The fruits of personal research into the 9/11 tragedy/travesty

Okay, sorry to dredge up a topic like this, but I feel that I've got to make one last 9/11 thread, So here it is.

I'm going to just state what I believe, and Draw the logical conclusions, then I'm going to open the floor for debate. I've spent quite some time researching this topic, and I'm ready to share my findings with you all.


What happened on September 11?

Up until June, 2001, the U.S. Air Force had a standard operating procedure to immediately intercept any hijacked airplanes and either force them to land or shoot them down.
After June 2001, however, this procedure was changed, such that it required the approval of all of the following: PotUS, Secretary of State, and Head of the JCoS. I'm wondering why such a life-saving standard op was made so difficult to maintain in times of need.

Here's something interesting:

Less than a year before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, soon-to-be top ranking officials of the Bush Administration (including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) and Jeb Bush prepared a document titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" for the Project for the New American Century. This document proposed a) more U.S. military bases around the world to project U.S. power; b) "regime change" in countries unfriendly to U.S. interests including Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; and c) greatly increased military spending, especially for anti-missile systems.

It gets better, this document suggested that these things couldn't be accomplished without, and I quote, "Some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"

The morning of the attack, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was speaking with the press, who quoted him as saying: "Let me tell ya, I've been around the block a few times. There will be another attack. There will be another attack."

The first plane struck the tower just moments after him saying this. Coincidence? Maybe, but I'm not convinced.


And now on to the actual collapse of the North and South Towers of the WTC...The following was taken from a letter, I found it at The collapse of the WTC, Here it is:

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

Very interesting to note, and I also read evidence that suggests that these fires were unlikely to have reached even 2000C, due to the nature and fuel for these fires, they likely reached a high point of 1500-1600 degrees Fahrenheit.
One important thing to note here, The president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. reported that clean-up crews found molten steel at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, seven floors below the ground.


I found this next bit in an info piece about the attacks, thought it would be interesting to put up here.

Building 7 of the World Trade Center also collapsed, even though it was not hit by a plane, it was 355 feet away from the North Tower, and it was not hit by any significant debris. Enough debris did cross over to start a small fire, yet the fire chief decided, without explanation, not to have his men enter the building. WTC-7's sprinkler system inexplicably failed to work. Molten steel was found here as well.

Lon Rains, the editor of Space News, saw what hit the Pentagon. He Identified it as a Missile, and yet another Eyewitness identified the object as 'A cruise missile with wings'

One big thing that's left me scratching my head from this is the official story out of the Pentagon, that the fire burned hot enough to not only melt, but VAPORIZE many of the steel and aluminum components used in aircraft construction. Yet the bodies recovered from the 'crash' site were supposedly identified by fingerprinting. How in the HELL did a fire burn hot enough to vaporize steel, and leave human flesh intact? Someone, please?


Now, more about flight 93.


United Airlines Flight 93 left Newark 41 minutes late at 8:42 am. At 9:28, Tom Burnett called his wife, telling her the plane had been hijacked. She called the FBI, and they placed a tap on her phone to monitor all the subsequent calls. When he called again at 9:34, she told him about the WTC attacks. Realizing that the plane was on a "suicide mission," He and other passengers decided to fight back against the hijackers, who were armed only with knives, and not guns. Shortly after 9:47, Jeremy Glick (Another passenger) told his wife that all the male passengers had voted to attack the hijackers. And good on them for it.

Continuing on...

At 9:58, Todd Beamer said, while getting off his cell phone: "Are you ready guys? Let's roll." Also at 9:58, a female passenger who had phoned her husband said: "I think they're going to do it. They're forcing their way into the cockpit." A little later she said: "They're doing it! They're doing it!" There was then alot of screaming on the recording, followed by a whooshing sound, a sound like wind, then more screaming. Contact was soon lost. Another passenger, calling from the restroom, reportedly said that he heard an explosion and "saw white smoke coming from the plane." The FBI later denied this, but the person that he called was not allowed to speak to the press. The last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder was wind, which to me suggests that the plane had been "holed", meaning that it was hit by a missile/missiles.

And yet more:

Family of the civilians killed on Flight 93 were allowed to listen to the cockpit recording, which ends at 10:02. The plane "officially" crashed at 10:03. On the other hand, seismic readings from the area indicate that the crash happened slightly after 10:06. Then oddly, a month later on October 16, the government releases official transcripts for the other three hijacked planes, but not for Flight 93. I really do wonder why this is?


Now, same story, but now from the ground.


One witness reported hearing three "loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine any more." (Now remember, this is groundside) Other witnesses heard a "loud bang" before the plane crashed. Another heard "two loud bangs" before seeing the plane start to crash. The mayor of Shanksville said he knew of two people, one of which a Vietnam veteran, who "heard a missile." I think that this is pretty compelling, honestly.

One other intriguing thing about this, is that debris from the engine of flight 93 was found (including an badly damaged engine) a mile away, and smaller bits found up to 8 miles away. Now what the hell is up with that, can you tell me?


These are just a few of the important (and inexplicable) details that I have found out about 9/11, and I'd like to state the following, which indicate my beliefs on the subject.


I do not believe that this was a terrorist attack that our President knew nothing about.
I do not believe that this was solely a well-orchestrated sham by our leaders.
Rather,
I believe that this was a well-orchestrated sham by our leaders, which was planned to coincide with an already=planned Terrorist attack, and exploited by our leaders to gain the maximum of political support and maneuvering room.
I also believe that if these things come to light later as being the result of any sort of involvement by these leaders, that we should consider the amount of suffering nationwide, when considering their punishment.


Thanks for reading, sources as follow:


www.911inquiry.org...
www.greatconspiracy.ca...
www.globaloutlook.ca...
www.911forthetruth.com...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.QuestionsQuestions.net...


[edit on 6-9-2005 by Loki]

You get my vote for way above.

I am gald you reopened this - and I hope people continue to do so as there are just plain too many hard questions that need to be answered here. I look forward to hearing some of the experts answers to these questions and I hope this doesn't go all political on us.

Political may be interesting to americans, but it is just plain boring for the rest of the world, in fact I hate trawling through the rubbish and wish there was a block button for political replies!

that voting stuff is too much for me, but will a do?

really, an excellent analysis and sythesis of what went down on 911. i really like your thread because you are just one person, reporting on how just one person percieves the facts. Not to mention, I agree with you, but this is the type of stuff that i appreciate. too often it seems like people think they can corner the argument with numbers and charts, as if you should just nod your head in agreement.

well, these are facts too, judged valuable by an individual - and they tell quite the story.

your point about the engine falling apart from the plane is interesting - never thought how telling that is. just more evidence...

edit: i am in complete agreement with this, AMEN!

I do not believe that this was a terrorist attack that our President knew nothing about.
I do not believe that this was solely a well-orchestrated sham by our leaders.
Rather,
I believe that this was a well-orchestrated sham by our leaders, which was planned to coincide with an already=planned Terrorist attack, and exploited by our leaders to gain the maximum of political support and maneuvering room.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by lost]

Thanks for the support, guys.

You know, the info is out there, for you to find, all the research is done, I just brought it together.

Nice analysis Loki, but it seems to me that the whole 9/11 scenario is now becoming a matter of faith, regardless of the evidence/questions raised.

It is also apparent to a lot of people that have followed events that there is an AWFUL lot of opinion out there, which sometimes makes one conclude that we will NEVER get to know the truth, sigh.

In the meantime, the only conclusion i can draw is that I do not believe the official version of events as published by Kean-Zelikow.

Excellent research
I think we should have more research like this at ATS

You'v got my vote for TWATS for this

[edit on 9-6-2005 by infinite]

It's good to see you doing your own research Loki. Too often people read something....and that's it. The authors opinion is now their opinion. They don't take time to research further and come up with their own opinion.

Originally posted by Loki
Up until June, 2001, the U.S. Air Force had a standard operating procedure to immediately intercept any hijacked airplanes and either force them to land or shoot them down.
After June 2001, however, this procedure was changed, such that it required the approval of all of the following: PotUS, Secretary of State, and Head of the JCoS. I'm wondering why such a life-saving standard op was made so difficult to maintain in times of need.

Shooting down a civilian aircraft, hijacked or not, is not something to play with.
Going through all that is to ensure that 1)all and not just one person is responsible for that extremely heavy decision and 2)to confirm this is indeed an extreme situation in which more lives will be saved by shooting it down.

Less than a year before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, soon-to-be top ranking officials of the Bush Administration (including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) and Jeb Bush prepared a document titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" for the Project for the New American Century. This document proposed a) more U.S. military bases around the world to project U.S. power; b) "regime change" in countries unfriendly to U.S. interests including Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; and c) greatly increased military spending, especially for anti-missile systems.

It gets better, this document suggested that these things couldn't be accomplished without, and I quote, "Some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"

I'd like to read that document. Do you have a link or something?

The morning of the attack, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was speaking with the press, who quoted him as saying: "Let me tell ya, I've been around the block a few times. There will be another attack. There will be another attack."

The first plane struck the tower just moments after him saying this. Coincidence? Maybe, but I'm not convinced.

He wasn't speaking to the press. He was with Paul Wolfowitz and Christopher Cox for an 8 o clock breakfast. They were talking about missile defense.
It also not clear he was talking about here on American soil. You got to remember in the past 10 years (from '01), there was the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc. If he was talking about terrorism...then he was just stating what most in the government had felt at that time (and still do).

Very interesting to note, and I also read evidence that suggests that these fires were unlikely to have reached even 2000C, due to the nature and fuel for these fires, they likely reached a high point of 1500-1600 degrees Fahrenheit.
One important thing to note here, The president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. reported that clean-up crews found molten steel at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, seven floors below the ground.

It's impossible to determine how hot it was. It was obviously hot enough *Important (people tend to forget this): and there was enough structual damage caused by the plane crash and resulting explosion* to cause the towers to collapse. It's just not possible (not to mention absolutely pointless) to have planted bombs in the buildings or on the planes and have it go unnoticed. There's also no evidence these were skilled pilots. To crash into the exact spots the bombs were planted would be difficult for even veteran pilots.

Also, I know this has been disputed in other threads, but the WTC was not designed with aircraft impacts in mind.
When it was being designed they did however analyse what the impact of a 707 flying at 600 mph crashing into the building would be. The study however did not take into account the damage that would be done from the subsequent fires.

Building 7 of the World Trade Center also collapsed, even though it was not hit by a plane, it was 355 feet away from the North Tower, and it was not hit by any significant debris. Enough debris did cross over to start a small fire, yet the fire chief decided, without explanation, not to have his men enter the building. WTC-7's sprinkler system inexplicably failed to work. Molten steel was found here as well.

Building 7 was hit by significant debris. Most of the structual damage caused by the debris was to the south face and southwest corner of the building (not the side most people saw). After the collapse of WTC 1 fires were seen in the upper parts of the building floors 20s-30. After about 2:00 fires started becoming evident in the lower parts of the building (most of the pictures showing WTC 7 on fire are taken around this time).

There was no water in the pipes that supplied water to WTC 7's sprinkler system. Why? I don't know. Perhaps they were using it for the other two buildings.
WTC7 was also on 'TEST' status that day. Meaning their alarms were supposed to be maintenanced or tested, perhaps this could also be a reason why the sprinklers weren't active.


NIST report has more info on the towers...
wtc.nist.gov...

Lon Rains, the editor of Space News, saw what hit the Pentagon. He Identified it as a Missile, and yet another Eyewitness identified the object as 'A cruise missile with wings'

How far away were these witnesses? Where did the missle come from? Where's the plane? Have these witnesses ever seen a missle up close before?
Of all the conspiricies concerning 9/11, this is the most easily debunked. There's already an extremely long thread about this and alot of the evidence is already presented there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

At 9:58, Todd Beamer said, while getting off his cell phone: "Are you ready guys? Let's roll." Also at 9:58, a female passenger who had phoned her husband said: "I think they're going to do it. They're forcing their way into the cockpit." A little later she said: "They're doing it! They're doing it!" There was then alot of screaming on the recording, followed by a whooshing sound, a sound like wind, then more screaming. Contact was soon lost. Another passenger, calling from the restroom, reportedly said that he heard an explosion and "saw white smoke coming from the plane." The FBI later denied this, but the person that he called was not allowed to speak to the press. The last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder was wind, which to me suggests that the plane had been "holed", meaning that it was hit by a missile/missiles.

Flight 93....
We have so much info, yet so little answers.
It's confirmed ffrom passengers, flight recorders, and control towers that the hijackers claimed they had a bomb on board (strapped around one of the hijackers) and there were passengers who described it. Was it real?

It's also known that the order was in fact given to shoot down the plane. Did the jets make it there in time?
That order lead to some confusion. In one debriefing I had access to they did in fact say they shot down the plane. But now they're saying that only the order to shoot it down was given but the plane crashed before the order was carried out.

What we do know is that the passengers did in fact try (and succeed?) in taking over the plane. Anyone who thinks they were all part of some conspiricy or whatever needs to have their head examined. They risked their lives to save who knows how many others.
Heroes.

I do not believe that this was a terrorist attack that our President knew nothing about.
I do not believe that this was solely a well-orchestrated sham by our leaders.
Rather,
I believe that this was a well-orchestrated sham by our leaders, which was planned to coincide with an already=planned Terrorist attack, and exploited by our leaders to gain the maximum of political support and maneuvering room.
I also believe that if these things come to light later as being the result of any sort of involvement by these leaders, that we should consider the amount of suffering nationwide, when considering their punishment.

I think our leaders had a whiff that something was being planned. I don't think they knew the scope or the attack, any dates, or anything like that. If any did have an idea of the scope, I'm sure they probably brushed it off as highly improbable. When was the last time any US flight was hijacked? When have planes ever been used as missles? Here in Ameria? Nahh.
That would be the only thing the current administration would be to blame for. For ignoring the improbable.

This attack was too good to be just planned in 8 months. Planning actually started around '98, way before any of the current people were in the picture.

(Plus, planning for the greatest attack on US soil and planning everything to do with the vote count in Florida?? I thought Bush was supposed to be stupid. How did he get the brains to do all that, and when did he have the time? )

Here's your link to the PNAC document you wanted.

Rebuilding America's Defenses

I really think that while your evidence is acceptable to many, It requires too many 'leaps of faith' to even prove close to acceptable to realists, I mean, let's be honest here, even being EXTREMELY generous, the Fires on the upper floors were still 500F below that of the melting point of UNFIREPROOFED steel, as cited in the corresponding letter.

This still does not account for the molten lead found SEVEN STORIES BELOW the ground in both the north and south WTC towers.

As for flight 93, there is significant evidence of a coverup, as 4 plus minutes are missing from the black box, and there is the overwhelming possibility that the passengers aboard managed to overcome their hijackers. Also a Vietnam veteran claiming to have heard a missile overhead is, in my humble opinion, a good source to listen to.

I know I shouldn't have brought the Pentagon back into discussion, but I had to, also remember that the story and the method of ID are not congruent in the case of the Pentagon corpses. I defy you to find me a fire that will vaporize aluminum, and yet leaves human flesh intact for fingerprinting.

Flight 93 was probably the first victim of 'silencing' in the 9-11 investigation, as the passengers, who (and i'm painting a picute of the missing black box minutes) had overcome their hijackers, and gained control of the plane, onlyTo find that all along, the Jets in pursuit were there to make sure that word did NOT get out about this conspiracy. Note that it is after the point in time of the recording in which several screams and sounds of fighting are heard, that the sounds of the engines abruptly end, and a whooshing noise of depressurization, can be heard. (a result of a 'holing' missile strike from pursuit interceptors)

Again, back to the WTC, one must only look at the video of the collapse of the WTC to notice that the primary point of collapse on the north tower is clearly at the foundation of the building. There is no explination as to why structural damage above the 80th floor would cause a massive collapse, instigated from ground level. Also notice that in the video, Dust is spewed from the bottom ten or so floors outward at a distance of no less than 200 feet. Outward. Traditionally, in building collapses, the pressure remains inward, and all falls, basically inward/downward. This dust went strictly upward/outward. telltale sign of a planned explosion.

Once more back to the Pentagon:

Recall what the editor of an aerospace publication made the Pentagon object out to be:

"Lon Rains, the editor of Space News, saw what hit the Pentagon. He Identified it as a Missile."

Also, the only other angle that would even have possibly caught the 'plane' impact into the Pentagon was a security recording across the street in a convenience store. Tape that was promptly confiscated 5-10 minutes after the 'attack'.

Please, this is an interesting debate, let us continue.



[edit on 6-9-2005 by Loki]

Nothing wrong with "reopening" or awareness raising - 9/11 has never been "closed" except by the official stonewallers and the duped followers of the US fascist regime.

Three (relatively minor) points of interest:

1. What is your opinion of the national security anti-terrorist drill exercise that was meant to have occured on the morning of 9/11, coincidentally?

2. What is your opinion about the reason for friends and acquaintances of senior Bush administration officials (most notably Ms Rice) being advised before 9/11 not to take commercial aircraft flights that week?

and

3. Who stood to gain the most - commercially and strategically - from prior knowledge of the attacks? How have the attacks been used by them, specifically, when you follow the money trail?

I don't think opinion obscures facts. Only official prevarication and stonewalling and taking the opportunity to lie behind closed doors because you are not under oath obscures facts, for a time.

1. What is your opinion of the national security anti-terrorist drill exercise that was meant to have occured on the morning of 9/11, coincidentally?

Just another delightful 'coincidence'. I'm really leaning towards the following explination.

It was an attempt to generate fear. If you produce a facade that allows the public to think that you're aware of the problem, and ready to confront it, and defend against it, and then 'against all odds' one of these attacks that you are so 'stalwartly defending your country from' manages to succeed, You'll end up with a slightly more than terrified populace, 100% willing to accept that you need to take just a little bit of their freedom away for safety....and it works like a charm.

2. What is your opinion about the reason for friends and acquaintances of senior Bush administration officials (most notably Ms Rice) being advised before 9/11 not to take commercial aircraft flights that week?

Interesting, but not something that should have been unexpected. There's some slight hints that Airiel Sharon could have also been involved, Seeing as how he cancelled a trip to New York approximately 2 weeks before the attack, so, he was likely warned to steer clear as well.

It's really not a surprising move, but I think it was a bit unwise to let so many people know that something was in the air, and a give them even a week's window to speculate. But hey, I'm not the evil bastard trying to rule the world through imperialistic economization.

3. Who stood to gain the most - commercially and strategically - from prior knowledge of the attacks? How have the attacks been used by them, specifically, when you follow the money trail?

I've always believed this to be primarily a political feint. It's like getting children hooked on tobacco. Ironically, if you lure your citizenry into a false sense of security with neoconservative political stratagems, you'll most likely get them addicted to bull#, and crave Republicans in abundance for years to come.


Nice questions, MA. Thanks.

Read up on the effects of heat on the strength of steel and come back with some more pearls of conspiracy. It doesn't have to melt....

Research implies doing real research, not reading what some conspiracy bound hacks have written and forming your own opinion.

Talk to UAL and AA, talk to ATC workers. Talk to fire and police, etc....

There are some nice photos about of aircraft parts at the Pentagon site includng a wheel rim - how'd they get there - strapped to the missle?? Answer yes if missle was in fact a plane and move on....

Originally posted by UofCinLA
Talk to UAL and AA, talk to ATC workers. Talk to fire and police, etc....

... and talk to Controlled Demolition Inc., the company consulted to do a quick sweep of Ground Zero after 9/11 to avoid any pesky forensic science being conducted.

Originally posted by Loki
I really think that while your evidence is acceptable to many, It requires too many 'leaps of faith' to even prove close to acceptable to realists, I mean, let's be honest here, even being EXTREMELY generous, the Fires on the upper floors were still 500F below that of the melting point of UNFIREPROOFED steel, as cited in the corresponding letter.

Let's say you have two sticks. One is a normal strong stick. The other, you cut it up a bit so that's it's now weak. If you hold both over a fire, which are you more likely to be able to break first? The normal one or the weakened one?

This still does not account for the molten lead found SEVEN STORIES BELOW the ground in both the north and south WTC towers.

The fires didn't stop and the jet feul didn't dissipate with the collapse of the towers. It just went from being able to spread up and down over hundreds of stories to a compacted space and now only able to burn downward.

As for flight 93, there is significant evidence of a coverup, as 4 plus minutes are missing from the black box

Stuff missing from the black box is not a sign of a coverup. Black boxes are continuing to get better, but they aren't perfect yet. With a crash like that, it's going to get damaged.

and there is the overwhelming possibility that the passengers aboard managed to overcome their hijackers.

With the stuff the black box did record was that this is very well possible. No one is covering that up.

Also a Vietnam veteran claiming to have heard a missile overhead is, in my humble opinion, a good source to listen to.

A lot of people heard and saw many things that day. I know, I was in the middle of it.
He may have heard something that sounded like a missile, that doesn't mean it was. Jets were in the area, does he know 100% for sure the difference between a jet and a missile?

Again, back to the WTC, one must only look at the video of the collapse of the WTC to notice that the primary point of collapse on the north tower is clearly at the foundation of the building. There is no explination as to why structural damage above the 80th floor would cause a massive collapse, instigated from ground level. Also notice that in the video, Dust is spewed from the bottom ten or so floors outward at a distance of no less than 200 feet. Outward. Traditionally, in building collapses, the pressure remains inward, and all falls, basically inward/downward. This dust went strictly upward/outward. telltale sign of a planned explosion.

Whoa.
You've been good so far, but this is just completely 100% wrong.
Here's the north tower collapse:
www.911research.com...

In no way does the collapse start anywhere near the base, it clearly starts at the floor of impact. Also in building collapses dust and debris spread outward unless it's a controlled demolition. THAT'S when it would fall inward. That's the point of controlled demolitions, to minimize damage to the surrounding area!

Recall what the editor of an aerospace publication made the Pentagon object out to be:

Also, the only other angle that would even have possibly caught the 'plane' impact into the Pentagon was a security recording across the street in a convenience store. Tape that was promptly confiscated 5-10 minutes after the 'attack'.

I've discussed this plenty in the other thread. Trust me, it was a plane. I wish I had a camera that day. I didn't see the plane hit, a friend of mine however saw everything. I only had clear views of the C-140 that was following it. And of course the jets that came screaming in couple minutes after impact (meaning they didn't fire the missile - so who did?).


What would be the point in hijacking the planes to be used as missiles, if you're just going to use missiles?

``

good attempt

in my mind there is one glaring ommission about the structural failure
of the steel, brought about from a 'not hot enough fire source'...

have you ever witnessed or experienced that a fire is WAY hotter
when you blow on it???

factor that in, when trying to disprove the WTC result,
people are neglecting to factor in the element of the elevator shafts
(yes plural shafts) supplying a rather large volume of air onto the steel structures which were located in the central area of the towers- - -

a GIANT Bellows effect was created!!
which a regular blacksmith is familiar with/ and so are backyard barbeque cooks!..
so under static/ ideal conditions with the known fuel supply(ies)
the fires could only reach a (maxium)temperature less than what is needed to sufficiently weaken the high-grade steel....but if you add an updraft, a high volume airflow to the event,
then a significantly hotter fire would definitely aid in the collapse!

i just haven't seen anyone, in their analysis, point to this physics fact!!

imo

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Whoa.
You've been good so far, but this is just completely 100% wrong.
Here's the north tower collapse:
www.911research.com...

Well, you want video, you got it..

italy.indymedia.org...

And hey, let's not leave out the south tower.
italy.indymedia.org...


And just for giggles, here's what a Demolition looks like.

italy.indymedia.org...

Compare with TJW's video from above.

Now....The WTC screams to me demo job. It just screams it. I have seen no way that the fuel-rich fires at the WTC could have POSSIBLY melted this tempered building steel. Just no way. I can't imagine it. And these videos point out to you where you see PREMATURE explosions in these buildings. Furthermore, I can show you that it's not as hot in there as they say. watch this:

The woman waving from the impact hole Seems to be in fine condition, considering that the area she's standing in is supposed to be hot enough to braze steel. o.O



I've also found something quite interesting, it's a bit of a read, but its' worth it:

Explosions in the WTC!

I'm still left feeling betrayed here...There's obviously more going on than we're willing to admit, and you're only helping the government hide the truth from us.

Originally posted by St Udio

a GIANT Bellows effect was created!!
which a regular blacksmith is familiar with/ and so are backyard barbeque cooks!..
so under static/ ideal conditions with the known fuel supply(ies)
the fires could only reach a (maxium)temperature less than what is needed to sufficiently weaken the high-grade steel....but if you add an updraft, a high volume airflow to the event,
then a significantly hotter fire would definitely aid in the collapse!

You raise a good point, but you have to realize that the heat increase would affect the heat in the area of impact and above only, simply because the simple method of how the chimney works. There's also the balancing factor. How hot can you really make a fire by blowing on it before you begin to over-oxygenate it?

I also don't believe your theory will reach your fantastic amount of heat, due again to the simple facts of chimney physics.

air movement in the house must not interfere with the chimney. Picture a house with the upstairs windows open. Warm air in the house will exit through the open windows.

Chimney Physics

And if the pace continues to quicken, the heat will escape too fast to build. You've got to remember that it's a balmy September Day, on an Island in the Atlantic ocean. It's probably about 60 degrees outside, and air (as you can see from the smoke) is escaping the WTC at a fantastic rate. Furthermore, there's wind (And a building with a hole on either side that's got to build up a fire of no less than 2500F[This is the melting point of untempered steel, in reality, the building would have to reach a temperature of somewhat closer to 3200F.]), and the fact that the 'Bellows' in question is 800 feet off the ground, up in the sky. I simply don't think there's enough insulation in that building to maintain the heat to melt the steel. In fact, people who own their own Braziers know that it takes alot of insulation to maintain heat high enough to melt steel.

I doubt the WTC was wrapped in this stuff


If you look at it logically, like....simply, without complications, On a normal day, these jets could not have taken down the WTC on their own. They needed help.









[edit on 6-10-2005 by Loki]

Loki,

This is directed at your comments on the WTC buildings.

Here is a good article from the IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors) that addresses the very issue of how the ASTM E119 "Fire Tests of Building Constructions" has been brought up by various engineering, safety and government agencies as not being representative of what occurs in some fires - and the WTC fire specifically. The specimen tested in the ASTEM E119 is slowly brought to temperature in a kiln-type oven, which is not representative of the quick-rising temperatures that occur in a jet-fueled fire.

At the heart of this debate is the time-temperature curve that controls the temperature conditions within the test chamber. The time-temperature curve is intended to represent an intense, fully developed fire within a building. Does the time-temperature curve perfectly represent every fully developed fire in every location? Probably not. The actual heat and temperature conditions generated from a fire in a particular location is dependent upon many variables such as building contents, materials of construction and ventilation conditions.

The ASTM E119 fire test method provides a comparative benchmark to measure the fire resistance of building assemblies. The fire test-chamber conditions specified by the ASTM E119 test are representative of a fully developed fire within most buildings. This fire condition does not and cannot replicate every fire situation. The hourly fire-resistive ratings based on an ASTM E119 test do not mean that a specific structure will remain intact for the indicated rating period.

Apparently, in recent years (but after the WTC was built), the UL developed a new test procedure for "rapid rise fires".

In recent years, some fire conditions have been identified as sufficiently different from those represented by the time-temperature curve in ASTM E119, thus meriting an additional time-temperature curve. As a result, several fire test standards, including UL 1709, Rapid Rise Fire Tests of Protection Materials for Structural Steel, specify fire test-chamber temperatures that rise at a quicker rate than those specified in ASTM E119. The time-temperature curve in UL 1709 represents the conditions associated with burning pools of hydrocarbon fuels. At the other end of the spectrum, discussions have cited the need for a time-temperature curve that has a slower rate of rise than specified in ASTM E119.

As some one pointed out earlier, and as has been discussed in this thread that temperatures of 1200 F would sufficiently weaken the steel to well under the design requirements.

Some can keep towing the government line or state that there is no evidence or show off pretty diagrams to support their theory but can someone please answer the following:

Where’s the STEEL? READ MY LIPS? WHERE IS THE STEEL?

Other than FEMA’s joke of a report why hasn’t there been independent investigation regarding the most critical forensic evidence we had?

Better yet wouldn’t the forensic evidence be the last thing you would want to destroy or tamper with?

Wouldn’t it put to rest all these conspiracy theories? Or would it?

Here we had supposedly the biggest terrorist crime committed on US soil and the evidence is quickly whisked off to a third world country?

Why?

You would really have to be a blind sheeple to believe the story they are trying to sell.

Sorry, but if you or I were a suspect in a crime this big do you think the government would dispose of the evidence as conveniently for you or me?

It seems to me the majority of those in favor of the government explanation regarding 911 are those who are avid viewers of CNN & FOX and all those propaganda news agencies. Is there a connection there?

I used to be one of those sheeple but I decided to stop watching the Bush propaganda media and my eyes opened up, as I was able to see the reality of the situation come into focus.

PLEASE PEOPLE WAKE UP LIKE I DID!!!

I suggest those of you who follow those propaganda stations and media religiously to stop watching and reading them for a month and then come back to ATS and let us know if your take on 911 has changed.

Hopefully you haven’t been brainwashed beyond the point of repair. Geesh!!!

www.the7thfire.com...

www.public-action.com...

www.fema.gov...

Originally posted by Loki
Well, you want video, you got it..

italy.indymedia.org...

And hey, let's not leave out the south tower.
italy.indymedia.org...


And just for giggles, here's what a Demolition looks like.

italy.indymedia.org...

Compare with TJW's video from above.

In EVERY video anywhere, you can clearly see the collapse begins at the points where the planes went in. This is not questionable. This isn't even worth going over further. If you're seeing otherwise, that's because you want to see otherwise.

Now....The WTC screams to me demo job. It just screams it.
I have seen no way that the fuel-rich fires at the WTC could have POSSIBLY melted this tempered building steel. Just no way. I can't imagine it. And these videos point out to you where you see PREMATURE explosions in these buildings.

Then you obviously don't know much about demo jobs.
To bring down a buliding like the WTC, would take a tremendous amount of work (inside the walls of the buildings). The work that would have needed to be done can in NO WAY go unnoticed. Also it would have been a series of precise explosions going from the ground up. The explosives HAVE to be in the correct spots for any demo job to work. With the WTC, a passenger plane crashed into the building! Are you telling me the explosives that magically appeared in the building stayed in their exact spots and remained undamaged even though a plane being used as a missile crashed into them?? Not logical.
You also keep mentioning the heat and fire like it was only a fire. Again, something you keep forgetting, a PLANE crashed into the building. I don't know how much clearer I can say that. Name one building where a plane that size crashed into it and it remained standing? Read what I wrote above.

If you look at it logically, like....simply, without complications, On a normal day, these jets could not have taken down the WTC on their own. They needed help.

If you look at it logically, you will find out that nothing like that has ever happened before, so there's no way you can say that the jets wouldn't have been enough to take the WTC down. Simply because you don't know.


You're making it seem like all the steel in the building melted or something. That wasn't the case. Both collapses were a domino collapse. Let's say you build a house of cards. If you take away the middle one, all the cards above will fall first, falling onto the lower cards causing them to fall. In the WTC, the only steel that needed to melt (not even melt, just weaken further) was the already weakend steel where the planes went in. That steel would have melted sooner than regular untouched steel as it was already weak.

**

mdefab01.....try again

Do your research in 1945 a b-25 bomber hit the empire state building. It didn't come crashing down.
www.esbnyc.com...

I guess they don't make um like they use to yea whatever.

Originally posted by mdefab01
Some can keep towing the government line or state that there is no evidence or show off pretty diagrams to support their theory but can someone please answer the following:

Where’s the STEEL? READ MY LIPS? ...

valhall's summary of the rest of the post "blather blather blather - nothing of substance - blather blather blather".

Where are you people coming from???

Loki has started a thread in which he itemized the points that concern him. Now people are coming to this thread and talking at those point.

What have you done for the thread today??? NOTHING

Calling people names simply because they have an opposing opinion on a topic is worthless.