What's your story? What made you question the official 9/11 CT?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I didn't question what happened on 9/11 until THIS YEAR! Yes, it took me that long to shake off the numbness I felt that horrible day when I got the call from my husband telling me to turn on the TV, the World Trade Center Towers are gone, we're under attack.

Since that day I have received maybe 4 emails from people that said they contained evidence the government could be covering something up with regard to 9/11. I. DELETED. THEM. ALL. -before even reading them. I'm not proud to say this, okay? I just couldn't believe - didn't WANT to believe there could be errors in the official tale.

Then in February of this year, a trusted friend emailed me 3 90-minute films: "Loose Change", "Loose Change2" and a film by Alex Jones for my consideration. All she wrote to accompany them was "Koy, the 9/11 widows are begging people to consider the evidence in these films. They're worth the time."

I decided then and there I was going to watch them....for the widows....but they sat in my inbox for 2 weeks.

I did finally watch them and you know what? 5 minutes into "Loose Change" I was thinking "this has got to be a crock", but I had told myself I was going to watch these films....for the widows.

It wasn't too long before I started seeing a problem....things weren't adding up just right.

Since then I've spent hours and hours watching films, reading reports from experts on both sides of the issue until my eyes were bleeding. So I could find out the theory the government could be covering things up was correct? HELL NO! I was trying to find a reason to believe my government on this one thing. Please dear God....let me find the answers. But I couldn't. All answers lead to more questions. I'm fully convinced of only one thing, we need a new, independent, thorough, public investigation with our leaders testifying under oath PUBLICLY.

I'm not exagerating when I say, I'm a different person now and I almost wish I didn't know what I know now after having so dug deep. What I've learned makes me wonder if we really can turn this ship around before it hits the iceberg.

But that won't stop me trying. What the hell else can any of us do?

There is so very much out there of importance that, any more, it's difficult for me to choose a "one thing" to recommend people start their search, but this recently released film contains many of the important questions surrounding the collapse of the towers. It's called "9/11 Mysteries - Demolition" and is about 90 minutes. It was created by a conservative republican, demolitions hobbiest, who had set out to discredit the experts who were claiming the towers could have been brought down by Controlled Demolition. He was....unsuccessful and decided he needed to tell the rest of the world:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Painful Deceptions is another I'd recommend as a first film and is also 90 minutes:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

"How Indeed Did the WTC Towers Collapse" is the film I used to recommend as a first film. It's still high on my list and is about 90 minutes:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

There are many many more compelling videos out there and publications as well of course. I just find it easiest to start with films. If for no other reason, I hope people will view at least one of them just to see why so many are questioning the official story.

I also hope other 9/11 truth seekers will add their stories to this thread.

:)

[Trap]

I too scoffed at the 'Conspiracy Theorists' (the nut brains) who thought 9/11 was a conspiracy. Those who said, those planes were not enough to knock down those Towers. They were hit by jetliners after all, I laughed.

I was walking past the new acquisitions shelf at the local library when "A New Pearl Harbor" caught my eye back in 2004. I checked it out on a lark. I was going to get a good laugh at how some wacko people thought UFO's with the help of BigFoot caused 9/11.

Two nights later, about 30 pages into Griffin's outstandingly reasoned work, I jumped out of bed and raced to the computer. Was there really a BBC article describing how 5 of the 19 'Arab Hijackers' were still alive?? Does the Guardian back up this story? The articles had to be somewhere on the either of the internet. They were easy to find with google.

Then I looked up the military time-line of the jets dispatched to intercept the hijacked flights. When were the F-15's launched out of Otis AFB? Why could they not intercept that second hijacked jetliner. How long did it take the FAA to contact NORAD??

I crawled back into bed much later that night in a cold sweat. Several days later I finished "A New Pearl Harbor". I knew. The Official Story did not hold up.

It could only have succeeded because it was an Inside Job.

[lil]

I think my story is a lil unique...I kinda went backwards to get where I am.

After 911 I was terrified for my kids. I know it sounds crazy but all I knew is we had been attacked and they were saying it might hapen again. I wasn't very political at the time but hated Bush. I was online constantly searching for weird things that were happening all over the country and everything I came across scared me more until a couple months later I came across a mention of the pnac and was intrigued. At that time I was still thinking "arab terrorists" so I wasn't searching for discrepencies or anything like that. But this PNAC thing kept bothering me so I researched it. Found a lot of bad things said about it/them...I didn't want to take other sites at face value so I found their website and read everything - and I mean everything that is there. I read the entire 89 pg RAD DOCUMENT (which I have printed out and bound along with the National Security Strategy aka the Bush Doctrine) and then I knew. I was able to go from there and piece things together. It was once I was as much of a PNAC expert as there is that I began looking for like minded people and joined RRMB.
To me the PNAC is key to everything and the most important thing we can fully expose and educate about.

[tobyo]

I have a friend named koy who I have known for just over 8 years. we have chatted once a week for nearly all those 8 years (a bit more at the beginning of that 8 years but that is another story, heh). one night this spring she was TOTALLY freaked out!!! I had never seen her so freaked out. why was she so freaked out? "toby, 9/11 was an inside job". WTF? she began to link me to various websites, MADE me (yea, like anyone can make ME do anything ;) ) watch some films "toby you HAVE to watch this one!" stuff like that....

and so that's when I questioned it.

[Zemo]

I think you can come to your own conclusions from some simple evidence.

You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to smell a rat when you hear that Rummy and Wolfowitz immediately pushed for aggression on Iraq following 9/11.

Then you look over the facts about the investigation into 9/11 and how the Bush administration tryed to block it and Bush and Cheney would only appear together and without public disclosure.

Imagine if someone drove their car into your house and because you had a big hole in your house your neighbor took the opportunity to walk into your house and carry off your wide screen tv. The fact would be whether your neighbor had a hand in what happened or not, your neighbor took advantage of what happened to profit by what happened.

I also believe after watching "9/11 Press for Truth" that Pakistan Intel had a hand in what happened on 9/11 by channeling funds to the hijackers.
I would believe that by the attitude that Pakistan has taken to Al Quaeda recently. Then you have Bush attempting to shuffle away from Pakistan by calling it a sovereign nation and you don't invade a sovereign nation without it's consent. WTF?

The Bushies needed the dead in the WTC to psyop the nation into signing on to their agenda. They could use those dead to push their agenda, but unfortunately the dead of New Orleans were no help so you don't hear about anything relative to hurricane deaths or global warming in that regard.

The biggest obstacle we got is moving on from 9/11. Because we have an obsessive in the White House who constantly harps on what happens that day as part of all or any speech he seems to make. I don't remember so much talk about the assassination of JFK 5 years after the event when the election of 1968 was going on. The big reason we are here talking about it is that those war loving profiteers have used what happened to reshape America and push their agenda.

[Xena]

I had my tin foil hat on from the beginning. What tipped me off was the quick (within 48 hrs) photo coverage of the hijackers in the Portland Main airport. And the Koran and flight manual conveniently found in the car in the parking lot.

It just got worse from there. My hat is now so heavy I almost can't wear it.

:tinfoil:

[martsmart]

I don't remember so much talk about the assassination of JFK 5 years after the event when the election of 1968 was going on.

I don't know about your friends, family and political associates, but me and mine were talking about it plenty in '68. Not to mention reeling from THAT year's assasinations of MLK and RFK, the fiasco at the Chicago Democratic Convention, the Tet offensive early that year, and the continuing disaster of our escalating Vietnam involvment.

Selective memory, Zemo?

I really can't blame ya.....

[izzzatso]

I didn't question in the beginning, it took several months and then certain things didn't add up. 1+1=2 but the administration's story started going 1+1=9. Then there is WTC 7.

Put it this way, the official story is so full of holes..... that if it were a submarine, it would either implode or sink to the bottom of the ocean. One of the biggest things was this administration's reluctance to form the 9/11 Commission, then there was the pResident telling Senator Daschle ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) to 'not dig to deep'. Add in Bush/Cheney not willing to testify before the commission, under oath and not allowing any notes, written or recorded, to be taken of their 'testimony'.

Add in Sibel Edmonds ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). Add in the 52 warnings ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) that the FAA received. Add in PNAC ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) and "a new Pearl Harbor ([Only registered and activated users can see links])". Add in the plans drawn up during Bush I about the invasion of Iraq ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). Add in the anthrax attacks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (funny that only Democrats - no Republicans - were sent letters). Add in PATRIOT ACT(s) I & II (which probably wouldn't have passed without the anthrax letters).

How about the steel from the Trade Towers being shipped ASAP overseas ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (China and India) to be smelted?

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

So, lots and lots of questions and damn few answers. Something is rotten in Denmark.

[Zemo]

I don't know about your friends, family and political associates, but me and mine were talking about it plenty in '68. Not to mention reeling from THAT year's assasinations of MLK and RFK, the fiasco at the Chicago Democratic Convention, the Tet offensive early that year, and the continuing disaster of our escalating Vietnam involvment.

Selective memory, Zemo?

I really can't blame ya.....

I wasn't old enough to vote then, but sure, I know we had the MLK and RFK assassinations and I distinctly remember the Tet offensive.
I can remember doing a school report on the Vietcong for my geography class based on a photo essay in an old Look magazine by a French photographer.
That was also the year the USS Pueblo was seized off North Korea I believe.
But I don't think LBJ used the JFK assassination to launch a police state and refer to it in speech after speech.

[Mr.Dude]

When did I start to question the 9/11 attacks? As soon as I woke up that day I had a weird feeling. I turned on the TV (something I almost never do in the morning) I saw what we all saw. A few days later people began asking for a full government investigation. And there was delay on the part of the government. And that is when I knew. The government was delaying so they could get ready to tell a lie. They were getting ready to bury the truth. If they were serious there would have been no delay. They still wouldn't be trying to hush up data, like ABLE DANGER.

[BlueBerry Pick'n]

... the Shire was BRAND new for Hobbit & I. Later that night, we were walking out of Emergency & the Hobbit's mobile rang.

The Ranger arrived & we fetched him back to the Shire.

Hobbit had slashed his thumb (near the bone, through the nail...) that night, so he went to work in the AM.

Early AM, the Dwarves arrived from London & we began unpacking .... when I got a call from his cellphone.

Watch the News!

We unpacked the TV & hooked up the cable (I'd pre-arranged cable hook-up) & watched.



My Practise Husband worked in the Hole.

I knew what I was seeing was ridiculous.

As I knew from playing waaaay too much Euchre (I hate it) with his buddies & their mates... its a boring place & fighters scramble for BIRD FLOCKS...
I have a reasonably good idea about how NORAD works. Hell, my Dad was flying AirForce.

But creepy, the way my FRIENDS didn't even LISTEN to what I was saying about the Hole & NORAD, about air traffic. They were listening to the commentators, who made less sense as the day went on.

we all agreed: the buildings looked like they were collapsing.

I told the CitiBank Building story while we waited for updates.

But if the commentators said something else, I was wrong.
But they KNOW ME, they said, "but that's not what THEY are saying".

I was aware of how air traffic worked, because I'd worked in a very small airport... yup. on King Air 100s. I got to have coffee or breaks & chatted with a lot of the a/c.
We were a close bunch because it was such a small place.

actually, one of the security guards was the DAD of the roommate who went Gonzo on me...
but I digress.
Hell, when I didn't change the toilet paper, I was bringing sandwiches to the ATC or scanning luggage (complete training: a set of videotapes I had to watch over a weekend & a question/answer sheet of homework for grading.)

Yup, I had even worked with a guy, a pilot for our airline, who we called Al.

One day, I got his pay envelope. "Al Gaddafi" I shit you not.

I handed it to him & said, "I suppose "Gaddafi" is like "Smith" in Canada, right?"

He gave me a long look & said he appreciated that I wasn't making a big deal of it. He said he'd been in the Libyan airforce & floated in the Mediterranean for 2 days waiting for a rescue after his plane downed.

he said he was through & immigrated to Canada.

I remember coming home & telling my PH, "that's just fucked up. you know, if he wasn't security cleared, I'd be freaked out about a guy named Gaddafi wandering in & out of security... we're only a 1/2K from the Base..."


Word. I say, Word.

Its interesting you bring this up. Because as of 9/11 THIS YEAR, we decided to finally finish moving in.

It was so screwed up. Days later, I got a contract (with a view of the Toronto Islands Airport... it was chilling how everyone would stop talking to watch the planes land during meetings) very soon after with a Big5 Bank & I was sooo busy.

then the wheels fell off the ShireKeeping...

This Summer, I suggested we OFFICIALLY finish unpacking BEFORE the 9/11 Fifth anniversary... we cracked a bottle of celebratory beer on 9/10 this year...

we've moved in!!

But here's the THING: on 9/12, I was back on the Bulletin Boards.

when MicroSoft TERMINATED my ID. I was furious, I was SAYING to people to chill out.

But I went too far.

I suggested that EVEN IF Bin Laden was fingered, there was NO guarantee we'd EVER know what happened OR that if they DIDN'T KNOW, they WOULDN'T EVER say, "dunno"

they would find SOMEONE who was guilty.

guaranteed.

They finally admitted that I was terminated for "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR"

I was freaked. seriously.

[galilei]

I was laid off in the summer of 2001, so I was at home on Sept 11. My girlfriend at the time got a call on our answering machine from her friend who was walking to work in Manhatten. She was screaming. That was how I woke up and I watched the whole thing unfold on TV.
I remember screaming, "Where's the fucking air force??!?" when the news came across that the Pentagon got hit. I remember the fighter jets going over the house about an hour later and going out to see them. They took off from Portland's airport every 6 hours for months afterwords, and I lived right in the flightpath.
The only other thing that bothered me that day was the towers. I couldn't believe the way they came straight down. The official explanation came out blaming the fires for weakening steel, but I still didn't believe it. But, I didn't really suspect anything.. just figured that someone would discover a better explanation after a thorough investigation.
In 2002 my father died and the estate was a messy affair. I had to relocate to represent my brother and I as my brother is handicapped and there was a hostile third party involved.
So, I was in Phoenix, AZ, the town I mostly grew up in, when Oct. 12, 2002 and the Bali bombings came along. I probably wouldn't have noticed much, but a woman I went to high school with was killed in those bombings and they mentioned her on the local news.
In scouring for information on those, I ran across 'conspiracy' explanations that made much more sense than the conventional explanations that kept being rewritten all the time.
It especially didn't make sense that Australia would be a good Al Qaeda target at that time, since the population was serious about staying out of the coming war in Iraq. The other details that didn't make sense were the continually changing explosives being blamed, (anything near the blast source is coated w/ residue - you take a sample, do a mass spec., an IR spec., headspace analysis and you know. Did I mention I took a forensic chemistry class in college?) and the curious burns received by many bystanders from the bomb.
The best explanation that fit the parameters was a micronuke. But, the only people proposing it were suggesting that this was a false flag attack by western intelligence agencies to draw Australia into the war. That made more sense than Al Qaeda too, I thought, since Australia's smooth entrance into the "coalition of the willing" was a foregone conclusion after that attack.
This really bothered me.
I thought about the steel in the World Trade Center and thought.. well, by now there's an explanation (by this time it was 2003) and it will make sense and I'll just put this out of my mind. But I couldn't find anything.
I was of two minds after that.. caught between worlds. But I noticed the tiniest things and they really bothered me.
I watched Colin Powell's speech at the UN and all I could find myself believing was, "he's lying". I saw the whole two U2s provocation the US pulled after Saddam agreed to overflights and the headlines the papers printed.
And somewhere in the deluge of information I was taking in from Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace", Nafeez Ahmed's "War on Freedom", Chomsky's "Media Control" and the MSM, my bullshit detector got permanently stuck in the 'on' position.
At some point that summer, I looked for the steel again. I searched and searched and didn't find anything satisfactory. I kept running across Jim Hoffman's site: [Only registered and activated users can see links] but was really afraid of what I might find there.
Finally, one evening, I dug in and started reading. I verified everything I could. It was plausible and again, the best explanation I had seen. Plus, it was the first I had heard about WTC 7. That was pretty much what did it.

[Trap]

The best explanation that fit the parameters was a micronuke

Have you ruled out the explosive, RDX?

Only a few countries possess the sophistication to make it. Guess which ones.

[galilei]

Have you ruled out the explosive, RDX?

Only a few countries possess the sophistication to make it. Guess which ones.
I don't really remember the details off the top of my head on the Bali bombing explosives.. except that what they came up with in the end was a really unlikely composite.

But I don't think RDX causes flash burns to people standing outside the blast radius or lights cars on fire a block away.

[Trap]

No, that is EXACTLY what RDX can do...Cause flash burns and set off the fuel tanks in cars parked a good distance away.

RDX is an extreamly powerful explosive....and can only be produced by sophisticated means.


The power of an explosive depends on:

the top speed of the expanding gas, called detonation velocity. If it's supersonic, the shock wave adds to the force of the explosion and you have a high explosive (dynamite, TNT, C-4, TATP). If it's subsonic, you no longer have a detonation but a deflagration (black powder, rocket propellant, hydrocarbon explosions). RDX, the explosive that C-4 is made of, has a detonation velocity of 27,000 fps. Of the explosives used by Palestinians, TNT has a DV of 22,300 fps, and TATP has one of 17, 200 fps.
the time it takes for the gas to reach that top speed, called brisance. The combined effect of DV and brisance make RDX almost twice as powerful as TATP.
the heat generated by the chemical reaction, which almost always is what makes the gases expand so rapidly. The heat of the explosion also causes flash burns in victims and emits light, which is why almost all bangs are associated with a flash. All except one: TATP. TATP produces no heat and no light. Consequently, no one can see the "flash" of a TATP explosion or suffer flash burns from it.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
(note: That site was put up as an analysis of the London 7/7 bombings. Many people had flash burns from that one too. Horrific flash burns. Flash burns that could not be explained by the use of simple TNT.)

Or, you could be right about the micro-nuke:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The part about carting the soil off to be burried at sea as part of a 'Hindu cleansing ritual' really gave me the creeps. Classic cover up of a nuke contaminated site.

What ever the case, this was not some 'home-made' bomb.

[galilei]

No, that is EXACTLY what RDX can do...Cause flash burns and set off the fuel tanks in cars parked a good distance away.

RDX is an extreamly powerful explosive....and can only be produced by sophisticated means.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
(note: That site was put up as an analysis of the London 7/7 bombings. Many people had flash burns from that one too. Horrific flash burns. Flash burns that could not be explained by the use of simple TNT.)

I was totally unaware of the flash burns in London.


Or, you could be right about the micro-nuke:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The part about carting the soil off to be burried at sea as part of a 'Hindu cleansing ritual' really gave me the creeps. Classic cover up of a nuke contaminated site.

What ever the case, this was not some 'home-made' bomb.

Yeah, I have a hard time imagining an ancient religious ritual that involves backhoing many cubic yards of dirt into a barge and dumping it in the center of the Indian ocean.

[galilei]

After reading the links you provided, Trap, a couple of questions and an observations come to mind.

Q1: Isn't TATP the explosive that we were supposed to believe would be the end product of the 'liquid terror' "attack" that was recently "foiled". (So far, the 21st century, for me, is all about the air quotes).
Nevermind that they had no passports, no plane tickets, no tangible evidence of a plan, and that a British explosives expert has said there's no way it could be produced in 5 or 6 hours in an airplane lavatory. But wasn't it also TATP?

O1: The London bombings were bad, but the Bali bombings were incredibly bad. From memory, I'm pretty sure the fatalities topped 80 and the wounded were in the hundreds, w/ hundreds of burn victims. I remember looking for old stories about car bombs and seeing none that had a casualty count even close. (Except for OKC, which has it's own problems w/ actually being a car bomb.)

O2: I'm seeing a pattern here. The technologies involved in producing acts of terrorism are being downgraded in the press (as the 2001 Anthrax was in the WP and BBC recently: [Only registered and activated users can see links] ) to give the impression that they were made without access to high technologies or factories or lab facilities. One could guess this is to cover the involvement of Western intelligence agencies or other well-connected actors.

[Trap]

Your last question first:

Q3: Yes, that is exactly the pattern we are seeing. Same as with 9/11 and those 'box cutters'. No way simple terrorists could have pulled this stuff off. 100% fingerprints of Western Governmental sources were behind these attacks. False Flag operations all the way.

Q2: Yes, the Bali bombings were so huge that investigators were at a loss as to explain how they were carried off. Yes, car bombs do NOT leave huge craters, the blast goes mostly up into the air. Bombs planted underneath do cause craters....but don't pull concrete off steel re-bar.

Q1:YEP. That's what they are saying. Plus, they are also saying that TATP was used in the 7/7 London bombings. Funny thing....the explosion occures due to a chemical reaction that produces massive amounts of gas but NO HEAT, or FLASH. Yet, many London victems had their skin practically burned off. (my guess is that RDX was used)
And yes, TATP can NOT be cooked up by using the 3% Peroxide solution that ya can buy in CVS. Nor could it be cooked up from its component parts in a plane lavatory.
And finally, the British are not that stupid. I figure they knew what was up and put the kabosh on it by blowing the story before the the true perps could put it into action.

TATP info:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Mr.Dude]

And finally, the British are not that stupid. I figure they knew what was up and put the kabosh on it by blowing the story before the the true perps could put it into action.
Ah, the advantages of issuing a D-Notice. RDX was developed by the British in WWII. They know exactly what it acts like and how to detect it. So your analysis rings true and is probably very accurate. Well done you. Now, how about a spot of tea?

[ERobertG]

I was out to the roach coach getting my coffee and Jamaican beef patty when I heard some guy hit in a plane the World Trade Center. At work everybody started watching their monitors which were trained to MSN and Yahoo.

I started having my doubts the moment the towers came down. I mean those collapses where totally unnatural. A partial collapse above the impact zone might have worked for me, but a global collapse in record time was just too much to bear. It was surreal as if hearing a voice in my head "inside job." We left work at noon. The icing on the cake came at 5:20 in the afternoon came when they pulled Building 7 for no apparent reason.

The next day somehow we got more or less swept by the government propaganda. Some of us however felt we simply had to go along to get along. Then something wonderful happened, the 9/11 Truth Movement started to slowly sprout.

[Trap]

Now, how about a spot of tea?

Anytime. I am an avid Anglophile. Pick one of those quaink London pubs-any place near Russle Square will work for me.

Lots to talk about now about that Gillian case, tons of info comming out.

What is the British take on 9/11 and 7/11? Any strong Truth Movement across the Atlantic?

[Mr.Dude]

Lots to talk about now about that Gillian case, tons of info comming out.
Gotta be honest. I don't know what this about, so I can't comment.


What is the British take on 9/11 and 7/11? Any strong Truth Movement across the Atlantic?
I don't know, but it has been a long time since I went to Speakers-Corner.

The problem for me with the Truth About 9/11 movement in this country is they are refusing to see the real problem. The buildings came down from damage inflicted, not from any controlled demolition. That doesn't mean that vast powers didn't see to it that the airplanes were "Allowed" to crash into these buildings, to create a war. The terrorists are receivng money from the same people who fund the United States - essentially these people are making money on both sides of the deal. As America needs more money to fight "The War on Terrorism," the terrorists need more money to wage their war. Rules of engagement are established to make sure that America's armed forces don't simply wipe out the terrorists. There's no money in that. As long as the war goes on they make money. The United States is no more in control of its destiny than a cow waiting to be slaughtered is in charge of its destiny. One wonders how the people of this country are going to react when the dollar is devalued. Change government, again? But they won't change the system that got us into trouble in the first place.

[Trap]

The buildings came down from damage inflicted, not from any controlled demolition.

If you believe that, then you have much, much to learn.

As for the stuff about supporting the terrorists:
Of course they are used to support the $$$ massive spending on the military and Homeland Security. It is the Eurasian Boggy Man in the flesh with OBL.

[Mr.Dude]

If you believe that, then you have much, much to learn.
I have a degree in Physics. I have a law degree. I had a father who was a fire protection engieer, who put fire spinkler systems into everything you can think of. I have studied everything I could lay my hands on and all the facts bear out that the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 are the direct result of damage. The buildings fell from damage inflicted.

Refusing to believe the facts deflects you from seeing the bigger issue. Money is being used as a weapon. Those who create it use it to control both sides of the game. It costs them nothing to create more money and allows them to buy those who want more.

[Mr.Dude]

As for the stuff about supporting the terrorists: Of course they are used to support the $$$ massive spending on the military and Homeland Security. It is the Eurasian Boggy Man in the flesh with OBL.
Not quite. The Terrorists are used by the $$$ people. The $$$ people give $ to both The Terrorists and The Military-Industrial-Media-Goverment-Complex. The $$$ are funding both sides of all the wars: The "WAR" on Terrorism. The "WAR" on Drugs. Etc. Etc. Etc. The $$$ people are totally A-moral shitheads. They want to eliminate all sovereign countries and create a world wide police state. BushCo/NeoCons et al are just one side of the equation(and they are working one side of the equation to produce a police state). They are tools. The servants of the $$$ people.

Consider a chess game. Both sides are engaged in a life and struggle for victory for their side. Yet the pieces are unaware that they are being controlled, manipulated by an unseen hand, that in fact moves the pieces for both sides. This game is The USA vs World Terrorism. The war will never be over. There is no money to be made in peace. But if you can fund both sides of a conflict there is much money to be made.

It doesn't matter if the terrorists use nuclear weapons or biological weapons or anything else. The $$$ people will make money when the cities are rebuilt. The $$$ people don't care about humanity. They consider human beings cattle to be controlled and used.

It is as if the Pharaoh's had returned.

[Trap]

But if you can fund both sides of a conflict there is much money to be made.


Sounds exactly what Prescott Bush did during WWII. The Nazi War Machine was financed by US bankers and industrialists, Prescott being one of the key players, which in turn financed the US War Machine that defeated the Nazis.

I think Prescott walked away with his 'one share' worth over $500 million in 1946....back when homes were selling for less than $10,000.

[Trap]

As for the building collapse:

Please explain the dynamics of the collapse to me. What was the initial trigger? Why did the buildings fall at nearly free fall speed? Why did they end up in virtually their own footprint??

[ERobertG]

I have a degree in Physics. I have a law degree. I had a father who was a fire protection engieer, who put fire spinkler systems into everything you can think of. I have studied everything I could lay my hands on and all the facts bear out that the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 are the direct result of damage. The buildings fell from damage inflicted.

I'm a mechanical design engineer of 35 years...

The collapse of all three buildings defies physics.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If fire and minor, asymmetrical structural damage caused this to happen:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

WTF are people paying demolition experts to bring down their buildings with explosives then? All you have to do is start a few small, scattered fires on various floors, and according to Mr. Dude, a 47-story steel structure will magically collapse straight down, symmetrically, into its own footprint, in less than 7 seconds! Sounds like a cost saver to me!

[martsmart]

If fire and minor, asymmetrical structural damage caused this to happen:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

WTF are people paying demolition experts to bring down their buildings with explosives then? All you have to do is start a few small, scattered fires on various floors, and according to Mr. Dude, a 47-story steel structure will magically collapse straight down, symmetrically, into its own footprint, in less than 7 seconds! Sounds like a cost saver to me!

Are you trying to put CD people out of work?

:rofl:

[ERobertG]

Are you trying to put CD people out of work?

:rofl:

Imagine, just a small fire can bring down a building without CD.

[Mr.Dude]

If fire and minor, asymmetrical structural damage caused this to happen:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Actually, this is not symetrical damage in action. It is Asymetrical damage. Whoever found this series of images, Thank You! It helps make the point because the problem as seen visually to you and me is small. But in terms of the internal engineering it is massive.

Watch the top of the building (this World Trade Center, Building 7, if you weren't aware). As the sequence begins, pay careful attention to the roof line. You will notice there appears to be a break in the building along to the top. The roof line was straight when this building was first constructed. Yet as you watch it begin to fall, you will notice a break in the line so that a very shallow v shape becomes apparent. The break is on the left side, about a quarter of the way along. Look just to the left of the black, billboardy kind of thing.

As we look at it, it does not appear significant. But at the scale we are watching, it means at least one whole floor has failed and the building has collapsed at that point. Read below for further explaination.


WTF are people paying demolition experts to bring down their buildings with explosives then? All you have to do is start a few small, scattered fires on various floors, and according to Mr. Dude, a 47-story steel structure will magically collapse straight down, symmetrically, into its own footprint, in less than 7 seconds! Sounds like a cost saver to me!
A few small scattered fires will not bring down a building. WTC 1, 2 & 7 did not suffer from a few small scattered fires. They suffered from many massive widespread fires. A hi-rise fire is unlike a fire in a house. From a fire suppression engineering standpoint the problem is one of choices. Do you save the building or do you save the contents? You might be able to do one. You can not do both. My father installed more fire suppression systems than you can imagine. He explained to me that if I were ever in a hi-rise building and even a little fire broke out that I should get of the building immediately and get as far from the building as possible right away.

The problem is this: Modern office buildings accumulate massive amounts of highly combustible materials. Almost everythng from the carpeting and drapes down to filing cabinets full of paper are higly combustible. None of these items burns hot, but certain furnishing items can burn for a long time. If a fire starts it will spread. Unless it extinguished immediately it is almost impossible to save the contents of the building. Fire suppression then moves to saving the structure.

The problem comes from two facts: 1. Steel loses strength when heated, and 2. Steel is a shitty heat sink.

1. Steel begins to loose strength at approximately 400 degrees celcius. At approximately 600 degrees construction grade steel looses 50% of its strength. Some of the fires were burning at over 1,000 degrees.

2. Because steel does not transmit heat well, any portion that becomes heated will retain that heat and not disipate it by spreading the heat to other parts of the steel but will, in fact, get hotter. With the steel beams in the WTC buildings one end might have been red hot and the other ice cold.

Had WTC 7 not been damaged by the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 I would agree with you that its collapse would have been suspicious.

Unfortunately, the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) report contradicts the FEMA report. I personally ignore everything from FEMA. FEMA has never generated anything worth reading. The NIST stated: "On about a third of the face to the center at the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25% of the depth of the building was scooped out." Ouch.

So, we have a building with a massive amounts of its support structure blown away/damaged/destroyed by the collapse of two titanic hi-rises just accross the street with hundreds of fires burning everything inside it for over seven hours. Add to that the fact that WTC 7 was built over a ConEd power plant and had very unusual internal engineering.

I was in a building that was heavily damaged once: 601 California Street in San Francisco. I was working on the 20th floor. A 480,000 pound crane fell onto the roof about 40 feet from where I was sitting. The building was evacuated (I was about the last person out - the fire department had to threaten to have me arrested to get me to leave - I was answering the switch-board, trying to calm down nervous relatives). Hi-rises can be very tough buildings. But I have personally seen what happens when they get damaged. I got to look at my father fire engineering magzines which were written by people trying to understand hi-rise fires.

With a hi-rise demolition, the experts all rely on their big friend to bring down the building: Mr.Gravity. Mr.Gravity is imensely strong. Keeping a hi-rise up is a neat trick. But there are always cost considerations. The higher you build, the more it costs and the more strength you need. If you take some engineering courses (as I have done) you will discover that a hi-rise is built with cost constraints. It is constructed with maybe twice the strength it needs to stay up. Therfore when only a small piece fails everything left has to deal with more stress. If a second piece fails, the stress gets distrubuted again. If whole sections fail Mr.Gravity wins. There is no engineering solution to stop a massive collapse at that point.

Please do not trivialize engineering.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Actually, this is not symetrical damage in action. It is Asymetrical damage. Whoever found this series of images, Thank You! It helps make the point because the problem as seen visually to you and me is small. But in terms of the internal engineering it is massive.

Watch the top of the building (this World Trade Center, Building 7, if you weren't aware). As the sequence begins, pay careful attention to the roof line. You will notice there appears to be a break in the building along to the top. The roof line was straight when this building was first constructed. Yet as you watch it begin to fall, you will notice a break in the line so that a very shallow v shape becomes apparent. The break is on the left side, about a quarter of the way along. Look just to the left of the black, billboardy kind of thing.

As we look at it, it does not appear significant. But at the scale we are watching, it means at least one whole floor has failed and the building has collapsed at that point. Read below for further explaination.


A few small scattered fires will not bring down a building. WTC 1, 2 & 7 did not suffer from a few small scattered fires. They suffered from many massive widespread fires. A hi-rise fire is unlike a fire in a house. From a fire suppression engineering standpoint the problem is one of choices. Do you save the building or do you save the contents? You might be able to do one. You can not do both. My father installed more fire suppression systems than you can imagine. He explained to me that if I were ever in a hi-rise building and even a little fire broke out that I should get of the building immediately and get as far from the building as possible right away.

The problem is this: Modern office buildings accumulate massive amounts of highly combustible materials. Almost everythng from the carpeting and drapes down to filing cabinets full of paper are higly combustible. None of these items burns hot, but certain furnishing items can burn for a long time. If a fire starts it will spread. Unless it extinguished immediately it is almost impossible to save the contents of the building. Fire suppression then moves to saving the structure.

The problem comes from two facts: 1. Steel loses strength when heated, and 2. Steel is a shitty heat sink.

1. Steel begins to loose strength at approximately 400 degrees celcius. At approximately 600 degrees construction grade steel looses 50% of its strength. Some of the fires were burning at over 1,000 degrees.

2. Because steel does not transmit heat well, any portion that becomes heated will retain that heat and not disipate it by spreading the heat to other parts of the steel but will, in fact, get hotter. With the steel beams in the WTC buildings one end might have been red hot and the other ice cold.

Had WTC 7 not been damaged by the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 I would agree with you that its collapse would have been suspicious.

Unfortunately, the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) report contradicts the FEMA report. I personally ignore everything from FEMA. FEMA has never generated anything worth reading. The NIST stated: "On about a third of the face to the center at the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25% of the depth of the building was scooped out." Ouch.

So, we have a building with a massive amounts of its support structure blown away/damaged/destroyed by the collapse of two titanic hi-rises just accross the street with hundreds of fires burning everything inside it for over seven hours. Add to that the fact that WTC 7 was built over a ConEd power plant and had very unusual internal engineering.

I was in a building that was heavily damaged once: 601 California Street in San Francisco. I was working on the 20th floor. A 480,000 pound crane fell onto the roof about 40 feet from where I was sitting. The building was evacuated (I was about the last person out - the fire department had to threaten to have me arrested to get me to leave - I was answering the switch-board, trying to calm down nervous relatives). Hi-rises can be very tough buildings. But I have personally seen what happens when they get damaged. I got to look at my father fire engineering magzines which were written by people trying to understand hi-rise fires.

With a hi-rise demolition, the experts all rely on their big friend to bring down the building: Mr.Gravity. Mr.Gravity is imensely strong. Keeping a hi-rise up is a neat trick. But there are always cost considerations. The higher you build, the more it costs and the more strength you need. If you take some engineering courses (as I have done) you will discover that a hi-rise is built with cost constraints. It is constructed with maybe twice the strength it needs to stay up. Therfore when only a small piece fails everything left has to deal with more stress. If a second piece fails, the stress gets distrubuted again. If whole sections fail Mr.Gravity wins. There is no engineering solution to stop a massive collapse at that point.

Please do not trivialize engineering.

Absolutely none of this changes the fact the asymmetrical damage can not cause symmetrical collapse especially at the speeds witnessed on 9/11. Simply isn't possible. Period.

Side by side comparison of WTC7 collapse and a building being demolished using CD: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Silverstein, "Pull it": [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[AtomicBomb]

Actually, this is not symetrical damage in action. It is Asymetrical damage. Whoever found this series of images, Thank You! It helps make the point because the problem as seen visually to you and me is small. But in terms of the internal engineering it is massive.

Watch the top of the building (this World Trade Center, Building 7, if you weren't aware). As the sequence begins, pay careful attention to the roof line. You will notice there appears to be a break in the building along to the top. The roof line was straight when this building was first constructed. Yet as you watch it begin to fall, you will notice a break in the line so that a very shallow v shape becomes apparent. The break is on the left side, about a quarter of the way along. Look just to the left of the black, billboardy kind of thing.

As we look at it, it does not appear significant. But at the scale we are watching, it means at least one whole floor has failed and the building has collapsed at that point. Read below for further explaination.


A few small scattered fires will not bring down a building. WTC 1, 2 & 7 did not suffer from a few small scattered fires. They suffered from many massive widespread fires. A hi-rise fire is unlike a fire in a house. From a fire suppression engineering standpoint the problem is one of choices. Do you save the building or do you save the contents? You might be able to do one. You can not do both. My father installed more fire suppression systems than you can imagine. He explained to me that if I were ever in a hi-rise building and even a little fire broke out that I should get of the building immediately and get as far from the building as possible right away.

The problem is this: Modern office buildings accumulate massive amounts of highly combustible materials. Almost everythng from the carpeting and drapes down to filing cabinets full of paper are higly combustible. None of these items burns hot, but certain furnishing items can burn for a long time. If a fire starts it will spread. Unless it extinguished immediately it is almost impossible to save the contents of the building. Fire suppression then moves to saving the structure.

The problem comes from two facts: 1. Steel loses strength when heated, and 2. Steel is a shitty heat sink.

1. Steel begins to loose strength at approximately 400 degrees celcius. At approximately 600 degrees construction grade steel looses 50% of its strength. Some of the fires were burning at over 1,000 degrees.

2. Because steel does not transmit heat well, any portion that becomes heated will retain that heat and not disipate it by spreading the heat to other parts of the steel but will, in fact, get hotter. With the steel beams in the WTC buildings one end might have been red hot and the other ice cold.

Had WTC 7 not been damaged by the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 I would agree with you that its collapse would have been suspicious.

Unfortunately, the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) report contradicts the FEMA report. I personally ignore everything from FEMA. FEMA has never generated anything worth reading. The NIST stated: "On about a third of the face to the center at the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25% of the depth of the building was scooped out." Ouch.

So, we have a building with a massive amounts of its support structure blown away/damaged/destroyed by the collapse of two titanic hi-rises just accross the street with hundreds of fires burning everything inside it for over seven hours. Add to that the fact that WTC 7 was built over a ConEd power plant and had very unusual internal engineering.

I was in a building that was heavily damaged once: 601 California Street in San Francisco. I was working on the 20th floor. A 480,000 pound crane fell onto the roof about 40 feet from where I was sitting. The building was evacuated (I was about the last person out - the fire department had to threaten to have me arrested to get me to leave - I was answering the switch-board, trying to calm down nervous relatives). Hi-rises can be very tough buildings. But I have personally seen what happens when they get damaged. I got to look at my father fire engineering magzines which were written by people trying to understand hi-rise fires.

With a hi-rise demolition, the experts all rely on their big friend to bring down the building: Mr.Gravity. Mr.Gravity is imensely strong. Keeping a hi-rise up is a neat trick. But there are always cost considerations. The higher you build, the more it costs and the more strength you need. If you take some engineering courses (as I have done) you will discover that a hi-rise is built with cost constraints. It is constructed with maybe twice the strength it needs to stay up. Therfore when only a small piece fails everything left has to deal with more stress. If a second piece fails, the stress gets distrubuted again. If whole sections fail Mr.Gravity wins. There is no engineering solution to stop a massive collapse at that point.

Please do not trivialize engineering.
Mr Dude,

A thorough, complete, and total refutation of the arguements you have made above can be found here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

and here in video form for those who don't like to read:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Happy learning!

[Trap]

Yeap...no explosive charges were used...None at all:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Bonus points: Can you name one hi-rise that has ever collapesed due to fire besides those 3 on 9/11??

[ERobertG]

Mr Dude,

A thorough, complete, and total refutation of the arguements you have made above can be found here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

and here in video form for those who don't like to read:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Happy learning!

You can lead a horse to water, but if they believe the Official 9/11 Fable, they will dehydrate.

[Mr.Dude]

Back in the 1980's, there was a hi-rise in Los Angeles. I doubt you heard of it much throughout the rest of the country, but it was a big deal in California. The reason the fire was important was it was a very tall building. The fire involved most of one floor. It was the usual things burning: paper, chairs, carpeting, drapes. etc. The fire was one of the most studied fire in US history for several reasons.

1. Inspection and analysis after the fire showed that had the fire burned for another 30 minutes the building would have collapsed. That didn't make much news in this state at that time. Only the engineers cared about stuff like that. This would have been the first building in the world to have collapsed from fire alone. It didn't, but I have seen the pictures from inside the building after the fire. The structural damage caused by a simple widespread fire is unbelievable.

2. The real news story here, for people in the San Francisco Bay Area (where I live), is the fact that Los Angeles had more people fighting the fire in one building than the entire city of San Francisco employs. In an earthquake, with the potential for many hi-rise fires after such an event, San Francisco has no real means of preventing the type of fires that nearly destroyed a building in L.A. That means we could lose many buildings.

I have looked at all the stuff that claims to debunk what I have said. I have looked at all the stuff that claims to debunk the debunkers.

We are supposed to live in an age of reason. If you are prepared to ignore all the facts, take just a few bits of information and use that to formulate an opinion, not only can I not stop you, I won't even try. By ignoring all the facts and just picking the bits which make your point, you prove to me and anyone else who is paying attention that you are not interested in the truth. And if you are not interested in the 100%, honest to God, unvarnished truth, no matter how warty, horrible, smelly and replusive to that may be to your personal opinions, I am not interested. The moment you make a commitment to listen and consider all the facts (and I agree there are some very troubling facts in the collapses of these buildings) I will be glad to discuss, rationally, scientifically and at length with anyone.

Ahh, . . . that feels better. Just had to vent my spleen a little.

Seriously, if you want to discuss any aspect of the collapse of these buildings, bring it on (no name calling though . . . that's not the DW way).

[Trap]

Well Dude,

Have you noticed that in order for the Official Story to work, first 'They' must lie and show the WTC Towers as much much weaker than they actually were?

Second, why hasn't Underwriters Lab, or any other Fire Lab been able to reproduce the 'weakening' effect of the fire on the Tower's steel beams?

Third, explain all the molten steel found weeks after 9/11 in the sub basements of the Towers and WTC7.

Fourth, notice now much concrete dust was created? Drop a 4 inch thick section of concrete from your roof and tell me how much of it turned into powder. Account for all of the concrete powder.

Finally, explain why the Towers did not collapse when they were exposed to several floors of fire back in the 1970's.

[Trap]

As for your case study on that LA fire:

Were you referring to the First Interstate Bank fire of 1988??

This site totally contradicts your findings of collapse within another 30 min:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Damage
The total burnout of four and a half floors did not cause damage to the main structural members due to a good application of spayed fire protection on all steelwork. There was only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor decks.

The non-structural damages included:
Virtually all external cladding from the 12th to 16th floors was destroyed and fell to the ground.
The heat of the fire caused some aluminium alloy valves in the occupant hose cabinets to fail, creating water leaks and causing water damage on floors below the fire.The property loss was estimated at over $200 million, excluding the business interruption loss.

Analysis


That fire burned for over 3 hours and involved fires across the total area of over 4 floors.

The WTC collapses in less than 2 hours?
Give me a break.

[Mr.Dude]

As for your case study on that LA fire:

Were you referring to the First Interstate Bank fire of 1988??

This site totally contradicts your findings of collapse within another 30 min:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

That fire burned for over 3 hours and involved fires across the total area of over 4 floors.

The WTC collapses in less than 2 hours?
Give me a break.
Yes. I am trying to find an engineering site for you, to provide a link. Fire Protection Engineering was my dad's line of work. I never really cared for it. The report I am refering to was generated almost a year after the fire and was meant only for engineers.

WTC did not collapse in 2 hours. WTC's 1 & 2 did. But the problem there is that two jets had slammed into them, cutting the exterior supports. WTCs 1 & 2 were actually trying out some new engineering. The internal central support system was tied to the outer face of the buildings using a series of struts. These struts were secured by 5/8ths inch bolts. WTC 1 & 2 used no internal support columns, giving them almost one square acre of floor space without any interruptions - a new design for the time. When the airplanes sliced away the exterior support beams, it is likely the buildings could have survived. The original architect and engineers had anticipated that the buildings would someday be hit (by accident) by jets. The buildings were designed to withstand such impacts. What they hadn't counted on (by their own admissions) was the aviation fuel and the resulting widespread fires. The combination of redistributed weight-loads and fires which weakened the support structures resulted in the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2. In fact you can see the jet trying to reposition itself to strike the edge of the south tower lower down. This causes a massive build-up of stress much quicker. PBS did a very good show on this. Check it out. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

But, you're quite right, we were discussing the collapse of WTC 7. So, getting back to the point . . .

In one of the posts above there was a link to WTC 7's collapse containing a series of videos of the collapse. I looked at all of them. The one I was most interested in was the one which showed the roof structures before they collapsed. Check 'em all out. The one I refer to is taken from a long way off (pity). But, you can see the structures on the roof collapsing prior to the building coming down. The problem for me and you is that all these videos are taken from terrible positions. We can all see that the actual collapse must have started out of the cameras view. In addition, I have read the reports which speak of massive structural damage to WTC 7, caused by the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2. Yet I've never seen any pictures of this damage.

The truth is, we are probably always going to disagree over the actual engineering that brought down the WTC buildings. But we do not disagree that the government (actual AND shadow) deliberately saw to it that they had an event that would provide them with all the excuses they were looking for to establish the police state. And we don't need a police to make us free. A police state takes away our freedom. The only thing that was working right on 9/11 was the passengers of flight 93. They didn't need some f****** flight attendant or s******* from Der Duetscheland Security telling them to sit down and do as they were told. More freedom is the answer to terrorism. What those who set up 9/11 fear more than anything is free people with an education. Continue looking. Continue questioning. But never forget: while you and I argue, there are s*******s who are taking away our freedom. We (all us DWers) gotta stop that.

[Mr.Dude]

WOOF! Tall order. Go getta beer or some coffee. This is gonna take a while.


Have you noticed that in order for the Official Story to work, first 'They' must lie and show the WTC Towers as much much weaker than they actually were?
Actually, no. The "official" story may be totally ignored. I always do. I don't care what some politician says. I only care what engineers say say about engineering matters. Politicians just wanna pontificate, ie: LIE. You and I get enough of that from them already.

Structural steel is "mild" steel. That is, it has a relaively low amount of carbon in it. In addition, such steel almost never uses alloys, such chromium and or magnesium, both of which make steel much stronger and resistant to heat damage.

WTCs 1 & 2 were not weak. They were using some new ideas to create wide-open floor spaces. The exterior facing of the building was actually part of the support structure. And while designed to withstand an impact from a jet, the architect and engineers have admitted they failed to account for the fires that would be created from such an impact.


Second, why hasn't Underwriters Lab, or any other Fire Lab been able to reproduce the 'weakening' effect of the fire on the Tower's steel beams?
This is a classic problem in engineering: Massively complex problem - limited data available to work with. So engineers look at the data they have for the little bits and extrapolate. The problem is the size, in this case.

So, let me ask you, since this one's gonna take a while to discuss: How would you go about "reproducing" and "testing" this structure?


Third, explain all the molten steel found weeks after 9/11 in the sub basements of the Towers and WTC7.
Now this clearly shows what happens when you let politicians decide to throw away evidence, doesn't it? To give you a really good answer, I need to look at the samples, figure out where they came from and what the **** happened. Well, I'm S***-outa-Luck here. So, I'm gonna do the best I can with what I got.

Some of the steel that was called molten, was in fact not molten steel, but deformed steel. Some of the steel was covered with molten glass. Close, but no cigar.

Some of the steel actually melted from the forces generated during the collapse. Statistically possible. Given the amounts involved, statistically likely.

And some of the steel really did melt because of thermite reactions. Aluminum Oxide and Iron Oxide with a triggering mechanism will produce molten steel. Aluminum oxides on contact with air. The windown frames and airplane were aluminum - therefore, there was aluminum oxide present. Iron Oxide (rust) is always present in structural steel. So, both compounds were available. There were sources of ignition (fires) so thermites reactions were almost certain.

But again, I don't know which bit of steel you're refering to and some s******* threw them away. I wish I could do better, but I can't.


Fourth, notice now much concrete dust was created? Drop a 4 inch thick section of concrete from your roof and tell me how much of it turned into powder. Account for all of the concrete powder.
Actually, I've never seen any tests of the "dust" that was ejected when the WTCs collapsed. If you've got some, share.

Since the WTCs weren't built with much in the way of cement (when compared to, say, the Empire State building), it is unlikely much of the "dust" is actually cement. However, since WTCs 1 & 2 had huge open floor spaces, it is entirely possible that walls that were built used "sheetrock." Sheetrock is a non-structural material made of gypsum. It is soft and easily broken up by force. And that would generate a lot of "dust." Now, I'll admit that I am guessing. But I'll put money on that I'm right.

[Mr.Dude]

Finally, explain why the Towers did not collapse when they were exposed to several floors of fire back in the 1970's.
Amount of damage.

The fires you're refering to where just fires. On 9/11 an airplane almost 100% full of fuel slammed into each tower of WTCs 1 & 2. In both cases, massive fires were spread over more than ten floors simultaneously. The impacts of these jets caused extensive damage to the exterior strucutres which were actually part of the support strucutre of WTCs 1 & 2.

Because WTCs 1 & 2 were trying out a new design (wide-open floors without internal support columns getting in the way of views) the buildings are remarkably different from other hi-rises.

When the airplanes slammed into them, since there was nothing to slow them down after initial penetration, the jets could only damage support structures: the central core and or the exterior facing.

In engineering, one of the first courses you take is called statics. The next one is called dynamics. These are classes where you examin the forces of objects, both internal and external. At rest, a hi-rise generates fixed static and dynamic loads and stresses. But when a jet airplanes shears away a bunch of the supports, the stresses all change. Then you set a bunch of fires. Steel is a very strong and tough material. But at temperatures as low as 600 degrees celcius it has lost a significant portion of that strength.

So all this is going on at the same time. As an engineering problem, it is very complex. You either need to get a super-computer to solve the proble or you need to build a reproduction to try it out. When the military wanted to test bomb case deformation using a supercomputer it only took the computer an instant to work it out. Unfortunately it took months to generate the program. And that was for onlt a bomb casing. The WTCs were far more complicated.

[ERobertG]

But the problem there is that two jets had slammed into them, cutting the exterior supports.
What happened to the 80 lower floors?

The columns on those floors were supposedly untouched.

[Mr.Dude]

What happened to the 80 lower floors?

The columns on those floors were supposedly untouched.
True enough. But what you are asking in engineering terms is for the lower structure to support the weight of the upper structure when the bolts failed and the upper structure collapsed a floor.

Think about slowly, and try to imagine the forces involved.

WTC 1 was struck between the 93rd and 99th floors.

WTC 2 was struck between the 77th and 85th floors.

WTC 2 was struck lower down than WTC 1. That means that WTC 2 had to deal with more stress. That is why it collapsed first.

Think about what happens: An entire floor collapses onto the floor below. That floor is now supporting twice the weight it was supporting before the collapse. No problem there, because most engineers over-build support.

But in the case of WTC, it wasn't just one floor. In WTC 1 you have at least 11 floors (110 - 99). With WTC 2 it was far worse. At least 25 floors (110 - 85). What makes that even worse is that all these floors are not lowered slowly and carefully onto the floor below. Realistically, WTC might have survived that. But what happened was one floor instanly failed. All of the weight of the upper floors was now being dropped onto the floor below which had to deal with an instantaneous weight load factor of 11 times the existing load factor, times whatever the drop rate was. In full free fall objects would move at 186 miles per hour. The support structures slowed down the collapse to 125 miles per hour, or 2/3rds of G (gravity). At this point the collapse increases in speed. The forces are just too great to stop.

Erecting a hi-rise is a matter of using enough steel to overcome gravitation. Gravity is huge. At a certain point, gravity wins. In the case of WTCs 1 & 2 gravity won because the amount of damage inflicted on the support structure exceeded the load-carrying capacity of the buildings.

The effect observed in WTCs 1 & 2 is called "pancaking." We are always concerned about that here in earthquake country. A structure like WTC could never have been built in California. It never would have passed code. Our building are designed to flex. They are designed to shed their exterior faces rather than collapse. A California hi-rise is not tough. It flexes. It feels very flimsy in an earthquake, I assure you. But our floors don't collapse. Floors don't collapse in Japan for the same reason.

But in Mexico City, in 1985 they had a huge quake. Dozens of hi-rises "pancaked" just like WTCs 1 & 2. Mexico has since changed its building codes. Most of the country doesn't want to conform to California's or Japan's building codes for the same reason they don't want cars to meet our pollution standards: It's more expensive.

[Mr.Dude]

You can lead a horse to water, but if they believe the Official 9/11 Fable, they will dehydrate.
Which is why I do not believe the "Official" reports. My problem is I have enough engineering courses under my belt and a degree in Physics. I believe the buildings collapsed because they were too heavily damaged.

I woke up on 9/11 and did something I never do (well, I did it one other time) - I turned on the TV (the other time I did this I woke up very early, feeling very weird, turned on the TV and saw the news about the earthquake in L.A.)

As soon as I saw the first building burning I knew it was going to collapse. And when the jet slammed into the second building I knew that building was going to collapse first.

Do not believe anything any politician tells you, most especially if they want you to believe it. It meas they are trying to trick you.

In the case of 9/11 they want people arguing over the collapse - not arguing over the fact that they want to create a police state. Well brothers, sisters, comrades, they want a police state and I say f*** that s***. Our freedom has been paid for with the blood and suffering of too many people to allow that to happen.

[ERobertG]

Think about slowly, and try to imagine the forces involved.

WTC 1 was struck between the 93rd and 99th floors.

WTC 2 was struck between the 77th and 85th floors.

WTC 2 was struck lower down than WTC 1. That means that WTC 2 had to deal with more stress. That is why it collapsed first.
Think about it slowly, and try to imagine the structure involved...

Large columns with 4" web thickness at the bottom. All the rivets, bolts and welds snap and the concrete floors pulverize to virtual baby powder. All at free fall speed all the way to the ground.

Did you know that less than 40% of the building's mass was ever found on the ground with the remainder becoming airborne over the sky's of New York.

What happened?

[Trap]

About that concrete: Just about all of it was turned into dust. No large sections of any of the 4 inch thick flooring remained. Check the 'Ground Zero' pictures yourself.


So, let me ask you, since this one's gonna take a while to discuss: How would you go about "reproducing" and "testing" this structure?


Simple, they have a lab at WPI and other University testing centers. Well, in that lab reproduce the floor/strut/outer steel wall section of the Towers that were supposed to have failed first.

Then, load up the bottom 'floor' area with office stuff and a bit of jet fuel. Then---light a match and time how long it takes for the fire to cause the strut to pull away from the outer wall and the top concrete floor to collapse.

That is the 'iron boot' of the official story and I want it tested.

However, the connections between the strut and outer wall have to be reproduced EXACTLY as they were in the Towers. That means: All the blueprints of the Towers must be de-classified for all to see.

Dude, you say that the struts were connected by small 5/8' bolts. However, many sources say this configuration is grossly inaccurate. The sources claim that there were at least 5 connecting blots, not 2 as in the official story. In addition, there may have been weld connections.

It seems that some tests of fire on steel has already been conducted:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500-1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).


Dude, while we don't have earthquakes in NYC, we do get the occasional 150 mile an hour wind hurricane...about every 100 years or so. The Towers were designed to withstand that hurrican force----by swaying with the wind. Just like your earthquake designs. Think, over 4 acres of space along each outer wall that had to take that kind of hurricane force.

In fact, during the lifetime the Towers were hit by several hurricanes, I know I live in the NYC area, and they did just fine in the hurricanes....kind of giving proof that the floors were connected to the outer walls by more than 2 tinney bolts.

As for the structural steel in the massive support inner core, 47 columns in all:

1) I know nothing about steel, nore do I have a degree in physics.

2) However, those who do know more than I do say the Official Story grossly exaggerates the number of columns that were cut by the plane.

Think, an jetliner for all its massive size is just a hollow aluminum tube, with people and stuff inside and 2 steel engines under the wing.

So, when the jetliners hit the massive reeinforced outer walls of the Towers, most of those jets were atomized. Not enough heavy materials from the plane body to do serious damage to the steel columns.

Yes, the steel engines could have done serious damage...to the few columns they would have encountered as they passed through the buildings. However, an engine recovered from the NYC streets shows very little impact damage at all. This engine came from that plane that hit the second Tower, lower and at the side corner.

Which brings us to this point: The second plane would have caused FAR LESS damage to the columns BECAUSE it hit at the side corner of the building. Think about the trajectory of the plane debris---look at the pictures again if you can stomach the carnage--most of the plane passed through the building without hitting much of anything. The center core of WTC2 should then have been largely intact and able to withstand the gravity loads of the building even with the loss of the outer corner support.

Check the impact angles here:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]'s-eye_Impact_Locations.jpg

[Mr.Dude]

You guys are the best! I wish I had more time! I usually just sit here alone in the dark, thinking dark thoughts. Thanks for the human contact. I haven't had this much fun in years(I'm a very boring peson).


Large columns with 4" web thickness at the bottom.
Four inches? I'm not sure which columns you mean, but surely you meant four feet. It sounds impossing and very strong. But compared to the forces it's trying to support it is not. Buildings are construcuted slowly and carefully so that the G loads do not overwhelm the support members. Because the floors were so big in the WTC and did not have any secondary way to dissapate energy. All the support for the floors was the outer frame and the central support column.


All the rivets, bolts and welds snap
Yes. There was not enough steel involved to stop this. I've seen and heard a cold, half inch steel bolt pulled apart in an engineering lab. A hald inch seems like a lot. But it really isn't. It actually pulls apart like cold butter and suddenly snaps. It makes a sound like a gun going off. WTC used 5/8ths inch bolts - only an 1/8 of inch larger in diamter. Considering the weights involved they were inadequate. Even 1 inch bolts may have been too small. Rivets and welds are good fasteners for situations that are not going to undergo huge dynamic loads. For example, connecting rods in an engine use bolts so that they can be inspected and replaced. But a building weld or rivet is anticipated to never be replaced. Or subjected to strong dynamic loads.


and the concrete floors pulverize to virtual baby powder.
Like you I understand that concrete is a very durable material, is not frangible and it is unlikely that any significant portion of the "dust" we saw was composed of concrete. But there would have been a huge amount of sheetrock used. I believe a large amount of the "dust" we saw was in fact composed of pulverized sheetrock.

I have never seen any tests of the actual composition of the dust. So until I do, I sticking with pulverized sheetrock. It is the most likely candidate.


All at free fall speed all the way to the ground.
Free fall speed is around 186 miles per hour(8 1/2 feet per second per second). That would equate to a building collapse-speed of around 8 seconds. The smallest figure I have been able to find is around 11 seconds. That equates to a fall-speed of around 135 miles per hour. That is not free fall - although I'll grant you it is pretty fast. But since the forces were actually always incrasing , lower levels were in fact collapsing at free-fall speeds as the forces increased at almost an almost logarithmic rate.


Did you know that less than 40% of the building's mass was ever found on the ground with the remainder becoming airborne over the sky's of New York.
No, but I would be interested to see the numbers. Here's the problem(for me). The WTCs were actually very light. An average cubic foot of WTC actually weighed less than a cubic foot of Balsa wood - a very light material. But the furnishings would actually have comprised a significant portion of the total weight.

It wouldn't be the first time such a math error has occured. At one time scietists "proved" that Bumble Bees couldn't fly - they were to heavy and their wings didn't generate enough lift. Yet the bees didn't know this so they kept on flying. At the turn f the century the French would not let trains travel more than 20 miles per hour, because at that speed all the air would be sucked out of the carriage and all the occupants would die.

What I'm saying here is that the person's whose numbers you are relying on could be wrong - and I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last). Naturally I'm stubborn and I don't think I'm wrong.


What happened?
Two airplanes slammed into two very tall buildings causing extensive physical and widespread fire damage causing them to collapse.

It was part of plot to create a "Pearl Harbor" type of incident to allow the "government" to create a police state.

You obviously disagree with the first part. But I know you don't disagree with the second part. Neither do I and that is the most important thing here. Discussing the collapse is an intellectual process. S*******s trying to steal our(yours and mine) freedom is not. My freedom was bought a long time ago with a lot of my family's blood. I will not give up my freedom - not one bit of it.

[Mr.Dude]

This is gonna take some doing. There's a lotta stuff to respond to here. Thank you.


About that concrete: Just about all of it was turned into dust. No large sections of any of the 4 inch thick flooring remained. Check the 'Ground Zero' pictures yourself.
Nore would you expect there to be. Bear with me.

We know that the thickest piece that could have been found is: Four inches. Therefore, width and breadth are the only other dimensions that could have been bigger.

A building that collapses from 110 stories on itself is going to cause significant damage to any internal components. I would actually be surprised to find any pieces of concreate with any dimension larger than 3 feet inact.

[Mr.Dude]

Simple, they have a lab at WPI and other University testing centers. Well, in that lab reproduce the floor/strut/outer steel wall section of the Towers that were supposed to have failed first.

Then, load up the bottom 'floor' area with office stuff and a bit of jet fuel. Then---light a match and time how long it takes for the fire to cause the strut to pull away from the outer wall and the top concrete floor to collapse.

However, the connections between the strut and outer wall have to be reproduced EXACTLY as they were in the Towers. That means: All the blueprints of the Towers must be de-classified for all to see.
You did omit one thing and it is the hardest to reproduce - the weight that was being supported. And I'm pretty sure they haven't done any testing yet because they aren't sure of how to reproduce the strain caused by the weight.


That is the 'iron boot' of the official story and I want it tested.
Absolutely.


Dude, you say that the struts were connected by small 5/8' bolts. However, many sources say this configuration is grossly inaccurate. The sources claim that there were at least 5 connecting blots, not 2 as in the official story. In addition, there may have been weld connections.
I've never heard anyone say that 2 bolts were used. Whoever said that didn't know what they were taking about. There were at least 5 bolts used - at each end of each supporting truss beam. PBS did a story on this and it's a good place to start. The truss beam was fastened at one end to the exterior frame and the other end was secured to central support core.

This was the design that allowed them to have such huge, open floors. This allowed the stresses to be spread out.