Someone want to hold up the Official Story?

Well, a post was created by a now banned member (i believe) asking people to prove the official story. It was deleted because of copyright infringement, but basically the concept of the thread, was one i was very interested in.

There are many, many conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, some more credible than others, some more 'way-out' than others. There is often constant debate in these forums between those trying to 'prove' the conspiracies, and those trying to dismiss them.

So now I think it is time the tables are turned. Let's ask the same of the official story, "Prove it."

I for one would like to think that I have an open mind. Now if i was to see some definitive proof, or evidence that the Official Story is 100% true and accurate, then i might be inclined to change my view on this topic.

So, if you can.. please.. Prove the official Story

Good luck with that one. If you ask me, the official story itself is one of the craziest conspiracy theories...

I support the official story, well part of it anytways - 2 planes hit the twin towers - that much is true.

I would like to believe the official story, but one part that confirms to me beyond a shadow of doubt that there is more to it - the WTC7 collapse. After looking at numerous other videos and pictures of buildings that fell for any reason other than demolition, I never saw a single one that fell straight down, not even close. WTC7 was clearly demolished. A demolition of a building takes months to do, yet this was all ready to go.

I find other evidences very probable, but this one is a confirmation in my mind, making the rest of the theories worth looking in to.

There is no way the official story could accurate. Anyone who does believe it, please look into it much more deeply. To think that US would never do such a thing, see project northw00ds.

Originally posted by ekul08
Someone want to hold up the Official Story?

Does holding it against my behind and using it as toilet paper count?

I've noticed these threads die pretty quickly, and yet the posts presenting all the real evidence (ie, suggesting demolition) go around in circles forever. It's almost as if the official story wasn't created to offer proof, but to only offer an official line for sheep to give anyone who began to think a bit too much.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Does holding it against my behind and using it as toilet paper count?

LMFAO!! Man, that's gold. You made my day. Wish I'd said that...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ekul08
Someone want to hold up the Official Story?

Does holding it against my behind and using it as toilet paper count?

I've noticed these threads die pretty quickly, and yet the posts presenting all the real evidence (ie, suggesting demolition) go around in circles forever. It's almost as if the official story wasn't created to offer proof, but to only offer an official line for sheep to give anyone who began to think a bit too much.

I noticed these threads die pretty quickly too and, mainly because there arent many people willing to support the official story. Seriously though, i would like to see some proof to hold up the official story, though I am starting to assume there is even less than I first thought.

Well if you're seriously interested, I can tell you that the bulk of evidence towards the official line is purely circumstantial, ie, finding the usual personal items, a note from some hijacker claiming responsibility, etc. We are told that a hijacker's passport survived one of the jet impacts and was found on the street. This is the sort of stuff in favor of the official explanation. Nothing really conclusive or scientific in the least, and none of even NIST's published reports describe how they got their results in any way that could allow them to be reproduced or double-checked.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Nothing really conclusive or scientific in the least, and none of even NIST's published reports describe how they got their results in any way that could allow them to be reproduced or double-checked.

Then there is evne less evidence than I orignally thought. :|

And people, beleive this story?

Originally posted by ekul08
So now I think it is time the tables are turned. Let's ask the same of the official story, "Prove it."

Why whats wrong with it?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why whats wrong with it?

A) It has no evidence going for it.

B) Some scientific laws would strongly suggest certain aspects of the hypothesis are impossible.

Unless you're gullible, or believe the government is all good and honest (hey, what's the difference?), I would ask for more than that.

oficial story


What is funny that people tryng to defend the oficial story try to do it
in some other way and deviate from the oficial story.
At the end their storys and the oficial story are 2 diffrent things

[edit on 23-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Sure why not.

www.nist.gov...


Anyone want to explain how they lined the towers with explosives while no one was looking?

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Anyone want to explain how they lined the towers with explosives while no one was looking?

Again, explain to me....if someone believes that planes and fire can demolish the entire building....then why is it so implausible that only a FEW explosives would be needed? I really don't understand why one would believe that planes and fire could do it, but you would need the whole building lined with explosives.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
if someone believes that planes and fire can demolish the entire building....then why is it so implausible that only a FEW explosives would be needed?

THe whole logic of the bombs in the building idea is that a very large number would be needed. Also, the planes generated intense heat over a wide area and weakened the rivets holding the skeleton together. A smal explosion wouldn't sustain and the temperature and heat the rivets to weaken them.

bsbray11

Some scientific laws would strongly suggest certain aspects of the hypothesis are impossible.

Ok, like what?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by MacMerdin
if someone believes that planes and fire can demolish the entire building....then why is it so implausible that only a FEW explosives would be needed?

THe whole logic of the bombs in the building idea is that a very large number would be needed. Also, the planes generated intense heat over a wide area and weakened the rivets holding the skeleton together. A smal explosion wouldn't sustain and the temperature and heat the rivets to weaken them.

An explosion wouldn't need to maintain heat on the rivets: it would only need to destroy the riviets. But that's not even the point. The point is that so many people believe it would necessarily require so many explosives to bring the buildings down as they came down, that it's unlikely so many could have been planted, but at the same time think that the buildings came down from fire on only a few floors. That's not logical thinking. It's what Orwell called doublethink.

Originally posted by Nygdan

bsbray11

Some scientific laws would strongly suggest certain aspects of the hypothesis are impossible.

Ok, like what?

Why, so glad you asked! It's about time I started a quick-reference body of info for people such as yourself.


Note that a lot of this is taken directly from other postings of mine, but seeing as how information is repeated so often anyway, the only unusual thing I'm doing with this collective and constantly-developing post is saving myself trouble.


Squibs

In demolition, squibs are the puffs of smoke that result from demolition charges being set off. They're especially apparent when the charges go off at the wrong times and stick out like sore thumbs, which apparently isn't very uncommon in the business.

Here are photos showing demolition squibs:




The relation of these types of explosions to the WTC complex is that similar explosions were seen coming from the WTC1 and WTC2 buildings upon their collapses:




Video of the above squibs.





Video of the above squibs.




Video of the above squibs.




Video of the above squibs.


These explosions were massive. They can not be chalked up to minor explosions, as someone have suggested, such as hairspray cans exploding, etc. (rather stupid if you ask me, but these are the kinds of things people will come up with to protect their beliefs). Such explosions simply would not produce blasts of dust ejecting so far out into the air.



The above graphic displays a WTC Tower and a squib originating from it. The width of the building is 58 pixels long, representing the WTC's 207 ft,. +/- 1 pixel. The line segment extending underneath the squib represents the squib's length at about 22 pixels long.

So, we have the length of the squib at 22 pixels to the width of the WTC's 58, and we know the width of the WTC is 207 feet. So, with a little cross-multiplying, you'll find the squib in the above photo ejects a fine powder about 78.5 feet away from the building. The actual distance of ejection couldn'have been much off from that estimate, and that's a pretty good ways for a fine powder to be blasted so quickly considering how easy resisted by air such fine powder is.

And we can be fairly certain that the dust coming from those blasts was the same as all the other dust that came from the collapses, and certainly the same dust that covered all the streets around the WTC and beyond.





So what exactly ejected the powder that far out? What caused the blasts?

The popular idea (besides the idea of demolition charges, anyway) is air, escaping the buildings, did that. This has been shown impossible many times on ATS, but just for the hell of it, I'll go over the absurdities the idea assumes anyway.

Firstly, there are serious fundamental flaws with the idea, all other debunking aside. For air to have caused the squibs, there would have had to have been massive amounts of pressure within the buildings as they collapsed. This has been said to have come from the buildings collapsed, thus compressing the air within the buildings, and of course the insides of the buildings were mostly air anyway.

However, what is not mentioned, and possibly not even considered by these people, is that there were holes for the air to escape all over the buildings. This is where the air would have escaped, before resorting to going down various odd shafts. The most obvious, and largest escape for air was the areas of the buildings were the collapses were taking place. Do proponents of the syring theory think that the towers remained air-tight and sealed even as they collapsed, being ripped apart and thrown out into open air floor by floor? This is why NIST and FEMA left the subject alone in their reports. The idea that air was compressed within the buildings to cause the squibs is insane, not to mention impossible, considering that air would have been exiting all during the collapses through the exposed roofs of floors. There would have been no accumulating pressure, let alone any pressure massive enough to pulverize concrete, sheet rock, or what-have-you, and instantly eject it about 80 feet out into the air. And even more ridiculous still is the claim that this is what happened multiple times, some even almost simultaneously, and right next to each other:



So while this imaginary pressure, built up even as all air in the above floors is escaping as the collapse progresses and not being forced downards, is supposedly forcing an exit, it starts a 2nd and 3rd forced exit very close to an initial blast, without losing force from the pressure lost in the 1st, and 2nd, blasts. Extremely unlikely to be nice. To be blunt, if you believe that's what happened, then you are extremely naive.

I have just shown to all sane people that air could not possibly have remained so pressurized in those buildings that they caused the squibs. The floors were being ripped apart one by one with tons of places for the air within to escape, with no air being pressurized, as no air was being forced down the buildings as if the buildings were airtight cans. And further, explosions came from the buildings nearly simultaneously and right next to each other in at least one case, which should show conclusively that pressure was not the cause. Those facts show why air could not possibly have caused the squibs. After I post this, if anyone decides to believe this bull crap anyway, they should show where the pressure would have came from since all the air was escaping floor by floor as the collapse progressed, and why the pressure did not lessen from one squib to the next in the above photo, when such a blast would have been a massive release of pressure that shouldn't have even existed in the first place. And every time I request someone provide information like this, it never happens, and the same people say the same things about this tired old #e as if there is nothing wrong with it.

But let us go on an imaginary journey, pretending that the said explanation is somehow possible, in some fairy land somewhere, where air is magical and does not obey science as we know it, so that we may further analyse the so-called "syringe theory."

WeComeInPeace posted this post on the WTC Challenge thread some time ago to help show people what ideas, exactly, are suggested by the syringe theory. In his post, WCIP introduced charts of a typical WTC floor layout, showing where the air shafts are located and where the perimeter columns are, and where the air would have had to have gone. Again, this is all hypothetical, as the travelling of air down the towers en masse was impossible anyway from all the available places for the air to escape as the buildings fell.




This is where the air would have travelled: through the air shafts near the centers of the buildings. Notice the distance between the shafts and the perimeter columns? Guess what? The air would have expanded: decompressed. It would have not remained in a magic jet of compression all the way to the windows. Here again, the syringe theory shows total #e. If we are to believe pressurized air travelled through less dense air without expanding and equalizing, then why even bother thinking logically? The proponents of these kinds of ideas don't require logic, apparently.


This has all been said before, but proponents of the syring theory ignore it. Let's finally put this B.S. to rest, as it is BS. The squibs were not caused by compressed air. All the information you need, I have just posted above. Air is not a magical device of fairies.


The Fires

This is more of a point of lack of evidence in the official story as support for demolition theory, than evidence specifically for demolition. I've posted this before as well:

The fires, even combined with the structural damage received from aircraft impacts (only a minority of support columns on these floors were compromised, ie less than 15% of the perimeter columns of either building as even FEMA will tell you in their report) were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to cause global collapse in either WTC1, 2, or especially 7. Hydrocarbon fires of this type usually hover around 600 degrees Celsius. There is no evidence of the fires in WTC 1, 2, or 7 sustaining any more than 600 degree fires.

Here is a chart showing the colors steel will turn when heated to certain temperatures:



Official story proponents will commonly claim fires of at least 800 degrees Celsius or so, with the suggestion being that the steel was heated to those temperatures, which would've weakened the steel.

First of all, notice the color 800-degree Celsius steel will glow.

Second of all, know that no steel in the support columns was ever recorded such a color on 9/11, or any other colors than dark and cold.

Thirdly, neither did the fires spread to other floors. We are told by NIST that the fires were so hot, they began using plastics and other office materials as fuel and continued after the jet fuel had been used as office fires. They also suggest the fires were even hotter while feeding off of office materials, as the columns would of course have to be further heated before they can fail from heat. The problem with this, is that if the fires were really that hot, we could've expected the fires to begin to spread. Never happened. The fires stayed on the floors they began on after the impacts.

Finally, realize the number of columns that would've had to have been so heated in order for the towers to collapse. Skyscrapers, no matter how weak proponents of the official line want you to believe the WTC towers were, are built too big, and too strong, on purpose. They are built to hold much more than their own weight for lengths of time, and even more than they will ever hold while serving their purpose as buildings. Minorities of columns were taken out by the aircraft impacts. Less than 15% of the perimeter columns, and in all likelihood, much smaller percentages of core columns, were severed in either building. It was, of course, nowhere near enough to bring the buildings down alone. So then how many columns were sufficiently heated? It would've had to have been a large number, and to a sufficient temperature, and yet we have no evidence to show any supporting steel was heated to even above a sustained 600 degrees Celsius by the fires. These things don't fail that easily, or they aren't allowed to stand.


Disappearance of Angular Momentum

Another issue that has been raised plenty of times by now. Upon the initiation of collapse in either building, the tops of the buildings began tilting as if they were going to fall off sideways (as one would expect), but then, for no apparent reason, the angular momentum of the top floors of both buildings vanished. Angular momentum does not vanish unless the object that is falling is no longer acting as a single solid object, or the fulcrum from which the object is pivotting is destroyed. That is to say, the top floors of those buildings (still connected) should have continued to fall at an angle off the sides of the buildings, but stopped suddenly because either their frames had been shattered, or the fulcrum (the floors below the caps) were destroyed.

Thanks to insight from MacMerdin, it seems most plausible to me that the reason this momentum disappeared is plainly and simply because demolition charges were initiated at the fulcrum, on the floors below the tilting caps. Thus the fulcrums were destroyed and the caps lost their pivot and began to simply fall straight down.

You can see the South Tower tilt in the following images:





Newton's First Law of Motion holds that an object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an unbalancing force. This is inertia; the momentum behind the tilt in those buildings. The momentum in the caps to tilt outwards, at an angle, also known as angular momentum, met no serious unbalancing force. It most certainly met air resistance, but we can be just as certain that no air resistance is going to counter that tilt, as there is massive momentum behind those caps because of their massive weight.

Even though there was nothing to counterbalance the caps' outward tilting, which would necessarily be equal and opposite in nature because of the total disappearance of momentum in the caps, the caps stopped moving anyway.

That might constitute quite a mystery except for one thing: at the same instant the outward tilt stopped, the vertical, symmetrical and un-retarding collapse began on the lower floors. This pretty clearly points to one thing: the fulcrum of the caps' tilting was completely destroyed and was no longer contacting the caps to provide a pivot. Something besides the caps must have destroyed the fulcrum, too, because as long as the caps made contact, there would be a fulcrum to pivot off of. The fulcrum was destroyed by a 3rd item. In demolition theory, this 3rd item represents the demolition charges that were then initiated and brought the buildings down in full. In the official story, there simply is no 3rd item, because the problem is never even addressed.

Click here to watch the angular momentum disappear as the South Tower begins to fall vertically: the charges were initiated.

While on the subject of angular momentum, let me take the opportunity to show just how competent and well-researched our so-called "experts," the structural engineers, can be:

I'm inquiring of your ideas on where the angular momentum of the top floors of the collapsing WTC towers went. Its disappearance seems to contradict basic laws of motion, ie, Newton's first law, which provides that momentum should have continued without additional torque. No compromising forces were at work.

Thanks.

The above was an email I sent to Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl P.D., P.E., who has been researching the collapses of the WTC buildings for some amount of time by now and, one would think, very familiar with their nature.

Unfortunate ly my very busy schedule of teaching 3 courses and research
etc., does not leave me with any time to prepare an appropriate response to
your e-mail. I apologize to you and wish you the best.
A.

The dude was clueless; he didn't know where the momentum went, and neither did he have the time to find out. At least, so he says. I wouldn't know. I only know that he did not answer my question for, as he claimed, lack of preparation.

What makes this man so qualified, that he is ignorant on a subject that we, on an internet forum, are familiar with and recognize as contradictory to the official story? This just serves to confirm what so many of us already know: engineers are just as human as everyone else. They don't exactly work from ivory towers, especially when they work for or with the government on controversial issues in which the government is surely going to be biased with its presentation of information.


Concrete Dust

Even early on in either building's collapse, a fine powder of concrete dust was being spewed from the collapsing building. The squibs even show debris of the consistency of the concrete powder being ejected from the buildings. After the buildings had totally collapsed, the amount of concrete dust raining down on NYC was enough to coat the area in enough powder to make it look as though a dirty December snow had struck New York.

Observe the following and consider the likelihood that they were created from the force of gravity alone:







Here is an animation of a much smaller, brick building being imploded:


Notice the dust cloud produced by that building, as well as the immense dust cloud produced by this demolition job. Please note that these sorts of immense dust clouds are totally foreign to actual gravity-driven collapses.

As a researcher going by the name 'plaguepuppy' details:

In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds [note that this 9-second figure is widely disputed, and figures closer to approx. 15 seconds are probably more accurate, going by clocks in CNN videos for initiation times, and seismic records for approximations of the collapses' completions, since views were by that time completely obscured by dust], only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?

Emphasis mine.


Collapse Speed, Lack of Retardation, and Symmetry

Pretty much, these buildings, which were made of steel and concrete, and were, as all skysrcapers, over-engineered and designed to redistribute weight loads in the event of structural damage, fell at rates comparable to free-fall and without either retardation or lopsiding. They fell perfectly vertically and symmetrically in a manner that would require blowing out all the columns of each 12-foot-high floor within simultaneously and within a 0.16-second (see below) time frame. This also means that the speed of collapse was consistent across each floor even at such small time intervals, as any resistance here or there on any of the floors as a building fell would cause the building to tilt and lopside, just as they began to do at the starts of their collapses but soon (and mysteriously) ceased. But there was no lopsiding after the collapses were underway. They both fell exactly as a controlled demolition would: straight down onto their footprints, perfectly vertically, symmetrically, and at ridiculous speed. At to that the mysterious squibs that were coming out of the buildings as they collapsed and this point alone would paint you a very vivid picture of what actually happened to those buildings.

The 0.16-second-per-floor figure is derived from this NBC footage of the South Tower collapse, as detailed here by the 9/11 Research Site.

As you can see on the video, after a period of about 2.5 seconds in which the building begins to fall, the collapse covers 32 stories (384 feet) in about 5 seconds. This is determined by the time it takes for the roof of the falling building to reach where the 78th floor previously was.

32 stories (384 ft.) in 5 seconds is 6.4 floors (78.6 ft.) a second. 6.4 floors a second is 1 floor every 0.15625 seconds. And again, all perfectly symmetrical, meaning all columns on each floors being blown out simultaneously within that 0.16-second time frame. No lopsiding. All symmetrical.

Further, the collapses defied physics yet again when they failed to slow their rapid speeds as the mass allegedly driving the collapses disintegrated, even as the collapse began reaching thicker and thicker core columns (as noted by NIST in their report) as it neared the bases of the towers.

So, the official story assumes the following of the shape and nature of the collapses: the caps, being smaller and lighter than the rest of the buildings below, crushed all of the building below in both the North and South Towers, did not slow down as they did so despite the massive amount of energy that must've been exerted, while descending into thicker columns. Also note that in the demolition business, it's well-known that if so much as one column is left standing by a failure on the part of the charges, the whole collapse can be lopsided by that single intact column, and the collapse may fall all to one side and cause considerable damage to surroundings. What a happy coincidence it must've been that such massive buildings, more massive by far than your common demolition, fall with no such lopsiding. All columns must have been knocked out at precisely the right time (again, in an insanely small time frame because of the massive speeds involved). This doesn't happen with gravity-driven collapses. It never has. Never before 9/11, never afterwards, and not on 9/11, considering all serious evidence.


The real evidence in favor of demolition, put short, is the combined effect of the squibs, loss of angular momentum, lack of retardation of collapse speeds, and lack of evidence for intense fires. To add, less scientifically but no less telling, most all concrete in the buildings was blown into a fine dust, and the symmetry and speed of the collapses is extremely suggestive of demolition, and freakishly foreign to anything known to be gravity-driven.

In contrast, there is little to no evidence in favor of the government-backed explanation. NIST has not offered its procedures, so their work cannot be duplicated and double-checked, and thus is not scientific in nature, but merely a request that we take their word for it, and many, many people have done just that wholeheartedly. All of the important information, such as the blueprints, physical evidence from the site, and likely much photographic evidence is being withheld from us or has been destroyed. The complimentary theories developed by proponents of the official story, like the syringe theory and this-and-that for things the official story didn't touch, is generally a bunch of total crap, as shown throughout the above parts of this post.

Hope that answers your question.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Anyone want to explain how they lined the towers with explosives while no one was looking?

That is your hard evidence that the official story is 100% true and accurate?

You are kidding me right? Did you even read my question? We aren't talking about how explosives got in any buildings, you are ment to be telling me how, scientifically the official story can be held up, aswell as legally by evidence, forensic or otherwise.

If all you have to answer my question, is another question, please don't bother posting.

On Bsbrays post, thank you. I always wondered how that dustcloud the wtc created was possible, now i see why the governments official story makes less and less sense every day.

Thank you bsbray11 Your ongoing commitment to the truth, makes you a true patriot.

You've always got the scoop, dont you?

[edit on 23-11-2005 by ekul08]

I never said it was 100% ekul. I simply posted some evidence.

The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST, including photographs and videos, recovered steel, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records. Additionally, this information was used to document a variety of factors affecting the performance of the buildings, the efforts of emergency responders and the ability of occupants to escape prior to the collapses. In turn, NIST has identified a number of future practices and technologies that potentially could have enhanced building performance and life safety capabilities on 9-11 had they been available for implementation. All are being considered for NIST’s upcoming recommendations.

I posted what I had, if that's not good enough for you then I figured you would hold the demolition theory to the same standard of evidence.

Looks like I was wrong.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Sure why not.

www.nist.gov...


Anyone want to explain how they lined the towers with explosives while no one was looking?

Anyone want to explain how this guy thought he could use a strawman argument and get away with it?

Every thread on this forum is people trying to explain the demolition theory -- among other theories. If you want to ask that question, go to those threads.

Otherwise, post documents, pictures, quotes... you know, the stuff they call evidence?