor above where he was sitting. "The building started shaking. It lurched back and forth. It was the first time that I had truly thought that I might die. After a terrifying six to ten movements back and forth it was over and it was done."

'Problems with drywall'

The World Trade Center had ultra-lightweight floors, and used the latest fireproof 'drywall' to protect the stairwells and lift shafts. Much of this internal structure seems to have been vaporized when the planes crashed, exposing the underlying steel to the intense heat of multiple fires.

Brian Clark was one of the only four survivors from both towers to escape from above where the planes hit. He describess clambering over the shattered walls to break through a smoke-filled stairwell to get out. "Drywall had been blown off and was lying up against the stair railing." he says, "We had to shovel it aside." Another survivor, window cleaner Jan Demczur, found the drywall so soft that he was able to dig through it with a squeegee to break out of a lift he was trapped in.

'The South Tower'

The two towers responded differently to the initial impacts, because there were crucial differences between the collisions. The South Tower, struck second, was hit lower, and the damaged zone of the tower then had to support a much greater weight of building above it . Rather than being hit head-on, the South Tower was hit at an angle. The plane wreckage scraped along the inside of the east wall and piled up in the northeast corner. Here, the fire burned intensely.

At the South Tower's inner core, one escape stair was left intact - the one furthest from the plane's path. Even then, only four people, one of them Brian Clark, managed to get down it.

At the northeast corner and along the east wall, the connections between the floors and the outer wall began to break as the floors sagged in the heat. The floors were an essential part of the structure, bracing both the outer walls and the inner core. Already weakened by the impact and now unbraced, the outer wall columns of the South Tower could not support the weight above them. At 9.59am Eastern Time, they snapped. The entire top third of the tower then lurched to the north and east; the floors inside the rest of the tower piled down onto those below. The downward wave of destruction - a progressive collapse - was then unstoppable.

'The North Tower'

Meanwhile, the North Tower, which had been hit first, was still standing. The core of the Tower had been hit head-on, and the core had been left mostly undamaged by the impact. However, the direct hit cut off all the escape routes without exception. Meanwhile, the fire inside the North Tower was spread around the core. Again, connections between floors and columns started to fail in the heat, but here in the North Tower, it was the connections at the core that gave way first. Without the floors to brace it, the core could not stand alone. 29 minutes after the first collapse, the core in the North Tower collapsed vertically, pulling the rest of the tower down with it.

The implications of the Twin Towers collapse are disturbing. Whether anything can be done to make modern lightweight skyscrapers more robust in the aftermath of 11 September is a vital question that must now be answered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml
by 7?
Friday Apr 7th, 2006 8:12 PM
Remember Seven?

<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc7_pile2.jpg">

This other program(TLC) is very similar. It also neglects to mention Seven.

http://movies01.archive.org/opensource_movies/newsreal/indybay/uploads/twintowers_collapse.rm

Too much butter and syrup on those pancakes!
by BassHead
Monday Apr 10th, 2006 6:22 AM
Short History Channel clip on 7 can be found here: http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1814156.php
by ic
Monday Apr 10th, 2006 9:32 AM
transfertrusses5-7.jpgl4vlh3.jpg
just an extremely brief rundown of the nist/fema inconclusiveness.

This illustration of the truss transfer and girder system for wtc 7 is incomplete! It is missing structural components.



by ic
Monday Apr 10th, 2006 9:43 AM
coll_truss.gif
This illustration (again missing key structural components), demonstrates how the floor trusses supposedly fell, which lead to the total and complete collapse of the towers. This illustration is deceptive and it has been used in all of the official explanations. The floor trussing system were connected together with the floor pan and 4 inch thick concrete slabs which made up the floor. Plus, the floor trussing system were further reinforced by perpendicular trusses. Add to that, approximately 18 floors in each tower were constructed as steel and concrete box truss systems. These were to support heavy machinery and building sub-systems.
by ic
Monday Apr 10th, 2006 9:48 AM
truss-assembly.jpg
21 Floor covering
22 In-situ concrete
23 Trough decking
24 Bar joist
25 Electrical services duct
26 Air-conditioning duct
by ic
Monday Apr 10th, 2006 9:52 AM
assembly.jpg
and perpendicular reinforcing truss.
by TheDossier
Monday Apr 10th, 2006 10:46 AM
Sometimes, when illustrating structural members, some components are omitted for clarity, so that you can see the area in question.

The same goes for the trusses - the conrete slabs have been omitted for clarity, so the casual viewer can easily understand what they're looking at.

The trusses running perpendicular to the main floor trusses are probably there to brace the floor - similar to struts or noggins they prevent lateral movement.
by Thomas
(thomasvibe [at] jubii.dk) Monday Apr 10th, 2006 11:49 AM

The time of the collapse of the south tower was MAX. 10 SECONDS - nearly the speed of a free fall - NOT 30 [THIRTY] as it is stated in the video !!!. This can only mean that the lower floors where destroyed regarding their ability to absorb the energy from the falling upper parts, as this would have slowed the speed of every section falling - and how should this have been done other than by massive amounts of eksplosives ?. That there were a number of large eksplosions is fully documented by hundreds of wittnesses ( se f.eks. "Loose change. 2nd.edition". [ Who is running UKTheDossier now ??]
by TheDossier
Monday Apr 10th, 2006 12:29 PM
The film says 30 seconds for the tower to collapse 'entirely'. What you see falling in 10 seconds is the loose debris free-falling from the top, away from the building. Behind the smoke and dust the central columns are collapsing slower.

I have watched Loose Change - most of it is sound. I only have problems with the theory that explosives were used. Somebody somewhere has inserted this propaganda along the way to distract people away from the real questions surrounding 9/11, as shown here:

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/index.htm

I completely agree with your view about the real agenda of the US in the middleeast, but I do not think that the focus on who attacked the US on 9/11 and how this was done divert attention from the former topic. On the contrary. If the many fact about 9/11 that do not add up to the official explanation are widely known, the real intentions of the government in the US will also come into focus. And now I would like to point out some more questions concerning the video from BBC Horizon ( apart from the former point concerning the time of collapse, which still holds. IT TAKES NOWHERE NEAR 30 SECONDS FOR THE WHOLE TOWER TO COLLAPSE, NOT EVEN "ENTIRELY" - as far I can see at all)

1) Approximately 29-31 minutes into the video, Gene Corley [ spelling ?], engineer ( allegedly ), sees the core of the south tower standing after the collapse of the entire topsection of the tower. There are several problems here: a) It is VERY difficult to see anything - for us who watch this video - that might be a core in the center when the tower falls, and if Gene Corley allegedly has "some pictures", taken by an architectfirm nearby, that shows this column of the entire inner core, why not show theese instead of a quick glimpse of a video [if this video is not the pictures they talk about, that is] ?. ( Besides, the short glimpse we get of the outline of the core seems a little "fishy"). But these objections are of course not deadly ( unless the outline of the core in Corleys video is manipulated of course - but that is pure conjection), so lets assume that the inner core of the tower REALLY STANDS after the collapse of the upper part of the tower. The problem, then, is b) how the whole uppper part of the tower is able to progressively tilt approximately 10-20 (?) degrees, when the solid, massiv core is supposed to stand straight up without being broken and tiltet !!!. I find it very hard to understand how these completely interconnected parts ( floors and core) is suppused to suddenly point in differnt directions, that is: how the falling part of the tower can tilt when the core supposedly does not !.


Another strange thing is the story the two firemen from "ladder 6 team" tells, about how they ( and apparently all members of "ladder 6") survives being in the building when the northtower collapses. HOW THE DEVIL does one survive a building of that size collapsing stright down upon itself. The explanation in the "documentary" is that the columns of the inner core starts to buckle and collapse as they can no longer support the upper part of the tower. The firemen where apparently in the core, and survived because this did not collapse. I have to date not seen any videos showing the center core standing long enough to protect people from being squashed like flies under a hammer.

Regards
Thomas
by TheDossier
Tuesday Apr 11th, 2006 12:24 PM
Copy the code below to embed this movie into a web page:
Here's a hi-res clip of the core still intact after the floors and outer wall have fallen.
by Thomas
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 4:56 AM
Yes I see the remaining core standing. This is the first picture/video I have seen of the core after the collapse. If it is not manipulation ( which I do not believe it is), how long did it stand and why did it collapse ?
[ I have tried to search the net, but have found nothing substantial on the remaining core of the south tower - but perhaps I have not searched (well) enough ?. But regarding explosions in the towers, there is ample evidence. Many videos of the collapse shows cloud of dust shooting out severeal places during the collapse and many people neard them ]
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 9:14 AM
The central core collapsed seconds after the top part had dropped. As the collapse progressed down, it must of pulled the core down with it. Also, without the outer superstructure to support it, it had to come down.

The clouds of dust shooting out side ways seen on many clips would be the air pressure bursting out through weak points in the wall caused by the floors crashing down on each other. As the floors drop down progressively, the air inside the building would be compressed immensely, like a syringe full of air being squeezed. I would imagine the building to be sealed for the air-conditioning to work and to limit heat loss.

As for the explosion sounds documented by many witnesses, I would imagine you'd hear a lot of loud bangs as hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel was crashing down. Lifts crashing down to the floor, gas canisters or whatever exploding, etc.
by Thomas
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 2:37 PM

First of all, you said much of ´Loose change 2nd edition´ "..is sound". What exactly DO you think is sound ?.

Second, I simply don´t buy the explanation that the collapse pulled down the ( apparently ? ) still standing MASSIVE core. This core is composed of 47 massive columns, interconnected by thick, solid steelplates, which would have made it a very strong gridstructure - it after all carried the weight of the entire tower. Furthermore, the inner core was, of course, connected heavily and massively to the ground. WHY should it fall just by itself, with no weight upon it ?. The floors were supposed to have "pancaked" down around it, and the upper, heavy part - the solid inner core and the floors - where out of the way, having fallen to the sides, when it ( allegedly ? ) suddenly collapsed. If it collapsed, it must have been because the very FOUNDATION were heavily damaged - and how did this happen ?.

Third, how do you know that it came down "...seconds" later. What source do you have ?. ( It does not come down in the video, which runs some time after the collapse of the rest of the tower. )

Fourth, are there any other videos, pictures, articles, or other which documents that there where a core standing after the collapse of the south tower ?.

Fifth, some of the cloud of dust that shoot out of the building are way below the place where the "pancaking" is taking place.
by Thomas
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 3:42 PM

Addition to the former comments.

I forgot the most important, regarding explosions. On videos, taken from the new jersey-side (?) one sees clouds of dust pouring up from the base of the northtower, and it is CERTAIN that the lobby had been exposed to a large explosion - and this was certainly BEFORE the tower had begun to collapse. People heard explosions BEFORE the towers collapsed. This is not conjection, it is a FACT. ( And to forego one skeptical objection, one can point out that there is NO WAY a fireball, smoke or anything else would have hurled 100 stories down to the lobby. A tower with an open end on top, like any very high pipe, will create a vacuum - even if not very
great - pulling air up. )
by Thomas
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 3:04 AM
Addition to addition

The "...dust pouring" I mentioned before is not the dust that appears to rise like fume in a video which is most likely a hoax - it is the thin, white "fog" rising slowly from the base, apparently after a series of explosions. This kind of smoke is fully consistent with highspeed explosives.

by TheDossier
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 1:13 PM
The central core didn't carry the entire load - the outer walls would also be distributing loads. Each tower was basically three smaller ones on top of each other. The central core - once collapse initiated in the outer areas - was then subject to eccentric loading that it wasn't designed for.

It must have been seconds after (core) because not many shots show it still standing. The clip above is also in slow-motion, so it seems longer. I haven't looked for other pictures showing the core standing, maybe there are more.

Remember, the air pressure is increasing as the floors come down, so the "squibs" as others have said are exit points - could even be ventilation ducts expelling the air as it gets compressed from above.

There could still be explosions/sounds before the collapse. There was major damage above from the planes, there was fire, people jumping from high up, all sorts of things would have been happening that sounded like explosions.
by Thomas
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 1:57 PM

All this sounds more like explaning away !.

Again, what DO you think is sound in "Loose Change" ?

What about the lobby ?

What about the fine, thin dust rising after explosions are heard and registered on seismografs ?.




by TheDossier
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 8:38 AM
Explaining away? You, are claiming there were explosives in the building not me - therefore it's down to you to provide credible evidence. I am countering what you say with reason and logic based on structural knowledge.

Here's what I think is sound in the film Loose Change SE:
- operation northwoods
- Norad drills/exercises
- PNAC
- bin laden in Dubai hospital
- put options
- cancelled flights of officials
- bin laden pakistan hospital
- NRO drill
- pentagon missing surveillance tapes
- cellphone operation at high altitude and velocity
- some hijackers still alive

note: the buildings mentioned that burned for hours/days without collapse were reinforced concrete structures - concrete is superior when it comes to fire resistance. Also, none of them were hit by anything.

They mention in the film that the lift shafts are sealed - ideal for pressure to build up and travel down from above.

With all due respect, fire-fighters and janitors are not qualified structural engineers.
by Thomas
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 8:58 AM

Well, at least we are on the same side generally. But I still find it more than difficult to understand what are the grounds for the, well, "explosionlike" phenomena reported, videotaped, recorded on seismographs, a.o., if they´re not exactly what they appear to be, namely heavy explosions ! - intended to weaken the foundation and the structure. And I still am not convinced that the planecrashes and fire alone brought down the towers. But perhaps we should call off this discussion - and appeal to people who read this to go investigate the topic themselves.

With kind regards and thanks for many good documentarys, etc. on your site

Thomas
by TheDossier
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 11:45 AM
Yes, we both agree 9/11 was a covert-op, or at the bare minimum they let it happen - just as bad. I'm just trying to keep the 9/11 investigation on track with the undisputable key points.

As you say, people should always check things for themselves and where they do not have the knowledge to find an answer, should look to 'qualified' others for help.
by Ann R. Keye
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 8:55 PM
"Sometimes, when illustrating structural members, some components are omitted for clarity, so that you can see the area in question."

Apparantly, only those with an understanding of the basic principles of construction can understand a complex struture. Don't treat us like idiots. Underlying all basic priciples of construction is physics. There are some good documenteries out there that show how the structural failure theory cannot explain the collapse of the towers. Try this on for size.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

A little long, but this one also explains the physics of the collapses. It has about 15 minutes of a raw footage with live news coverage in the background. It shows many things the BBC documentary leaves out.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&pl=true
by Miro
Saturday Apr 15th, 2006 8:12 AM
Well the dossier,

I think it is good to add documentaries that support the official story, if for anything to show that the official story is bogus on almost every count. I also think it is too easy to state that you only need to counter statements of people who believe explosives were used, there is so much visible and audible evidence of explosions that you cannot make such a simple claim and expect me or anybody having put some serious research into this to accept such a way of countering credible evidence.
And you don't need to be an expert of any kind to see:

- Explosion puffs, several similar way below the demolition wave.
- That the towers were not burning severely at all and therefore further weakening the pancake theory.
- Towers falling at freefall speed.
- All center column pieces severed into small and similar movable pieces, explain to me how fire did that.

The thing is that you can see the explosions going off and it doesn't even matter anymore wether you believe firemen, janitors or George Bush.

What i do see often is so called or self proclaimed experts going to enormous lenghts to ignore and explain away visible evidence.

So at your discretion explain to me the 4 points listed.

Thanks
by TheDossier
Saturday Apr 15th, 2006 8:39 AM
Ask anyone who illustrates architecture and structural members, and they will confirm what I have said about the omission of certain members for clarity - this is standard practice.

Jeff King
People should ask themselves "who is this Jeff King?" He says he "studied" physics at MIT. What exactly did he study and for how long? I presume he isn't employed by MIT. He also states that he did "electrical" engineering for eight years - NOT structural engineering.

King's Presentation

He mentions the squibs - see above for my view on them.

TWA 800 was reconstructed to establish why it crashed/exploded. With 9/11 we know why the planes crashed - they were flown into the towers deliberately. Maybe he's suggesting the towers should have been reconstructed - since when have collapsed buildings been reconstructed to establish failure? Considering the sheer size of them, it would be an immense task to do so.

Modern office contents contain 'hydrocarbon' materials.

The core was an integral part of the 'whole' structure. Every part is reliant on adjacent members to transfer the loads. If some parts are damaged by the collision and/or fire then failure becomes a reality.

There were service lift shafts that rose through the entire height of the buildings.

A FEMA diagram illustrating the pancake theory DOES show the core columns. If you read the notes on the diagram they clearly identify the exterior column and the core column.

He suggests that the floor coverings (carpets) would stop the concrete floor slabs from crushing under the massive load (100.000 tonnes) of the above collapsing part of the building, and hence there should be no dust clouds - is he serious? The top part of the buildings were crashing down onto the lower sections. What does he think is going to happen? Virtually everything is going to be crushed under these loads except the steel.

He claims that steel retains its strength until the melting point is reached. This is wrong. The critical failure temperature of steel is 550°C - way lower than the melting point of 1400°C.

I think Mr King should elaborate a little more on who he is.
by TheDossier
Saturday Apr 15th, 2006 9:02 AM
If you read this entire thread above, I have answered your four points already.

- explosion puffs are probably air being expelled under pressure as the building above compresses down, forcing out through weak points or ducts/intakes
- how do you know the fires weren't burning severely? Office fires have been studied extensively to establish the temperatures involved. This is why fire proofing is used:
"In steel-framed buildings, it is important to prevent the metal structure from weakening under intense heat. The standard for fire protection (under BS476 part 20 & 21) is to protect the structure—for a specified amount of time—from reaching the ‘critical failure temperature’ of 550°C. This is the temperature at which general construction steel will start to lose its structural strength possibly causing the building to collapse. In some cases, such as suspension hangers, the metal used is not structurally sound at lower temperatures. Tests have therefore been carried out using the same parameters but with a failure lower than 550°C."
- Again as mentioned above, what you see free-falling is the loose debris. Behind the dust/smoke the cores are collapsing slower.
- Fire and the damage caused by the planes initiated the collapse. Then as the collapse progressed down, the steel structure was broken by the enormous loads from above.
by ic
Saturday Apr 15th, 2006 7:19 PM
It's impossible. You can just ignore KEY STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. Did I say KEY! I'll say it again KEY structural components.

One other thing. Where do you get off making such an ascinine comment as, "no understanding of the basic principles of construction or is an agent of disinformation bringing ridicule to the 9/11 movement. "

Give that crap a break. Thanks. There is disinfo alright and those docs on the towers are part of it.

Anyway, this is a 1983 doc about building the World Trade Towers

http://www.physics911.ca/gallery2/v/videos/building_wtc.png.html

http://physics911.ca/video/1983/building_wtc_1.mov

http://physics911.ca/video/1983/building_wtc_2.mov

http://physics911.ca/video/1983/building_wtc_3.mov

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/

by Ann R. Keye
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 12:01 AM
Is structural engineering some kind of priesthood or something? Only those whom are structural engineers can understand the complexities of modern structures. Give me a break. If you do not like electrical engineers that have studied physics at MIT. How about a physics professor. Again, its about the physics.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
by TW
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 3:00 AM
Hey 'ic':
Your initial "explanation" as to why "it's IMPOSSIBLE" for the floor trusses to have failed in the manner shown in that animated gif completely failed as such. Please explain again in something resembling actual detail. Lots of arcane techno-noise and gee-wow pitchurs won't throw me, so be careful. Thanks in advance.

Hey Anne "its about the physics" Keye:
Yeah that's right, and "physics" in this case does not mean the same thing as "common sense based on mundane experience with tinker toys and shopping carts." Physics and engineering are very demanding subjects.

You controlled demolition fanatics need to cram a sock in it. You're not really helping matters. You're either bullshitters yourselves or mindless pawns of people who are. I've actually completed structural engineering coursework in a prestigious engineering school. I'm no expert, and I'm not even adament that the towers weren't blown up, but I know enough to acknowledge what I DON'T know, which is more than you do. Your fanatical OPINION that the towers were definitely blown up only appeals within your own choir. Meanwhile the public you're supposedly trying to convince just rolls its eyes and walks away chuckling when it hears this garbage. Well, except for the UFO/chemtrails types. Yeah, they're a big help.

This soap box of yours is an idiotic PR move, and you're being encouraged to make it by actual PR operatives, whether you realize it or not.

http://indybay.org/news/2006/03/1812492_comment.php#1815650
by TheDossier
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 9:44 AM
TW is completely right in what he/she is saying. To keep pushing this idea of controlled demolition is doing damage to the 9/11 movement - big time.

Why do think the media quite happily gives Charlie Sheen a platform when he starts talking about controlled demolition? It's because the argument is flawed right from the start. It's not based on any kind of structural engineering knowledge at all.

If a property developer wants to construct a new office block would he employ an architect and engineer, or a physics and astronomy professor? I want someone to name one 'professionally' qualified structural engineer who believes explosives were used.

I suggest everyone involved, drop this ridiculous notion of explosives or, at the very least, put it way down the bottom of the list of 9/11 anomalies. There are so many rock solid points that can be used instead:
- PNAC (pearl harbor event)
- oil decline
- Afghan pipelines, UNOCAL, ENRON, Karzai, Taliban, opium
- John O'Neill resignation
- terror drills on the same morning, Vigilant Guardian/Warrior, NRO
- scrambled jets confusion
- al-Qaida connections to intelligence services, bin laden CIA, MI6, pakistan ISI
- bin laden kidney treatment at hospitals
- $100,000 to Atta from ISI, Ahmad meetings
- hijackers' identities in question, their training
- closure of FBI investigations into terror networks
- Able Danger, foreknowledge
- cancelled flights of officials
- put options, trading
- Northwoods, Gladio, P2, IRA, Mossadeq, Lockerbie, USS Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Bali, Contras, Suez, Panama
- anthrax attacks
- OPEC, euros
- the lies put out by bush admin, blair

Why on earth would they take risks blowing the towers with the world watching live, when just getting planes to crash into them would cause enough uproar to go to war? As TW says, the collapse was a bonus to them. They quite possibly may have known the towers would collapse anyway, as long as the planes hit low enough.

Anyone who continues to push the demolition theory should seriously be regarded as 'cointelpro' or completely misguided.
by BassHead
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 11:11 AM
check this link - John Young sheds some light on the collapse

http://cryptome.org/wtc-collapse.htm
by Ann R. Keye
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 11:12 AM
TW,

"Hey Anne "its about the physics" Keye". That's Ann R. Keye. Say it three times fast.

"Yeah that's right, and "physics" in this case does not mean the same thing as "common sense based on mundane experience with tinker toys and shopping carts."" From where did that come? Did I say anything about common sense, tinker toys or shopping carts?

"Physics and engineering are very demanding subjects." Are they really? Thanks for the tip.

"You controlled demolition fanatics need to cram a sock in it. You're not really helping matters. You're either bullshitters yourselves or mindless pawns of people who are. I've actually completed structural engineering coursework in a prestigious engineering school."

Well, you have succeded in convincing me with your strong argument of the need for me to cram a sock in it. I am obviously a bullshitter or a mindless pawn who has completed electrical engineering coursework at a not so prestigious engineering school, therefore, I don't know jack.

I never understood the progressive collapse explanation before. Now it makes perfect sense.

Many thanks.

p.s. I believe that progressive collapse is possible, its just not what happened. See the difference?
by It should be more clearly dated
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 1:29 PM
It does not mention Building seven--

or that the beams "in New Jersey" were shipped off to Asia.

Or explain why the buildings came down faster than possible during a pancaking--

or that the fuel would have burned out--

too many questions.
by TheDossier
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 2:51 PM
WTC 7 film here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1814156.php
by ic
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 3:18 PM
magic.jpg
Strange how cross trussing reinforcement, as well as, the composite steel decking trough anbd 4 inch concrete slabs, just magically disappear.
Thus leaving the truss spans to fall as single timbres. Magic.

So come on all you know-it-all "structual engineer professionals" Explain the magical disapearance of these key structual components. How did they just vanish into thin air?
by ic
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 3:24 PM
hotslag.jpg
And I suppose molten steel found underneath each of the 3 buildings is just more cointelpro boogeymen.

Um yeah, like that was caused bu jet feul. Now that is a half baked farce.
Anyone here a fire engineer?
by Thomas
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 4:20 PM

A point that has not been sufficiently adressed ( as the former guest point out) is the time of collapse. How could the towers collapse that fast if they where "pancaking". NOTHING slowed down the collapse substantially !!.

And again: That a fireball travelled down 100 stories and caused a MASSIVE explosion in the lobby is simply unbelieveable. If anyone hold this view, please explain the pyrophysics behind this phenomeneon !!.

Comment to a former question by TheDossier [ Why the perpetraitors would risk a demolition ]: First a general comment: The (inside) perpetraitors probably did not want to kill more people than necessary and perhaps thought that most, if not all, humans could get out of the towers in an our. In the light of this , here are some suggestions to why a complete demolition would be risked: 1) It would have been revealed that there were no dead passengers in the plane [ the plane could have been remotecontrolled - see fx "Loose change 2E" ( operation Northwoods ) - and there is the advantage of no risk of passengers revealing anything about the hijacking per mobilphone if there ARE no passengers in the plane ] and the cockpitrecorders would have been found - and it would be suspicious if they were not - if this was not diguised in a collapse of the towers. 2) The attack needed to be big enough to justify a largescale attack on other countries and to make people forget, and be afraid of, critique of Bush and co. . ( after all, even pentagon was
attacked and an entire plane - flight 93 - ( with passengers ?) was crashed - and this, by the way, leaving absolutely no remains of an aeroplane, of passengers, or of anything else for that matters, just a hole in the ground )
Thomas
by TW
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 8:11 PM
I guess you're expecting me to fawn over your golly-gee pro-fesh-ee-oh-nall credential, but you know what Anne? I've known lotsa professionals during my life, including high-rolling PhDs, and by and large the best use of their brains would have been to fertilize a nice flowerbed. That pretty well sums up my opinion of the average careerist's integrity, which is WAY more important than how clever they are. You could have a BS (pun intended) for all I care.

"its just not what happened"

And how EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE, Anne. Cuz it doesn't follow Ohm's Law? This is the only pertinent thing you said in your entire post, so I challenge you to develop it.

And now for this fucking punk 'IC':
Hey stupid asshole, this is what I asked you:
"Your initial "explanation" as to why "it's IMPOSSIBLE" for the floor trusses to have failed in the manner shown in that animated gif completely failed as such. Please explain again in something resembling actual detail."
You didn't address this. Are you too much of a verbal idiot, or are you a darting squirming ratlike Burson-Marsteller employee who's trying to avoid getting pinned down? I told you throwing pitchurs around wouldn't work, and yet you did it anyway. This supports the 'verbal idiot' theory. The trusses are the primary supportive element of the floor. The concrete is not self-supporting, it rests on the trusses to create a flat stable sound- and fire-isolating platform. You take those trusses away and that concrete membrane would collapse onto the next floor from its own weight. The trusses are the key element in discussion of progressive collapse, so ***EXPLAIN*** (fathom this word dumb-fuck http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain ) to me how they COULD NOT POSSIBLY have failed in the manner depicted. If the floor pan, the concrete, etc. had not been omitted from the animated gif, how would its essential meaning have changed?
by ic
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 8:44 PM
I don't give a fuck what you ask for. Got it bud. Good. If you're too stupid to understand that key structural components are missing from the official explanation. It aint my problem. So go ahead be a legend in your own mind.
by Ann R. Keye
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 9:28 PM
south_tower.gif
"I guess you're expecting me to fawn over your golly-gee pro-fesh-ee-oh-nall credential"

Apparently you wanted me to do the same. You brought up credentials first.

, but you know what Anne? I've known lotsa professionals during my life, including high-rolling PhDs, and by and large the best use of their brains would have been to fertilize a nice flowerbed. That pretty well sums up my opinion of the average careerist's integrity, which is WAY more important than how clever they are. You could have a BS (pun intended) for all I care.

Is that an argument. I could say similar things.

As for my pertinent statement. I will give it a go. But first, just to make sure I have it correct, what is happening at moment the attached photo was taken?
by Ann R. Keye
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 9:40 PM
TW,

I have another question. What is common to all engineering disciplines?
by TW
Sunday Apr 16th, 2006 11:40 PM
"You brought up credentials first."

Oh really? That's an unfortunate gaffe, Anne, or Leslie Gaines-Ross, or whoever. All you had to do was scroll back. Here you are bringing up creds right before me.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813619_comment.php#1815672

"what is happening at moment the attached photo was taken?"

I answered this in advance in the other thread: "The collapses clearly initiated at the level of impact..."

here's a motion pic of same courtesy of your favorite authority.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

BTW, this BYU Physicist Steven E. Jones is a serious fraud when it comes to this subject. He's banking on worship of credentials almost as much as you are. I had a hunch, judging from his sophomoric presentation, that his specialty had nothing to do with dynamic behavior of structures on this scale, so I went and checked him out and sho nuff

http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personid=36
Research Group: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical
Specialty: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, Solar energy

This guy is a MOLECULAR-scale physicist. I appreciate his effort to rattle people's cages, I really do, but he's totally outside his expertise -- as far outside it as yourself -- and it shows in his commentary. "Angular momentum," my hairy asshole.

"What is common to all engineering disciplines?"

Offhand, I'd say basic principles and math

What's the punchline of your trick-question game, anyway?

Don't let any of that distract you from my challenge: "its just not what happened." How EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE?
by Ann R. Keye
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 6:44 AM
TW,

""You brought up credentials first."

Oh really? That's an unfortunate gaffe, Anne, or Leslie Gaines-Ross, or whoever. All you had to do was scroll back. Here you are bringing up creds right before me." "

My bad. I meant personal credentials.

""what is happening at moment the attached photo was taken?"

I answered this in advance in the other thread: "The collapses clearly initiated at the level of impact..." "

The photo is after initiation, no?

"This guy is a MOLECULAR-scale physicist. I appreciate his effort to rattle people's cages, I really do, but he's totally outside his expertise -- as far outside it as yourself -- and it shows in his commentary. "Angular momentum," my hairy asshole."

Obviously Jones doesn't know his ass from a warm rock. Humble apologies. Is "my hairy asshole" another astute argument?

"Offhand, I'd say basic principles and math"

I assume you mean physics when you say basic principles and I agree.

"What's the punchline of your trick-question game, anyway?"

No tricks. Just trying to understand.

"Don't let any of that distract you from my challenge: "its just not what happened." How EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE?"

I will get to that. I need to know exactly what you are saying is happening at the moment the photo above was taken. The photo is after initiation, yes? Progressive collapse is occurring, yes? The clouds of dust are concrete dust, yes? Just a little detail please. I am willing to listen. But, I am not going to be convinced just because no structural engineer is buying the controlled demolition theory, ostensibly. I think the pancake theory is falsifiable. In fact, the so called pancake theory is a misnomer. There is no pancaking occurring. There is complete destruction occurring. But, I am getting ahead of myself.
by TheDossier
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 9:00 AM
I suggest the demolition people take their questions to the ASCE - Founded in 1852, ASCE represents 125,000 civil engineers worldwide and is the nation's oldest engineering society.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057
http://www.asce.org/forum/categories.cfm?catid=31
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

Unless of course, you believe they're all part of the cover-up. That's right, all 125,000 of them sitting in a UFO plotting world domination. Come on people, get a grip!
by THOMAS
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 9:03 AM

It is quite bizzare to read theese spats of insults, allegations, etc. Those trying to defend the "nothing suspicious of the collapse of wtc 1, 2 and - notably - 7" -theori are in serious trouble. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF SERIOUS, STRAIGHTFORWARD PEOPLE AND SCHOLARS - LIKE STEVEN E. JONES - AND PARTICULARLY OF THE IN-YOUR-FACE-ODDITIES ABOUT THE COLLAPSES, INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING HOW SMALL, INSIGNIFICANT FIRE CAN POSSIBLY BRING DOWN VERY STRONG, GRIDSTRUCTURED BUILDINGS IN ALMOST FREE-FALL SPEED AND HOW FIREBALLS - FROM THESE SMALL FIRES - CAN TRAVEL DOWN 100 STORIES AND CAUSE MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS IN THE LOBBY AND UNDERGROUND GARAGELEVELS AND EVEN CAUSE SIGNIFICANT SEISMIC-REGISTRABLE WAWES.

SEARCH STEVEN E. JONES ON GOOGLE VIDEO SEARCH !!!
by Thomas
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 11:22 AM

It is apparent that you are getting a bit desperate when you apparently need to denigrate and ridicule instead of explaining.

It should not be necessary to point to the fact that all members of an organisation need not be involved if a small group in that organisation is engaged in something corrupt or is making a flawed investigation. If fx. the board in my university is engaged in something like this, does this mean that I and all the other 10-20.000 students, who the university represents, are complicit ????. COME ON !!!. It was offcourse only a little group of people who where involved in the "documentation" of the collapses; and the report just barely touches on WTC 7 !!!. Besides, the page of ASCE is from may 2002. Don´t you have something a litte bit more updated ?.

Appeal to the respectability and old age af an organisation proves absolutely zip. In my country the biggest fraud was committed by one of the oldest and most respected companies for the last 150 years.

Again, try to watch the video of Steven E. Jones lecturing in UVSC. ( "9/11 - 2/1/2006 BYU professor Steven E. Jones WTC lecture UVSC" - google video )
by ic
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 2:37 PM
TD (Tyrrone?): This is from Fire Engineering Burning Questions, Need Answers http://tinyurl.com/6umok "Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it? No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. " Not exactly and thorough and proper investigation. Much of the steel was carted away and sold in Asia, BEFORE it could be investigated. And what about the molten steel. Can you explain that?
by TheDossier
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 2:40 PM
I've just found this site:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

After having a quick browse through its different sections, it appears to confirm a lot of what I've been saying all along in this thread. Please take the time to read through it. I think it answers most of your questions/doubts about the collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7.
by ic
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 2:46 PM
Keep up the good work and don't let anyone intimidate you with trying to pretend like they know. None of us know. That's why there are questions. Having said that, the official explanations of towers 1, 2 and 7 fall far short of a full and comprehensive investigation.
by TW
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 3:50 PM
"I need to know exactly what you are saying is happening at the moment the photo above was taken. The photo is after initiation, yes? Progressive collapse is occurring, yes?"

It's not a photo, dammit, it's a video. Go look at it. FOLLOW THE LINK

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

What it shows clearly is the top of the building breaking off AT THE LEVEL OF IMPACT, i.e. the lowest region at which smoke is issuing from the building. This is clearly where the impact occurred since the fires cannot reasonably be expected to have propagated downward through intact concrete floors (convection makes fires propagate up, not down). For the scenario documented by this video to have resulted from explosive charges placed in advance would require rigging just this one zone of the building and then having the plane fly into it. This is getting really ridiculous with the conjectures, and DAMMIT I'M A 9-11 SKEPTIC TOO!!

But I also know what I'm up against with the master bullshitters who run this country. You have to be just as strategic as them and know how they think or they'll defeat you. They're really good at it.

Once the top broke off that way, the building was DOOMED. Anybody who can't understand this doesn't know Newtonian mechanics to save their souls -- I don't care what the parchment on their wall says.

I'm sorry I've been rude, but I'm so sick of watching people who clearly don't know what they're talking about insisting on controlled demolition as if they have Master's degrees in civil engineering, when all they've really done is read the equivalent of a couple magazine articles. They're just dupes -- or worse

I agree BTW that pancaking is a crock. What's obviously happening from the video is the entire top of the building is free-falling into the rest of it. People who want the top of the building to behave like a discrete block falling OVER off the top of a stack of blocks (as Jones seems to expect) again just don't understand buildings. Or they're consciously lying. Buildings aren't strong enough to behave that way, they're only as strong as they need to be to withstand foreseeable stresses ASSUMING THEY STAY IN ONE PIECE. If they don't, all bets are off. Short of wild massive overengineering, there is no designing for such a scenario. All this is Structural Design 101, and you can take my word for that.

The laymen's "common sense" expectation for how the collapse should have looked really comes from watching movies, i.e. five foot tall models, cheesy computer simulations, etc.
by TheDossier
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 7:12 PM
"By this time, the soaring temperatures of the fire in the south tower have destroyed the protective coating surrounding the building's steel supports and people on the ground report large blobs of molten steel falling from the sky as the structure of the building begins to giveway. At around 9.50am a surge of air followed by a loud crash can be heard as the floors directly affected by the explosion in the south tower collapse."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/war/wartime9_11.xml

"In many engines combustible metal is used in their construction. Where such material is present there is the possibility of a violent reaction resulting in spitting molten metal where water and certain other fire fighting agents come into contact with the burning metal. In order to ensure the safety of personnel it is essential that full protective clothing, including gloves and helmet with the visor down, are worn throughout the incident."
http://www.iftc.co.uk/training%20material/Training%20Notes/lcsi/Undercarriages,%20engines%20etc.doc

"Bright orange and red flames devoured the building, initially ravaging the upper floors before spreading downward, stripping away its metal and glass shell in twisted pieces to expose the smoldering concrete skeleton. Giant fireballs were seen rising into the night sky as parts of its sides collapsed, raining fire and molten metal onto the streets below."
http://www.iht.com/getina/files/225478.html

"Molten material pours from the upper region of window 80-255 starting at 9:51:52 am"
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Visual_Data_Collection_and_Analysis.pdf
by Thomas
(thomasvibe [at] jubii.dk) Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 1:14 AM

Thanks for the backing IC, and the same to you !.
You are welcome to email me if you find something interesting.

I think, perhaps we should look into what TheDossier has just presented, since this appears to be quite serious and thoroughgoing. I am, as I think we all are - and ought to be -, solely interested in the truth, and from the first cursoric view of what TheDossier has just found it looks as if there is some work to do here. I think that we all, in the spirit of science and justice, should admit when something seems to go against the case we are defending, but I do certainly NOT think, after a cursoric look at what TheDossier presented, that the case is settled now. Before looking at this in detail, I would just point to the fact that this site looks very professional ( perhaps a little too "professional" ! - who have made this ??? - ) and one must highlight the possibility - but also just the possibility !!! - that there are powerfull and "professional" people out there that will do anything - including faking sources, threaten, mock and intimidate professional scholars, etc - to cover a (possible) cover up of 9/11. It is clear enough that if one event on 9/11 is revealed as unexplainable, all the rest are also immediately suspicious, and it is therefore necessary to make EVERYTHING look non-suspicious if the whole complex of events is to be defended. ( Besides, the site presented says nothing of flight 93 and the Pentagin ). But again, we must look into it as objectively and serious as possible.

Thomas

by Thomas
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 1:45 AM

Just an additional link: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html
by Ann R. Keye
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 6:53 AM
south_tower_debris_2a.jpg
TW,

"It's not a photo, dammit, it's a video. Go look at it. FOLLOW THE LINK"

Actually it is a still from the video. But, what is a video but a series of photos. The .gif is a capture from the video.

"Once the top broke off that way, the building was DOOMED. Anybody who can't understand this doesn't know Newtonian mechanics to save their souls. . ."

This is not a very scientific argument. In fact, this is why I do not buy the progressive collapse.

"I'm sorry I've been rude"

I apologize as well. For the sarcasm.

"I agree BTW that pancaking is a crock. What's obviously happening from the video is the entire top of the building is free-falling into the rest of it."

This is not accurate. Refer to the attached stills (I an fairly sure these are the South Tower, it doesn't really matter, my argument will still apply). They cleary show large amounts of debris going over the side. In one, you can see the core going over the side. From one of the links TheDossier provided we read "Large quantities of energy were stored in the buildings during their construction. For example, the construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 3 x 1012 J of potential energy over the 1,360 ft height of the structure. Of this, approximately 7 x 1010 J of potential energy was stored in the upper part of the structure—above the impact floors—relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse was initiated, this energy was rapidly released and converted into kinetic energy—in the form of the rapidly accelerating mass of the top part of the structure. The impact of this rapidly moving mass onto the lower structure caused a wide range of structural failures in the floors directly at and below the aircraft impact zone, in turn causing failure of these floors. As additional floor plates failed, the mass associated with each of these floors joined that of the tower above the impact area, unleashing further destructive energy on the floors immediately below. This initiated a chain of progressive failure until total collapse of the building ensued."

Notice the deceptive use of potential energy. Gravitational Potential Energy as any engineer should know is dependent on mass and height. Therefore, for a given mass the PE will be greater as the height increases. Stating that the greater amount of PE is above the impact zone would lead one to believe that the mass above the impact zone will just plow through the building below. However, the building below the impact zone has inertia and it is applying force upwards. The falling mass must overcome these.

An inaccurate statement is made as well. to wit, "the mass associated with each of these floors joined that of the tower above the impact area,". As the stills show, much of the mass is going over the side. The kinetic energy required to plow through the building below has been lost. As well as the fact that the floors are being reduced to dust. Dust is not going to join the tower above, especially a tower that is now going over the side and everywhere.

This is just one of the reasons why I am sure this was controlled demolition. I do not need Structural Design 101 to understand the physics. And I will not accept anything just on one's word.

Now I put it to you. What makes you so sure that is was not controlled demolition?

Over, not out.

by Ann R. Keye
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 6:54 AM
south_tower_debris1.jpg
The second still of debris.
by TheDossier
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 9:29 AM
Thomas,

Yes you're right. We should all be objective, regardless of our individual standpoints.

Regarding the 'debunking' site. Notice how it mainly discredits the demolition theory and nothing else about 9/11. It doesn't dispute the points raised on the front page of 'thedossier'. These points can't be disputed.

One final comment. The demolition 'crowd' would have us believe that a normal office fire could not weaken steel enough to cause a collapse. If this is true, why then do building regulations/codes require that fire protection be applied to structural steel? Think about it. Structural steel becomes lethal in a fire if not properly protected. That protection only buys time for safe evacuation and firefighting. The protection itself will eventually fail. Fire protection is specified in hours. The fire protection manufacturers have to test their products to gain certification for the specified hours.

Concrete on the other hand is superior.
by Thomas
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 4:39 PM

This comment/critique focuses on the section "Free fall" on the "Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories"-site [D911].

In this section the time of fall is accepted to be about 13-14 s for the collapse ( of the "pancaking" floors at least - and thats enough for my following critique).The point is to show that the building could have fallen more than twice its height (?) in the remaining 4 s, from the
9.23 s it would have taken in complete free fall speed:

" t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice it's height in that additional four seconds "

But D911 then states that

"The time for it to fall from start to finish [ 13.23 s ?] was three and a half times its own height".

This is an enlargement in distance from the previous calculation !!. Why this number in the conclusion ? - people who only read the conclusion gets a wrong picture. Besides, why does D911 relegate it to "a physics blogger..." [ who strangely enough consults/refers to wikipedia for the size of the acceleration of objects near the surface - a law of nature that must be very very basic to anyone with just the most basic knowledge of ordinary physics ] ?.

But my real critique (and others´ of course) to this is, that if we assume just a fraction of a second, fx. 0.075 s, as an average delaytime of the falling part of the tower [ the falling part offcourse grows in weight as it falls ] for each - heavy steel and concrete - floor, we get a delaytime for the south tower that is 0.075 s/floor x 78 floors = 5.85 s. This means that the collapse should have taken approximately (9.23 +5.85 s =)15.1 s. This is even more than the time D911 itself agrees to (!!) - and isn´t it even a VERY small delaytime we are operating with here ??!!. For the northtower the delaytime would be 92 floors x 0.075 s/floor = 6.9 s, total time of collapse being approximately 16.1 s ( which is also more than the commonly estimated 15 s ). And if we operate with an average delaytime of 0.1 s/floor ( which is really not much !!! - think about the concrete and steelstructures the tower falls through ), well, one sees where we are heading !!!.
by TW
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 6:03 PM
"Now I put it to you. What makes you so sure that is was not controlled demolition?"

Hey, I'm not insisting I'm Joe Genius who absolutely knows what happened. That would be YOU. I have already stated very clearly in this thread what my objection is

"I'm not even adament that the towers weren't blown up, but I know enough to acknowledge what I DON'T know, which is more than you do. Your fanatical OPINION that the towers were definitely blown up only appeals within your own choir. Meanwhile the public you're supposedly trying to convince just rolls its eyes and walks away chuckling when it hears this garbage. Well, except for the UFO/chemtrails types. Yeah, they're a big help.

This soap box of yours is an idiotic PR move, and you're being encouraged to make it by actual PR operatives, whether you realize it or not."

So you see, I answered your question in advance. Again.

What you're doing here is playing an 'argue in circles' game. I've seen it before -- alot. If you'd like to establish that you're not actually a disinformation operative, this is precisely the wrong way to go about it.
by TW
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 6:08 PM
"Actually it is a still from the video."

What ON EARTH are you talking about??? You are referring to the link I provided, are you not? That is to an .mpeg file, i.e. a motion picture about 12 seconds in duration. If you're seeing nothing but a still when you follow that link, you need to find a different computer to use

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

Next you're completely sidestepping the key point I make about this video:

"What it shows clearly is the top of the building breaking off AT THE LEVEL OF IMPACT, i.e. the lowest region at which smoke is issuing from the building. This is clearly where the impact occurred since the fires cannot reasonably be expected to have propagated downward through intact concrete floors (convection makes fires propagate up, not down). For the scenario documented by this video to have resulted from explosive charges placed in advance would require rigging just this one zone of the building and then having the plane fly into it. This is getting really ridiculous with the conjectures"

You're sidestepping all this and darting straight for a diversionary argument.

Uh, not so fast

Back up

ADDRESS WHAT I SAID
by Ann R. Keye
Tuesday Apr 18th, 2006 9:54 PM
This is disturbing.

Twice you challenged me.

""its just not what happened." And how EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE, Anne.

Don't let any of that distract you from my challenge: "its just not what happened." How EXACTLY do you know this FOR SURE?"

I answered your challenge and you respond with allegations.

There may be a PR campaign to inform citizens of the many questions that remain unanswered. I picked up on it. Hell Bells, the broad definition of PR nowawadays turns everything into PR. PR used to be labeled Propaganda. The individuals that knew how propaganda works knew that propaganda has a negative conotation assosiated with it, so they changed it to PR. What's his name, Freud's nephew. Anyway, truth be told, I looked at the evidence myself and came to a falsifiable conclusion about the collapse of the twin towers.

In all honesty, I how no idea you were unsure of the progressive collapse conclusion. Fact is, you challenged me as to why I was sure that progressive collapse "just didn't happen". I showed you why I was sure with a falsifiable conclusion. I am not arguing in circles. My argument is falsifiable just like progressive collapse is falsifiable. Is there a structural engineer out there that can falsify my argument?

As for the video confusion. This is the timeline. . .I posted a .gif of the South Tower. It was/is a photo, for the lack of a better term, that I captured from the video. I asked you what was occurring in the photo. You said "It's not a photo, dammit, it's a video. Go look at it. FOLLOW THE LINK". I said "Actually it is a still from the video." I have seen the video many times. I wanted to know what you thought was occuring at that moment in time. It may have been a bad choice. There are so many different angles I could have chose, I just happened to choose that one since it shows kinetic energy being released without the aid of the falling mass above.

You state "For the scenario documented by this video to have resulted from explosive charges placed in advance would require rigging just this one zone of the building and then having the plane fly into it."

This in no way falsifies my argument. I was merely falsifying the progressive collapse analysis.

You state further "This is getting really ridiculous with the conjectures". At this point, perhaps the controlled demolition analysis is conjecture. Too bad the steel from the core has been recycled.

Finally your final statements with comment.

"You're sidestepping all this and darting straight for a diversionary argument."

I am not the one sidestepping.

"Uh, not so fast"

?

"Back up"

?

"ADDRESS WHAT I SAID"

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, I AM TRYING!


by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 4:48 AM
We got into a serious failure to communicate re: gifs and mpegs. Going back I can see my contribution. Sorry.

Your question "what is happening at moment the attached photo was taken?" was one I nonetheless addressed with my discussion of the video clip: "What it shows clearly is the top of the building breaking off AT THE LEVEL OF IMPACT" etc.

About this gif you posted, and the other screenshots as well: I really do believe the video I linked to is the superior forensic document, especially compared to that first gif, which is shot from the ground at a steep upward angle, making it impossible to really see what's going on through the blossoming cloud of debris. You seem to be saying this view is better because it shows effect while concealing cause. I don't get it.

This photo is also superior in this sense
http://tinyurl.com/eado5

The video, however, is the real gem. It shows irrefutably, I think, that the collapse initiated precisely at the level of impact. Also, clouds of dust and debris begin billowing out of the structure only once the collapse is in progress. Controlled demolition groupies seem to want to point to all this dust and claim "see, that shouldn't be happening. That's obviously SMOKE from explosions." The sad thing is these people have all watched videos of buildings getting blown up and they should know damn well they generate incredible amounts of dust by pulverizing themselves. There was enough concrete in the floors alone to explain where all this dust is coming from.

"I answered your challenge..."
I assume you're referring to your Tuesday, Apr. 18, 2006 at 6:53 AM posting.
After the top 20 floors of the building disengaged from the rest of the structure (yes, that IS what happened. Could we just stop bullshitting around with stills and talk about the video? It's much better), much of it mushroomed overboard into free fall, yes, but much of it also clearly DID NOT, i.e. tried to come to rest on the standing portion of the building. The Dossier's discussion of potential/kinetic energy IS pertinent because, AS CAN BE APPRECIATED FROM THEEE FFFUUKKKINGGG VIDD-EEE-OH ( http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg ) the fall of this uppermost portion -- a large building in its own right -- imparted **incredible** energy into the inferior remains.

Do you actually think the WTC was strong enough to absorb that, Anne? That's what you seem to be saying here:

"However, the building below the impact zone has inertia and it is applying force upwards. The falling mass must overcome these."

It never ceases to amaze me when I see people expecting the towers to have exhibited tree-like strength and integrity. It's proof positive that despite all their conceits Americans are just a lot fucking stupider than they think. We're not talking wind- or snow-loading here. We're not even talking the impact of an airliner, which the buildings technically survived. We're talking untold thousands of tons of material breaking loose and crashing downward onto the building's structure. The mushrooming itself expresses dV, meaning the imparting of that energy into the building. It's as if I picked up the biggest building in any average US city (the Hearst Castle, say), levitated THAT over one of the towers, and gave it the ol' dropperoo.

Do you actually expect the WTC to have been able to absorb such a thing? And you think your knowledge of solid-state physics translates reliably to kinetic behavior on the scale of giant buildings? I'd say you're conclusively proving it doesn't.

The most relevant point is almost an aside: with your Tuesday, 4/18 6:53 AM post you presume to spell out why you're POSITIVE the collapse was due to controlled demolition. As someone versed in science, you should understand that what you're really trading in is HYPOTHESIS, CONJECTURE, and OPINION, and that it's dishonest to frame this as "scientific certainty." On that basis, you should be open to other possibilities, including the possibility that the official account of why the collapse happened isn't disinformation after all.

Again, I'm not vulnerable to the same criticism because I'm not presuming to be the Infallible God of 9-11 Answers. I'm mainly issuing a PR advisory.

The key question here is not what is possible or "falsifiable." The ball to keep an eye on is what can be said WITH CERTAINTY with an eye toward public credibility, always, and in that sense controlled demolition is the Pandora's Box from Hell.

"There may be a PR campaign to inform citizens of the many questions that remain unanswered. I picked up on it."

No, Anne, goddamit, you picked up on a TROJAN HORSE that the whole 9-11 truth movement has unfortunately fallen for hook line and sinker. The movement is heavily infiltrated with PR spooks, I promise you, and this is their master stroke. It's crushing the movement into tin-foil-hat irrelevance exactly according to plan. Call it their 757. The Web-fairy did her best to make the whole movement look like assholes with her stupid hologram planes, etc. but that didn't gain destructive momentum. This has.

I've been rubbing elbows inside this movement for three years, and the whole time I've watched the most suspiciously corporate-smelling "activists" pushing controlled demolition more aggressively than anybody. I grew up during the '60s in a town that was like a giant commune. I know what activists are. These people aint. These people are SPOOKS! PR doesn't just mean any announced position. As it pertains to immensely wealthy parties slinking through the shadows to enforce the status quo, PR means SPOOKS

You have GOT to understand this!

I know it's painful to accept that you've been tricked into investing your ego in a big stinky crock of shit, but you have to bite the bullet and do that Anne, because right now what the movement ***DESPERATELY*** needs is for people like you to start repeating what I've told you so that we can reject this Trojan Horse and recover from it.

"At this point, perhaps the controlled demolition analysis is conjecture."

Thank you. Also, a conjecture is all it's EVER been
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 5:00 AM
I think the physics blogger part was a joke to some extent. The opening paragraph on the freefall page of Debunking9/11 holds the answer.

It is impossible to give a figure for the time of collapse because the towers are obscured by smoke and dust. The 10 seconds quoted by many is in fact the time of LOOSE debris falling. Only an estimate can be made, once the dust has cleared and you can clearly see nothing is left standing.

Now what about the other points on that site?

Oh, and what about the molten metal links above?
by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 5:18 AM
I'm once again appalled by the lack of attention to a possibility that should have been on the table all along: a gigantic pile of rubble smoldering steadily for weeks on end is going to trap a whole FUCKLOAD of heat...

Ever have a compost pile? Same principle, except multiply by thousands in every dimension
by Thomas
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 5:38 AM
My critique was a little eliptical...

1) The first - not deadly - point I made, is that D911 is blurring his own view of what the time of collapse for the towers really is. With 14 s, the total distance in complete free fall - which of course nobody claim to be the case - would be ( 1/2 x 9.8 x 14sq = ) 960 m, which is certainly not 3 1/2 times the hight of the tower(s) (417m ). The time for the towers to fall 3 1/2 x 417m = 1460m in absolute free fall is (sq.root of 1460/4.9 = ) 17.3 s. Which number is D911 really working with, 13.3 s or 17.3 s. ??.

2) The "natural collapse "-theori must include resistance from floors, inner and outer collumns, as these are not at all supposed to have been weakend. With an average of 0.1 s. delay per floor - and isn´t this an absolutly conservative and minimal estimate ??!! - the delaytime per floor is (WTC2) 9.2 s and (WTC1) 7.8 s, Total time of fall ( with ZERO airresistance, which is ideal not real !! ):

WTC2: 9.23 + 9.2 = 18.4 s !! , WTC1: 9.23+ 7.8 = 17 s !!.

It seems very very difficult to fit these numbers with the actual collapses.

And when we look at WTC 7, the picture is even clearer. A "natural collapse from fire"-theori is simply unbelievable. To bring down a building that quick ( app. 7 s ) and in such a controlled manner simply cannot be due to random fire and/or dammage. A controlled collapse is a very difficult thing to do, and it takes a high degree of coordination of precisely placed and timed weakening (destruction) of specific columns, walls, etc.
by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 5:48 AM
Obviously you're an astronaut/nuclear physicist/brain surgeon or something. I'm very intimidated.

However...

Please reconcile for me the idea of planned demolition with this video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
by Thomas
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 6:58 AM
TW,

If you´re referring to me, please give me a critique of my reasoning, calculations ( and yes, its not higher mathematics, but is it true or not - that is the question ) and conlusions instead of this childishness. I´ve seen that video many many times, and it is - on the face of it - perfectly consistent with a controlled demolition.

by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 6:59 AM
People are getting confused here. I point everyone to the molten links above. There was molten metal pouring over the side of the building before it collapsed. I agree with you TW, the heat from the rubble held their for weeks could quite possibly have melted metal - what about the aerial heat map/photo that showed the tempertures. Also, there's an example of another building in Spain (I think) which shows that normal fires can cause molten metal without RDX or thermite or whatever.

Also, TW, check out the Steven E Jones presentation on google-video. The first hour is full of errors, contradictions, etc. You can literally count the bullshit as it appears minute by minute. He also seems to find the whole thing funny when looking at the people trapped in the building looking out through the whole. He also avoids getting into the Iraq permanent US bases when someone asks him and nor does he do interviews.
by Ann R. Keye
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 7:06 AM
Not enough time for a full response.

"It's as if I picked up the biggest building in any average US city (the Hearst Castle, say), levitated THAT over one of the towers, and gave it the ol' dropperoo."

Talk about spooky.

Fine, no stills. I know you have ill will towards King. Nevertheless, this is the best vid-ee-oh I know of showing the core going over the side. It is about 2:09 into the video. There is clearly little left behind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

You seem to be making an alternative argument from the progressive collapse theory. Or I am just stupid.
by Re:
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 7:43 AM
"The "natural collapse "-theori must include resistance from floors, inner and outer collumns, as these are not at all supposed to have been weakend. With an average of 0.1 s. delay per floor - and isn´t this an absolutly conservative and minimal estimate ??!! - the delaytime per floor is (WTC2) 9.2 s and (WTC1) 7.8 s, Total time of fall ( with ZERO airresistance, which is ideal not real !! ):
...
It seems very very difficult to fit these numbers with the actual collapses."

Here is he problem with your logic. First estimating 0.1 sec per floor doesnt make sense. The higher floors could easilly have taken longer than that to collapse but as the speed of the debris from the top floors increased while it was falling (its proportional to t^2 afterall) the kinetic energy also increased by t^2 so one would expect almost no time for the lower floors. But this is actually an underestimate of the effects since aside from energy increasing with the square of velocity one also had an accumulation of debris. So while the top floors may have collapsed under the weight of the floors above (perhaps even before the start of the time you are using) the lower floors were hit with hundreds of thousands of tons of debris moving very rapidly (and even after 10 floors of debris reached 60mph you would pretty much expect 0 time for the floors bellow to buckle... look at how long it takes for a car to buckle when hit by a semi)

Secondly your alternative of a "controlled demolition" doesnt help explain anything you could come up with. Even a large explosion would have increased the velocity of the debris at the top of the tower (where it took place) but had little effect on most of the fall since as debris accumulated on the way down one would expect the overall collapse to look about the same as if there hadnt been downward energy on a few floors near the top (look at footage of any actual controlled demolition and you will see everything still "obeys the laws of physics" with little extra dowards motion comming from the explosives). To understand this you can calculate it yourself; take the total weight of the WTC divided out to that of 10 floors and see what energy you get when its moving at 10mph (1/2mv^2) now look up the amount of energy you get from most explosives that wouldnt have produced a larger fireball than what was seen. Explosives just dont compare energy wise with the energy from the debris falling on its own and your own 0.1sec per floor thing would have come into play near the top floors during an explosive since the energies were much lower wheras once you have 10 floors falling quickly the ernergy is so large one expects almost no delay time.
by Re:
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 8:11 AM
" You seem to be making an alternative argument from the progressive collapse theory. Or I am just stupid."

No your not stupid but the video looks like what one would expect either with or without an explosion. The building seems to fall as if with no resistance once the top floors are already pancaked (and the point where the video starts to show the collapse is after those floors have already fallen) if you calculate how much energy one had at this point from those floors above that are already moving rapidly you would expect no resistance from the floors bellow. If a huge explosion had occured on the top floors or they just collapsed on their own you would expect the same thing. One floor falls causing the next to buckle with a time delay up until the energy is high enough that the floors no longer provide enough resistance for any time delay and then everythig collapses as if in free fall with no resistance. An explosion would have increased the rate at which the top floors started falling but as I mention above had no overall effect on the overall collapse (since the energy needed to cause such a building to pancake with no time delay is consistant with rapidly moving hundreds of thousands of tons of debris which easilly overwhelms the energy from bombs). Of course a huge nuclear bomb would have made a difference but some energy from any explosive is going to go out in all directions (even if the are designed to mainly go in one direction) and if the energy of a bomb were enough to cause the building to collapse faster than free fall with no resistance you would have also expected the explosion to have had some of that movement horizontally (with debris getting thrown miles in every direction)

While any video you find of a large building collapsing under explosives will show you little effect from the downward momentum of the explosions themselves, the WTC were tall (among the tallest buildings in the world) and thus with energy increasing with t^2 as the building collapsed you get a significant more amount of energy from the doward motion of the towers than from almost anything you can compare it to.

Another thing people forget is that energy creates heat. If you take a semi truck and crash it into a car the area of impact is very hot and if you collapse a skyscraper under gravity much of the 1/2mv^2 gets converted into heat both as the floors collapse and when they hit the ground. Would this energy have been high enough to melt steel... sure ... the energy from the fall was enormous and even without anything having been on fire or the heat inside a pile of debris you would expect melted metal and the like just from the energy of the fall itself.
by Thomas
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 12:28 PM

Yes, I agree that it is difficult to calculate the timedelay in a progressive collapse of a skyscraber, increasing its weight eksponential (? spelling). I will just say three things to this:

1) The southtower seems to collapse around the core ( until it also suddently collapses, why ? ) but the northtower comes absolutely straight down, taking floors AND core ( the MASSIVE core !) with it, and while I agree that the lower floors might not have delayed the fall substantially due to the enormous weight and energy, the core - the massive, upright, ( allegedly) NON-DAMAGED core, would - according to the "natural collapse"-theory - also not have slowed the falling part - the core itself that is !! - down. But perhaps the theory is that the kinetic energy of the upper falling part IMMEDIATELY melted the core, making it provide almost zero resistance ???.

2) What would you estimate the time of collapse to be ?

3) I think it is worth noting that those who defend the "natural collapse"-theory are quite reluctant to explain what happened to WTC7. There are two basic questions: 1) There are many factors that needed to congrue (?) in order to begin those fires in WTC 7 ( failure of securitysystems, debris starting the fires, no one shutting off fuelpumps, a.o. ). These congrueing factors are quite "interesting" . 2) How did the collapse become so neat and perfect. Why did the building not lean over ( more ) to one side than it did ( the collapse was practicaly perfect ). 3) That people ( firemen and others) thought that the bulding would collapse is not surprising, since a) two steelframed buildings had already collapsed (apparently) from fire, and since b) it would certainly not be surprising that PARTS of the building would collapse, but this does NOT mean that people would ( if two towers had not already shown this to be "possible" ) have expected the whole building to collapse perfectly, symmetrically and at almost free fall speed like a controlled demolition.

by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 12:39 PM
The following is extracted from:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

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

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

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

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

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

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

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 1:45 PM
There is no motive for the demolition of the buildings. So why take the unecessary risk of being exposed?

The conspiracy lies with the hijackers. Who they were and who they were working for. It's documented in past events that intelligence agencies use/infilltrate terrorist groups for political gain.

Why create logistical nightmares for yourself when there are people (terrorists) out there willing to carry out such operations? Just fool a few of them into doing it for you.
by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 2:09 PM
"I´ve seen that video many many times, and it is - on the face of it - perfectly consistent with a controlled demolition."

Yes, that's right, it's perfectly consistent with a controlled demolition scenario in which the spooky-spooks went in and rigged JUST A FEW FLOORS and then the plane flew into EXACTLY THOSE FLOORS. When the structure totally failed the way it did in JUST THOSE FLOORS, the rest of the collapse became absolutely inevitable. What does Occam's Razor tell you about this, Thomas? Do you really think you're fighting the heroic fight by hanging onto controlled demolition in the face of this? I'll tell you what you're really doing: you're relegating 9-11 Truth to the UFOs/chemtrails/Apollo-was-filmed-in-Hollywood camp of historical laughing stocks. The movement's full-time dedicated enemies are laughing their asses off all the way to the bank as they watch you do it, too. I KNOW FOR A FUCKING FACT that they're the ones who've pushed and pushed to build this idea's steam because I've been watching them do it first-hand for the past three years.

You know what's most galling about PR spooks, Thomas? They're the most incredibly arrogant assholes you have ever laid eyes on. They are absolutely convinced that they're infallible Gods of the art of the lie and that YOU are a subhuman imbecile. Put this arrogance together with a certain coked up GQ I'm-seww-kewel frat boy narcissism, and you can spot these slime every time. I just CAN NOT STAND watching these assholes win! What really needs to happen is for them to get dragged into an alley by masked revolutionaries and get their asses wildly fucked up with nice big pipes. Let's see how GQ cool they are in their brand new electric wheelchairs. No, really, this totally NEEDS to happen. It may not look like any kind of war you've been taught to recognize as such, but a war is exactly what it is. It's been going on for decades already and it's just going to keep getting worse until it becomes the real thing. The question is how bad will it have to get before Americans wake the fuck up and realize their choice is to die like heroes or die like grovelling slaves?
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 2:26 PM
TW,

I'm interested in these PR spooks. Can you elaborate more on your three years' experience in observing them push the demolition theory?

thanks
Healthy skepticism:

Just wondering: If the floors and buildings were rigged for a controlled demolition, why did they need to waste two perfectly good airplanes flying into them?

And I saw Farentheit 9/11. If Bush really knew, why did he just sit there like an absolute idiot for 6 minutes, after being notified about the crash? Wouldn't his handlers have sprinted him off to somewhere private, so he would'nt seem like an impotent fool in public? Wouldn't the "powers that be" stage things just a little smoother?
His "handlers" could have very well be involved in allowing 9/11 to happen, or even participating in it, and still not have informed him. Why would they have had to let their puppet in on it? He doesn't make any decisions anyway. Look's better if he was as surprised as most of America, although they probably wish he hadn't been such a vacuous and worthless turd once he was "informed" in that classroom the morning of 9/11.
by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 4:07 PM
"Can you elaborate more on your three years' experience in observing these PR spooks"

No. That would blow my cover quite nicely, now wouldn't it?
Don't pay any attention to Tia, she's just mad cause she's been stomped so many times and revealed for5 the right wing shill that she is. See, she came to Indybay feigning some kind of Berkely liberal crap, while being 'supportive' of israel. It didn't take long before she was rabidly posting 24-7 spam (stuff that has been deleted many times), you know, stuff from Fox news, Zombietime, Bill Levinson--all solid sources of right wing lunacy. She's been exposed in her propagandizing countless times and she's mad.
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 4:23 PM
So, am I to presume you once worked with these 'PR spooks', but had a change of heart and switched sides?
by Thomas
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 4:27 PM
TW,

Oh dear. I dare say, your latest text almost have literary qualities... but yes, I agree - the demolitiontheory MIGHT have been set afloat by those who arranged the attacks, but I simply cannot possibly fit the collapses, attack on pentagon and flight 93 into the official explanation. Despite all sorts of explanations, I simply cannot make fx. wtc 1, 2 and especially 7, Pentagon and flight 93 fit any "natural", official explanation. That does not mean that there are not arguments on the "conspiracy-side" that are not highly dubious, false and harmfull - but there are simply just too many "physical" aspects - not to mention other aspects ! - of 9/11 that won´t fit into the "nothing scientifically suspicious"-theory ( And please, don´t give me such a torrent of words like before - your literary qualities are not that fascinating !).

I think that I, for my part, will end the discussion of
9/11 here, since I´ve got to finish my thesis in some weeks ( and no, it is not an excuse, believe it or not ) and this discussion and netsurfing takes too much of my time and focus.

I will not reply from now on.....

Really....

I guarantee you...

The end....

Really....

For the last time...

Farewell ( and all that ).



P.S. "What is familiarly known is not properly
known, just for the reason that it is familiar."

(G.W.F.Hegel, PhG, Preface)

by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 4:30 PM
Tia is a rabid zionist fanatic. Of all ideological opponents to 9-11 Truth, zionists are the most virulent. The sanctity of the idea that Crazy Arabs did 9-11 is EXTREMELY valuable to Israel and zionists. It has literally "Israelized" public sentiment in the United States, getting us behind a 'perpetual war' against people Israel doesn't like, namely Palestinians, Arabs, and Islam as a whole. Nobody confirmed this more clearly than Binyamin Netanyahu on the evening of the attacks

As reported on p. A22 of the 9/12/2001 New York Times:
"Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied: 'It's very good.' Then he edited himself: 'Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.'"
by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 4:47 PM
What you should ask yourself is why discussion of controlled demolition conflates to 9-11 skepticism as a whole. I don't buy this AT ALL and I don't understand why you're doing so. It's a classic logical fallacy. I'm a dedicated 9-11 skeptic. I am also, however, a very learned student of US imperial history, and I know full well how extremely good and subtle the other side is at what they do. They have the best shrinks, the best technical expertise, etc., all down the line. To oppose them skeptically ultimately means questioning everything you THINK you understand, because they actually represent a continuum of ideological subversion that's been in place for thousands of years and has permeated all of Western thought. I challenge you to understand that I have taken 9-11 skepticism to a much deeper destination than you have
by Tia
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 4:49 PM
Tia: Sigh. An ad hominim is not a rebuttal.

TW: "Of all ideological opponents to 9-11 Truth, zionists are the most virulent. The sanctity of the idea that Crazy Arabs did 9-11 is EXTREMELY valuable to Israel and zionists."

Tia: I know the government is not a reliable source of the truth. I also know that Flight 93 was shot down. The myth of the passenger heros was so palatable to the American public that it has become the new "truth", however. About the other events of 9/11, I remain skeptical.

My Zionism is a portion of who I am. It is not the sum total of who I am.

Don't forget, loyal Indybay readers, that TW is the very person who atacked me at this site for posting a list of creatures that went extinct over the last century. Clearly my affection for the the dusky seaside sparrow was part of some greater Zionist plot.
by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 5:14 PM
I didn't "switch sides." I started out convinced 9-11 was another Pearl Harbor, a la Stinnet's 'Day of Deceit,' and I remain so. What I have realized, however, is that 9-11 "Truth" is absolutely RIDDLED with batters for the opposing team, so much so they may dominate it. That team has ***unlimited*** resources, after all...

What I really represent is something you should cherish, assuming you aren't a spook yourself: someone who's totally committed, with pit-bull tenacity, to the idea that 9-11 was a fraud, but who also understands in a rare way the full historical context of this stuff. If you don't totally have them pegged on this huge conceptual game board, they WILL win...
by TW
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 5:44 PM
Thomas is too privileged to understand what the real stakes are in all this, so he bolted and ran. Confronted with the raw revolutionary math, he had to decide "yeah, that's what it is" or "whoa, this guy's nuts" and he made the choice the privileged always make. This is what class war always comes down to.
by Mozart
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 8:06 PM
Perhaps the problems you all seem to be having with this is that you've yet to see it set to music. Might I suggest...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5959363953955396469&pl=true

by Agent of &quot;Disinformation&quot;
Wednesday Apr 19th, 2006 9:50 PM
That almost sounds like a good thing.

Shouldn't it be Controlled Demolition fanatics bite.

Actually, that may be a good thing to some as well.

How about, Controlled Demolition fanatics are worthy of death.

That's the ticket.
by Truth is better
Thursday Apr 20th, 2006 8:35 AM
"1). Do not give "these people" any personal information. Ever. They are not to be trusted.
2). Yes, I agree we aren't going to get anywhere without a level of mutual respect, but you don't need to defend me to them.
a. I don't care a bit what they think of me.
b. My words and my actions speak for themselves, as do theirs.
It is necessary for their small minds to pigeon hole us as "neo-cons" or frothy raving fanatics. They just can't accept that decent kind progressive folk like Becky or Gehrig or you and I could possibly support the most democractic country in the middle east.
3). You need to get more sleep."

Wow! Mighty vicious. I thought you were queen of the moral high ground? And if you're so 'progressive' (ha) why do you quote Fox, Zombietime, and Bill Levinson--even defending their extreme positions---you've tipped your hand. Remember, the mind is like a pachute--it works best when its open.
Let's have a review re: the allegation that israel is a 'democracy'

Isn't true that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? Maybe if more countries as democratic as Israel, peace might happen in no time (Typical zionist lie)

There is no denying of the fact that the Middle East is mostly ruled by autocratic, oppressive, and undemocratic regimes. On the other hand, the majority of these repressive regimes were mostly founded and funded based on Israeli and American wishes. It should be noted that the most popular revolts in the Middle East have been ruthlessly crushed by American puppet regimes (whom the West often refer to by "Moderate regimes") in the area. The regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite Kingdom, Lebanon (before the civil war), Arab Gulf States, Morocco, Iran (prior to the Islamic revolution), Turkey, ... etc., were all funded and directed by the United States of America; the land of the free and the home of the brave. Sadly, many of the so called "moderate regimes" are ten times more accountable to Uncle Sam than to their own public. Ironically, if democracy truly shall serve Israel's national interests in the region, then maybe it should direct its powerful lobby in Washington, AIPAC, to start lobbying on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East; after all promoting "democracy is the key" to a lasting peace in the Middle East?

It's worth noting that soon after the 1948 war, the undemocratic Arab regimes were the central factor in protecting the newly emerging "Jewish state". And any forms of organized local resistance against Israel, similar to Hizbullah's in southern Lebanon, was ruthlessly dealt with in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Actually, many of Israel's "moderate" Arab neighbors transplanted most Palestinian refugee camps inland away from the Israeli borders, to curb the so called Palestinian "infiltration" [ or return] back to their homes in Israel. The so called "Infiltration Problem", which faced Israel between 1949-1955, had become the most pressing and expensive challenge to face the newly emerging "Jewish state". In other words, it's not the presence, but the absence of democracy that greatly serves the Israeli interests in the region, and based on that the United States has systematically shored up these unpopular regimes against the wishes of the people (i.e. the Hashemite Kings in Jordan, the Saudi Kings in Arabia, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam Hussein in Iraq prior to the Gulf War, and the Emirates in the Gulf States), and undermined the popularly elected governments (i.e. toppling Musadiq in Iran in the early 1950s, invading Lebanon in the late 1950s, shoring up the Hashemites in Jordan in the late 1950s, and undermining Nasser in Egypt).

It's rarely questioned, by many Israelis and Zionists, how the Jewish minority in Palestine became a majority within few months in 1948. Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish state" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:

* In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims p. 144).
* In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947:

"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)
* And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)
* In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th, 1948:

"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)

It's not only that the Zionists deemed it necessary to practice ETHNIC CLEANSING to build their vision of "Jewish Democracy", they have also opted to keep many Israelis in the dark by directly censoring what they read, hear, and see in the Israeli media. Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist, and historian) eloquently described Israeli controlled censorship as follows:

* "The [Israeli military] censor exercises draconian power over the content in the media, licenses newspapers, and fines and suspends newspapers if, in his view, they have violated secrecy. He does not have to explain the reasons for his decision; indeed one paragraph in the law obliges newspapers to publish free ads by military censor denying or correcting information that papers themselves published. . . . Thus one of the [Israeli military] censor's main functions is to keep Israelis ignorant of what everybody else knows." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 110)
* "By this time [referring to the period prior to the October war in 1973] Israel's system of media self-censorship had begun to backfire. .... the media, voluntarily refraining from publishing the news, helped the IDF in its own assessment [that Arabs are incapable of going to war] and put the public to sleep." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 223)


For the moment, let's assume that the above facts, arguments, and quotes are nonsense to the average Israeli and Zionist, and let's ask the following questions:

* Are you aware that 95% of Israel's lands are open for development for "Jewish people" only?
* Are you aware that the Israeli-Palestinian minority (who are close to a quarter of Israel's citizens) are restricted to 3% of land?

The implementation of these apartheid policies resulted in disenfranchising a quarter of the Israeli population, who mostly continue to live in segregate, gated, and over crowded ghettos that are plagued with high unemployment rate and suffers from lack of basic services. In fact, there are over forty plus unrecognized Palestinian-Israeli villages (within the "Green Line") that receives no public services whatsoever , such as roads, sanitation, electricity, schools, ...etc.

Finally, it's worth emphasizing that "Israeli democracy" is an incarnation of Apartheid South Africa's democracy. It also could be argued that Apartheid South Africa was for a very long time the only democracy in Africa, however, it was a democracy for the White race only. Similarly, Zionist democracy in Israel was and still is designed to empower Jews only based on their religion. At one point, Israel has to choose between being a "Democratic Jewish State" or a "Democratic State" to all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike. Eventually, such a facade to democracy will self-destruct, and until it changes, the talk about "Israeli democracy" is nothing but a propaganda that makes good sound bytes in the Western and Israeli medias.
by Janandra
Friday Apr 21st, 2006 3:42 PM
Wouldn´t it be more relevant to discuss the fall of the two towers and WTC 7 instead of this crap....

The destruction of the building 7 "demolitionstyle" was said to be because of fire and damage, but how is it possible to collapse "demolitionstyle" in 7 sec. because of UNcontrolled fire ??? - I just don´t get it.

fireprotection ( thedossier ): that steel is protected is NOT because of fear of collapse of the whole, heavycollumned building with very strong grids, it´s to avoid PARTS of floors, beams, etc. to fall on people, firemen etc. and to avoid costly repairs and replacements of these parts that may have buckled or bent, if the temperature is exstremely hot for long time.

High temperature can do this, but they can not collapse buildings completely "demolitionstyle" doing the lower parts, floors, cores, walls etc go neatly out of the way - but perhaps they "evaporize" or melt them suddently like planes at pentagon and the plane that crashed in Shanksville ? ( where were the passengers by the way ???; if there were no passengers on that one, then perhapse there were no passengers on those at WTC, and then the towers had to come down to hide this ??)
by TheDossier
Friday Apr 21st, 2006 5:33 PM
Yes, this is supposed to be about the fall of the world trade center.

To answer your question about fire protection see this link:
http://www.interactfire.co.uk/legislation.asp

To understand the collapses you have to understand the unique design of all the buildings involved. The towers' had an open-plan layout with a central core. Not the usual grid design extending across the whole area. The floors were suspended on hangers - not 'built-in'.

WTC7 was partly cantilevered over the Con Edison substation. A sophisticated arrangement of trusses, beams and columns was required to achieve this. It would only take a few members to be compromised by heat to bring the whole lot down 'demolition style'.
by TheDossier
Saturday Apr 22nd, 2006 6:08 AM
To assume there were no passengers on board like the Northwoods plan, would require the complicity of United Airlines and American Airlines. Extremely unlikely.

The Northwoods plan involved the use of a non-scheduled flight belonging to a CIA proprietary organization. This way they could control the set-up of drone aircraft without detection.

So, if the passengers and flights were real, there would be no reason to destroy the towers.
by Janandra
Saturday Apr 22nd, 2006 6:35 AM

Mystery of steel weakening not in NIST report !

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1557
by Janandra
Saturday Apr 22nd, 2006 6:51 AM

Here are an other report for steel, how does this compare to official explanations ?.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
by TheDossier
Saturday Apr 22nd, 2006 9:48 AM
The ASTM E119 standard fire test requires that specimens be representations of actual building construction - ie. complete with fire-proofing. A mock-up of the proposed construction is subjected to a typical fire in a furnace. This verifies that the construction will hold out for the required amount of hours. With the WTC, the impact dislodged the fire-proofing. The test results therefore do not reflect the removal of fire-proofing by aircraft or flying debris.

http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/Engineering_Journal4/262_EJ_gewaintroup.pdf
by Janandra
Sunday Apr 23rd, 2006 4:00 AM

This do not really answer the problems.

Kevin Ryan directly speaks about the problems with getting the temperatures high enough to even soften UNfireproofed steel of the type that was used in WTC and tested and certified by UL !!. Rember also the difference between temperature of fire and temperature af steel - the temperature of the fire is higher than the steeltemperature and it takes very hot temperature sto heat up the steel to the critical temp. .

What about the mysterious weakening by sulfur of steel in WTC 7, wich NYT said was perhaps the most mysterious part in the collapses and wich even FEMA said was very very unusual - all this NOT included in the NIST report ??.
by TheDossier
Sunday Apr 23rd, 2006 9:26 AM
Unprotected structural steel weakens dramatically at around 500'C - fact. Fire protection insulates the steel from the heat produced in a fire (prevents it from heating up). The protection fails to do its job if removed or the certified time of exposure is exceeded. Tests have shown that normal office fires in modern offices can reach temperatures of 1300'C.

Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories denied that it ever certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings and said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization."

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, a spokesman for the Northbrook, Ill.-based company.

The subsidiary that Ryan directed specializes in the testing of drinking water, according to the Web site for Environmental Health Laboratories.

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2004/11/22/updates/region_and_state/d208fe2d5f40d6e686256f5400636a0a.prt

Eutectic Mixture
“The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached around 1,000'C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.”

The evidence suggests temperatures of 1000'C - enough to weaken the steel.

There may be a simple reason for the eutectic mixture. Until someone offers up a sound explanation we won't know.

WTC7
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 9/2002] According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 5/2002] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/2002] Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 9/2002] The building will collapse hours later.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a959wtc7damaged
by Janandra
Sunday Apr 23rd, 2006 12:19 PM

TheDossier: you said that it is "extremely unlikely" that AA and UA could be involved in 9/11. Please note that Charles Burlingame participated in a military exercise in 2000 ( NASCOW ? ) conducted by Pentagon, simulating a Boing 757 crashing into the Pentagon. He later retired and got job in AA - where his aeroplane, flight 77, ( allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon !!!!!!. [ Loose Change.2E]
by TheDossier
Sunday Apr 23rd, 2006 3:55 PM
"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple - and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

The above extracts were taken from here:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
by Janadra
Monday Apr 24th, 2006 12:01 PM

Well, not much of an answer has been given - not even qualified suggestions - since spring, 2002 !!!.
by TheDossier
Tuesday Apr 25th, 2006 9:06 AM
Biederman points out that the sulfur could be there simply because of pollutants or from the contents of the buildings.

People are jumping to conclusions too quickly without throughly checking the facts first. All this talk of demolition is getting way out of hand - WHY?

WTC7 was severly damaged and creaking. Fires were burning on multiple floors for hours. Read the fire-fighters' accounts of what they saw and heard (above).

When you start to look into the demolition theory, it just doesn't add up. People are taking things out of context and making wild suppositions. This is not the way to do 'objective' research. Scientists - of all people - should know this.

People are pushing this because they have other agendas, or have staked their reputations on the demolition theory and are now unwilling to admit they're perhaps wrong.
by Agent of &quot;Disinformation&quot;
Tuesday Apr 25th, 2006 4:56 PM
Too bad we can't do some objective research on the core columns.

Why was evidence destroyed?

Why isn't there somebody in prison for obstruction of justice?

Controlled demolition make more sense than the pancake theory.

"People are pushing this (demolition) because they have other agendas, or have staked their reputations on the demolition theory and are now unwilling to admit they're perhaps wrong."

Damn, I wish I could use that argument for the pancake theory.
by Janandra
Wednesday Apr 26th, 2006 3:01 AM

As the former commenter points out, the statements


"People are jumping to conclusions too quickly without throughly checking the facts first."

and

"People are pushing this because they have other agendas, or have staked their reputations on the demolition theory and are now unwilling to admit they're perhaps wrong."

are really devoid of any value, and the latter statement even does what the former criticises - it is itself a ´jumping to conclusions´ from assumptions of what the facts of the psykology of its opponents are and based on the full and uncritical adoption af the absolutely unproven theory of non-demolition.

To keep insisting that all the evidens for explosions ( many, many witnesses - firefighters, newscoorporations, ordinary citizens, etc. - including firefighters and others reporting being blown to the ground, off stairs, a.o. before the collapse ) are based on faulty interpretations of falling pieces of debri, bodies, a.o.; that mysteriuos heavy sulfurcorrosion in the basement of beams, admitted by even FEMA and reported as "perhaps the most mysteriuos part..." by the NYT ( and completely omitted by the NIST-report by the way !!); that the free fall speed of WTC 7 and the squibs is just "natural" and really no ground for wonder; that the remains were shipped off before anyone could say ´steelbeam´( what would they be hiding if not certain traces in the rubble that could lead to another plausible theory than "pancaking" and/or buckeling of heavy vertical steelcolumns - constituting a very solid core - from ordinary fire, certified to ASTM119 (and why choose Kevin Ryan to be the one who is making false statements, when Brown is the one having made PROVEN false statemants - "Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all." ); all this is really ad hoc "arguments" ad libitum.

May I point out to TheDossier, that cases of entire ORGANISATIONS lying and disstorting investigative results are abundant ( which should not be a surprise to TheDossier". ), resulting from the fact that those who have the financial and judicial grib on these organisations can determine "what music to play" - many people are afraid to go aginst these powers because they know that they risk their reputation, job and security and they risk expultion from these powerfull and "respectable" circels. Expultion from the social circels you belong to and from whom you get your identity and social selfesteem is a very frightening prospect for almost all people. Why not at the outset doubt organisations instead of individual experts in physics, demolition, etc. when they present emphatic objections to the official theory ?.

The demolition-theory MAY be wrong, but the evidence of this really has the caracter of ad hoc assumptions about which pieces of evidence to accept and which not, and of interpreting very suspicious evidence as if it is probably not.

I personally - I will or can not speak for others - find it just as astonishing that the non-demolition-theory is defended so vigorously of TheDossier, and I can find no satisfying explanation for this.
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 26th, 2006 4:20 AM
I'm getting tired or repeating myself. If you read this complete thread from the top and read all links from this page, you will see that I and others have given plausible explanations for what appears to be controlled demolition.

I've never been convinced of the demolition theory. I've looked at it time and time again, and always come back to the same conclusion: fire and structural damage combined with the unique designs, caused the collapses.

I should add that I am an Architectural Technician with 15 years experience. I have a full working knowledge of construction and the UK building regulations. I produce working drawings for construction projects. I understand the importance of fire protection to steel. I can instantly see the relevance of the unique designs of the towers and the cantilevered position of WTC7.

My job requires that I liaise with structural engineers. I have spoken to two of them about the WTC, and neither found it surprising that the buildings collapsed. This is because anyone involved in construction can immediately comprehend what happened that day to the buildings.

People with doubts should go and talk to their local structural engineer. YOU select one YOU trust. Talk it through with them. They will explain the principles involved.
by Agent of &quot;Disinformation&quot;
Wednesday Apr 26th, 2006 6:11 AM
"People with doubts should go and talk to their local structural engineer."

And my local structural engineer will say "Look at the core columns. There is no way they were cut by explosives."

And I will say "I can't look at the evidence. The columns have turned up missing."

Why was crucial evidence destroyed? The core columns could end this debate. Agree or disagree?
by TheDossier
Wednesday Apr 26th, 2006 3:39 PM
It seems that there was a thorough investigation of the WTC remains. Debris was meticulously examined by the country's leading experts in the relevant fields. See here:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html

There was a problem with the preservation of evidence which has been addressed here:
http://www.house.gov/boehlert/wtctoprez2.htm

The bill gives NIST, etc. similar powers to that of the NTSB. The events of 9/11 were unprecedented, so the need for such a bill had not been anticipated.

And yes, plots to hijack planes and crash them into buildings had been discovered before 9/11 (Bojinka), but not one had been successful.

It's usual for new laws to come in after an event or incident has taken place for the first time, because only then does the problem become apparent.
by Agent of &quot;Disinformation&quot;
Wednesday Apr 26th, 2006 5:50 PM
Doesn't seem that way to me. Any photos.

"A bigger budget, more time and earlier access to the scrap yards, **where steel (i.e. evidence) was being cut up and sold**, would have enhanced the investigation, he says." No sh*t?

"You do the best you can, with the available resources. I think we did a very credible job." Heckuva job.

Still doesn't answer the question "Why was crucial evidence destroyed?" "Seems like" just another case of gross incompetance by the Bush admin. No surprise there. That's his claim to fame. He's incompetent, but the people love him anyway. Well, did love him.

The other question was ignored, i.e., would having the columns end this debate? Would the columns prove one way or the other?
by TheDossier
Thursday Apr 27th, 2006 3:41 AM
What is it with you people? Don't you read? You seem to have a blind spot when things are put in front of you.

"Across the bay at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, recovery teams were at work screening debris down to a quarter of an inch--the size of the smallest human bone."

"Team members toured what was left of the 16-acre World Trade Center Plaza, interviewed officials and eyewitnesses, and examined remnants of fallen structures at the Staten Island landfill and at salvage yards. Steel samples were cut and cataloged for further study, and some were taken back to WPI for analysis"

"Those were the questions facing Barnett and his team back at WPI when he returned to campus to begin analysis of the data--which included two cartons of videotapes, thousands of photographs and detailed construction documents. While other members of the BPAT looked at seismic data, emergency response and evacuation, Barnett simulated the fires, focusing on the floors of impact."

"would having the columns end this debate?"
They did examine some columns. They chose which ones to look at, took samples, etc.

Tell me, at which point do you think the columns were cut with thermite? Near ground level or at the point of impact? Can't be ground level, because we all saw collapse initiate at the impact zones. Maybe thermite was used at the point of impact - amazing how the pilots aimed straight for these places. Maybe the pilots jumped out of the cockpits a split-second before impact and placed the thermite themselves?
by Agent of &quot;Disinformation&quot;
Thursday Apr 27th, 2006 7:12 AM
"What is it with you people? Don't you read?"

I can't speak for anyone else, but what is with me is that I see a cover up. I see buildings being demolished, not pancaked. I see the towers being pulverized with tons(?) of debris, including the section above the impact zone, going over the side.

Where are the photos of the columns? How many columns were photographed?

"Across the bay at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island"? What the hell is evidence doing in a landfill?

"Steel samples were cut and cataloged for further study" while the majority(?) was being cut up and sold.

"They did examine some columns. They chose which ones to look at, took samples, etc." Again, some columns. They chose which ones to look at, from what was left.

"Tell me, at which point do you think the columns were cut with thermite? Near ground level or at the point of impact?" Yes.

"Can't be ground level, because we all saw collapse initiate at the impact zones. " It initiated at the impact zone. While I still do not believe it, I am willing to give you structural failure as the initiator of the collapse. Its what happens after initiation that doesn't add up. If what happens after initiation doesn't add up, then strutural failure becomes suspect.

"Barnett simulated the fires, focusing on the floors of impact." Are these the models that failed to replicate the collapse? Or are these the computor simulations involving "judgement calls"?

"Maybe thermite was used at the point of impact - amazing how the pilots aimed straight for these places. " Please explain. Why would thermite or explosives need to be placed only at the point of impact?

"Maybe the pilots jumped out of the cockpits a split-second before impact and placed the thermite themselves?" Almost funny.

What is funny is that Jones makes a similar blind spot statment for the pancake theory group.
I think "Agent" here might be another one for the 'nice big pipe' treatment

This is what you said to her/it/whatever:
"I'm getting tired or repeating myself. If you read this complete thread from the top and read all links from this page, you will see that I and others have given plausible explanations for what appears to be controlled demolition."

This is what I said to this same fraud a while ago:
"What you're doing here is playing an 'argue in circles' game. I've seen it before -- a lot. If you'd like to establish that you're not actually a disinformation operative, this is precisely the wrong way to go about it."

This is not a person who's transacting honestly, Dossier. This is a fraud or a head-case out trying to grind a pitch into people's brains.

Hey Agent:
Dossier asked you an excellent question and you just squirmed around it with word games AGAIN

"Tell me, at which point do you think the columns were cut with thermite? Near ground level or at the point of impact? Can't be ground level, because we all saw collapse initiate at the impact zones. Maybe thermite was used at the point of impact - amazing how the pilots aimed straight for these places. Maybe the pilots jumped out of the cockpits a split-second before impact and placed the thermite themselves?"

This is after I confronted you with the same shit OVER A WEEK AGO:
"For the scenario documented by this video to have resulted from explosive charges placed in advance would require rigging just this one zone of the building and then having the plane fly into it. This is getting really ridiculous with the conjectures...
You're sidestepping all this and darting straight for a diversionary argument.
ADDRESS WHAT I SAID"

Whereupon you begged off with EVEN MORE bullshit about not having time to reply. That's funny, you sure have been slinging your bullshit all over around here ever since.

Read my lips, Agent:
ADDRESS WHAT I FUKKING SAID

Having been the butt of the 'argue in circles' game many times in the past, I know I have to spell this out clearly: please share with us a controlled demolition scenario that plausibly explains this video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

If you can't meet this challenge, maybe you should shut up
by TheDossier
Thursday Apr 27th, 2006 1:08 PM
I had noticed that this "Agent of Disinfo" was 'circling' somewhat, but in engaging with this moron, I have in fact dispelled more myths put out by the demolition "herd".

So it's on record for all to see, that the demolition bullshit doesn't stand up to proper scrutiny.

Hey TW, what do you make of this latest demolition crap?:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

This Christopher Bollyn character is a real culprit.
by TW
Thursday Apr 27th, 2006 9:15 PM
This 'thermite argument' is a good example of the sort of half-informed half-examined half-baked arguments that characterize all the controlled demolition crowd's "technical" exhortations. Yes, thermite sustains a superhot exothermic reaction that can burn through anything. Is this consistent with what we're seeing in the video Jones' supplies of "a bright yellow molten substance dripping from the south tower minutes before its collapse." Sure, if you ASSUME that's ferrous material. In the video, the substance in question is "dripping" (falling, actually) through a window opening several feet wide. It could also be cellulosic or other organic material, e.g. a large piece of wooden furniture that's been reduced to a pile of glowing embers that's now spilling through an empty window frame and flaring up as it does so. This is just as plausible an explanation for what's being seen, and would involve much lower temeratures. Is there a way to really KNOW what it is? No, none whatsoever, and this is the sort of opening the controlled demolition groupies ALWAYS exploit, while insisting it's DEFINITELY what they want it to be. Look, groupies, get your assumptions out of my face! When you assume you make an ass out of YOU -- making of an ass out of myself is strictly my business

Meanwhile the main thing I have to say about Jones is CONSIDER THE SOURCE. I've listened to him a lot on shortwave, and there's something very unsavory about him, in the "libertarian" fake radical sense. Ideologically, he's a fuckin Bushie and a Limbaugh clone, I don't care what he says, and yet he pretends to oppose all that in revolutionary terms. As is true for all the right-wing radio meatheads, his whole shtick is much too surgically tuned, sociologically, to be believable as just some "average guy" shooting his mouth off. He obviously has a dedicated staff and lots of money to burn. The site, his radio program, his video productions, are very glitzy and expensive. How did that happen? Jeff Rense is the genuine article of what Jones is pretending to be. Rense doesn't have a glitzy media empire. He mostly republishes written material in a very low-budget way and is the butt of widespread online smear efforts, which you NEVER see directed at Jones.

Jones shows us the 'lava,' but he shows us a lot more, meaning he doesn't edit the video to show JUST the pertinent information. He commits lots of bandwidth to a BIG clip that also revives the contagious mass nervous breakdown of New Yorkers watching the first tower fall. Why do that?

If you look at the controlled demolition blitz with one eye open for big budgets, too much slickness, mixed messages, and nicely stroked bogus technical arguments, you'll see a lot more of these things than you should be comfortable with. This is NOT "grassroots activism," and only a raised-by-TV know-nothing could believe it is. This is media professionals getting bankrolled from somewhere.
by Thomas
Monday May 1st, 2006 11:22 AM

Here´s a video to support the thermite reaction in WTC 2 (South Tower). Same as posted on the video about WTC 7, TheDossier.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11
by TW
Monday May 1st, 2006 3:37 PM
This is the same video I was just talking about. What part of this did you not understand?

"Is there a way to really KNOW what it is? No, none whatsoever, and this is the sort of opening the controlled demolition groupies ALWAYS exploit, while insisting it's DEFINITELY what they want it to be. Look, groupies, get your assumptions out of my face! When you assume you make an ass out of YOU"

So what field is your thesis in, Thomas? Memetics?
by Thomas
Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 4:23 AM

TW certainly is an angry man (or woman ?). But yes you´re correct, it really IS the same video. So now we´ve established that. This is the video - the same, that is.

Regarding the substance of the matter (so to speak), it really looks as if this substance is dripping, and not just falling. Why should the official explanation be aluminium if they might as well (according to TW) have said that it could be anything. Apparently there is some consensus among people who have some knowledge of physics/chemistry - including the geovernmental investigators - that it is molten metal of some sort dripping in an accelerated proces. But TW apparently has the expertise to state that this might just as well be WOOD (!) dripping ( sorry, falling ).
by TheDossier
Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 9:40 AM
If what we see falling/dripping is the result of thermite, then, again, how did they know where the plane would hit? Also, they tell us thermite was used on the central columns, but this is the outer corner of the tower. The whole argument doesn't stand up.

It seems only right-wing religious "nuts" are pushing this. The Bush administration are "right-wing religious nuts". Maybe a pattern is forming. The war on terror is a fascist corporate move, so how does it square that right-wing people are against this? It's in their interest.
by Thomas
Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 10:17 AM

First, to TW: I will say that I don´t really like these insults, and I will for my part stop this - I just don´t like insults being flung at me. But yes, I should have followed the thread better, and I also admit that i´m not a student of engineering, physics, or natural science in general. Let´s concentrate on the topic.

To TheDossier: I don´t know if that is thermite or not, but IF
911 was an inside job, they knew exactly where the planes would hit. And I don´t think that the argument that thermite is supposed to have been in the core excludes it also being elsewhere. The melting metal we see dripping is at the corner, and since this forms a stronger support for the whole structure than the rest of the outer columns, this might be a necessary point to undermine. But again, it is off course only suggestions.
by TW
Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 7:58 PM
Please share with us a controlled demolition scenario that plausibly explains this video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

"IF 911 was an inside job, they knew exactly where the planes would hit."

This is extremely weak. To wit, it takes that which the CD crowd has been doing all along -- starting out with a conclusion and then fitting "observations" to it -- to an absolutely ridiculous unsupported new extreme. If the CD hypothesis had explicitly started out this way, would YOU have accepted it? Or would you have considered it a laughing stock? Perhaps you're not familiar with Occam's Razor. Here's a decent little tutorial, including a pertinent example.

http://www.2think.org/occams_razor.shtml

Essentially you're providing an example of "Why People Believe Weird Things" straight out of the book of the same title

http://www.2think.org/wpbwt.shtml

"People believe weird things despite contrary evidence because they are unwilling to alter preconceived notions. The reasons for this are many: People don't want to admit they are wrong ... These weird theories are propagated through 'feedback loops' which Shermer explains by using the witch hunts as an example ... The concept of 'memes' or mental viruses comes into play here although I don't think Shermer ever uses these terms."

Relevant logical fallacies of weird belief:

1. They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position*.
2. They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opponents' conclusions must be wrong.
...
5. They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, cherry-pick data that fit and discount data that do not fit.

*an example of you saying something definitive about your position would be if you were to thoroughly answer the challenge I gave you to start with:

Please share with us a controlled demolition scenario that plausibly explains this video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

None of this trashes 9-11 skepticism as a whole. That would be fallacy #2. The official scenario as recieved knowledge is also quite ridiculous a la Occam's Razor, and skepticism is a sound reaction to that. How someone can smell bullshit in the official scenario and then NOT smell bullshit in controlled demolition is amazing to me. What the above DOES do is trash controlled demolition at this present juncture of our discussion.

Controlled demolition, in other words -- and quite to the contrary of what your crowd keeps claiming -- offends good empirical sense
by Thomas
Wednesday May 3rd, 2006 8:37 AM

A) Off course conclusions should not come before facts, evidence and arguments. But this is not what I´m doing´here, I argue AGAINST a specifik point from TheDossier (TD), namely that ´they did not know where the planes would hit, therefore the placing of thermite (at all) is not plausible´. Except that I´m not sure exatly what the argument is, it seems to me 1) IF 911 was an inside job (IJ) from A-Z, they knew where they would hit and could place the thermite accordingly; 2) IF it was NOT an IJ at all - well that begs the whole question ( thermite would off course not be placed at all); 3) but even if the scenario is that the IJ was only PARTIAL (knowing planes would hit, but not exatly where), they could just place thermite on inner and outer columns of several floors, igniting it per remotecontrol (and this is not ´far out´, it is probably relatively simple, given todays hightech).

B) Occams razor (OcR): The above should be enough argument that I do not fall prey to OcR, since I just seek to argue against a (to me) fallacious argument that the (assumed) not-knowing of the planes´ impact would make it highly improbable that thermite was placed at all. The simplest reason (cf. OcR) for me that the towers fell the way they did would imply the precise and methodical removal of specifik supportcollumns - not by random fire, but by explosives and other (but this is of course the base of the entire scientific diskussion). And the evidence of molten steel dripping and large pools of molten steel at the basements, plus many many witnesses (firefighters AND citizens) hearing large explosions and feeling schockwawes (some reporting being blown to the wall as they decended to the very lowest floors - hundreds of meters from the ordinary fire at the top), is evidence supporting this thesis. If this is ´cherrypicking´, what is YOUR position/interpretation on "MY" facts. That the dripping metal might be WOOD seems very odd to me (and as far as I have heard aluminium has another color and behavior) and I´ve to date not heard any good explanations to the heavy explosions heard and felt by MANY. But I absolutely agree that fixed ideas can be like viruses (cf.´memes´) - fx. the no-plane-at-Pentagon-theori, which appears to be deceptive (perhaps even a DELIBERATE planting of a ´meme´).

P.S. OcR (roughly: the principle of choosing the simplest explanation and not making ad hoc assumptions to save a more complicated) is not a universal, "objektive" and "ready to go"- principle; it is absolutely contextdependent. (After all, the entire universe falls pray to such an interpretation af OcR, since it is infinitely more "unlikely" and contingent that IT, and all its complexities, exists, than the blank Notingness - if one does not accept the ontological/metaphysical necessity of this Nothing becoming ´Other´ due to the principle of deteminate negation, that is. ( I study Philosophy, by the way).

C) The southtowerfall-link: Well, it takes more to prove the non-demolition-theori than this. If one looks at his isolated, it seems certainly like a natural collapse, but I cannot see that one - from this alone - can make it more likely that this is the case than a demolition. But agin, this hangs on all sorts of OTHER evidence. It makes still no sense to me that collapse of some floors [which perhaps is likely; that vertical beems might collapse is why they are fireproofed - which was apparently not deemed necessary for the corecolumns in wtc, except a little drywall to protect the escaperoutes and elevators. See note a bottom.] would immediately tilt the WIDE and MASSIVE core with its uprightstanding, massive columns, if these where not weakened BEYOND what this fire and timespan could do. And the fact that the northtower collapsed as well - strightdown and perfectly - indicates that the core was severely weakened, and how is this possible from these fires, which many serious physicians estimate to not above 5-600 ^C, where steel only looses about half its strength (and the tower had a lot of redundancy). And this is is just the temp. of the FIRE - the steel will not even reach theese temp. due to its ability to heattransportation. Besides, there is good evidence that the fires relatively quickly cooled (black smoke), driving the temperature even lower !!.

Note
"The World Trade Center had ultra-lightweight floors, and used the latest fireproof 'drywall' to protect the stairwells and lift shafts"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml

See fx. http://911research.wtc7.net/
(this is perhaps a repetition ).
by TW
Wednesday May 3rd, 2006 3:13 PM
Answer my question:

If the CD hypothesis had explicitly started out this way (perfect coordination between spook pilots and spook bomb placers) would YOU have accepted it? Or would you have considered it a laughing stock?

This is what Occam's Razor really comes down to, and you're totally evading it. You're also twisting it into something it's not, and since you're posturing as if you know what it is, you are therefore being dishonest in some way.

To accentuate the buildings' verticality, the WTC designers went with a pure vertical visual composition for the facade in which the windows (ergo the floors) were as indistinguishable as they could make them. This made it very hard to pick out or count floors from any distance. This is an obvious visual fact about the towers. Meanwhile, the plane came in at several hundred miles per hour, and given your scenario it had to hit exactly the right level. This would be a hell of a lot more challenging than you're allowing. I think the only way to go about this would be to have some sort of homing beacon on the target floor.

So now your scenario is looking like this (I asked you to supply this scenario yourself and you didn't -- another evasion a la "rarely saying anything definitive about their own position"...):

1) the spooks rigged a whole floor with big cutter charges and/or thermite (BTW it would take a LOT of thermite; also thermite is a superhot fluid that wants to go in only one direction -- DOWN -- and is practically unstoppable. How could it be made to cut HORIZONTALLY through vertical elements without introducing whole new magnitudes of complication/detectability? Fucking ANSWER THIS Thomas)

2) the spooks placed a homing beacon on this floor

3) the spooks successfully smashed the plane into just the right level

4) the resulting raging inferno somehow did not cook a detonation system THAT TRIGGERED THE CHARGES IN A COORDINATED MANNER (this would require either wiring or radio recievers capable of withstanding a raging fire -- yet another layer of complication)

So now what you're telling me is that Occam's Razor favors this scenario of yours over the following:

The structural failure of the building at the level of impact is explained simply and neatly by the impact itself

You're full of fucking BULLSHIT, Thomas. You're either an idiot or a liar. Either way you're wasting my time. I tried to play nice, but you didn't really lay off the insults. That was another lie. With your last flimsy Jedi mind-trick, you insulted my intelligence. As anyone can tell you around here, this is called "fucking with Krakatoa"
by TW
Wednesday May 3rd, 2006 3:20 PM
"Well, it takes more to prove the non-demolition-theori than this"

Nobody NEEDS to "prove the non-demolition-theory," DUMFUCK. What's in the offing here is an 'it's impossible to know so quit pretending you do and move on to something demonstrable' theory
by TW
Wednesday May 3rd, 2006 4:17 PM
Philosophy, eh? Sophistry is more like it. That's all philosophers do these days, in my experience. God knows it's the only branch of philosophy the job market wants
by TheDossier
Saturday May 6th, 2006 5:44 AM
The 9/11 movement is dead.
I think that the demolition advocates are one of three things:
1) Misled or ignorant
2) Disinfo
3) Out to make lots of money selling tickets and videos: http://www.americanscholarssymposium.org/

Anyone have any comments?
by Thomas
Saturday May 6th, 2006 6:34 AM

First of all I am sorry if anything I said is interpreted as insults. If you point out what you think is insulting (other than the general argumentation) I will gladly try to explain what my meaning was or was not. The angry, insulting part is you, but I can´t really take the outbursts serious - I just think they´re distracting.

Second, in every debate there is a fight to ´set the agenda´ but a serious diskussion implies that both parts can ask questions to the other. That said, I don´t really understand why I MUST come up with my "position", that is: my conclusion of what happened on 911. My "position" is that I don´t know, but a plausible scenario to me is that the building(s) were brought down by explosives/thermite. This would better (to me) explain the nature of the collapses and it has some support in evidence (witnesses, molten steel dripping and pools of molten steel in the basement - this did NOT happen from the collapse itself -, the (apparently) inadeqate force of explanation from the ´ordinary fire - theory´, and many other). I don´t accept that OcR supports the non-demolition theory (which certainly cannot avoid positive argumentation for its plausibility, in the face of the many many oddities of 911, physical and other) better than other. The sheer number of disastrous and strange coincidences, physical and other, on 911 (f.eks. building 7´s miraculous collapse, just to mention one) are certainly also vulnerable to OcR and prompts the non-demolition theory to explain ("prove") itself.

Now to the scenario you describe:

1) Demolitionexperts says themselves (see link below to a Steven E jones-video, about 29 min into the video) that it is quite possible to make thermite cut horizontally. How this precisely is done I don´t know.

2) A "homing beacon" could have guided the planes, but the precision with wich the planes would hit would not need to be absolutely accurate. The fires spread over a number of floors, and if thermitecutting was set off in the inside, it did not need to be EXACTLY there. The (apparent) thermitereaction seen dripping is (if this is what it is) cutting the towers corner(s), making it collapse where the Plane went in. If the place of impact of the planes would be uncertain, it would just take some ekstra charges on every of the four cornercolumns on a number of floors in the area

3) The ´spoofs´ could perhaps pick an exact floor, but if this is not possible then (see 2)

4) I don´t see any difficulty in protecting such charges.

(Was the "fucking with Krakatoa" - comment a threatening one, by the way ?)
by Thomas
Saturday May 6th, 2006 7:18 AM

- or was it a description of your virility ?.
by TW
Saturday May 6th, 2006 7:19 AM
And I think you and I are not the only ones who feel this way. Mike Ruppert is another, I believe, and Kee Dewdney also. Ruppert moved on to talking about Peak Oil two years ago, and I think it's because he saw the movement filling up with milling idiots whose taste was for the most blindingly stupid arguments available, so he just shook his head and abandoned ship. I've corresponded with Ruppert, and he's very smart, savvy enough to be conservative when it comes to such arguments. Too many gen-X and lower American "intellectuals" have been raised by television sets, are solipsists who don't believe in "reality" and refuse to account for it, and can be made to believe anything whatsoever by those who know which imprinted buttons to push. It would probably be more fruitful to communicate to foreign audiences that 1) 9-11 was a US-perpetrated black op and 2) Americans are hopelessly batshit now. I think they mostly know these things already

Uh, Thomas, I'm through with you now. It's clear that you are 1) dishonest (I didn't say the CHARGES would need to be protected from the impact; I said the DETONATION SYSTEM would have to be. This is just an example of the distortions built into your last) and 2) have never gotten your hands dirty doing anything practical beyond housework
by TheDossier
Saturday May 6th, 2006 7:20 AM
Thomas, you're forgetting one important thing - what was the motive or reason for destroying the towers/WTC7? Such a task would be complicated - why take enormous risks in doing so?

You have to provide a plausible scenario from start to finish, as to why destroying the buildings was necessary.

We should be looking into the connections between the CIA and The Muslim Brotherhood - both are right-wing organisations with a common interest in preventing liberal democracies developing in Islamic countries. The CIA get natural resources and The Muslim Brotherhood get to implement their brand of fascist Islam.
by her/it/whatever
Monday May 8th, 2006 6:24 AM
Or as Isaac Newton stated it: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
by her/it/whatever
Monday May 8th, 2006 6:37 AM
the_disappearing_south_tower_1.jpg
I do not need to share with you a controlled
demolition scenario that plausibly explains this video
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

I just need to show that it is not pancaking or whatever you want to call it.

The attached clearly shows that the building below the impact zone is not inferior as the BBC, TheDossier and TW would have us believe.
by TW
Monday May 8th, 2006 7:28 AM
1) you're so fixated on this word 'pancaking' that you're not comprehending what's happening in the video at all

2) Yes, the part of the building that is below the impact IS 'inferior' to the part above it BY FUCKING DEFINITON!!! 'Inferior' is also a spatial/relational word.

Jeezuss, you use programs fluently enough to come up with this graphic, but you can't think your way out of a wet bag of bullshit? WTF is going on here?? You HAVE TO BE a PR spook!
by um
Monday May 8th, 2006 8:04 AM
Looking at pics 241 and the ones after it it definitely looks to be "pancaking". From those pics you can se that while the top part of the tower was collpasing the tower bellow that wasnt and it was only when it reached a critical amount of energy at the end of the set of pics you show that the rest of the tower bellow collapases. Even in the earlier pics the mass of rubble rom the floors above looks like its collpasing through the middle of the outer frame of the building that fell at that weird angle you show.
by TheDossier
Monday May 8th, 2006 8:57 AM
I repeat again for the third or fourth time:

"You're forgetting one important thing - what was the motive or reason for destroying the towers/WTC7? Such a task would be complicated - why take enormous risks in doing so?

You have to provide a plausible scenario from start to finish, as to why destroying the buildings was necessary."

If no one can answer this, you're game's over.
by her/it/whatever
Monday May 8th, 2006 9:01 AM
TW is the superior debater.

I am a spook.

Peace.
by her/it/whatever
Monday May 8th, 2006 9:03 AM
I have no idea what would motivate a bunch of criminals to bring down the towers.

You win TheDossier.
by TW
Monday May 8th, 2006 10:14 AM
Dossier has acknowledged the obvious criminal motive, as have I. What we have both asserted is that the motive was satisfied in full the moment the second plane struck, whereupon the psy-op value of this job was completely realized. Half the people in the country were totally flipping out at that point -- Mission Accomplished. The planners didn't need to take it any further than this, meaning it would be a stupid risk-analysis decision for them to have done so. Plausible deniability has been the prime directive of the spooks' domestic black ops for decades, and controlling exposure or "hang-out" in just this sense is plausible deniability's most fundamental and essential layer, so why would the spooks discard their prime directive just to add some unnecessary splash? That's the real issue, Ann R. Key, and this has been pointed out to you -- YOU KNOW THIS-- so why are you trying to slink around it again? Are you stupid or are you a spook, which is it?
by her/it/whatever
Monday May 8th, 2006 12:06 PM
Can I be both an idiot and a spook?
by Thomas
Tuesday May 9th, 2006 2:52 PM

TW: The detonationssytem would probable be radiotransmitted from the outside, and the recievers and detonators would be placed inside the metalboxes (or how this is done) that we must assume where used to protect and direct the thermite/explosives attached to the columns.

TheDossier: There are several reasons one could imagine as to why "they" would risk bringing down WTC 1, 2 and 7.

1) As the neoconservatives said (partly indirectly), "a new Pearl Habor" would speed up the democratic revolution in the world, wich they want (so they say). That statement in the famous paper "Rebuilding Americas Defences" only makes sense if one assumes that the point is that such an event would give the US government carte blance to use whatever means necessary to "spread democray" around the globe. A hijacked aeroplane or even a crash into civilian buildings would perhaps not be enough to get the entire american population (and allies, the UN, and the entire world effectively) behind this (which mostly failed even on the background of 911). During the cold war the US could get involved in Vietnam because of the threat from communism and the mighty Soviet Union, and in WWII Pearl Habor - with 3000 dead and practically the whole US pacific fleet destroyed- got people to accept war. 911 would not be "a new Pearl Harbor" if it had only caused a few lives and a damaged building. "They" needed devastating and spectacular attacks, and also the attack on Pentagon would make people feel that their basic military protection was under threat (imagine the Joint chiefs of staff, defenceminister and other important highranking officials being wiped out or importan informations being detroyed). Even the 1993 bombing (which was a quite large truckbomb) did not trigger a nationwide cry for revenge or invasion of "terrorist safehavens"

2) Remember what is at stake her ! ( I think you know more about this than I). Saddam converted his oiltrade to euro in 2000. If oil where to be traded in euro, it would (as far as I have understood) be a severe blow to the US economy and to the US` fiercely defended position as the worlds only superpower. We now have a serious international struggle for control of the dwindling oilresources and since both Saddam and Iran are quite opposed to the US, military intervention and direct control of the oil is absolutely vital. Such control would also give the US a firm grib around the neck of China and Europe and secure "a new American Century". Theese reasons for going to war would not be accepted by Europe, China, Russia, etc., - or, most important for the White house, the americans themselves.

3) Apparently it works. The official explanation has worked real fine for 5 years now and as time goes, it becomes more and more unlikely that the crime will be solved. "They" knew that critical questions would not be raised in official fora for a considerable time after the shocking attacks, and the war in Irak was probably thought to be quick as the people of Irak was supposed to greet the americans as liberators, and since the rule of history is that the victor is right and that otherwise suspicious events will not be of importance to those who wish to associate with the victor, this would have stopped serious investigation reaching official institutions (which is perhaps what will be the outcome anyway. Lets hope not !!).

4) WTC 7 is indeed very suspicious and therefore a very risky buisness, I agree. I don´t know the reason for risking taking the building down. A good guess (to me) is the huge insurance on the building. But I admit that I have no fixed idea why this would have been risked. BUT, two things; 1) the silence surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 in mainstream media IS DEAFFENING. This is to me very very strange, since this collapse by no means can be deemed trivial. We hear again and again about the two towers, but WTC 7 apparently does not exist in the world of mainstram media. It baffles me !!. 2) The collapse itself bears all the marking of a controlled demolition (rapid, perfect and total collapse, with molten, "swiss cheese" metal in the basement, wich even FEMA had to admit was very unusual and wich the NYT said was perhaps the most mysterious part of all - but of wich we have heard nothing since, either from FEMA or NYT or others).
Tommy Boy: "That statement [i.e. "a new Pearl Harbor"] in "Rebuilding Americas Defences" only makes sense if one assumes ... such an event would give the US government carte blance to use whatever means necessary ... A hijacked aeroplane or even a crash into civilian buildings would perhaps not be enough to get the entire american population behind this"

Yuh-huh, sounds good TommyPunk, except it WAS enough, as I said:

"...the motive was satisfied in full the moment the second plane struck, whereupon the psy-op value of this job was completely realized. Half the people in the country were totally flipping out at that point -- Mission Accomplished."

You do remember, don't you T-Punk? Or were you comatose that day? Even if you were, you DID watch Fahrenheit 911, right? You saw the scene then where the spectators in that high-rise corridor got their bassinets kicked around real good when the second plane struck. Well, Tommy Coma Boy, that reaction was happening EVERYWHERE, just like their world-class shrinks knew in advance it would. That was it, man. All motives for the op were satisfied at that point, the rest was gravy.

As for manipulating strategic partners into joining in, this is a TOTALLY different game. Those parties are nowhere near stupid enough to fall for a psy-op this blatant -- the whole purpose of their intel analysts, for example, is to filter out just such emotional noise and arrive at true motive, real actors, calculated effect, etc. -- so with these savvy observers it becomes more a cards-on-the-table game of "hey, we want to launch a major new phase of global conquest -- you game?" and then "you better fucking be game if you want your national economy to survive." Of course, nobody has to be so crass as to actually SAY any of this. The people who engage in international power transactions on this level qualify for the job by proving their ability to connect dots like this without guidance. This allows them to discuss such things in very encoded, noncommittal and non-incriminating language, a la

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB133/index.htm

Besides, Great Britain is the only party worth calling a "strategic partner" in this new phase of global empire, and Washington didn't need to utter a syllable to assume their cooperation. US and British global-domination maniacs have been in bed 69ing each other for the past 90 years. Their heads are pumping in unison now. You're a brit and a spook, so I'm sure you know ALL about it

Got it now, TommyPunk?

The 9-11 attacks were PURELY about herding the American hoi polloi into alignment with World War IV (WWIII being the Cold War), just like the PNAC spooks said in pretty blatant terms.

Also, this scenario:

"The detonationssytem would probable be radiotransmitted from the outside, and the recievers and detonators would be placed inside the metalboxes"

is fatally flawed in the Occam's Razor sense. Since you seem to be a severe technical idiot, I'll spell this out: each of these boxes would be a self-contained elaborate system (a radio reciever is a complex instrument in itself) which would have a significant probability of failure under the conditions of the impact (massive high-amplitude shock compounded by extreme temperatures). For the entire system to work as you assume for all the distributed charges requires that the probability of failure for any given box be reduced to very near 0%, since it's the PRODUCT of these probabilities that you're really working from as a base assumption. And then you have to take this probabilistic assumption and MULTIPLY IT BY ITSELF, since it's TWO buildings, I.E. two such improbabilities that we're actually talking about. And remember, this is JUST the detonation-system component of your scenario

I'm sorry, TommyPunk, but this is extremely unwieldy compared to

The structural failure of the building at the level of impact is explained simply and neatly by the impact itself

and no amount of sophist Jedi mind-tricks will change this, m'kay punk? It's called "reality." Unlike most of my squishy-skulled compatriots, I wasn't raised by a telly. I know what reality is.
by TW
Tuesday May 9th, 2006 7:16 PM
typical_wtc_floor_plan.jpg
How would the recievers you're describing RECIEVE? Because what you're describing here...

"the recievers ... would be placed inside the metalboxes"

is called FARADAY CAGES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

You can't get a radio signal through these. You could have a whip antenna sticking through the box with a ceramic insulator sealing the hole, but don't you think these boxes would be pretty obvious mounted on columns all over multiple floors of BOTH towers? In the case of the massive columns coming up through the core of the building, these boxes would have to flank every single elevator door (see graphic). Don't you think somebody would notice?
by TheDossier
Saturday May 13th, 2006 5:29 AM
Here's an interesting blog that takes apart Loose Change:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Here's Penn and Teller's debunk of the "idiots" view of 9/11:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&pl=true

The controlled demolition theory is complete crap put out by morons! I am completely amazed at how the CD theory is gaining ground, with more and more films and conferences pushing this. What on earth is going on with these people? This shows, just how dumbed-down Americans have become.
by TW
Saturday May 13th, 2006 7:40 AM
The links you provide here are to sites/individuals with an openly hostile EMOTIONAL reaction and/or gatekeeping agenda in regard to the mere suggestion that 9-11 was a black op of any sort. Uh, that's not skepticism EITHER, Dossier. That's goo-goo-baby's determination to hang on tight to the security blanket of belief in 'Big Daddy Gubmint who will pwoteck me.' As weak-minded, sloppy, and downright stupid as technically illiterate skeptics can be, they're still giants striding the earth compared to these motherfuckers. I am amazed that you link to the Penn & Teller video as if this guy is anything other than an obvious bloviating gasbag with no credibility in this area, only a clear rich-guy agenda to keep the herd distracted and docile for the sake of his portfolio. Is that where you're coming from?

Whatever else it does, 9-11 skepticism also represents a high-order, totally healthy realization that this government has become a full-blown fascist menace and that it's time for all 300 million of us to wake up from our long nap and take it apart like Godzilla.

Thomas Jefferson:
"What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

We Americans aren't like brits, Dossier. We like decadent class conspirators only when they feed the flies. How anyone out there in the world can look at 9-11 skepticism and see anything but a movement to cheer on wildly just baffles me. Do they not understand that Nazi America, unlike Nazi Germany, will not be stopped by anything but mass internal rebellion? Are they that oblivious to history? Or are they corrupt class accomplices with ulterior motives? That's what you're starting to look like to me.
by technically illiterate skeptic
Saturday May 13th, 2006 10:20 AM
Thanks for the compliment TW!

As for rock solid points, I do not understand why destruction of evidence is not included on your list TheDossier.

"There was a problem with the preservation of evidence which has been addressed here:
http://www.house.gov/boehlert/wtctoprez2.htm " is a whitewash.

by TheDossier
Saturday May 13th, 2006 10:59 AM
The 'screwloosechange' blog simply highlights the errors and misconceptions in the film Loose Change. Pretty much like the other debunking sites I posted above. The site may completely believe the official story, but it does point out the many problems with the film. Films that devote time to the demolition theory are obviously flawed and should be avoided.

I am a 9/11 skeptic: http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/ and I certainly do not expect the big daddy govt to favour its citizens over corporations.

The Penn and Teller vid is interesting because Eric Hufschmid and Jimmy Walter (reopen911.org) are interviewed in it. These two are key in the demolition theory. I admit that PennTeller do not take on the genuine questions surrounding 9/11, but hey, I don't hold them up as people to look to for serious investigation.

I seemed to have touched a nerve with the 'dumbed-down' comment. Look, people in the West generally, are dumded-down and stupid. Maybe it's just more visible in America than in other countries. I agree with you that 9/11 skeptism should be cheered on, but what about the obvious disinfo? Should we still cheer this on?

It's interesting you mention Jefferson. I wonder what the 'architect' would say about the collapsed buildings and those that assume explosives, if he were alive today?
by TheDossier
Saturday May 13th, 2006 11:14 AM
reposted from above:

"It seems that there was a thorough investigation of the WTC remains. Debris was meticulously examined by the country's leading experts in the relevant fields. See here:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html

There was a problem with the preservation of evidence which has been addressed here:
http://www.house.gov/boehlert/wtctoprez2.htm

The bill gives NIST, etc. similar powers to that of the NTSB. The events of 9/11 were unprecedented, so the need for such a bill had not been anticipated.

And yes, plots to hijack planes and crash them into buildings had been discovered before 9/11 (Bojinka), but not one had been successful.

It's usual for new laws to come in after an event or incident has taken place for the first time, because only then does the problem become apparent."
by technically illiterate skeptic
Saturday May 13th, 2006 11:22 AM
"reposted from above:

"It seems that there was a thorough investigation of the WTC remains. Debris was meticulously examined by the country's leading experts in the relevant fields. See here:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html

There was a problem with the preservation of evidence which has been addressed here:
http://www.house.gov/boehlert/wtctoprez2.htm

The bill gives NIST, etc. similar powers to that of the NTSB. The events of 9/11 were unprecedented, so the need for such a bill had not been anticipated.

And yes, plots to hijack planes and crash them into buildings had been discovered before 9/11 (Bojinka), but not one had been successful.

It's usual for new laws to come in after an event or incident has taken place for the first time, because only then does the problem become apparent.""

is a whitewash.
by TheDossier
Saturday May 13th, 2006 11:29 AM
Rather than just post short statements, why don't you explain what it is you don't understand?
by technically illiterate skeptic
Saturday May 13th, 2006 12:08 PM
I do not understand why destruction of evidence is not on your list of rock solid points.

I think the following should be on the list as well.

Vice President Dick Cheney initially opposed a congressional commission into the 9/11 attacks, suggesting it would take vital resources and personnel away from the war on terrorism.

The 9/11 Commission investigation began 411 days after the attacks, whereas the investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK began after only 9 and 7 days, respectively.
by TW
Saturday May 13th, 2006 12:15 PM
You know, I do that. Anyone on the square about tightening 9-11 skepticism into something critical scientific professionals will take seriously is my kinda guy
by TheDossier
Saturday May 13th, 2006 12:22 PM
"I do not understand why destruction of evidence is not on your list of rock solid points."

- There was a problem with 'preservation' of evidence, not 'destruction' of evidence. There is a difference.

"Vice President Dick Cheney initially opposed a congressional commission into the 9/11 attacks, suggesting it would take vital resources and personnel away from the war on terrorism.
The 9/11 Commission investigation began 411 days after the attacks, whereas the investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK began after only 9 and 7 days, respectively."

- The list of rock solid points you refer to was 'concise' in nature.

Is this Anne R Keye or Tia again?
by Thomas
Saturday May 13th, 2006 2:01 PM

I suggest all parties in this controversy attend

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html.

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
by TheDossier
Saturday May 13th, 2006 8:24 PM
I've attended, and found this: http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html

It's generally acknowledged by all, that there is disinfo out there. Just go the extra mile and take another look at the explosives theory.
by her/it/whatever
Sunday May 14th, 2006 9:34 AM
Isaac Newton's version of Ockham's razor: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
by TheDossier
Wednesday May 17th, 2006 2:56 PM
I started a topic in this forum: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4316

It'd be good to see you in there - they're worse than on this post.

Cheers
by TW
Wednesday May 17th, 2006 5:20 PM
I might get into this later. For now I suggest you repost that excellent list you had of overall weaknesses in the official scenario. I have always found the 'organic' argument (a combination of history, obvious criminal motives, and wide-ranging anomalies) very powerful. 9-11 skepticism has been flooded with obsessives who seem unable to appreciate this panorama and ONLY want to bark "controlled demolition!!! Yap, yap, yap!!! Controlled demolition!!! Yap, yap, yap!!!" Yea Gawds, I'd hate to get cornered by one of these people at a 9-11 skeptic cocktail party. It would be fun destroying their argument, except they'd just keep barking at you with that glassy-eyed stare, unperturbed. Oh, and they'd gang up, of course. How can these be the same people who saw through the official scenario? Are they?
by TheDossier
Thursday May 18th, 2006 3:05 AM
I'm in there as 'BassHead'.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=27
by TW
Thursday May 18th, 2006 4:24 AM
I registered as a user and am being "denied permission" to enter the discussion. When you registered, how exactly did you go about it? Are there any special protocols I need to observe?
by TheDossier
Thursday May 18th, 2006 7:53 AM
I just setup my username, then picked password. Oh, it may take a day for the administrator to approve your account. You will recieve an e-mail confirming acceptance, then you can log in.

see you there

- what's your username?
by TW
Thursday May 18th, 2006 12:45 PM
I recognized you as Basshead right away. You'll know me when you see me. Prepare to watch some walls get spray-painted with splattered know-nothing asses.
by Thomas
Thursday May 18th, 2006 2:46 PM

Well, it doesn´t appear that you guys got much out of 9-11Research. (Jim Hoffmann). What would you say to its (his) refutation af the NIST-report ?.

TheDossier: Didn´t you find anything aginst the non-demolition theory at all ?!. It appears that you are cherrypicking.

Perhaps you should try lectures and presentaions by Prof. David Ray Griffin. (Unless you think he doesn´t know what he is talking about either. Pick as you wish, thereby you´ll be able to defend anything).
by max
Saturday May 20th, 2006 3:42 PM
What if Loose Change, In Plane Sight, etc., are making it all too complicated.

I don't know anything about the technology we have currently as far as remote-control/computer program flying of 757s and 767s, but assuming that is possible, wouldn't it be feasible that all four planes were programmed (computer or someone at ground level cutting in and taking control) to crash into those buildings. Flights 93 and 77 are more involved, but not out of the realm of possibility. Think about it. Once control panel is locked down, it would be not too difficult to shut off all communications from plane--airfones, pilot radios, cells--and basically those passengers and crew could do nothing but sit and wait it out to its conclusion.

In the meantime, the stewardesses calling in, cell phone calls to family (two calls from 11, I think only one from 175, one from 77, and that was from Olson's wife and the official story of that exchange apparently originated in the Justice Dept., released to CNN, and 10 or so calls from 93), couldn't all of those calls generated from another location?

For example, if I called the airline and said I was the flight attendant on Flight 11 and we've been hijacked, who would know if that was actually the voice of the stewardess on that flight or someone else, and who would ask. The receiver of that call would just proceed as if it were fact.

I also read somewhere that if a plane is turned over to a remote control person or computer, it is also possible now to redirect information going into black boxes and enter info. into those boxes from other locations, and it would appear that the information was from cockpit.

Gets confusing writing this out, but it's a theory I have had in my head for a long time. Forget about military planes, drones, missiles, etc., hitting the buildings. I think those building were probably hit by the commercial airliners, but my question is were there ever terrorists on board at all? There seem to be at least 7 of the 19 accused still alive and well in other countries, according to BBC, etc. And, my theory might explain how that "bad pilot" on Flight 77 was able to fly like a Blue Angel ace. And, what if Flight 77 was blown up precisely at the moment before it made impact. From what I have seen, many inside the Pentagon smelled the remnants of explosives after the plane hit. A large enough explosion could do that damage inside and it would let some witnesses on outside say they saw a plane coming in.

I may be wrong on all of this, but considering how things have transpired in this country since 9/11, I will always believe that at the least, the people in power let it happen. The question is just how far beyond that reality does it go.

Feel free to rip this theory apart. I just want some answers to what really happened that day.
by TW
Saturday May 20th, 2006 5:24 PM
Remote control is far and away the cleanest scenario! The actual perps could be a tiny team of computer/aerospace jocks who could hide out in deep shadow the whole time, risking next to nothing in the way of "hang-out" (exposure). As opposed to, say, undercover spooks going around slapping big wads of Semtex and wiring detonators onto every column of the WTC under the noses of hypervigilant building security (oo yah, that's reasonable).

Here's a high-tech airplane remote control system that the Pentagon is NOT keeping secret:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/Downloads/FTS.pdf

It's pretty stunning. So what might they have that's cutting edge and still top secret? There's no telling. The US gov really likes to kill heads of state, rogue Minnesota Senators, etc., by making their planes crash, so you better believe they're intensely interested in this sort of thing. What I picture is a remote control interface like System Planning's but using flight simulators as input devices. People are all gah-gah these days about their MP3 players and their digital cameras, but it's not dawning on them that this government has access to the most mind-boggling tech of all, and God only knows how they're using it. The remote control scenario is totally within the realm of possibility.
by TheDossier
Sunday May 21st, 2006 7:14 AM
I did research the idea of remote-control some time ago. All I could find was an 'unsourced' claim that Lufthansa removed the flight director (FD) component from its Boeing fleet, that allowed the Americans to recover control of an errant plane in an emergency:

"In a mammoth operation rumored to cost in excess of $800 million, Lufthansa stripped every flight director out of every Boeing in its fleet, replacing them in toto with German systems programmed by the Luftwaffe [German Air Force]. According to a member of the German internal security service in Frankfurt during October 1996, all Lufthansa aircraft had by that date been secured, rendering them invulnerable to remote flight director commands transmitted by any and all American authorities. Under the new intelligence protocols, Russia and France were made aware of these flight director risks."
http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/concorde.html

I couldn't verify this, so left it. Is Vialls credible?

These links could be of use:
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/FCS-700.html
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/AFDS-770.html
by banned
Sunday May 21st, 2006 1:30 PM
hey dossier, this is TW. I tried to reply to your last, but it seems to have been deleted. This is the editors informing us that we need to get a (chat) room and stop abusing the site's comment threads. No point arguing with them. I'm going to hang up the phone now.
by TheDossier
Sunday May 21st, 2006 1:30 PM
Huh? Indybay have removed your last comment - why? Maybe the language used?
by TheDossier
Sunday May 21st, 2006 1:32 PM
Right, okay understand. Cheers
by TheDossier
Monday May 22nd, 2006 9:07 AM
This is strange, what could be the explanation for this:
Fireman: "bomb in the building - start clearing out"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506bomb.htm

Assuming this clip is from 9/11/01 at the WTC, I can't understand why the fireman would say what sounds like "bomb" in the building. You can also hear someone in the background appear to say "secondary device" .

Clarification is required of where and what time this clip was filmed. Can anyone enlighten?
by Thomas
Wednesday May 24th, 2006 12:41 PM

Perhaps he says "bomb in the building - start clearing out" because there is a bomb in the building and he wants his collegues to clear out.

And perhaps this is just another evidence that there were bombs in the buildig, on top of the major explosions many people heard and reprted that day.

Just a suggestion.
by TheDossier
Wednesday May 24th, 2006 2:31 PM
So tell me, which building are they referring to? What's the date of the clip?

Maybe this is 'code' that emergency services use to clear the area quickly?
by Thomas
Wednesday May 24th, 2006 3:35 PM

It is quite dusty and we can see a firefighter wearing a mask. This makes it highly probable that this is 9/11.

An indikation that this is at the WTC: The vehicle immediately in front is a "Haz Mat Operations" vehicle. In "McKinsey Report - Increasing NYFD´s Preparedness"

[http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/mck_report/toc.html (Part 1 (....), "Fire Operations response", page 13 (of 16), page 39 in the document)

it says that there was only ONE of these units, and it was sent to WTC.

I would say that it is safe to assume that this is 11/9 and that the place is near to the WTC
by Anne R. Key
Wednesday May 24th, 2006 5:26 PM
Contact the FDNY and find out if they know anything about the video.
by Thomas
Thursday May 25th, 2006 3:50 AM

It would probably be difficult to get the FDNY to confirm anything true about this.

The firefighters are placed under a bridge across the street. And north must be roughly in the opposite direction (as far as I can tell by the shadows (?) ).

Someone must know what building(s) we are seeing.
by Thomas
Wednesday May 31st, 2006 3:14 PM

Hello, has people gone home?





by TheDossier
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 6:27 AM
Without verification of this "bomb in building" clip, it is useless. After all, it could be from the WTC in 1993.

It's typical of the demo crowd to use data taken out of context without sourcing - this is how misconceptions arise.
by max
Thursday Jun 1st, 2006 7:49 PM
I agree with you about stating up front where these film clips, etc., come from, date, etc., or it is worthless. However, please enlighten me, a poor clueless "demo"...who would you suggest I read/listen to/watch who documents what they say and verifies their sources, and do not just pull information out of their backsides as the mood strikes them---Rush Limbaugh? Hannity? O'Reilly? Fox News? Maybe Annie Coulter could be my source of wisdom, eh? Now that is a grouping that devote themselves to getting the facts out to the public with no agenda at all.

Up to this point, what you have contributed to this site gave me the impression that you were somewhat intelligent. After your little "demo" comment, please tell me, what world do you live in?
by Jackrabbit
Tuesday Jun 6th, 2006 4:12 PM
Just spent a fair amount of time reading this thread and ended up wondering why I bothered. That is not to say that I was in agreement with some of the posts made.

The argument which has taken place here has been quite a virulent one at times and this virulence has come from both sides of the argument, including TD at times.

I wish I knew what the "911 movement" is. The way this has been talked about in this thread would lead one to believe that it is a cohesive group or, at least, a number of cohesive groups. It is not either, in my experience. It is a confusing internet mess of contradictory factions/individuals who know only one thing for sure: that something is not right with our world. And that confusing mess of opinions is liberally sprinkled with disinformation, both intentional and unintended.

I only really have a few comments to make.

The dossier.ukonline.co.uk is a useful source of recorded material. However it has always been in my "dubious" folder. No offence TD. Thanks for supplying some extremely interesting videos. However you are in there with Vialls, Ruppert et al as either disinfo or a little naive at times.

We do not definitely know if WTC's 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolitions or not. To definitely state they were is disingenous. To argue the opposing point of view is equally disingenous. I was surprised that TD, at times, took this position and hurled abuse with the best of them. But then, as I said the dossier is still in the dubious folder for the crime of being apparently naive and too trusting of official sources..

All that is being achieved is that people who are trying to make sense of what is currently happening are being confused and are turning off in droves. Not by the arguments as given, but by the argument itself.

I think that, for any progress to be made here, the "911 movement" needs to get its head out of its arse. It also needs to realise that for every individual who prides themselves on being part of this movement, there are an awful lot of people who feel the same but are confused by the elitist behavior of too many of these individuals.
by Jackrabbit
Tuesday Jun 6th, 2006 4:20 PM
Sorry. Typo.

First line should have read:

Just spent a fair amount of time reading this thread and ended up wondering why I bothered. That is not to say that I was NOT in agreement with some of the posts made.
by Wake Up!
Wednesday Jun 7th, 2006 7:33 AM
100405wtc.jpg
by Wake Up!
Wednesday Jun 7th, 2006 7:37 AM
100405wtc2.jpg
by TheDossier
Wednesday Jun 7th, 2006 9:23 AM
The newspaper article you have provided proves nothing. NO PLANE, FULL OF FUEL, TRAVELLING AT HIGH SPEED, HIT THE TOWER!! How on earth can you compare the two events?
by TheDossier
Wednesday Jun 7th, 2006 3:01 PM
I'm only trying to show that the case for demolition isn't clear cut. People have got caught up with a lot of misconceptions regarding building construction. When something is not clear cut, it should not be used as a key point in exposing 9/11, for obvious reasons.

This is why you will not find any films on thedossier that devote large amounts of time to the demolition theory. Even if those films otherwise contain good information.
by TW
Wednesday Jun 7th, 2006 3:19 PM
Says it all in a nutshell. If everyone in the movement had your good sense and humility (lacked the ego disorder that presumes God-like understanding of a fantastically complex event that's in fact WAY out beyond them) we'd be a lot more potent
by Wake Up!
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 7:57 AM
thermite.jpg
It clearly says that there was A three alarm fire that the fire fighters described as A blow torch! ...over 6 floors for far longer then the fires burned on 911 with more weight pressing down from above. Lets put that fire aside for A moment and lets talk about molten metal. Even if there were enough energy given off by your miracle jet fuel (KEROSENE) to compromise the steel it wouldn't leave molten metal in the sub-levels of both towers and wtc-7 six weeks later. Kerosene will never melt steel. It is science. Even if I grant you that it could It certianly wouldn't liquify it.
by Wake Up!
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 8:10 AM
"He claims that steel retains its strength until the melting point is reached. This is wrong. The critical failure temperature of steel is 550°C - way lower than the melting point of 1400°C."

by TheDossier Saturday, Apr. 15, 2006 at 8:39 AM


"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2)."



From Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site - http://www.ehl.cc)

A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
(Company site - http://www.ul.com)

"CERTIFIED THE STEEL COMPONENTS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WTC BUILDINGS"!

Do their qualifications meet with your approval?
by Wake Up!
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 8:19 AM
550°C = 1022°C
by Wake Up!
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 8:23 AM
550°C = 1022°F <-
by TheDossier
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:08 AM
The planes crashing into the towers caused immense structural damage. One hit head on into the central core, and both took out multiple floors. The floors tied the whole structure together.

Structural steel doesn't need to actually melt to lose its strength - rule one of fire protection. When heated it starts to soften, but also expands, putting other elements under stress in a way they weren't designed for.

You say molten metal, what exactly was the type of metal? Steel, aluminium, iron, tin, lead, zinc, brass, copper, silver, gold? It could be any of these. All have different melting points.

The ASTM E119 standard fire test requires that specimens be representations of actual building construction - ie. complete with fire-proofing. A mock-up of the proposed construction is subjected to a typical fire in a furnace. This verifies that the construction will hold out for the required amount of hours. With the WTC, the impact dislodged the fire-proofing. The test results therefore do not reflect the removal of fire-proofing by aircraft or flying debris.
http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/Engineering_Journal4/262_EJ_gewaintroup.pdf

550°C = 1022°F - Steel begins to lose strength at this temperature, I didn't say melt.

All this is typical of the common misconceptions.
by Wake UP!
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:10 AM
The controlled demolition theory is complete crap put out by morons! I am completely amazed at how the CD theory is gaining ground, with more and more films and conferences pushing this. What on earth is going on with these people? This shows, just how dumbed-down Americans have become.

Please tell you arent a brit! After you provide penn and teller as A source! I watched that video I see why it's called bullshit. The irony is thick. All they do is attack strawmen. They are Illusionists. They should stick to pulling rabbits out of their asses or whatever.
by Wake Up!
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:29 AM
metal_temperature_by_color.jpgoz68zt.jpg
"This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans."

Kevin R. Ryan

This is the very company that certified the steel in the wtc. Not some netblogger. By I see you crapping on about expertise What is yours? Could you please quote some of your sources? I was hopeing you would bring this up.....

"You say molten metal, what exactly was the type of metal? Steel, aluminium, iron, tin, lead, zinc, brass, copper, silver, gold? It could be any of these. All have different melting points." -Doss

by Wake Up!
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:35 AM
20060609_023350.jpg
by TheDossier
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:40 AM
http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/Engineering_Journal4/262_EJ_gewaintroup.pdf

Read it. You're wasting my time.

STEEL DOESN'T NEED TO MELT TO LOSE STRENGTH!
by TheDossier
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:43 AM
The columns were made of steel, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THE NATURE OF THE MOLTEN METAL, was it steel?
by TheDossier
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 9:56 AM
I'm an Architectural Technician. Have been for 16 years. I produce drawings for construction projects. I know the building regulations like the back of my hand. I consult with structural engineers on a regular basis.
reprint:

It's not necessary to MELT the steel. You CD fanatics keep saying this, and it's a clear giveaway that you have no clue about this subject. Highly engineered structures are not wildly fabulously strong. They're only 125% as strong as they need to be sustain normal loads. That extra 25% is called "safety factor." In other words, the steel's strength only has to fall to 80% of its design value for failure to begin. This happens WAAAAY below melting temp. This is why building codes always stipulate some sort of fire-cladding (usually concrete) for high-rise steel frames. steel frames are not enveloped in concrete for strength. The concrete is there to provide a massive heat-sink in the event of fire to dampen heating of the frame and forestall exactly this sort of failure. I understand the designers of the WTC lightened the construction by using drywall as a fireblock, and that this stuff became so much flying debris when the planes slammed home, leaving the steel directly exposed. Is this incorrect?

Fire-induced failure of steel building frames HAS happened, mostly with industrial buildings built before this threat was understood. When I took Structural Engineering 101 at a renowned engineering school, the class was shown old footage of a factory already gutted, still a mass of flames, just oozing to the ground as the steel failed plastically from the heat. It was not heated to melting temperature. It doesn't have to be. I've also seen pictures of steel structures in Japan that failed in the same manner following US incendiary bombings of industrial districts. They looked like Dr. Suess hallucinations. The people barking out that no building has EVER failed in this manner are either ignorant strutting gasbags or liars, and the same goes for their followers.

The "towers were blown up" is a hodge-podge of fatally ignorant assumptions like this one.

Could one of you "experts" elucidate for me a controlled demolition scenario that explains this video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The original of this comment is HERE:

http://indybay.org/news/2006/04/1818178_comment.php#1824118

None of you CD spaz-bots rebutted this comment. I guess this is because you CAN'T. You are, after all, structural illiterates whose "intuition" about this comes from playing with blocks as toddlers and watching lots of TV-movie bullshit. Uh, this is D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T, as in NOT THUH SAAAAAME. You just simply don't know what you're talking about. You've sopped up this line from other people who don't know what they're talking about either, are just capitalizing on credential worship (David Ray Griffin is a THEOLOGIST, hell-o-o-O-O-o-o) and then you're puking it back out having made no attempt to examine it critically. You're as dogmatic with it as the neocon bark-down squads pushing the official scenario. It's hard to believe you're the same people who saw through the official scenario to begin with.

Can you say "Trojan Horse"
by V
Thursday Jun 8th, 2006 5:48 PM
TW likes to rant.
by TheDossier
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 3:17 AM
I'm not surprised TW rants - how many more times do we have to expose this red herring.
by V
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 8:36 AM
How is molten metal at the base of all three towers a red herring?
by TheDossier
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 9:09 AM
The piles of rumble burned for weeks with all sorts of hydrocarbon materials for fuel. The satellite images showed how high the temperatures reached. Why is it strange that molten metal was found?

What metal was it? It could have been lead, zinc, aluminium - something that burns at relatively low temperatures compared to structural steel.

The whole demolition theory is a red herring, can't you see that?
by V
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 9:55 AM
Good question. This is what's called a known unknown. That is to say, it is something we know we don't know. Why don't we know?

At the risk of being personally attacked, no, I do not think that the demolition theory is a red herring.
by TW
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 12:14 PM
1) rebut what I reprinted above

2) Give me a viable CD scenario for what is shown in this video

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
by V
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 1:50 PM
I thought we were talking about red herrings.

Never mind.

I would be happy to rebut your argument, but first, I have question. Did your renowned engineering school teach you to use words like WAAAAY, Dr. Suess hallucinations, spaz-bots, D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T, NOT THUH SAAAAAME and hell-o-o-O-O-o-o?

Moreover, did they teach you to be condescending? Or are you just following TheDossier's lead?
by TW
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 2:03 PM
In regard to the 'thermite fire' video, etc., the important thing to know about aluminum is not that it melts at a lower temperature than steel, but that it IGNITES and burns freely in open air in a way that steel never does. No matter how hot it is, steel needs a supply of refined oxygen to achieve self-supporting combustion, as in a bessemer converter or with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch (when you pull the torch's "trigger," oxygen is supplied in overabundance, which then supports self-immolation of the steel). Aluminum can get going on its own. Once it does, it's terrifying stuff: incredibly hot and near impossible to extinguish. This last point is important, and I'll come back to it

Dossier: the orange-hot metal being pulled out of the rubble by a backhoe can only be steel. A given material's black-body radiation curve does not shift up or down according to its melting range. Molten Mercury, for example, does not glow white-hot at room temperature. This glowing color corresponds to a specific temperature, regardless of material, and aluminum would be molten already.

The people insisting that the steel had to be heated to this color by the jet fuel alone are ignoring that 1) the jet fuel initiated a fire that continued for weeks so this fuel is not the only agent involved 2) the heat of this weeks-long fire was trapped inside what amounted to a humongous compost heap. This is where aluminum comes back in. With more mundane fuels, you could expect this heating to be limited by poor oxygen availibility inside the pile, but even in a smoldering oxygen-starved condition, an aluminum fire would continue to generate intense temperatures, more than adequate to create "pools of molten steel," and this heat WOULD NOT DISSIPATE. I'm curious now as to whether aluminum was used to lighten the WTC and if so how much. I know aluminum was used as cladding around the exterior columns, so there's one source...

V: "That is to say, it is something we know we don't know. Why don't we know?"

That the media and its masters are limiting our information and dumbing us down is more than obvious. This doesn't translate to "therefore my half-informed theories MUST be true!" It simply means you don't know. Not knowing means not knowing. The refusal to accept the simple fact of one's own ignorance on a subject is intellectually toxic. It leads people into all sorts of madness. Also into capitalizing dishonestly on the fact that nobody else knows either
by TheDossier
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 3:31 PM
If you've got the time TW, have a listen to this interview recorded this week.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm

S E Jones reckons he's got new proof regarding the thermate. I'd be interested in your view of what he says.
by V
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 6:15 PM
1.

No argument concerning steel not needing to melt to give. 8th grade metal shop.

Your two examples do not relate to what happened on 911. The towers were not gutted and did not ooze to the ground. And the Air Force was not firebombing the towers. Sadly, they were "AWOL".

2.

As for the viable CD scenario for the South Tower collapse, will an example do? Granted, it is not identical, but, not all CDs are the same. I think that the following example is close enough to make one suspicious, that is to say, CD is not a red herring. Anyway, go here

http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/web/explosive_home/explosive.asp

and view the Philidelphia video.

Concerning the known unknowns. Agreed. We do not have all the information. The investigation needs to be reopened and CD should be included. Do you think that we could not model a CD of the towers? I would bet dollars to donuts we could. While on the other hand, as far as I know, a spontaneous collapse has not been modeled succesfully. With WTC7, even the "official" report states that there is a low probability of occurance.

Whether or not any of this is convincing for you, try to be nice. I see that you can be nice. And I am not preaching, well, maybe I am, but I mean no harm. We are all just dust in the wind my friend. The end result of a roll in the hay. We all think we are right. We are just trying to convince one another in a civil manner.
by TW
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 7:06 PM
"...did they teach you to be condescending?"

People who swagger around presuming to know more than they really do, e.g. think they're structural experts when all they've done is read hype-driven articles on websites, are condescending and arrogant by default. An overwhelming percentage of my fellow Americans seem to have succumbed to this syndrome. They swagger here swagger there in their weird Baby Huey outfits, stoned out of their gourds on attitude but in fact pretty stupid due to the way they're overreaching on any number of subjects. Whatever the source of this mix of cockiness and ignorance, my patience for it is thin.

People who have the guts and sense to realize this government is the most likely suspect in 9-11 should be commended. I'm sure I should try harder to remember this. The thing is, I've been warning 9-11 activists about the controlled demolition argument's false charms for over three years now. Most skeptics do not have a good command of physics and engineering principles as they pertain to this subject, they just THINK they do. That's the ego syndrome I'm talking about. Meanwhile this is not a realm of "common sense." There's all sorts of stuff where common sense expectations are just dead wrong, especially pertaining to the strength of structures and how this should manifest during collapse. I'm sorry, but once something catastrophic sets a giant structure in motion, it might as well be made out of toothpicks. They are just NOT built to cope with that AT ALL. Static engineering and kinetic engineering are two wildly different animals.

As skeptics go, I am uncommonly well-educated on this stuff, a regular Gustave Eiffel. Dossier is a building technologist by profession, for chrissakes. This qualifies us to speak with some authority within the movement. I've tried to educate many skeptics in this way, but every time their eyes glaze over and they go into "I'm as smart as anybody on anything" mode and "but Griffin says..." orthodoxy. It's just appalling.

Watching CD take center stage in the movement's PR strategy lately has annoyed and disappointed me to no end. I'm telling you this is a dumb move. Everybody out there who really knows buildings is just rolling their eyes and walking away from you. It's like you've all brainwashed each other into being Scientologists or something
by TW
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 8:45 PM
The demolition group's Philadelphia job is discussed here

http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/content_library/ex_full_case_studies/philadelphia.asp

The way the grain silo split in half and fell to either side while leaving the lower portion intact was a planned, designed outcome. If they had blown the top without also splitting it and vectoring the halves with sequenced charges, I daresay this video would not have looked the same.

The point about the 911research.com video is not that explosives could not have caused the failure shown -- they obviously could -- but that the failure clearly initiates precisely at the level of impact. To insist that this is a result of explosive charges placed in advance combined with the planes flying into precisely the right spot strains credulity pretty severely in the Occam's Razor sense. If CD had been framed this way from the beginning, would YOU have believed it? This is what you have to address.

"Your two examples do not relate to what happened on 911."

I disagree. In both of my examples, the buildings had been reduced to naked steel skeletons. In other words most of the structural load had burned away and so the steel was very lightly loaded, so when it failed it did so in an almost leisurely way and did not collapse entirely. Lots of twisted steel rose a story or two.

In the WTC case, the steel in the zone of failure was still under full design load with something like 30 stories stacked on top of it. When the columns reached the temperature of failure under this condition, they did not deform in slow-motion but rather buckled violently. As soon as heat-induced weakening produced even slight distortion of the frame, this precipitous buckling would predictably ensue. In both cases, however, the essential mechanism is the same, i.e. fire CAN, WILL, and HAS weakened steel structures to the point of failure.

The whole point of those examples, as I said, is that they rebut the CD crowd's favorite line that this has never happened. You evaded this. This is the sort of thing that gets me mad. It's dishonorable to blithely change emphasis when one of your talking points gets blown up. It as much as announces that the component "facts" of your argument don't matter to you. You're ideologically committed to controlled demolition and that's that. Fuck reality. This makes you about as persuasive as a Jehovah's Witness shoving his face into my house to harangue me into coming to his church. It's fanatical and dishonest behavior. That's not how you're going to win people over. The 9-11 truth movement is in danger of developing a cult mentality. This would be the finest gift you could hand over to the power structure you're opposing, and it's entirely possible they're helping you go there
by V
Friday Jun 9th, 2006 10:40 PM
"...did they teach you to be condescending?" was actually rhetorical.

I understand your defense though. Undoubtledly, there are those out there that are not as educated as you. I would be disingenuous to say otherwise. It may be true that most do not have a good command of physics and engineering principles. However, that implies that there are some that do have a good command of physics and engineering principles. Your qualifier of "as it pertains to this subject" is superfluous. Engineering is an applied science. Not to say that engineers are not scientists, just to say that what we are talking about is science. Basic principles.

At the top of this News Article TheDossier states "Anyone who says there must have been explosives in the buildings either has no understanding of the basic principles of construction or is an agent of disinformation bringing ridicule to the 9/11 movement." (Side comment. This statement is fallacious. I could have an understanding and be an agent of disinformation. I point this out merely to let you know that using Roveian tactics makes us CDers think you are working for the other side. Just an observation. Not saying you are.) TheDossier's statement may be true. Problem is, as far as I can tell, no attempt has been made to explain these basic principles. Are they that difficult to explain? Maybe they are not that basic. Maybe I am missing something. What are those basic principle that explains spontaneous collapse? Just try to explain it in purely scientific terms. There are scientists out there stating a hypothesus describing CD. Scientists! I think they will understand. I will understand. I am not a child playing with tinker toys!

For instance, you state "There's all sorts of stuff where common sense expectations are just dead wrong, especially pertaining to the strength of structures and how this should manifest during collapse. I'm sorry, but once something catastrophic sets a giant structure in motion, it might as well be made out of toothpicks. They are just NOT built to cope with that AT ALL.". . .all fluff. Tells me nothing. Toothpicks? However, you state further "Static engineering and kinetic engineering are two wildly different animals." which is much closer, but lacking. Static and kinetic are different, calling them "wildly different" is a little unprofessional. Nevertheless, you were on to something, but left me hanging. You then go on to give me your resume. I do not need that. I need some substance. Build upon the static and kinetic argument. I am perfectly willing to abmit I may be wrong. Show me.

Example: Fact - An object at rest (static) will have more resitance to movement than that same object on the same surface, in motion (kinetic). One of my physics professors used the example of stopping a car as follows. You do not want to lock up the tires. If you do lock up, you will have less stopping power than if you were to apply the brakes just to point before locking up. This is how anti-lock brakes came about. Engineers took the science and applied it to a real world situation. The anti-lock electronics does this job for you. Actually, what happens is that the electronics will release the brake whenever the wheel stops turning, once the wheel starts turning normal braking returns and so on, which gives the desired result. I confronted my professor after class. I was wondering if I would be better off locking up instead of trying to duplicate the action of the anti-lock brake system. He stated that locking up is undesireable. Not only do you not stop as quickly, but you also have no contol when your tires are locked up, which I should have known. In fact, I felt rather stupid for bringing it up.

I have to admit, CD is alluring. If its true, surely it should be at the center of the stage. Again, this is science, not something the neo-lib-con-artists can hand wave away. Curious, those that know buildings are rolling their eyes and walking away. Are you going to roll your eyes and walk away? Or are you going to stick around and educate me?

Have you ever read Dianetics? Truth be told, I have.

I see you have added more commentary. I am sorry, but my comments on your latest are going to have to wait 'til the morrow.

Peace.
by V
Saturday Jun 10th, 2006 11:53 PM
I already stated they were not identical and that none really are.

"To insist that this is a result of explosive charges placed in advance combined with the planes flying into precisely the right spot strains credulity pretty severely in the Occam's Razor sense."

I am afraid I do not understand. Are you saying that there could not be explosives throughout the top third of the towers?

"If CD had been framed this way from the beginning, would YOU have believed it? This is what you have to address."

I would need more info to answer that. See above.

"I disagree. In both of my examples, the buildings had been reduced to naked steel skeletons. In other words *most of the structural load had burned away* and so the steel was *very lightly loaded*, so when it failed it did so in an almost leisurely way and *did not collapse entirely*. *Lots of twisted steel rose a story or two*."

How does that relate to 911? How long were these structures burning?

"fire CAN, WILL, and HAS weakened steel structures to the point of failure."

Not like on 911.

"The whole point of those examples, as I said, is that they rebut the CD crowd's *favorite line* that this has never happened. You evaded this. This is the sort of thing that gets me mad. It's dishonorable to blithely change emphasis when one of your talking points gets blown up. It as much as announces that the component "facts" of your argument don't matter to you. You're ideologically committed to controlled demolition and that's that. Fuck reality. This makes you about as persuasive as a Jehovah's Witness shoving his face into my house to harangue me into coming to his church. It's fanatical and dishonest behavior. That's not how you're going to win people over. The 9-11 truth movement is in danger of developing a cult mentality. This would be the finest gift you could hand over to the power structure you're opposing, and it's entirely possible they're helping you go there"

Why do you think that is the CDers favorite line.

I did not evade it. You gave examples that I thougt were not representative of what occured on 911. Facts do matter to me. How can you say otherwise? What unmitigated gall. You want to talk about reality, yet you give me for an explanation of the events after structural failure as "I'm sorry, but once something catastrophic sets a giant structure in motion, it might as well be made out of toothpicks."

Which leads me back to my previous post. Please, explain to me the basic principles involved that turn steel structures into toothpicks.
by TheDossier
Sunday Jun 11th, 2006 6:06 AM
Take a look at this report: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch4.pdf

It shows what happened to the buildings that didn't fully collapse on 9/11. These were low-rise buildings (8-9 stories) with regular grid pattern steel framing. You can clearly see the damage caused by fire, to the steel connections and beams/columns. Now, add another 40 stories on top of these buildings and I think they may have collapsed entirely, due to the increased load from above.

People say "no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire alone before" Wait a minute, didn't planes fly into the buildings, or am I missing something?

And with seven, debris from the falling tower fell into it: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf

Hope you've got broadband, those pdfs are quite large.
by TheDossier
Sunday Jun 11th, 2006 8:38 AM
Some Common Misconceptions Regarding the Collapse of the WTC.

Free Fall Time of Collapse
With all the smoke and dust it is impossible to give an accurate time for the entire collapse. What can be seen free falling is in fact loose debris.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/04/11/wtc_core.mpg

"Squibs"
Debris seen shooting out from the building's exterior walls as collapse progressed, could in fact be compressed air being expelled out under great pressure, like a giant syringe being squeezed. The exit points could be ventilation ducts. If these were explosions, what were they attached to? The outer wall or the central columns? Blowing holes in the outer wall would do nothing, so they must be the core. But wait, if attached to the core why does the explosion exit through a small point only?
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session5/5Ferreira.pdf

Steel and Fire
It is often said that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. Structural steel does not need to melt to fail. At around 550°C steel will start to lose its strength. This is way lower than the melting point of 1400°C. Steel will also expand when exposed to heat, putting undue stress on adjacent members. Tests have shown that normal office fires in modern offices with hydrocarbon materials can reach temperatures of 1300°C.
http://www.interactfire.co.uk/legislation.asp

Kevin Ryan
Ryan says the steel was certified to ASTM E119. He obviously knows nothing of this test. The ASTM E119 standard fire test requires that specimens be representations of actual building construction - ie. complete with fire-proofing. A mock-up of the proposed construction is subjected to a typical fire in a furnace. This verifies that the construction will hold out for the required amount of hours. With the WTC, the impact dislodged the fire-proofing. The test results therefore do not reflect the removal of fire-proofing by aircraft or flying debris. He seems to be suggesting that the steel was tested on its own without fire insulation. If you were to construst a steel framed building without fire protection it would instantly be deemed unfit for occupation by the authorities.
http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/Engineering_Journal4/262_EJ_gewaintroup.pdf
Note: The subsidiary that Ryan directed, specializes in the testing of drinking water, according to the Web site for Environmental Health Laboratories.

Eutectic Reactions
Some say the presence of sulphur on the WTC steel indicates the use of thermate. Maybe there is another explanation. "The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple - and this is scary - as acid rain." Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says. From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

Preservation of Evidence
It seems that there was a thorough investigation of the WTC remains. Debris was meticulously examined by the country's leading experts in the relevant fields. http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html There was a problem with the preservation of evidence which has been addressed here: http://www.house.gov/boehlert/wtctoprez2.htm The bill gives NIST, etc. similar powers to that of the NTSB. The events of 9/11 were unprecedented, so the need for such a bill had not been anticipated. It's usual for new laws to come in after an event or incident has taken place for the first time, because only then does the problem become apparent.

As we can see, the demolition theory just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 9/11 movement should put this on the back burner, and concentrate on the other evidence.
by cheneydontcare
Wednesday Jun 14th, 2006 8:48 PM
About the WTC by NIST and UL.

An interview with Kevin Ryan

http://157.22.130.4:80//data/20060614-Wed1300.mp3
by NeonUris
Thursday Jun 29th, 2006 10:06 AM
commissions..

Government "experts"

Kennedy was INDEED killed my a "magic bullet"

offical finding.

"And the ones seen dancing were thought to be insane.. by the ones that could not hear the music." Nietsche


All bullshit aside... the COVERUP is real.

The COVERUP is real.
The COVERUP is real.


by damo
(dahornett [at] msn.com) Friday Jun 30th, 2006 12:18 PM

i have followed this thread and i have looked at the nist report full of tables daigrams gif'S very convincing but why does it stop at thr point when global collapse followed because for me that is the most pertinant sequence of events that need explaining. i can buy (with considerable reservations ) the damage followed by fire caused the localised pancaking of 5/6 floors but how does this then totally disintegrate the building into dust. even nist has the top 30 floors of the south tower tipping over on masse what happened to them i looked to me like they disintegrated in mid air rather than crashing to ground an a massive block which you would expect no?
by Turbo
Monday Jul 3rd, 2006 1:35 AM
"Anyone who says there must have been explosives in the buildings either has no understanding of the basic principles of construction or is an agent of disinformation bringing ridicule to the 9/11 movement."

Really?

You note that the "experts" who are best qualified to explain the cause of the collapses are structural and civil engineers. Such as the ones below who all claimed that the fires melted the steel?

John Knapton - Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle

Chris Wise - structural engineer

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager

Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer

Do these people have "no understanding of the basic principles of construction"?

Or perhaps they are "bringing ridicule" to their professions by making ridiculously incorrect statements?

Or, what about this....

There are no "experts" on global collapses of steel framed highrise buildings due to fire and/or damage....because the only time in history it supposedly occurred for those reasons was on 9/11, when three such buildings collapsed on a single day.
by TheDossier
Monday Jul 3rd, 2006 4:45 PM
It all depends on your definition of "melt"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=49775&dict=CALD
by Turbo
Wednesday Jul 5th, 2006 12:01 AM
I assume you are referring to definition 1, not 2? Although, I will grant you, it's always possible that the steel was in love with the aluminum or concrete, and "melted" at the sight of it! (hehe)

And I also assume you are referring to the definition of "melt" as to include "soften"? (as well as turn to liquid)

If so, why would you believe that they meant the steel "softened", instead of the more common sense and accurate explanation - that they meant it reached its "melting point"? Forging steel is done by "softening" it, and "melting" steel is meant differently, as one example of the distinction in common use.

Btw, I'm a fan of your videos, etc. on your site. Good work on the many controversial issues. Maybe one day, I hope, you'll see there is also complete logic to the explanation of 9/11's controlled demolitions!!
by damo
Thursday Jul 6th, 2006 3:40 AM

dossier the same argument holds for both .Why would compressed air only come out of one small hole?Given that the air contains dust what you are suggesting is that debris from the "destruction wave "above is being forced though the vetillation shafts and out of the building a specific points.Have you got some tower blue prints that could give weight to this hypothesis . If these ventilation shafts do exist would you concede that it is possible that they could also provide an exhaust for explosive charges?
by TheDossier
Thursday Jul 6th, 2006 9:02 AM
Ventilation Layout here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session5/5Ferreira.pdf

If these were explosions, what were they attached to? The outer wall or the central columns? Blowing holes in the outer wall would do nothing, so they must be the core. But wait, if attached to the core why does the explosion exit through a small point only?
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 2:20 AM

but why is the "compressed air" only coming out of small holes also?

are you saying debris from the destruction zone is forced down the ventillation system and out through small outlets at the outerwall of the building?
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 3:11 AM
Because the ducting goes vertically, to serve all floors - see the previous link to the M&E layouts. These ducts are like veins running through the building.

"are you saying debris from the destruction zone is forced down the ventillation system and out through small outlets at the outerwall of the building?" - Yes, I assume this because of the uniformity of the "squib" positions. They appear to conform with the ducting layout drawings.

The demo people are now saying 'thermate', this doesn't actually explode, so which is it? RDX or thermate?

Again, if squibs are explosions why are they blowing up the outer wall? They should near the centre of the building at the core.
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 4:29 AM

it seems to me that both sides of this argument are (ab)using science to suit there own ends, from what i remember you look at the evidence and then try to find the best or most pausable explanation for it. what NIST and some "demo people" are doing is starting with the conclusion and make the evidence fit it

i am not a demolition expert and am not wedded to the idea that explsives were used but you look at the evidence and ask yourself "what caused that?"
what i would expect to see the top 15 stories (the ones above the crash zone)crahing down through the building like a pile driver to produce the compressed air you describe. On all the footage i have seen the tops of both towers crumble into pieces and the detruction zone seems to be quite narrow(a lot of the mass of the building seems to fall away from the footprint) . These phenomina are hard to reconcile with the official theory
i do accept that the "demo lobby" need to provide some more detailed possibilities for where and what were used BUT DONT FORGET NIST DOES NOT HAVE ANY COMPUTER SIMULATIONS FOR THE COLLAPSE(AFTER CONDITIONS FOR COLLAPSE WERE REACHED) ETHER
by TheDossier
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 4:55 AM
The key thing with all of this, is that the demo people are talking out of their collective behinds (arses). They know little, if at all anything, about building construction and hence make glaring errors with their ideas of demolition. If they want to wake up the world to 9/11 this is not the way to go about it.
by damo
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 5:15 AM

im not a demo person actually like i have said im just looking at what i have seen with an enquiring scientific (i read chemistry,with subsid maths and physics) mind. I have also siad that the NIST report theories seem ,on the surface , to be pausable. The problem i have is that the outcome from these initial conditions seems to me to be very unlikly and have been looking for an explanation but NIST DOES NOT PROVIDE ONE . Is that not strange you prport to be a skeptic of the 911 atacks yet you find nothing at all controversial with the collapse of the three towers?
by Turbo
Saturday Jul 8th, 2006 2:22 AM
I never thought I'd see the day when the Warren Report was usurped as the "gold standard" of investigatory charades by the Government's comprehensive 9/11 investigation. And NIST, as the US Gov't agency delegated by the US Gov't administration to investigate the collapses.....well, sort of. More precisely, they were given the strict mandate (called their...ah..."working hypothesis") of providing scientific "evidence" - to conclude beyond any doubt - that the collapses were caused by fire and/or plane impact damage. And, as the ultimate authority and gospel truth on the subject, they shall decree to the many unqualified, uneducated greenhorns (us), that nothing else - absolutely nothing else (but ESPECIALLY not explosives) - caused the collapses. So they told us that.....

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

And that's all we needed to hear to stop believing in that crazy theory, don't you agree? Admittedly, NIST doesn't say if they ever actually LOOKED for evidence of explosives. But, they obviously must have done a thorough, exhaustive investigation. They must have left no stone unturned. They sifted through tons of steel, and found absolutely nothing that would indicate explosives had been used. Right?

The truth is, they did not find a SINGLE PIECE OF STEEL that supported their "working hypothesis" and their conclusion that the steel weakened due to fires and initiated the collapses. In fact, the physical evidence they did collect completely contradicts that theory. Every sample of core column steel they tested proved to have never reached above 250 C. And EVERY sample of steel they analyzed was only exposed to fires BELOW the temperature needed to INITIATE a loss of strength (600 C)

We should, however, resist the urge to make any final opinions on NIST's WTC reports, given that their "investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete".

Strike One.

NIST then created physical models to prove that these fires caused the steel to weaken and thus initiate collapse. Only those tests failed miserably.....that is, the structures didn't collapse because the steel didn't weaken like they hoped.

Strike Two.

NIST then used computer simulations to show how fires caused the collapses. No need to rely on the actual physical evidence! Just keep punching in numbers until it finally shows how fires really DO cause steel to weaken and initiate a full-tilt collapse!

Home Run!


I think NIST could stand for "Nonsensical Imaginary Steel Temperatures". Or maybe, based on their completely unsupported statement....

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

...it may as well stand for "Nothing Imploded..So There".
by damo
Monday Jul 10th, 2006 1:20 AM

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

i think that has been lifted from the warren comission

(the warren commisson) found no corroborating evidence for alternate hypothesis that (jfk) was brought down by a (coup d'eta ) using (cia assests) planted prior to (november 22 1963)
by TheDossier
Monday Jul 10th, 2006 9:11 AM
The Warren Commission investigated the assassination of JFK. NIST on the other hand, investigated one small part of 9/11, ie. the collapses. You should be comparing The Warren Commission with the 9/11 Commission. NIST didn't oversee the whole of the 9/11 investigation.

It's the 9/11 Commission that is at fault here. They failed to follow up on all the anomalies of what happened on and before 9/11.
by damo
Tuesday Jul 11th, 2006 1:34 AM

Amazing something we agree on, the 911 commisson was a total whitewash (just like the warren commisson)
what is odd is that you place so much stall by a report of a government agency (the same government reponsible for the commisson) .do you really think NIST started with a blank canvass and sought by means of a thourogh and independant investigation, using all available evidence (apart from most steel had been shipped of to china!!)to find the truth? or was it set up to confirm the theory that planes and fires alone caused the collapse,
why has NIST not furnished any information about what happened after golbal collapes was inevitable,they said it was for brevity of the report,
if you do take the report as acurate even then it must be one of the most important aspects as if we knew the mechanism of the global collapse there could be important lessons for other similar structures.
what i find the biggest giveaway agout NIST is this omission
It seems to me impossible for anyone to take impacts fire and gravity and produce a model that replicates what we saw on 911

If you think this is a distraction from the real crimes of 911, intelligence " failure" air defence "confusion" why do you expend so much energy trying to refute "demo " types?
by Turbo
Wednesday Jul 12th, 2006 7:54 PM
The 9/11 Commission began their "investigation" with the completely unproven and unfounded assumption that al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda alone, were responsible for 9/11. Led, of course, by the fiendish mastermind bin Laden, directing his 19 henchmen from his "Cave of Evil" in Afghanistan.

NIST began with their "working hypothesis" - that fire and/or plane impact damage caused the collapses. Only evidence that "fit the box" was to be considered. Of course, the physical evidence and physical simulations all failed to prove their hypothesis. Undeterred, they used the good old stand-by - computer simulations!

The SEC dismissed suspected insider trading because.....the investors "had no possible connections to al Qaeda"! And because we all know it's an undisputed fact that al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda alone, was behind 9/11, the investors are of course completely innocent!

Circular reasoning at its finest. Assume you already know who is guilty before you begin the investigation, thus anyone not connected to this "guilty" party is automatically deemed innocent.

I shake my head at the gullibility of so many...
by TheDossier
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 2:02 PM
We need to keep the collapses separate from the rest of 9/11. Why? because there is no evidence for explosives, but there is for the other parts of 9/11. Every time I see someone (scholars) on the mainstream media (eg. fox) questioning 9/11, demolition always comes up. The discussion will, unfortunately and inevitably, go down hill from that point.
by damo
Thursday Jul 13th, 2006 6:13 PM

there aint no evidence full stop. its all gone,you dont think that odd?

i personally think there are many blind allies and more sinister dead ends out there for researchers,

what is most annoying is the paranoid psy op hunters and merciless self promoters who are so married to there own personal pet theory that anyone who has a different view must be an agent of disinfo. ther aint nothing worse than listening to someone (even if there right) who loves the sound of there own voice!

what i have said about the towers and seven is there are some aspect that need to be questioned and im affraid dossier you aint nowhere nearer answering them.
i think the pentagon attack is a minefield as everything contradicts everthing else
flight 93 again is another enigma as far as i can see .was it shot down? and if so by whom and for what purpose,the crash site is a bit strange

i think the clearest part of the whole 9/11 think is the motives,just look at the effects its had, it aint done nowt for osama(oswald) and his cave gang that for sure

by Turbo
Saturday Jul 15th, 2006 12:20 AM
Evidence.

Evidence for fire and plane impact damage causing the collapses of WTC 1,2 and 7:

Hmmm....um....well....none at all, actually. None of the steel reached temperatures high enough to weaken and initiate the collapses. None of the physical model simulations reproduced the collapses in a controlled environment.

Evidence for explosives causing the collapses of WTC 1,2 and 7:

*Witnesses:

William Rodriguez, and over a dozen others, heard and felt explosions in the basement BEFORE the plane even hit the tower, and saw first-hand the severe injuries these explosions caused other co-workers.

Numerous people, including firefighters and media, reported hearing many secondary explosions. Below are just two of the many statements......

"On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

- NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli

"A debate began to rage because . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade"

- NYFD Firefighter Christopher Fenyo

*Two independent reports of molten pools of steel in all three basements. That the fires could cause this is a 100% impossibility.

*USGS thermal images of the WTC complex taken five days after 9/11 prove temperatures still existed above 700 C in spots under the rubble of the three buildings. The fires on 9/11 CANNOT have caused the steel to reach these temperatures. Not during the fires, not immediately after the collapses, and most certainly not five days after the collapses.

*Molten slags are also a possibility, yet to be made available for analysis by Dr. Steven Jones et al.

*Numerous telltale visual indications of controlled demolitions: Near free-fall, uniform global collapses of all three buildings. "Squibs" firing out from all three buildings. Several other characteristics of CD's were also evident.

These are only a few samples from the numerous points of evidence for controlled demolition. The fire/impact theory is an absolutely unsustainable, unfounded, unprovable and unreproducable pile of rubbish. It uses "Roadrunner" cartoon-type physics, supported by Government "experts" - straight faced liars that make a mockery of their professions with absurd claims of fire being able to initiate free-fall "pancake" collapses and the like.

Dossier, you are well aware of the countless historical and present-day criminal acts of governments, with the current US administration setting a new benchmark for corruption, murder, acts of treason, and blatant violations of International Laws. Their butchery is undeniable, through the unprovoked attacks, invasions and continued occupations of two nations. The deliberate lies they spewed forth to "justify" these atrocities is also undeniable.

But, the confiscation of evidence, destruction of evidence, repression of evidence, manipulation of evidence and the outright denial and ignoring of evidence for the events of 9/11, are just as undeniable. That is, I see no valid reason why you would deny these facts.

You said earlier...

"I suggest everyone involved, drop this ridiculous notion of explosives or, at the very least, put it way down the bottom of the list of 9/11 anomalies. There are so many rock solid points that can be used instead:
- PNAC (pearl harbor event)
- oil decline
- Afghan pipelines, UNOCAL, ENRON, Karzai, Taliban, opium
- John O'Neill resignation
- terror drills on the same morning, Vigilant Guardian/Warrior, NRO
- scrambled jets confusion
- al-Qaida connections to intelligence services, bin laden CIA, MI6, pakistan ISI
- bin laden kidney treatment at hospitals
- $100,000 to Atta from ISI, Ahmad meetings
- hijackers' identities in question, their training
- closure of FBI investigations into terror networks
- Able Danger, foreknowledge
- cancelled flights of officials
- put options, trading
- Northwoods, Gladio, P2, IRA, Mossadeq, Lockerbie, USS Liberty, Bay of Pigs, Bali, Contras, Suez, Panama
- anthrax attacks
- OPEC, euros
- the lies put out by bush admin, blair"

Each of the above points, while certainly valid, fall well short of providing "rock solid" evidence that the US Government was fully behind 9/11.

- PNAC, oil decline, pipelines, O'Neill resignation, etc - all true, but so what? These are issues pointing to Gov't corruption, and possibly related to 9/11 in varying degrees, but certainly not direct evidence for Government involvement in 9/11.

- Terror drills on 9/11, cancelled flights of officials, etc. - points to Government foreknowledge, yes. But are they, or could they be, put forth as solid evidence for such foreknowledge? To wit, these accusations can be quashed by Gov't claims such as "bizarre coincidences".

- Scrambled jet confusion, hijackers identities in question, etc. - more indications lending credence to Government involvement, but denied through Gov't claims of "incompetence" and "lack of communication". And again, what could be held up as solid evidence to counter these claims to prove 9/11 was an actual Gov't operation?

- Insider trading - as I mentioned earlier, these accusations were already written off by the SEC with a simple "investors had no connection to al Qaeda". Without first proving al Qaeda was not behind 9/11, since there is no evidence for it, the insider trading will remain a non-issue.

But controlled demolition cannot be dismissed with claims of incompetence, nor with claims of an al Qaeda operation, nor with claims of incredible coincidence. It is, indeed, the most "rock solid" point towards proving a direct Government involvement and operation, which would prove, beyond any doubt, a Government guilty of the mass murder of its own innocent citizens.

by TheDossier
Saturday Jul 15th, 2006 6:40 AM
If you're so sure that the WTC was demolished with explosives, then please, provide a 'detailed' account of what you think happened that day, from setup to final execution of the attacks. What was the sequence of events that led to the final outcome? You may have to start some months, or even years before 9/11.

To simply say explosives were used, isn't good enough. You need some sort of hypothesis to get to that point. One that fits and works neatly with the known facts. It has to be within the realms of possibility.
by craig
Tuesday Jul 18th, 2006 9:12 AM
I have more than enough proof for you that explosives or something simalar was used...
looking at your OWN documantary the evidence is in plane site...
you want to press the bullshit pancake theory??? then you do that with very little support from people who actually know.
I will just say... William Rodrequez... check out what he has to say about the bombs going off in the base ment...he has a speech abouts somewhere...he was the head janiter and has worked in the trade center for 20 years.. a very moving talk and well worth the watch.
ok, now for YOUR OWN evidence which I feel you must have over looked... you have 3 seconds worth of film.. at the 23mins and 25 secs to 23mins and 28 secs... you focus in on the fire in the corner of the building.. you can clearly see a white hot flash with molten metal streaming out of the tower... now I am a welder mate and I can positvely say with 500% accuracy that that is not normal fire melting that support. Any one that has oxy cut with a welder will see this.. have a close look.... now those outer beams are 4inches thick and no fire at any temp. would melt through it like this unless the heat in highly concerntrated in the one spot... ask anyone who welds for living... or better yet ask some one who demolishes buildings for a living they will tell you exactly what it is...
by craig
Tuesday Jul 18th, 2006 9:34 AM
also,
Larry silverstien has admitted on cbs that they decided to PULL building 7... so we know for a fact that was a controlled demolishion... from the owners OWN admittance.... so when you look at the over head satalite photo showing the hot spots 5 days later you can clearly see hot spots at the both towers and at building 7...cross refference this with other demolishions and you will see that the hotspot is consistant with controlled demolishions... so we know for a fact that building 7 was demolished so taking the data from building 7 its safe to say that the 2 towers fell using the same method... not that this proves that explosives were used but its making your pancake theory look pretty thin mate...
back to building 7.... so Larry has admitted that they PULLED building 7.. they only had a few hours to set up charges which would normally take weeks... so this suggests that the explosives were already set... proving fore knowledge... and still to this day in the OMISSION COMMISION theres still no explaination for this building coming down, you can clearly see from the vidoes of this building falling the use of explosives.. they say fire did it... we know it wasnt fire...you can see the explosives...

how do you explain the flash just before the plane hits BOTH towers... looks like an explosive to me....
then theres the sizmograph showing clearly the explosives going off...
by craig
Tuesday Jul 18th, 2006 4:38 PM
I just went through reading his whole thread... and I ve come to the conclusion that the pancake theory is a little thin... not impossible but a little thin. From all the docos ive seen over the last few months none say it better than alex jones's "martial law rise of a police state"...
or "in plane site"
loose change is a good doco too but leaves a lot uncovered as does this doco... all in all its good to have both views documented, this way we can draw our OWN conclusions.

there is absolutely no doubt at all about the inside job theory in my eyes.. this sort of attack is just too huge for anyone else to pull it off.. again not impossible but very implausable... I mean norad standing down.. theres clear evidence from the flight tower, he says "flight (such in such) has been hijacked".. "are you sure?? is this a drill".. "no its not a drill"...
then theres the fire guy, who was killed when the tower colapses... "he says the fires are almost out 10-45 spot fires easy knock it out with 2 lines"... thats from his intercom...so to say that the fire was so fierce it weakened the steal is highly unlikely...again not entirely imposible, but given the fact that NO other building in modern history has done this.. its highly unlikely
with the eveidence thats come out now and the lies and the cover ups then it could be safe to say that these buildings were rigged with demolishion explosives.. we know for fact that building 7 was wired with demolision explosives weeks before hand... considering it takes weeks to set them up and they only had a few hours.
you say people hearing explosive sounds is explained by the floors popping... and I believe you could be right.. but like I said.. with the proven foreknowledge its pretty safe to say that the government had some hand in it.. so you could make the assumption that explosives could have been used in stategic places to help the "pancake Theory" along... looking at the molten metal in the 3 secs of film in your documentary as ive stated above people would be foolish to rule out the use of explosives, metal just doesnt melt with a white hot flash like this with out the use of a magnesium compound... or something simular. and its very soon after this the tower collapses
so I guess all in all we all come to the same "inside involvment" theory...theres just too much evidence being covered up not too...
as stated above by some one, its good to have both theories documented to give a wider view...
also, given the MASSIVE implementations that the building just fell like this, then I would think that the steal and wreckage would be very usefull in many years to come to investagate how we can strengthen this sort of structure for future refference.. since the evidence was destroyed.. I can ONLY come to this logical conclusion.. there was absolutle NO way this building came down from fire, other wise we would be looking into EVERY building built since for same flaws.. we are not.. this tells me that people dont seem too concerned about the structural flaws because there were NONE, the building was or must have been brought down with explosives causing structural damage, not fire...

Like I said I weld for a living, I am not some learned engineer type guy.. but I know when I see molten metal mate and thats what I see in that 3 secs of film... very simular to an oxy cut... but much faster and much hotter.. white hot is the hottest you can get...
I also used to build combustion heaters... the metal used is only1/4 plate steel, not 4 inches thick?? and these fires burn constantly for months on end with simular if not HOTTER that a normal fire... my fire place is 20 years old and although its a little buckled from the constant heat.. it hasnt melted.. remeber its only 5-6mm thick not 4inches(100m)
by TheDossier
Wednesday Jul 19th, 2006 8:37 AM
There is a thread just for building seven, here:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/09/18141561.php
by damo
Thursday Jul 20th, 2006 3:21 AM

o" simply say explosives were used, isn't good enough. You need some sort of hypothesis to get to that point. One that fits and works neatly with the known facts. It has to be within the realms of possibility."

i would disagree dosier , (i would also say that this also should apply to the theories of NIST)

WHAT WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE FIRST IS A MECHANISM FOR COLLAPSE THAT DECRIBES THE KNOWN OUTCOME this mechanism can only use gravity as the driver of the collapse as there were no other forces present.

this already is a very difficult task (ESPECIALLY FOR NIST AS THEY CHOSE NOT TO BOTHER!!!!)

TAKE THE SOUTH TOWER
what do we see?
well the collapse does seem to initiate around the impact zone( i admit this is a very tricky ,though not insoluable ,point for any demo theory)
what happens next?
what i saw was the corner of the tower fail leading to the top 30+ stories to topple( as a block)
noe lets think about it a little. planes and fire have damaged the impact zone (maybe severly enough to cause a catastrophic core failure) . i have not read any theory that fire reached or damaged any floors above or below impack (smoke obviusly did and maybe fire did but not significantly)
so what would you expect to happen next?
what my physics training says the top would continue to pivot around the corner (it would have temendous inertia so will continue it move in the same direction unless acted on by another force) eventually snaping off maybe crashing through a number of floors on the impact corner and would come crashing to the ground upside down (but more or less in one piece) causing major damage at street level.
what about the rest of the tower?
what i would expect is that as the top had broken off and fallen away a lot of the load would no longer be acting on it so would just have stood maybe 60 floors or so

THE NORTH TOWER

at least from your point of view this has some symetry.
let us say the fires wewr intense and the damage to the core extensive and that this triggered a nice symetrical failiure of core and outer collumns ,again there isnt any damage to the structure BELOW the impact zone. again we only have gravity to work with
so to start with we have a pancaking of the floors around impact (that seems quite plausible)again the top of the stucture remained intact only ten to fifteen floors this time and the tv mast
what would happens next?
if the remaining structure was to fail which in itself is highly debatable im sure the core had the strenth to hold up the conserteanered floors. what you would expect is the pancaking effect that was initially propsed
floors crasing down onto each other the top of the building acting like the "piledriver"
but with this mechanism you would expect to see pankeked floors at the base of the tower and either a large part of the core or the top floors of the building sitting on a pile of rubble

THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SAW HAPPEN , WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS EXPLAIN WHAT DID HAPPEN WITHOUT USING ANY EXTERNAL FORCE. YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES FIRST

and before you go "well there's no evidence for explosives" no one has ever looked for physical evidence of explosives and as all the evidence has gone no one can
you have got to answer the question

"CAN I EXPLAIN , IN A WAY THAT CORROBORATES THE KNOWN EVIDENCE, THE COLLAPSE OF THE TOWERS AND SEVEN USING GRAVITY AS THE ONLY EXTERNAL FORCE"





by craig
Thursday Jul 20th, 2006 5:49 AM
watch those 3 secs of film in the documentary, you can clearly see a white hot flash and molten metal pouring out the corner of the building just below the fire.... white hot flash in not your normal fire mate.. it is a charge used in demolishion to cut through steel beams...
its clear as day...

dossier, if you still deney it then youve been fooled by the whole bulshit story... yet you do beleive the gooverment did it dont you??? so think about this.. marvin bush was running security proir to 9/11, sections of the building were closed off and men in overalls were seen coming and going.. like maitenence guys. nothing suspicios...I mean they have NEVER closed sections of the building before right.. but they must be doing some sort of maitenence.... all very innocent...untill the building collapses and people suspect the use of explosives.. and bingo... men in overalls, sections of the building closed.. so theres the oppertunity...
by TheDossier
Saturday Jul 22nd, 2006 5:05 AM
The US were involved, with help from its usual partners, but you won't find their fingerprints anywhere because they contracted out the 'op' to Saudi Arabian intelligence (also a partner). They, in turn, used islamic extremists to carry out 9/11 (the extremists did not know they were helping the US). This way, the US could always claim perfect plausible deniability (two layers). With Saddam gone, the Saudis could relax and get rid of the US bases, there-by pleasing its restless population.

You know the Bushes and the UK are in bed with the Saudis. The corrupt Saudis have always helped, because they need the US to maintain their privileged position. The CIA like the Saudis because they are Wahabis. The Muslim Brotherhood also feature here.

The CIA like to maintain strict governance in other countries because the west gets the natural resources, and the puppet dictators live like kings.

The perfect plan, and it didn't require spooks running around placing explosives.

http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/072305Chin/072305chin.html
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,846881,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/03/1059849267409.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/26/saudi.money.trail/index.html

This is where the 9/11 investigation should be focused!
by Turbo
Sunday Jul 23rd, 2006 3:07 AM
I agree completely with what damo said....

"WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS EXPLAIN WHAT DID HAPPEN WITHOUT USING ANY EXTERNAL FORCE. YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES FIRST."

Guess what, damo? You know it, I know it, and most of those here know it - it is NOT possible without explosives.

And NIST damn well knows it. Why doesn't everybody else get a clue, when they have shown beyond any doubt that they can NOT duplicate a collapse in physical models. When no other steel framed highrise has ever collapsed due to fire, before or since 9/11. When all the steel they recovered proved to have never been weakened by fire.

And when Dr. Steven Jones publishes his next paper, with scientific evidence to prove once and for all that thermite/thermate was used to cause the collapses, Mr. Dossier (despite his many other good, positive views) and everyone else who denies it will realize they were wrong.
by TheDossier
Sunday Jul 23rd, 2006 8:51 AM
Here is NIST's final report on the collapses:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

What parts do you not understand?
by DOA
Sunday Jul 23rd, 2006 5:03 PM
well my friend prof jones has done the tests and found it was thermite or thermate ,that is thermite with sulfur added i suggest everyone goes to the site WWW.st911.org here you will find all kinds of profesionals who taking the facts of science have totally pulled apart the supposed "official " version of what brought those towers down never mind the laughable explanation of building 7.
by TheDossier
Monday Jul 24th, 2006 8:58 AM
Eutectic Reactions
Some say the presence of sulphur on the WTC steel indicates the use of thermate. Maybe there is another explanation. "The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple - and this is scary - as acid rain." Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says. From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
by DOA
Monday Jul 24th, 2006 5:04 PM
as i understand it the sprinkler system was replaced TWICE in the last 10 years ,now apparently anyone who was renting in the complex had to give the sprinkler installers full admission to the rented space at any time,indeed the very technicians were on every floor of those buildings and did extensive drilling into the cores of every floor more than ample opportunity to place thermite charges on every floor thereby reducing the building to dust. also the blueprints of the building were taken away from the building in `93 i believe,something that is never done the blueprints stay with the building,also at that time a study and indeed plan was being formulated to bring those buildings down by controlled explosions i will look into this more as i cant quite remember it exactly right now.p.s. what about william rodriguez and his story and indeed the firefighters as well???
by Turbo
Monday Jul 24th, 2006 9:32 PM
Sulfur is not the only substance that has been detected from the WTC debris, according to the latest research from Prof. Jones.

[url]http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/AnsQJones1.pdf[/url]

See the above link for further evidence of thermite/thermate. Details include....

Electron microprobe data (page 72) indicates molten metal is mostly Iron, ruling out molten Aluminum from the planes. Page 73 shows little (if any) Chromium, but abundant Manganese, ruling out molten structural steel as a major component. Page 74 shows Aluminum, Sulfur, and Potassium in spots. Page 76 shows Manganese and Fluorine in abundance.

Page 77 explains that Fluorine and Potassium Permanganate are used as oxidizers in thermite reactions.

Page 79 shows previously-molten metal sample WTC steel with Iron, Fluorine, Sulfur and Potassium in abundance, along with Calcium.

Page 87 explains that [i]Sol-gels to hold the gels to hold the thermite might leave tell might leave tell-tale residue - 1,3-diphenlypropane[/i]

Regarding analysis of the WTC dust...

Page 88 states [i]One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that
dwarfed all others": “1,3-diphenylpropane. We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever
done," Swartz said.

Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggest the high-tech sol-gel thermite arson used on the WTC buldings.[/i]

And page 93 states....

The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal, provide compelling evidence that thermite reaction compounds (aluminothermics) were used, meaning thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers and WTC 7.[/i]

And yes, I certainly do understand the NIST WTC report. As the same link above observes with specific details, the report is basically a farce. The NIST investigation began with a pre-determined conclusion and desperately tried to twist, ignore and fabricate the evidence to make it "fit" that conclusion. They failed miserably.

But as I said, when Prof. Jones and his group have concluded their analysis, and published their findings, the proof that explosives brought down the towers will be irrefutable.

by TheDossier
Tuesday Jul 25th, 2006 8:59 AM
Sounds to me like Jones is starting with a pre-determined conclusion.

For his report to be "irrefutable" would require him to eliminate all other possible causes for the presence of those thermite chemicals/metals. Has he done this? Until he does, his work proves nothing.

"In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenyl propane [1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] is found in significant concentrations. This species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polyvinyl chloride materials, which are believed to be in abundance at the WTC site."
http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xmlreport.display?deid=62021&z_chk=65088

If you care to read his sourcing, you will find he conveniently leaves things out (polyvinyl chloride). Very scientific.
by TheDossier
Tuesday Jul 25th, 2006 9:11 AM
Look, if the 9/11 movement were to drop the demolition bullshit they'd be a lot more potent. As long as people keep bringing this up (on TV, etc.) the govt are safe. They must be laughing every time they hear: "bombs in the building", "thermate", "controlled demolition", etc.
by Turbo
Tuesday Jul 25th, 2006 9:12 PM
"Pre-determined conclusion?" Unlike the NIST investigation? Talk about sheer bollocks!

1,3 diphenylpropane is not a thermal degradation by-product of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Some polymers may yield 1,3 diphenylpropane in thermal degradation, but certainly not at levels "that dwarfed all others". But it IS a primary component found in sol-gel used with thermite.

And what about all the other anomalous elements found in the once-molten samples? The alternative explanations should be more amusing than ever!

Let's look at some of the evidence and compare the two main theories...

1. Sulfur (in abundance)

Government: Acid rain. IN MOLTEN METAL? AND IN SUCH HIGH LEVELS? FALSE.
Prof. Jones: Thermate byproduct. TRUE.

2. 1,3 diphenylpropane in dust (in levels dwarfing others)

Government: PVC byproduct. FALSE. Other polymers: ONLY IN SMALL AMOUNTS, IF AT ALL.
Prof. Jones: Sol-gel used with thermite. TRUE. In high levels. TRUE.

3. Manganese, Fluorine and Potassium (in abundance)

Government: NO EXPLANATION.
Prof. Jones: Fluorine and Potassium Permanganate are used as oxidizers in thermite reactions. Previously-molten metal sample WTC steel has Iron, Fluorine, Sulfur and Potassium in abundance, along with Calcium. TRUE.

4. Flowing yellow-hot liquid metal seen in photos. Molten metal found in basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

Government: NO EXPLANATION
Prof. Jones: Molten iron is the direct result of a thermite interaction with steel. TRUE.

There are many more examples which all point to thermite being used, while the "official" theorists are increasingly left grasping at straws for alternative explanations.

When Prof. Jones finally nails his investigation down, proving thermite usage beyond ANY doubt, he will publish his paper. And if you choose to believe the Government, when they then make up ever more absurd stories (possibly, such as how commonplace it is for fires to cause steel to become molten iron, containing fluorine and manganese), you will obviously believe whatever they tell you.
by Turbo
Tuesday Jul 25th, 2006 11:46 PM
I also can see Bush and his gang laughing about controlled demolition investigations! In fact, as the independent investigations continue, I can envision any troublesome questions to BushCo. on the issue to be met with momentary silence at first, followed by streams of hysterical laughter and spastic face twitches.
by Puller
Friday Jul 28th, 2006 3:46 AM
I've just come here after TheDossier informed me from the WTC-7 section. {http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/09/18141561.php} I notice that on both threads TheDossier tries to "answer" questions and pardoxes by simply giving the URL to some other site. Whats the point of that? Were here to (aparently) debate with you The merits of the conspiratorial ways in which the WTC complex was destroyed. A point is not strengthened/diminished/proved or disproved by simply blurting out an URL, especially a URL that contains sub-radar personal attacks on people that have openly examined the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that.
by Turbo
Friday Jul 28th, 2006 7:44 PM
Maybe we should call him "Link". Hehe.
by Puller
Monday Aug 14th, 2006 1:52 AM
Well, on reflection, having had a look at The Dossier's site, I think he deserves a lot of credit for his efforts in letting people know about the massive corruption and killings sponsored cheifly by, western governments. We could call him "link" or other far worse things, as indeed, he call call us things like that too, but we'd ALL losing the plot.

While we poke fun at those who totally and sincerely believe there is a dark conspiracy of 9-11 by the neocons / illuminati / world bankers / Zionists / NWO / Masosns whatever, we let those that commit those crimes get away it as we are too busy attacking ourselves.

So, The Dossier, I apologise for being hot under the collar with you. Please accept my apologies. If after all this discussion you still believe that WTC-7 (sorry, I'm branching off about the other webpage talking about WTC-7) collapsed due to non-conspiratorial events, then I wont try and convince you further. I'll still strongly disagree with you, but I'll let it be.

Regards.
by Outside the square
Tuesday Sep 19th, 2006 2:20 AM
Don't you all get it? it was all planned to fall like it did, these terrorists are much more intellegent than you think.Thats why Microsoft and the U.S.GOVT have been in talks about the Terminal Computer Program,a back door to any computer that uses XP or Vista that only the goverment can access and in a case of hostile action take out a whole countries computer inferscruture.I KID YOU NOT.
by Ian Neal
Tuesday Sep 26th, 2006 5:44 AM
Hi thedossier

Like others here I greatly admire the vast majority of your site. What I find far more puzzling is the degree to which you appear to accept without reservation the official triple tower collapse explanations and the extent to which you appear to hold no doubts or suspicions despite the wider picture of 9/11 and US government proven duplicity.

I will go along with you that despite initial appearances the tower collapses is not necessarily the smoking gun 'proof' of an inside job that some people hold it up to be since this is about winning public opinion and support and in attempting to win this support it should be noted that the public lack the engineering knowledge to make a fully informed opinion themeselves and ultimately it boils down to whose experts are most convincing to the lay person.

But your belief that Jones and others who focus on the collapses are really CIA stooges will seriously turn people off your otherwise excellent work

And the strength of your conviction betrays an arrogance in your own abilities that appears unjustified. Feel free to drop by http://www.nineeleven.co.uk. We would value your input in the wider British campaign assuming you are happy to allow others to express their truth that differs from your own

For what it's worth my personal opinion is that the collapses were CD but the whole point of our site is that we have no need to agree on everything
by Jeremy Rys
(Jrys [at] bridgew.edu) Thursday Nov 2nd, 2006 11:19 AM
I studied Physics at Bridgewater State College, I was born and raised in Massachusetts. I am a student of American History and Military History. I have advanced knowledge of construction principles. I have reviewed detailed information on the twin tower's construction. I assure anyone reading this that I am not an agent of disinformation, look up the evidence for yourself and do your own investigation. I'm not trying to bring ridicule to the 9/11 movement, whatever that is?, I only want to make sure that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" really caused 9/11, and not Larry Silverstein who publicly admitted on PBS that he demolished WTC building 7 "pulled the building and watched it collapse." He only got $7 Billion Dollars from the insurance policy on the towers. What would you do for $7 Billion? Think about it. The twin towers collapsed at free fall speed indicating there was little or no slowing down of the collapse. In a pancake collapse, where the vertical trusses fail sequentially, there is a time delay as momentum is tranfered from floor to floor. You would literally see each floor collapse one after another all the way down. If you do a image search for pancake collapse you will also see why it is called that. Because it leaves behind a stack of floors that look almost like a stack of pancakes. In fact if you look at most steel frame building collapses you will see that the building is left partially intact. Concrete parking garages fall in huge pancaked slabs. They are not pulverized into dust. The fact that the twin towers fell straight down into their foot print and left a pile of twisted smoking rubble instead of a stack of pancaked floors makes me question the pancake collapse theory. The twin tower's 47 core columns whice were each made of 10 inch thick steel at the base were completely absent from every picture I can find of ground zero. The core columns you do see are from the upper stories above the impact point of the plane. Could jet grade kerosine have melted the entire core all the way down and created "hot spots" of molten iron that flowed underground for months? Does jet grade kerosine contain sulfur, or does anything else account for the sulfur content in the molten metal. Sulfur lowers the melting point of steel and is often used in conjunction with powdered aluminum and powdered iron oxide or rust to make thermate which produces intense heat and bright white hot molten steel which sparkles brilliantly. Go check out these interesting pictures which show clear evidence of a thermite reaction in the towers and something that melted a steel I-beam with a 45 degree angle cut. This is real evidence with real scientific merit, and it is completely ignored by the "experts" who wrote the 911 commission report. In their report they completely omit this evidence and make no mention of building 7 whatsoever. They call themsleves engineers but they have no understanding of the scientific method. Instead of taking all the evidence and working their way to a probable conclusion, they make a conclusion and use only evidence that supports that conclusion. Why is it so hard to imagine other possibilities? I am a scientist not a terrorist, let's put things into perspective. If someone you knew, who you didn't like, got framed for a murder that your friend committed what would you do? What if you didn't know which one was guilty? You'd do the right thing and stick with your friends, you'd probably even go as far as lying for them. This was the murder of 2,749 innocent victims who were my fellow americans and the rest of us are still being lied to. Some of us by choice. People that still support pancake theory and accept the 911 commission report as a complete, factual, and unbiased publication because they are too afraid to learn the truth. Some deep down inside know that there is something very wrong with 911 and this country but they are too afraid to stand up for what they believe because of the repercussions it will have. Many could lose their jobs, or lose the respect of their military comrades. If I were you I would do as Pilate did and wash your hands of the whole situation. Stop telling lies to protect your friends, you should know by now lies don't protect anyone because the truth comes out. Karma's a bitch. Do you really want to have this on your conscience? All those innocent lives and the fact that you just might be defending a mass murderer by preventing investigation and ignoring evidence. Think think think. God Bless America! Land of the free and home of the brave! Be brave in the face of terror! Amen!
by growamitt
Saturday Dec 16th, 2006 1:56 PM
Means: The American military-industrial complex has for years had the means to access any aircraft for the purpose of external control of that aircraft. Drone aircraft are useful. It is naive to believe that the process of making a drone would *never* be applied to certain aircraft just because they're 'civilian'. Motive: The American military-industrial complex is highly motivate to maintain its position of supremacy, which can only be done with fossil fuels, most particularly oil. American oil fields have long ago peaked, and other non-Middle Eastern oil fields have either peaked or are too costly to utilize at this time. (The Canadian Tar Sands have a very low ERoEI, rendering them viable only in relation to the depletion of other fields). Opportunity: While the take-over the Middle Eastern oil fields was the aim of both the Republican and the Democratic parties, the Democrats were taking too long and were too intent in using 'diplomatic and democratic' methods of doing so. The Republicans had, over the years, built up the necessary money and materials to do the job (media control is nearly entirely in the hands of Republicans, and the very machines used to drive elections - the voting machines - are manufactured by companies owned by Republicans, one of whom vowed to give the 2000 election to Bush with the use of said machines - but that's another story). However, they were hamstrung by not having a puppet president in place. They contolled both the House and the Senate, but without a President, their agenda could not move forward. Rigging an election in the United States was already fairly easy. With Republicans in key political and business positions, it became laughably, stupidly simple to hack the vote. George Bush Jr was prime for the job of puppet president, and it was easily made so. Mission accomplished. The stolen election of 2000 was the opportunity needed to put in place what a few had been working on for so many years. (Remember, Cheney was the Secretary of Defense during Bush #1, Libby was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Resources; Coauthor with Wolfowitz of Defense Planning Guidance, and Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (89-93).) Intent: Many point to a statement in the document _Rebuilding America's Defenses Strategy, Forces, and Recources for a New Century_ (p. 51) which says, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

A study of the document, its authors and supporters, will show clearly the embedded quality of the participants in the Republican party throughout the years spanning from at least the Reagan presidency to the present.

The idea of a massive conspiracy perpetrated by enormous amounts of people is ludicrous. In any given social group, there will be those who believe they're going their bit for the greater good, for their pesonal gain, or whatever, and will contribute an effort to that end. They don't know (and most don't care) about the details of the efforts of others; and the logistics behind educating everyone on all points and keeping all up to date would make some operations impossible. It's enough that some few in key positions in any given area will control those areas, some few in others the same, and the whole can be managed by a small number in long-term positions at the top - the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfovitz et al cabal.

What has happened is deplorable. However, each one of us would kill to protect our loved ones if such dire circumstances were to arise. Power corrupts, and those in power can, will, and do kill many more for even less direct reasons than protection of the life of a loved one. The only real difference is the position each of us occupies in the socio-political group, and how much power we exercise in those positions. None of us has any real right to criticize what has been done because, given the circumstances, few if any of us would behave all that much differently. Human nature has not changed in hundreds of thousands of years, and probably never will.
by craig
Thursday Jul 26th, 2007 12:51 AM
hey .. its been a while since I posted here... and the main theme seems to be about explosives...

we all agree that the US gov. had a lot more to with this than theyre letting on...
Its a very interesting comment the dossier has made regarding the Saudis... and considering all the so called "terrorists' were Saudis... makes you wonder why we aren't invading them doesn't it??

with the common knowledge that the US gov had a massive hand in this... then people need to keep an open mind... and never rule out that explosives were NOT utilized in this attack.. they certainly had opportunity.. and motive for their use.. to make sure those buildings came down... so couldn't it be possible that some sort of demolishion charges were used... all be it in a non controlled fashion??

ive watch relentlessly the amount of docos.. good or bad to try and figure this all out.. as with many others... and looking at the footage of all 3 of these building collapsing... as well as countless other footage of other buildings.. being demolished... I just cant see how on earth these massive structures can be brought down in such a way with out the use of some sort of explosives... theres certainly plenty of reports.. and footage showing extremely loud bangs... I guess it could be floors collapsing.. it could also be collapsing from small explosives.. one peice of footage ive tracked down.. shows a massive white pyroclastic cloud coming from the base of the towers rising about 50 or so stories... just before the first tower starts to collapse... something made this cloud... and it definitely wasnt any "fireball".. as the buildings were burning for almost an hour before they came down.. this smoke plume is rising...gets to around 50 stories, just as the 1st tower starts to fall...

the thing that leads me to think it was explosives over a structural collapse from heat.. is this... when things burn.. they tend to buckle from heat... not collapse all at once.. structurally the building should have been able to handle the weight of a collapsed floor.. or 2... although it wouldnt be out of the question for this part of the building to collapse.. i just can see how the whole thing just collapsed all at once.. it does seem very strange...

and really when you think about it... the comment the dossier has made about the Saudis .. is probably right on the money.. this way the US gov. doesnt have any "fingerprints" on this event.. except maybe .. if explosives were proved to have been used... then people would be thinking who else could..

theres absolutely NO doubt in my mind that the US gov had everything to do with this.. or at the very least.. elements with in the US gov... this is plain from the extensive efforts to cover up and with hold evidence... and quite frankly.. whether explosives were used or not... the fact that people were promoted after this attack.. is just disgusting.. at the very least officials that should have done their jobs to protect these people.. have failed and like the lady says in the Press for Truth doco.. people should have lost their jobs... not been promoted??

"People who continue to promote the theory of controlled explosives are either ignorant, selling something, or have an agenda to deliberately spread misinformation"

this statement really disturbs me... cuz it really makes you sound as part of the "propaganda" machine... as i certainly don't have any agenda... and i don't really want to a part of spreading misinformation... ive shown people the footage and said you make up your own mind... and NOT 1 person has said.. na.. couldn't be explosives.. i aren't any MIT expert.. or fox news reporter.. im just a normal person.. that probably smokes way too much pot..lol...

we just really dont know 100% whether explosives were used or not... i thinks its very important to keep an open mind.. i am trying too.. but really.. theres a lot more evidence pointing towards explosives than not...

one piece of film thats got me thinking WTF?? is in that mysteries of 911 doco.. and after watching the screw 911 mysteries doco.. i can clearly see the clever editing used to push a certain side of the story.. but this one small piece of film has me thinking... theres the guy.. in the harley davidson T shirt and hat... not a speck of dust on him.. saying how the towers must have collapsed due to structural failure.. probably because the fire was too intense... now this struck me as strange.. especially when theres people being interviewed saying they heard massive explosions.. police and fire fighters included.. who are literally covered from head to foot in dust, yet this guy knows right off the bat exactly what happened... a lucky guess.. maybe.. highly unlikely... i know id be believing some guy covered in dust over some guy that obviously was NO where near the towers at the time of collapse.. or any other time before hand...

any way.. props to the dossier for such an extensive website.. with so many interesting docos... ive noticed a few theyve aired here in Australia on SBS.. dateline...

the Gladio series is well worth the download.. incase people havent already...

keep up the good work guys...

by Dr Maria Musgrove
Thursday Aug 16th, 2007 11:37 AM
In footage of the first tower collapsing which shows the top of the tower falling at an angle, the entire section disintegrates before it is half way down.

There have been photo's shown of steel 'I' beams embedded into other buildings. If this was a collapse, then the beams would not have been ejected as gravity would have been the deciding force.

I can not see any evidence of collapse of either tower. Complete disintegration definitely.

by TheDossier
Sunday Aug 19th, 2007 7:20 PM
Craig, you're starting to get it:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,905698,00.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=turki_bin_faisal_bin_abdul_aziz_al_saud
The riduculous thing about the Dossier is that they build up this fantastic case for the U.S. making the 9/11 the lynchpin of their Petro Dollar defense via psychopathic warmongering, and yet they want us to believe the U.S. government would not plant explosives in the buildings to ensure the loss of life was catastophic enough, unlike the 1993 attack, to justify the war of aggression. How absurd! Over a hundred witnesses, many of them professional firefighters who know explosives, said the heard multiple explosions. What the fuck else do you need?
by A. Tomic
Thursday Jan 10th, 2008 2:47 PM
There's no "verifiable" physical evidence for explosives - only circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, on its own, proves nothing.

Far more likely terror networks have been infiltrated by western intelligence agencies for political purposes, a la 9/11.
Flashes

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9Uz1Wa-Xc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-ieXC_EGV3s
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fWi1fmxCGAw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4NGkBi3eXM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0xu0MKQTI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fdyt7M37dJg
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CczO4kKjpPY
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yUnqUt0Ay8Y
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ktTFn_A0A6M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BCQyxyV7Y4U
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1QMpRX-rEA4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hShLw98qyew
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BvvUKZc58Gc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=stqHETs4qt8
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2qYxWI38Q
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=soRbQvCLlco
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CBWm5Xs6p98

Explosions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sla9MjdtZ4
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0HYqsWapo2M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JmQE1z_ro6U
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uthrDvlBC9E
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqIf3Pazxc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PGRWQCTFKG8
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GGBIa4IznTU
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B9OpZjlmIeI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ3SHp-Lmew
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LURmSctrNjI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=drjcERodJOk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U90ySUwX-xA
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ynaJbJKKtBY
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qraALi7Flnc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jrUosvSNLCk
640_4145.jpg
A review of thousands of photographs, especially from illicit pictures taken by engineers, EMT's and firefighters who worked on the scene for months, show some interesting details.

Evidence of explosives recorded in the removal of the red oxide paint coatings which existed on all steel within WTC1 and 2 (not sure about WTC7, and fewer pictures exist of the steel). The paint coatings were hit by high speed, high temperature gases as well as a slurry of concrete dust. This left tell tail signs of removal of the paint as well as corrosive effects of the elements involved in the explosions and subsequent exposure to rain. The effects of explosives vs fire damage are quite different on the structural steel and paint coatings. There are also numerous pictures available which show another damage morphology which appears to be consistent with use of thermite. This could be described as steel beams and plate structural materials with irregular burned holes as well as remains of slag and burned paint (differentiated from heat/flame exposed steel where the steel never approached it's melting temperatures).

The evidence of a "structural" collapse vs explosive disassembly would be expected to be quite different. Joint boundaries in a collapse could be expected to show stress strain patterns in the surrounding steel as well as in the paint coatings. While these do exist just by nature of the complex structure and limited explosives used, we still would not expect to see the scrubbed steel which are present.

The fact that shortly after the tragedy, it rained, this helped to expose the evidence of the paint coating removal. While the entire contents of the buildings were reduced to dust, the steel remained as evidence. The paint coating might be compared to a "carbon paper" leaving the patterns of the events which may have happened in milliseconds.

Collections exist on the web which demonstrate the paint coatings retain useful details of what happened at the WTC on 9-11-2001. Please add to this theory at will. Any contributions welcome.
by Bassfreak
Wednesday Aug 20th, 2008 11:34 PM
First time poster, congrats on an awesome site Dossier.

Anyway I see a lot of in fighting on this page and telling people to shut up about controlled demolition theories. Whatever peoples theories on 9/11 are even if they happen to believe it was caused by Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe in a Nazi flying saucer powered by JFK's brain, their agenda is the same as yours, the search for something that more closely resembles truth, and to try and alienate them is harsh and unnecessary. You would all vote together for an independent investigation into 9/11, it is the millions who believe everything the media tells them who we should worry about, but even then don't use hatred and name calling as it just calls out loudly to everyone that you already have a fixed idea of what happened and any deviation from that fixed idea will be met with anger and resentment. Just like the official conspiracy theorists at the white house.

Don't just oppose the lying warmongers, be better :)
by Jonathan
Tuesday Feb 23rd, 2010 4:40 PM
In the picture above, you can clearly see that the towers were caving in on themselves as they went down. The way you can see small explosions as the towers are coming down are also peculiar, but let's leave that alone for now. Kerosene has a maximum burning temperature of 825 degrees C (1520 F), and the remains in some spots were nearly 500 degrees hotter. Thermite burns at 2500C, and that's 1,675 degrees hotter than Kerosene. Let's not forget though, that 8 days later, the spots were 500 degrees hotter. If you ask me, that's enough time to cool 5 or 600 degrees. Kerosene burns nowhwere near the melting point of metal, or they would'nt use it in airplane engines, because they are made of metal brilliances! I am just a little 11 year old Canadian piromaniac, that has a little lab to experiment with al these combustables. Now, I can see what you are getting at, and I think you are right, but why would the U.S. Gov do such a thing? Do they have something against their citizens and New York city?
I wrote the above explanation, if you like it, send me an e-mail!
by michaelmichael616
Friday Apr 9th, 2010 1:25 AM
You are a total dumbass. So, somehow and coincidentally, wtc 7 which was blocks away just collapsed because of faulty dry wall and revolutionary engineering. Wtc 7 was also the NYC branch of how many gov. agencies? Your retardedness is likely some faulty drywall. lol. Fucking dumbass motherfucker.
by Jonathan
(jonathan.libby [at] yahoo.ca) Tuesday Jun 15th, 2010 6:21 PM
About the paint on the I beams (see posting under big picture of ground zero), high speed, high thrust would have been caused by the momentum of the building coming down. Even if no explosions were heard, a blend of various oxides called THERMITE could have been used. It has a burning temp. hot enough to make steel into a puddle for a week. The sound of it is comparable to the sound of a match head burning.

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 176.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network