9/11--Was it an inside job?

[elder999]

IDK Sukerkin..I get labeled as the bad guy for asking questions. Elder has accused me several times of "spitting on the memory" of the people who died that day, but I really don't see it that way. I see it as fleshing out the facts from fiction. Asking questions is truely the only way to get to the truth. Face it Elder, the official story has holes, big ones, and I am also willing to admit that the jury is still out on a lot of the other theories that are out there...but facts are facts.

Am i spitting on God by saying I believe in Dinosuars or the Big Bang, or even Evolution?

No...and at one time or another, one could even be put to death for blasphamy...and it was all in the name of Science.

In America, in some circles, such as the one that elder is residing. Its a SIN and a CRIME to even mention that there could possiblly be a shread of evidence that our "Christ-Like" American Government could even be involved with anything like what happened on 9/11...the problem is, our Government is involved with a WHOLE lot of 9/11 like events all around the world and through out History.

All in all, me asking questions and presenting evidence that the official story has holes, and those holes point fingers at our American Government. Doesn't make me a bad guy, doesn't necessarily make me a good one either, but what it does make me, is a truth seeker, and when undeniable evidence is presented, my mind will be made up completely.

Faith is for God, not for Governments.

You spit on their memory by yielding to distraction, and not focusing on the real questions and issues-and the collapse of WTC #7 is a distraction. Other steel trussed buildings (not "skyscrapers") have collapsed due to fire: the McCormic center in Chicago collapsed in a mere 30 minutes. It's a lack of understanding of the processes and variables involved that permitted this to happen that leads to just the sort of errant nonsense that your spouting here. The building had no firefighting for more than 6 hours. The building had been damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers-indeed, the building had been abandoned because of that visible damage, and fear that the building would collapse-to say that it "collapsed from a fire" is only part of the story. And just because it fell into its footprint doesn't mean it needed to have been a controlled demolition-the building collapsed;gravity did the rest.

For the record, there's nothing wrong with asking questions; you just aren't asking the right ones. There's nothing wrong with presenting evidence-it's just that your evidence isn't evidence at all.

Now,here is a presentation from Structure Magazine, explaining the mechanism of WTC's collapse:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=284

 

[Sensei Payne]

<A shape=rect name=fema>
FEMA on Building 7


Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:

• At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
• Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
• Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
• This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
• The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
• The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
• The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
• The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.

The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes.

After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published.

Really Elder...I hope your right..I really hope that I am wrong...I do not wish to get into a
duck season...Rabbit season style convo with you, or anyone else for that matter...

Respectfully, I do hope your right.

As with anything people are going to conclude there own hypothisis, and perhaps, we will never really know what happened for 100% certainty. But through research and Healthy debate...maybe one day...the evidence to truely close the book on 9/11 will become available.

But until then, I am going to keep an open mind, and always ask questions.

 

[elder999]

Really Elder...I hope your right..I really hope that I am wrong.

I'm not right. The science is right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.

 

[Big Don]

I suppose it's also the only one to be damaged by the collapse of another building, and left to burn without any firefighting for more than 6 hours,

With BIG *** FUEL TANKS INSIDE THE BUILDING!!!

too, and that may have something to do with it being less than implausible, but hey-you're going to think whatever you want.

Oh, btw, remember what I posted up thread about spitting on the truth and the memory of those that died that day by even mentioning controlled demolition?

You just did.

What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? 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."

 

[Big Don]

I'm not right. The science is right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.

It isn't that they can't understand it. They are like flat earther's or Holocaust deniers, in that they REFUSE all explanations that don't feed their delusions.

 

[Sukerkin]

Wasn't the FEMA disaster management HQ supposed to be in the basement of Building 7? Or am I making that up from conspiracy snippets I've heard here and there?

If it was, wouldn't you think there's be more effort put into saving the place?

 

[Sukerkin]

It isn't that they can't understand it. They are like flat earther's or Holocaust deniers, in that they REFUSE all explanations that don't feed their delusions.

Tempting as it is, we really can't just throw out such dismissive blanket statements, Don.

After all, I, with my agnostic-nearly-athesist and British Liberal views might think the same about American Republican thinkers or religious people - sometimes I slip and actually do say as much, I know {blush} - but I really shouldn't.

Believe me, I now what it feels like to want to reach into the computer screen and shake some 'sense' into someone, screaming something akin to "Why can't you see!!!!!?" :lol:. But even if we could it wouldn't really help; it'd just harden attitudes and then everything devolves down from intelligent debate to a circle of "'Tis so!" ... "No t'aint!" et al.

 

[Archangel M]

I'm not right. The science is right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.

Can't understand it or refuse to even consider it?

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm not right. The science is right, though-it's just that truthers can't understand it.

How would you know the science is right if no one is allowed to see the evidence and repeat the conclusions?

 

[CanuckMA]

How would you know the science is right if no one is allowed to see the evidence and repeat the conclusions?

 

[Sensei Payne]

How would you know the science is right if no one is allowed to see the evidence and repeat the conclusions?

I think I know where you are going with this maunakumu...but I think CanuckMA needs more of an explaination.

 

[elder999]

Wasn't the FEMA disaster management HQ supposed to be in the basement of Building 7? Or am I making that up from conspiracy snippets I've heard here and there?

If it was, wouldn't you think there's be more effort put into saving the place?

It was the New York City Office of Emergency Management. It was on the 23rd floor. I was directly involved in setting it up-prior to the 1993 bombing, there was no NYCOEM. After the '93 bombing, the city and the Port Authority approached the New York Power Authority, which had an emergency management office and joint operations center at Indian Pt. #3. I was in the training department,was directly involved in emergency management at IP#3, and was one of several people consulted to develop the NYCOEM. I got a tour of the WTC facilities, met and befriended lots of people who worked there, and spent quite a few days helping develop plans for the OEM's Emergency Operations Center-which, in many people's opinion (mine included), shouldn't have been at the WTC in the first place. The collapse of the building (WTC 7) was anticipated, and it was abandoned before it happened.

Like I said, I lost a few friends that day.

 

[Makalakumu]

Where is the evidence? Can a group of qualified skeptics repeat the official conclusions?

 

[elder999]

Where is the evidence? Can a group of qualified skeptics repeat the official conclusions?

Sure. Build a couple of steel framed towers 107 stories in height, and an additional 47 story bldg. adjacent to them. Fly a couple of 767s into each tower, so they collapse from impact and fire damage, with some debris impacting the adjacent 47 story bldg. Set the 47 story bldg. on fire, and let it burn for 6 hours or more.

 

[Makalakumu]

Sure. Build a couple of steel framed towers 107 stories in height, and an additional 47 story bldg. adjacent to them. Fly a couple of 767s into each tower, so they collapse from impact and fire damage, with some debris impacting the adjacent 47 story bldg. Set the 47 story bldg. on fire, and let it burn for 6 hours or more.

Where is the evidence?

 

[elder999]

Where is the evidence?

Well, we all saw those things happen on TV. For most, that's evidence enough of what happened. However, if you mean the actual debris, most of it has long been carted off to the dump.

You can, however, review the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on 9/11: here and the FEMA report here.

"Where is the evidence?" Sounds like an atheist to me.....:lfao:

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, we all saw those things happen on TV. For most, that's evidence enough of what happened. However, if you mean the actual debris, most of it has long been carted off to the dump.

They started carting away debris as if there was no investigation pending and it wasn't a crime scene. Human remains, everything, has been slagged and remade into other things...including a brand new battle ship. How appropriate...

You can, however, review the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on 9/11: here and the FEMA report here.

I've reviewed both of these in other threads. That aside, how can anyone know if these are good investigations if no qualified skeptic is able to reproduce their results?

"Where is the evidence?" Sounds like an atheist to me.....:lfao:

LOL! Yup.

 

[elder999]

They started carting away debris as if there was no investigation pending and it wasn't a crime scene. Human remains, everything, has been slagged and remade into other things...including a brand new battle ship. How appropriate...

And that was totally America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani's doing. If you want to call that a conspiracy, well, I'll buy into that, but it wasn't part of any cover up.

There was nothing to cover up. Planes flew into those buildings for all to see.

I've reviewed both of these in other threads. That aside, how can anyone know if these are good investigations if no qualified skeptic is able to reproduce their results?

A qualified skeptic is completely capable of reproducing their results. Build two towers, another building, crash two 767s, etc. Short of that, computer modeling might tell the story, but that's far too tweakable, either way.

 

[swivel63]

Where is the evidence?

evidence of what? that planes flew into the buildings?

planes take out existing vertical members + increased heat to decrease capacity of existing members + no reduction in vertical load = catastrophic collapse.

 

[swivel63]

And that was totally America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani's doing. If you want to call that a conspiracy, well, I'll buy into that, but it wasn't part of any cover up.

There was nothing to cover up. Planes flew into those buildings for all to see.





A qualified skeptic is completely capable of reproducing their results. Build two towers, another building, crash two 767s, etc. Short of that, computer modeling might tell the story, but that's far too tweakable, either way.

this was done at a rudimentary level by one of my old college profs

Pentagon Sim

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

Twin Towers Sim

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html