911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by Whyhi
The problem is floors would not really be falling onto more floors.

What would they be doing?

It depends on what the failure mechanism was. But the point is the floors aren't coming off all together and hitting the next floor in a big stack. Nothing even remotely like that would have happened.

The core columns themselves have no described mechanism of failing

Fires and the impact of the plane?

That's not a specific failure mechanism. I am talking like the failure mechanism NIST hypothesized between the trusses and perimeter columns due to sagging, that level of specificity. "Fires and planes" is just a vague assumption you have made. There was nowhere near enough heat to fail the core columns and NIST already proved this in their reports...

Redistributing the load of the failed columns? Specifically, the large portion that's about to hit the remaining building.

That's also not a specific failure mechanism. And according to NIST the perimeter columns that lost so much stability weren't missing but simply deflected from trusses sagging, which was their unproven hypothesis. Less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either building were actually severed or otherwise damaged by the impacts themselves.

It is extremely obvious that the floors did not pancake. Again, there is no stack of floors at the base of either tower.

First I'm wrong about the floors falling, now allegedly I'm wrong again. What do you think happened to the floors then, if they didn't fall onto each other?

What I think is happening to the floors is completely irrelevant to the fact that there is no a big stack of them or any other large pile of mass at the base of either tower. That is why your theory is obviously wrong. Do you even understand the basic idea behind "pancake collapse"? It's supposed to explain the collapses by saying the mass just started falling down and gained more and more mass and became unstoppable. As opposed to say, losing more and more mass over the sides of the building like what you actually see, until what's left over at the bottom isn't even near half the total building mass.

Why are you expecting the floors to be neatly piled at the bottom?

Read above. Unless you don't even understand pancake theory yourself then you should realize it necessitates the majority of the mass ending up at the base of either tower. But maybe you don't really understand your theory after all.

Again, the amount of energy that was being exerted crushed the floors, as seen in pictures with debris flying out. There isn't going to be a 110 floor pile up in the middle of ground zero...

No but isn't going to be a little pile that doesn't even cover the lobby, either. A pancake collapse doesn't mean you have upwards of 80% of the mass of either building laying all around on top of adjacent buildings and in adjacent streets and pretty much everywhere BUT the base of the building. A pancake collapse means the floors are pancaking and the mass is increasingly accumulating to continue falling down. Unless you are making up some new version of pancake theory that nobody knows except you?

So since you have seen that NIST debunked pancake theory themselves, are you just arguing with me now because you're petty and argumentative like that, or do you think NIST is full of it too?

They refuted the hypothesis of the pancake collapse being responsible for the complete destruction of the tower by explaining how heat made the trusses/floor system sag in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction, which, led to the bowing of the exterior columns. After collapse was initiated the floors pancaked, as in the building falling onto the floors below, crushing them.

NIST doesn't say that and you have no evidence for it. Not to mention it fails to take into account how the perimeter columns and core columns failed, as you would essentially only be gutting the interior of the building and the columns would be left to fall from instability afterward. Also not to mention you don't have the mass at the bottom of the buildings to support this theory in the first place. Bottom line is you are talking out of your ass simply because you've been trained to repeat this idea not much unlike a parrot repeats noises it hears.

I'd like to see a reference for that.

"Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking"."

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3

So the best you can do for NIST claiming pancaking was responsible for collapse is a "may be" from this passage of their report?

I'd especially like to see a reference for that.

The floors fell down, the remaining building was below, floors coming down crush floors below. Silly gravity.

This isn't a reference and it isn't even related to what you originally said. You were talking about thermal expansion resulting in pancaking.

"Pile-driving" through the building, crushing everything in it's way, pancaking floors + energy of "pile-driving" eject debris.

I wish I was carefree enough to just make stuff like this up off the top of my head, with no supporting evidence at all, and expect you to believe me.

I know "gravity is strong and gravity goes straight down" is really nice and dumbed-down for the masses to repeat, but it still doesn't mean a damned thing or even make any sense as an excuse for the towers to come down like they did.

Controlled demolitions are gravity driven. Therefore, the towers couldn't be a controlled demolition...?

Nice try but that's not what I said.

I didn't say gravity doesn't exist. I said it's the weakest force in nature. You might want to spend more time comprehending what you've just read next time.

And tilting is exactly what WTC2 was doing before it somehow lost its angular momentum, ie when its fulcrum was destroyed and it just started dropping straight down.

I explained this is my post that I linked, GenRadek explained this. Read my post that I linked before.

I already asked you to reproduce your argument here because I wasn't interested in hopping around to other websites. Gen couldn't explain what he had for breakfast 5 days ago. Though when there are only a few people here that agree with you anyway I guess you just work with what you're given huh.

reply to post by bsbray11

It depends on what the failure mechanism was

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers

was nowhere near enough heat to fail the core columns

Heat and the impact weakened the core, weight redistribution put on the core made them fail.

It's supposed to explain the collapses by saying the mass just started falling down and gained more and more mass and became unstoppable

No, as I said before, it didn't collapse because of the pancaking, the floors pancaked because they were being crushed down on top of each other from the building falling.

Pan-caking floors is a symptom, not the cause. This is what you're not understanding.

So the best you can do for NIST claiming pancaking was responsible for collapse is a "may be" from this passage of their report?

Are arguing that NIST didn't previously say that pancaking caused the collapse...?

You might want to spend more time comprehending what you've just read next time.

Comprehending what? Controlled demolitions are gravity driven whether you like it or not.

I think you're underestimating how gravity works when there's a rather large portion of the building in the air after it just lost its support

I already asked you to reproduce your argument here because I wasn't interested in hopping around to other websites

I linked my post, from this website. GenRadek also already answered your question.

Edit:

by saying the mass just started falling down and gained more and more mass and became unstoppable. As opposed to say, losing more and more mass over the sides of the building like what you actually see, until what's left over at the bottom isn't even near half the total building mass.

For the structural system such as WTC, the energy required to arrest the collapse after
a drop of only one or several stories (Fig. 6e) would have to be an order of magnitude
higher than the energy dissipation capacity of the structural system used in WTC . - Link to paper

Energy transfer in the WTC collapse

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Whyhi]

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I'd just like to ask you specifically what is it that has you convinced that the OS is true? Dr. Jones is a Phd in physics and he, among many many others, says its all crap. Seriously, you'd have to be blind not see clearly with your own eyes that a lot of the OS is ridiculous. What am I missing about the OS? Nothing you have shown on this thread or any that I've ever seen you post on has been even a little convincing. That isn't an attack on you, but it just seems that you refuse to accept reality.

[edit on 2/12/2010 by budaruskie]

Just because someone has a PhD in something doesnt make them right. Ever heard the old saying, "What do you call a med student who finishes at the bottom of the class? Doctor." I've seen people who graduated with degrees, and were still dumber than dirt.

Dr. Jones has shown his incompetance in his "analysis" of the so called "magic thermite chips" which was so flawed, it would make a high school chem teacher cringe. So many blunders, and so that meant he had to publish it in a "pay-to-publish" journal, where its, "Hey you got the money, we'll publish your tripe!" So no, Jones is a terrible example.

reply to post by GenRadek


You didnt answer his question Gen.

Try again perhaps?

reply to post by bsbray11


Well, lets see, you just had millions of pounds of debris fall nearly 100+ floors downward. And you are asking where the pressure came from to "fuse" the debris? I dont know what to say but, huh?

Oh the debris OUTSIDE the footprint? You mean the external columns which peeled away from the WTC as it collapsed? Well where else is it suppose to go? The Towers were 1,000ft high. Its kinda obvious that some of the debris will land a distance away from the base of the Towers. The dust as well landed outside the footprint, obviously. And papers. So what exactly is the problem here?

reply to post by Sean48


The science is sound. The explanations of how the WTCs collapsed are more than sufficient, and have been reveiwed by hundreds, if not thousands of professionals of all different backgrounds in physics, chemistry, and engineering.

You always lump the events of 9/11 as they occurred, into something called the "OS". Well what is it exactly? That terrorists A-holes who were well funded and educated by AQ and are followers of OBL, hijacked four aircraft, using three as weapons to target and destroy the WTCs and damage the Pentagon, while the 4th crashed into a field after a passenger revolt. The Towers collapsed after impacts and fires degraded the integrity of the structure, having some debris start fires and impact damage to WTC7 which collapsed after burning for nearly 7 hours without a drop of water poured onto it. Yes, that I have no problem with.

The only problem I have and its simple, is who is to blame for all the intel screw ups and red tape beauocracy which hampered the investigations into the terror cells in the US, and who is now trying to cover their @$$ and blame the other person.

reply to post by GenRadek


Thanks for answering. You are correct about this for sure:

Just because someone has a PhD in something doesnt make them right

and this

The explanations of how the WTCs collapsed....have been reveiwed by hundreds, if not thousands of professionals of all different backgrounds in physics, chemistry, and engineering.

But do all of those thousands of professionals concur? No they don't.

That terrorists A-holes who were well funded and educated by AQ and are followers of OBL

Why has this never been proven if it is in fact true?

hijacked four aircraft.... as weapons to target and...damage the Pentagon

Once again, no proof. If there are over 80 cameras that could easily show this for the record, why haven't we seen it or the remnants of the plane?

while the 4th crashed into a field after a passenger revolt...having some debris start fires and impact damage to WTC7 which collapsed after burning for nearly 7 hours without a drop of water poured onto it.

Again, no plane and magic phone calls in Penn. and there is absolutely no "official explanation" as to why WTC7 fell. A 7 hour fire in a building is not a sufficient reason for it to collapse to dust, thats just ridiculous. Many structures with lesser or comperable engineering have withstood much more fire damage and not one ever fell, but I'm sure you know that.

This is what I'm getting at. These are gigantic and completely undeniable holes in the OS. You don't have to believe any one person's opinion on what happened but reason requires that you acknowledge these glaring problems.

Originally posted by budaruskie

Thanks for answering. You are correct about this for sure:

Just because someone has a PhD in something doesnt make them right

and this

The explanations of how the WTCs collapsed....have been reveiwed by hundreds, if not thousands of professionals of all different backgrounds in physics, chemistry, and engineering.

But do all of those thousands of professionals concur? No they don't.

are you referring to those that worked on the NIST reports, and the FEMA reports? They all more or less agreed on aircraft damage and fire damage. The over all consensus is just that. I'll take their word over a "scientist" who botched his chemistry experiment from start to finish, changed his song but didnt correct his errors, and had to pay to get his flawed findings published. Or the "engineer" who used cardboard boxes to show how the WTC couldnt have collapsed the way they did.

Why has this never been proven if it is in fact true?

yes it has. Recall the Commission and its findings, the heaps of intelligence data collected before and after 9/11 on the terror cells, the accomplises, the foregin intel agencies that supported the findings with their own investigations, etc etc etc.

Once again, no proof. If there are over 80 cameras that could easily show this for the record, why haven't we seen it or the remnants of the plane?

The cameras at the airports showed the hijackers boarding the aircraft. It was shown and confirmed. Numerous cameras caught the WTCs being impacted. At the Pentagon a few cameras got glimpses of the aircraft and the fireball of impact. But then you have the numerous eyewitnesses that confirm it was a large 757 AA type plane that impacted it. and we have seen all the remnants of all four aircraft. They have been shown adnauseum for you guys. You all ignore every time or handwave it away.

Again, no plane and magic phone calls in Penn. and there is absolutely no "official explanation" as to why WTC7 fell. A 7 hour fire in a building is not a sufficient reason for it to collapse to dust, thats just ridiculous. Many structures with lesser or comperable engineering have withstood much more fire damage and not one ever fell, but I'm sure you know that.

This is what I'm getting at. These are gigantic and completely undeniable holes in the OS. You don't have to believe any one person's opinion on what happened but reason requires that you acknowledge these glaring problems.

Yes there were phone calls, from AirPhones. The plane was low enough for some cell calls to go through. The families of the victims also recieved them.
WTC7 was burning for 7 hours until its collapse. The Windsor Tower in Madrid had its steel components collapse from fire alone within TWO hours of being engulfed in flame. Also please read the NIST FAQ on WTC7. All your questions can be answered there. Oh, and WTC7 did not collapse into dust. Here it is right there:


I would also reccommend that you study on the specific design of WTC7 and the way it was built over a ConEd substation. That will answer more of your questions as to why and how it fell the way it did.

reply to post by GenRadek


I respectfully disagree with virtually everything you said, but that's what we are here for. If you don't mind, could you provide some links to what you are referring to with Dr. Jones, I'd like to read that.

Gonna pick my spot here just to ask one final question. What do you think, is the reason that we have not seen a video of a 757 flying into the Pentagon when there is obviously video evidence? Please don't insult me by saying the event wasn't captured on video, that is the freakin' pentagon and there are pictures of cameras on top of the building just feet from where the plane supposedly hit. This could easily put to rest a big part of the "conspiracy" but the gov't flat out refused to give it to the public. Also, please know that if you reference the security camera footage, which is crappy at best, I'm going to point out that it conspicuously doesn't show a 757. Good talkin' to ya.

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I respectfully disagree with virtually everything you said, but that's what we are here for. If you don't mind, could you provide some links to what you are referring to with Dr. Jones, I'd like to read that.

Gonna pick my spot here just to ask one final question. What do you think, is the reason that we have not seen a video of a 757 flying into the Pentagon when there is obviously video evidence? Please don't insult me by saying the event wasn't captured on video, that is the freakin' pentagon and there are pictures of cameras on top of the building just feet from where the plane supposedly hit. This could easily put to rest a big part of the "conspiracy" but the gov't flat out refused to give it to the public. Also, please know that if you reference the security camera footage, which is crappy at best, I'm going to point out that it conspicuously doesn't show a 757. Good talkin' to ya.

If you disagree, but we can be civil, i do not mind at all. Yes that is why we are here at ATS.

As to Jones, there is a very very very long thread about the alleged chips and there was a very good explanation as to why Jones was/is horribly horribly wrong in every aspect of his "experiment". I do warn you, there are a LOT of pages to go through in that thread. Most of the posts that counter the claims were by pteridine, who has shown beyond a doubt factually that Jones report is so full of errors, its a joke. As of yet I have not seen anyone that can refute any of what he says. There are 70 pages, but i reccomend you read through most of pteridine's comments as they do a good job exposing the numerous errors in Jones' paper.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also he does some good work on this thread as well:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here along with thedman:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are just way too many errors and erronious jumps to conclusions that would make a high school chem teacher cringe. Heck the most obvious is the fact that thermite can burn in a zero oxygen environment. Jones only burned his "samples" in air with oxygen. A person with basic understanding of chemistry knows that in order to prove something with a test, you are to test it in such a way that confirms it behaves the way its suppose to. If Jones had wanted to prove thermite, he should have just run the tests under an inert atmosphere. If the samples burned vigorously under zero oxygen conditions, then he'd have a much stronger case. But he didnt. And still hasnt, and refuses to do so, and makes lame excuses as to why he didnt test it that way. Its all there in the threads, but again, I suggest taking some time in reading through the comments. Lots of valuable information exposing the fraud claims of Jones.

As to the Pentagon, well that is another story. There are a few shots, but nothing too clear. Why this is I dont know. Do I find it suspect? Not really. Do they always release videos taken from security sensitive sites?

[edit on 2/13/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Thanks, gonna be a lot of reading to do! Could you address the pentagon 757 question please?

Nevermind, I see you did in your edit. I must say though, I expected more from you. Seems almost a necessity at this point to justify the wars.

[edit on 2/13/2010 by budaruskie]

[edit on 2/13/2010 by budaruskie]

reply to post by budaruskie


Well, i look at the Pentagon from a logical standpoint. If I may ask you, have you ever had the oppertunity to be in DC or visit DC and the surrounding area including Pentagon? If not, I do recommend the trip, lots of nice things to see (but thats for another thread ) Anyways, I had the oppertunity to visit this past summer. After driving all around the Pentagon and the Arlington Cemetary, I noticed that there are a LOT of people in and around that particular area. Especially in the morning and yes, we did get stuck in some traffic jams around the Pentagon. I came to the conclusion that there is no logical way that, considering the thousands of potential eyewitnesses in the immediate vicinity, not to mention areas farther out, that anyone would think faking a crash there would be easy to do without a plane, or using a missile, bombs, etc. There are just too many eyes that would see any faked things. One or two reliable accounts mentioning no planes would blow the whole thing. I am aware that some people claim that there are accounts that people said they didnt see a plane or it "flew over". But then you have to deal with those on the other side of the Pentagon, towards the Lincoln memorial and so on/ There you would find thousands more eyewitnesses that would have turned and looked towards the Pentagon after the explosion, and they would have seen any planes flying over in that moment. but alas, no one has come forward saying that. All agree the plane hit and it was an AA757

Many accounts agree a 757 impacted the Pentagon. Some had it thunder over them real low and impact the building, others saw it from a distance impacting. There is no concievable way they could have faked or tricked people like that. that is why I do believe the flight impacted the Pentagon.

reply to post by GenRadek


Yes, I have been to D.C. although it was pre-9/11. It is surreal to say the least. In my opinion your point of view is consistent, but not logically full-proof. What would be full-proof would be to show the public video evidence that clearly shows a 757 impacting the Pentagon and subsequently disintegrating into nothing. This would eliminate all guess work and the need to draw conclusions like: people would surely come forward and say they saw _____ if it happened.

To borrow from the Kennedy assassination, more than 50 eyewitnesses said that they saw a shot from the grassy knoll, however it was literally decades until that made the television. Even when it did become mainstream many of those same witnesses claimed to have been threatened by gov't authorities. There is a certain stigma that comes along with not seeing what the television and the gov't tell you to see, know what I mean?

reply to post by budaruskie


Of course it would be best to show the footage (if it exists) of the plane striking the building. But look at it this way: say they do release the videos. What then? If my memory and experience serve me well, those in the "truther" camp would automatically jump on the video, saying it is faked, manipulated, edited, etc etc etc, and just toss it aside as if it is nothing. They will demand the "real" video because in their twisted minds, the "real" video will "show" that nothing actually hit the Pentagon. So who wins? No one.

But lets go another way: Why don't they just release a "faked" video to shut everyone up? I assume they would have the capability to do so, at least by now, almost 9 years later. But that is to say if they could do so. If they allegedly already faked the crash and everything, why not a video or two to make it really clear? Or are the so inept that they forget the little basics? I doubt that.

Or there is no clear definitve footage of the impact or aircraft, because it was damaged or destroyed in the impact and fires? I would lean more toward this conclusion until some evidence comes forward better explaning the situation. Until then it is all speculation.

As with the Kennedy assasination, yes there were multiple accounts of a grassy noll shooter. But for that case, you would have a guy hiding behind a hill with a rifle among a crowd of hundreds. In the chaos and panic, easy to hide and dissappear. At the Pentagon you have a lumbering 757 in AA paint scheme (also a shiny silver) traveling over thousands of people, low and fast clearing some vehicles by 20-30ft or less. its kinda hard to fake that or have so many people duped into seeing something like that, and especially if it plows into the Pentagon.

[edit on 2/13/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Easy turbo, I'm a "truther" myself, keep it civil. I see your point, but a video could be scrutinized for authenticity and speculation cannot. That seems to be another reason they'd release it. I'm sorry but I just refuse to accept that the Pentagon does not have any video evidence of the event other than the infamous security cam. That defies logic in my opinion, especially when you can see that the cameras are there that would have footage.
If we can safely assume that they do have footage of what happened, then what reason would there be not to release it? If your final answer is because someone will question its authenticity, then what does that infer?

reply to post by budaruskie

budaruskie, I'm saying the following to you rhetorically, since you seem to be looking for truth. Some others are obfuscating. That ain't right.

A FOIA release of all videos confiscated by the Feds in the immediate aftermath of the crash of the "non-visible narrow object" into the Pentagon would satisfy so many arguments. Why can't we see these videos 8.5 yrs after the event? National security? I say National obscurity. How about adding to that FOAI all the buried videos, photos, testimony, transcripts, radar logs, standown orders, etc.???

Release all relevant data pertaining to 9/11 so we can get on our way, and find out why we are in a state of perpetual war!!!! If you have children thinking about joining the GWOT you would understand. If you have lost one or more then you would really understand!!!

[edit on 13-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48

 

An open unbiased investigation , lets put this puppy to bed.

No such animal. ANY investigation is going to involve the FBI, CIA, NIST, FAA, DoD etc...... And those are all agencies that you will not accept anything from.

it will involve them, of course, but hopefully there would be a counter mechanism... surely there are/were people employed by one of said agencies that dont agree with the OS, and perhaps even a few that have 'strongly convincing evidence' indicating substantial and sustained intentional deceit focused at the American people.

at the world.

and even if there arent any employees of the aforementioned agencies, i think you know where to find other rational arguments.

edit to remove as I did miss the reply and have responded to it further down the line. I was still right to find there was no answer though and that makes me sad.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No such animal. ANY investigation is going to involve the FBI, CIA, NIST, FAA, DoD etc...... And those are all agencies that you will not accept anything from.

There is a way around this.

It's no different than when the police interrogate a criminal who denies his guilt, but the evidence is stacked against him anyway. He can deny it all he wants but the hammer is still going to come down in the end.


In this case if we have an independent investigation (of whoever, unaffiliated with ALL of these agencies and any other conflicts of interest) officials from these agencies may receive subpoenas and be required to give testimony which is then corroborated with other testimonies and evidences.


And I know that also sounds like it's never going to happen to you, but you know, it's no more crazy than thinking all your leaders would be tried similarly for crimes against humanity within a decade, in 1930's Germany. They screwed up, opposing forces eventually beat their asses out of power and they were all tried and many of them executed. International war, civilians taking responsibility back for themselves within their own country, either can get the job done. People have been trying to bring cases to court against the government in regards to 9/11 for years, including William Rodriguez and Sibel Edmonds, but they are thrown out of court. There will be increasingly opportunities for justice as public outrage increases, and it WILL as awareness of all the things that happened that day spreads. And that is the main reason we are discussing this here right now. And I don't know if it was you asking where all the marches were or not but try a few years ago. You know we all exist in real life, are every bit as capable as yourself, and we sure as hell want to do something about this.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Would you mind explaining what aspect of the building's construction would cause that tilt to correct and the vector to turn straight down?

Hmmm. I guess that is a 'No, I can not explain it. It is just something I repeat because I read it and I dare not think about the things I say or I might start to doubt them.'

Answering a question with another question, yeah, that is a dead give-away that they can't give a straight answer.