The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

reply to post by psikeyhackr

We are talking about two airliners that had to weigh less than 200 tons supposedly destroying buildings weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than TWO HOURS. And the destruction was TOTAL. Thousands of tons of concrete turned to DUST.

It was all I could think about for two weeks after 9/11. I finally concluded airliners could not do it.

So you thought about that for two weeks and all you could come up with was that somehow it was only the force of the initial impact of airplanes that caused all the destruction? Did you miss the part where the buildings collapsed on themselves, parts of which fell almost a quarter of a mile?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Small oxygen-starved black smoke fires

With smoke trails trails that were visible from the space station with the naked eye.

Yep, small fires indeed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/870b15b18585.jpg[/atsimg]

But not visible from the freakin' hole in the building and so hot that a woman could stand at the edge and look out?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
But not visible from the freakin' hole in the building and so hot that a woman could stand at the edge and look out?

Edna Cintron was standing at the opposite side of Tower 1 (at the North Face) compared to where the fire was at.


Some fuel starved fire there.

And here's what happened to Edna Cintron when all that comfort became too much for her:




[edit on 1-8-2010 by roboe]

Excellent thread, I normally stay away from the 9/11 threads as they make me very emotional and angry. I have said it before and I will say it again,

It doesn't matter how much evidence.proof, rational thought, you give to people, the ones that don't believe that there is a conspiracy, will never believe anything but the official story. To believe in anything else will force people to look at the world differently and for many many people out there, its safer and cosier in the bubble of their own naivety

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Come Clean

 

Quick....what was in the rooms of that section of that tower??? Quick...come on, you can do it.......


Here's a hint....computer rooms for Sun Bank, full of large UPS'...full of metals that melt at much lower temperatures than steel. You also seem to be stuck on the idea that if you see molten metal, then it MUST be steel.......not understanding that there were thousands of pounds of OTHER metals there.


In other words, again, you have bitten into a 9/11 "truth" falsehood when you post that video.

Can you name these metals and provide sources for their melting temperatures, and show that the fires got hot enough, and lasted long enough, to transfer enough heat to cause them to melt?

Otherwise your argument is not valid, and you have bitten into an
"OS" falsehood.

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Great thread OP! S&F for ya!

You are right there is alot we don't know for sure about that day we pretty much have that list you just posted and for the rest we are expected to take the government's word for it and a white wash commission's word as well.Meanwhile,the 1st responders are being left to rot like lepers by the very same government makes you wonder why they seem so eager for them to die off...

Hmmm. Could it be because the first responders are first-hand witnesses to many facts that are contrary to the official story?

[edit on 8/2/2010 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

We are talking about two airliners that had to weigh less than 200 tons supposedly destroying buildings weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than TWO HOURS. And the destruction was TOTAL. Thousands of tons of concrete turned to DUST.

It was all I could think about for two weeks after 9/11. I finally concluded airliners could not do it.

So you thought about that for two weeks and all you could come up with was that somehow it was only the force of the initial impact of airplanes that caused all the destruction? Did you miss the part where the buildings collapsed on themselves, parts of which fell almost a quarter of a mile?

The buildings supposedly collapsing on themselves is the MOST RIDICULOUS PART of the whole story. A skyscraper must be designed to support its own weight AND WITHSTAND THE WIND from any direction. The means the top is the lightest and weakest portion of the entire building.

This business of Bazant claiming the top portion could remain intact while crushing the rest is the most ludicrous physics in history. 14 stories crushing 95 stories while accelerating at more than 50% of gravitational acceleration and then the EXPERTS can't tell us the distributions of steel and concrete in the building is insanely ridiculous. Most of what I thought about was how the steel had to be distributed to make ANY SKYSCRAPER hold itself up. Add more steel to the 105th level to hold the top 5 and all of the stories below must support that added weight which means even more steel on levels below all of the way down.

People claiming to know physics need to be laughed at for not making a big deal of not getting that info in almost NINE YEARS. So how much does a complete floor assembly weigh? Did they pancake or not? Arguing about whether or not they pancaked without knowing the weight is absurd.

That doesn't even raise the issue of how much the building deflected due to impact. Does that have anything to do with the conservation of momentum?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The laws of physics don't give a damn about conspiracies, or governments or religions, or people that think they know physics. Computers can be programmed to do anything. The core columns don't move in the Purdue simulation due to the plane impact. But the NIST says the south tower deflected 12 inches 130 feet below where the plane impacted. Purdue or the NIST must be lying. Computers don't do physics they follow programs.

Real models have to do physics.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If we don't know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level then how can we do the physics? But why aren't all of the people who claim to know physics demanding that information?

Could it be that those people actually know physics?

That's the nice thing with real physics and advanced math- you don't need to know useless details in order to make accurate predictions.

Someday when you study the stuff in school you'll understand.

So let's see them build a PHYSICAL MODEL that can support itself and collapse by dropping the top 15% on the rest.

And why can't the NIST specify the total for the concrete in the towers. A truly accurate model can't be built without accurate distribution of mass data.

psik

Originally posted by Come Clean
Here's my take. You got two of the world's tallest buildings on fire and another apparently on fire. High Rise fires are notorioulsy hard to put out with conventional wisdom.

So are you guys telling me we simply got lucky they fell? And fell in a way that didn't do that much damage to surrounding areas? Because those towers would still be burning today if they didn't fall. What were they going to do? Let them burn themselves out?

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Come Clean]

How old are you? Is this the first time you've entertained any thought regarding what occurred on 9/11/2001?

In today's Washington Post, there is WikiLeaks wish list from Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

One of the items on his wish list is this: The 28 or more pages on the foreknowledge or involvement of foreign governments (particularly Saudi Arabia) that were redacted from the congressional investigation of 9/11, over the protest of then-Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.).

I'd like to see this too.

Considering Jones is on record forecasting the attack on the WTC and that it would be blamed on OBL weeks before it happened
saying Infowars is discredited because it is Infowars is well...
a real laughable leap of incredible logic...!

I was watching TV ( in a store I worked in that had over 70 TVs all tuned to different channels ) real time. The commentary was that building 7 had only two small fires that were considered non serious...
call me a lier, but prove it

and this comment by NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before and during its collapse at 5:30:

“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’…

www.prisonplanet.com...

The Final Report shows that NIST avoided physical testing altogether. Instead, it created a computer model that it claims supports their collapse theory, but won't even release that model for inspection by the public.

911research.wtc7.net...

Here is a picture of building 7 at 3pm on September 11, two and a half hours before it collapsed. The lower portion of the building is darkened from the reflection of the other smaller building across the street. The only fires are on the 7th and 12th floors and are so small they could have been put out by the office sprinkler system. Why did Silverstein and the government make the decision to 'pull' the building when debris from it's collapse would hit the other buildings and start fires in them too?

www.prisonplanet.com...

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

www.nowpublic.com...

GEE! ONE OF THEM REPORTS IS AUTOMATICALLY FUBAR PERIOD!
take your pick which one...then use the other one to debunk the one you want to keep.
done.


[edit on 1-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by psikeyhackr

What would have happened in 2002 if the deans of our top 50 engineerging schools had come out and said that simple Newtonian physics dictated that airliners could no do that much damage in that little time? But now they have to maintain this BS to avoid admitting they were accomplices to a lie. I don't know what did happen but I am pretty sure what could not happen.

It's all about the money. It is what makes the world go around. It is the same reason universities are refusing to research medicinal cannabis. The majority of the public knows cannabis has medicinal value, the federal government knows it has medicinal value, the universities themselves probably know it has medicinal value, but they refuse to research it just so they can ensure the federal government does not cut back on their funding.

Most of the professors and lecturers at my engineering school have an opinion about 9/11, but as with any workplace, the politics ensure that your opinion may only be shared (especially with students) if it is in line with the opinion of those who will renew your contract once it is up. The views of the high-ups at any engineering school must be in line with the views of the federal government if they wish to continue to ensure funding. It is a pretty sad state we are in. We really have not come as far as we would like to think from the dark ages when the church outlawed the general public from learning how to read or write. We are only allowed as much knowledge as suits the agenda of the federal government. The agenda of the federal government, as we know, is set (or heavily influenced by) the big boys with the big cheque books. It's all about the money.




[edit on 1-8-2010 by Azp420]

reply to post by ANOK


Off the top of my head a couple materials used in UPS'

Lead..melting point 621 degrees Farenheit
Cadmium..melting point 609 degrees Farenheit
Mercury..melting point -37 degrees Farenheit

And since the one computer room was at the point of impact, a wild guess would be that quite of few of the computers/ups' were ruptured.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If we don't know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level then how can we do the physics? But why aren't all of the people who claim to know physics demanding that information?

Could it be that those people actually know physics?

That's the nice thing with real physics and advanced math- you don't need to know useless details in order to make accurate predictions.

Someday when you study the stuff in school you'll understand.

If you claim to have a thorough understanding of basic physics, specifically mechanics, then I invite you to put your reputation on the line and debate me at the "Physics of 9/11" thread. Joey Canoli, one of the loudest voices on ATS supporting the OS, has been getting destroyed in recent posts. Maybe you can do better?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Come Clean

 

The heat source was underground fires. Air was available from the subway tunnels under the debris and there was a great deal of fuel from 80-90 stories of offices. These fires can get exceptionally hot and are difficult to extinguish, especially with so many pathways for air and protective, insulating cover.

OMG, your "explanations" keep getting better and better. Small oxygen-starved black smoke fires 80 stories up that somehow became 1500 degree underground fires that raged for months and took a "lakes worth of water to extinguish"?

You're too much...

So, what you seem to be saying is that fires, when provided fuel and air, should just go out rather than continue burning. This is new combustion
engineering and you are at the forefront.

What is your explanation for the underground heat?

reply to post by airspoon



Your obvious heartfelt sincerity, sense of betrayal and well intended patriotism and sacrifice is heart wrenching! And though I'm also a Vet of Desert Storm I'm
(embaressedly) happy to have remained physically intact though no less emotionally and morally abused.... I'm with you all the way...
I've NEVER EVER seen a more unbiased honest summary of a topic here or anywhere else! You missed your calling as a diplomat or investigator Sir!!
Kudos and much luv and appreciation!!

reply to post by pteridine

So, what you seem to be saying is that fires, when provided fuel and air, should just go out rather than continue burning. This is new combustion
engineering and you are at the forefront.

What is your explanation for the underground heat?

I don't think GoldenFleece is saying the fires should have gone out. He is merely questioning how small, oxygen-starved, black smoke fires are transformed into 1500 degree underground fires that raged for months, especially considering how there should have been a lot more oxygen to feed the fires 80 stories up than underground.

reply to post by Azp420


That's another one that is always good for a laugh. "Well if you see black smoke that means its oxygen starved" What a load of rubbish.

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets

believe high rise fires can be put out using adjacent high rise buildings' pumping systems.

Most modern high rises have additional "pumping stations" halfway up, they may have more than one. They need these to get the water up to the higher floors.

I believe fire fighters can hook into/ utilize these adjacent buildings' systems to fight nearby high rise fires.

There are systems in place to fight these fires in urban areas. I've seen high rise fires worked from the next building or across the street, etc.

- just some stray thoughts.

Jeez I been in the fire service for 22 years and never heard of this

The "pumpimg stations" you refer to are in every high raise building

Their function is to support the sprinkler/standpipe systems

For every foot of height lose 1/2 pound of pressure - high raise buildings have fire pumps to build up the water pressure to the upper floors

One of the first due units at the scene is to tie into the sprinkler and standpipe systems and pump extra water into the system

There is no way for one building to pump water to another building

Typical truther logic - make up garbage to support your conspiracy fantasy

Doesn't matter if logical or true - there are plenty of idiots who will lap it up...

i believe there is a lot more to 9/11 than we realize. i am against the war we are in and i am against the way the military suckers young men and women with promises and brochures showing soldiers surfing and laughing. i imagine the reality is far from what any recruiter would tell you. and in that cramped little office here in the us you are a million miles mentally and physically from where you would be after a few years in the service. but i support the troops 100%, i'm sure we all have family and friends over there and all we want is for them to all make it home safe. i can't imagine the feeling of a parent burying their child who died in a war over some rich old politicians financial interests. in an ideal world there would be no war, but unfortunately we don't live in such a place. we should respect our soldiers who sacrificed more than most of us will ever know serving our great country. no one else had the guts to go fight when they did, and whether we think the war is right or not that doesn't change the fact that someone had to go over there and fight.