13 Reasons To Question The Official Story

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ontarff


Who cut the steel column afterwards? Why? Who are the witnesses? There should be video or a couple of pictures of their work. What agency or company do they work for? I have not seen the information posted in any of the threads. Don't make a statement unless you have the facts to back it up. Post a link at least with the external text.

By that logic you can claim that the column was cut by aliens. There's no precise evidence of either event but you're just going to believe the more outlandish scenario just because it suits you.

Your words apply just as much to the notion that the column was cut by thermite. Where are the facts to back that up?

Cut by aliens? Boy now you are really deflecting the question. You got it right when you said there is no precise evidence (yet). Who took the picture when? Someone must know, or is that a mystery too? Does the firefighter in the picture remember? Dr. Jones has already provided the evidence of the sulfuric compounds found on some of the steel beams. Go back and read the thread again. The answer to your question has already been provided. See #2.

Sulfidation was also observed in steel beams taken from the World Trade Centers as well as WTC 7. The presence of gypsum in the twin towers could be a possible source of the sulfur, however an experiment put that to the test and proved that it couldn't produce the eutectic steel which was recovered.

reply to post by trebor451


You seem troubled and need clarity.

I have a post for you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by trebor451

Something is getting stronger....the stench that is the decaying Truth movement. Looking at the absolutely hilarious efforts of the 9/11 "Truth" movement to gather up some sort of enthusiasm for a NYC Ground Zero protest (imagine that... a "protest" on a commorative anniversary.....talk about a classy move) keeps me chuckling day in and day out.

"Gettign stronger every day." Yep. Sure.

How exactly are you contributing to the discussion? Are you going to try and debunk the OP? Or are you just going to condescend us because you're so enlightened and we're just a bunch of gullible old conspiracy theorist fools?

After reading through the thread (which I really doubt you did), how can you believe the official story? Read the entire thread, top to bottom, look at every image, watch the videos, and tell me how can you possibly support NISTs conclusion that fire caused the buildings to collapse?

You know what, forget every image, every video, every characteristic that matches up perfectly with a controlled demolition, this one paragraph alone proves that fire could not cause the damage that the official story claims it does:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… [color=limegreen]All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing......Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.

In the likely event that you don't understand what that means for the official story, it means that fire cannot cause the structural failure that the official story claims it did. That right there is proof that the official story is false. Add to that the rest of the OP, and the official story is debunked! It's a controlled demolition, that is the only conclusion that can be reached by the evidence presented in the thread.

So please, since you're so intelligent that you felt the need to come in here and call the thread garbage without doing any real debunking, how about you explain one thing to us:

Despite the fact that all of the evidence in the OP points to a controlled demolition and none of it points to a fire-caused collapse, how do you still believe the fire-damage theory that has been debunked by the very organization that backs that theory up?

reply to post by TupacShakur


From where are you getting that NIST quote? I would like to see what comes before and after those....

reply to post by hooper

Page 140 of the NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain
information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)

reply to post by hooper


wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by hooper

 

Page 140 of the NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain
information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)

Thank you.

reply to post by hooper

Thank you.

No problem. So what do you think? If NISTs own experiments can't produce results that back up a fire caused collapse, do you still believe that's what caused the Twin Towers and WTC 7 to collapse?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by hooper

 

Thank you.

No problem. So what do you think? If NISTs own experiments can't produce results that back up a fire caused collapse, do you still believe that's what caused the Twin Towers and WTC 7 to collapse?

Uh, I think you have to read it a little closer than that. It was more complicated than just a "fire caused" collapse. There was substantial damage from the initial impact and explosion that caused the loading system of the building to become unbalanced. Also, those particular test were limited in that there is not a facility wherein you can test a full length section. So I will beg your question as the NIST did not simplify the collapse as "fire caused".

reply to post by hooper

Uh, I think you have to read it a little closer than that. It was more complicated than just a "fire caused" collapse. There was substantial damage from the initial impact and explosion that caused the loading system of the building to become unbalanced. Also, those particular test were limited in that there is not a facility wherein you can test a full length section. So I will beg your question as the NIST did not simplify the collapse as "fire caused".

I figured you would continue clinging to your flawed beliefs. There is not enough evidence in the world to convince you.

Hell, I could even show you evidence that NIST manipulated their computerized models in order to dishonestly create some proof that their theory was correct, and you would still defend them. Oh wait, NIST did do that!

To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], [color=limegreen]the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.) The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns.

NIST didn't address what happened to the tower after collapse began either, they just assumed it was inevitable and called it a night.

I could even show you how the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 matches up with controlled demolitions for several reasons, and even have controlled demolitions experts verifying this, but you still would believe the official story. Oh wait, that's all in the OP!

I've got another question hooper: Even though the collapse of the three buildings, especially WTC 7, match the characteristics of a controlled demolition, why do you not think it's possible that they were brought down intentionally? Can you at least admit that the collapse of the buildings matches up with a controlled demolition for several reasons?

reply to post by ontarff


How about you provide the same? Provide what black op's super secret agency, secretly went in (with what your "experts" say would take 40+ people to accomplish) and cut the columns.

I want the names of the companies, witnesses, video and anything else to prove that they were cut before hand.

The truth movement is exactly that, a great big movement!!


Assumptions
Theories
Beliefs
Opinions
Distrust of our Govt.


9/11 truth has become a religion, to be part of this sect, all you need is faith. And a over active imagination.

Just had my 2nd cup of coffee, I need to make a movement.

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield

9/11 truth has become a religion, to be part of this sect, all you need is faith. And a over active imagination.

Physics is reality.

Believing the OS is faith.

An over active imagination is one which gravity and Ke was all that was required for 15 floors to crush 95 floors to the ground, without even slowing from the loss of Ke to other energy required to sever floor connections and eject those floors out of the footprint.

It takes faith to believe that sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the much large columns they were attached to.

It takes faith because what you claim has no basis in reality. It takes faith because you obviously don't have the education to understand the physics principles involved in colliding objects.

Answer this question...

1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?

Can you answer that without contradicting your claims?

reply to post by ShaunHatfield



how about all of you, those i now start to label disbelievers/debunkers/disinfo-agents/....., why don't you guys start a thread with proving the government is oh so right with their official version, including their numerous mistakes and illogical constructions? I m a new member, done a bit self research, and the threads posted here the past weeks has only put more holes in the official version, and makes only my-already-almost-10-years-belief it was a complete setup, whoever did it, but the government was part of the setup.

Everything posted, how logical, and sometimes as proven as can be, by 'truthers', are still denied by people like you. Why don't you convince us, with proofs, the government didn't lie at all? The few attempts made by disbelievers hadn't any positive result so far....

convince me your government speaks the truth

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

How about you provide the same? Provide what black op's super secret agency, secretly went in (with what your "experts" say would take 40+ people to accomplish) and cut the columns.

I want the names of the companies, witnesses, video and anything else to prove that they were cut before hand.

You know we can't provide that for you, so why bother asking? The evidence is all there, the fact that we don't have the name and number of the people involved doesn't void all of the evidence in the OP.

Assumptions
Theories
Beliefs
Opinions
Distrust of our Govt.

More like facts, evidence, experiments, physics, common sense, and thousands of expert testimonies.

The official story on the other hand contains many assumptions, such as possibly the most wildly outrageous assumption that can be made in such an investigation: Once initiation was reached, collapse was inevitable and therefore the structural behavior of the Twin Towers was irrelevant.

Theories: Ever heard of the pancake collapse? That's a theory.

Beliefs: "Our government wouldn't kill 3,000+ of it's own citizens"

Opinions: "An inside job is impossible, somebody would blab because thousands of people would have to be involved."

Blind faith and trust in our government: Believing an official story that didn't address WTC 7, the explosions heard during the collapse by dozens of witnesses, the molten metal in the basements of the three buildings, the actual behavior of the Twin Towers during the collapse.

NIST even provided experiments that showed fire couldn't cause sufficient damage to cause even a single floor to fail, and the only real proof backing their theory is a computerized model that they tweaked and manipulated until they reached their desired outcome. And they won't even share this model with organizations that request it. That isn't science, that is a corrupt and biased organization that clearly didn't look at all of the evidence in their "open and thorough" investigation.

9/11 truth has become a religion, to be part of this sect, all you need is faith. And a over active imagination.

So noticing several striking similarities between the collapse of those buildings and controlled demolitions equals an overactive imagination? How about an active imagination that has an ounce of common sense?

WTC 7 especially, all of the characteristics match a controlled demolition, but you have a lunatic conspiracy theorists mind to see the similarities I guess. All of the normal Americans with under-active imaginations either haven't seen the evidence, or have seen the evidence and are either too stupid to put the pieces of the puzzle together or are in deep denial that their government would do that and that the world is a dark, scary place.

Answer this question for me:
Do you agree that the collapse of those buildings, especially WTC 7, have many characteristics that match up with a controlled demolition?

reply to post by bing0


Its a pattern you'll find repeated over and over again.

Either they're here because they like squabbling, or they have their own reasons for being here.

I have yet to see any single one of the OS faithful demonstrate how the available evidence fits the official story. I have also never seen any of them rethink their positions based on new information.

I am a real person, and however hard it smarts to admit it, I've been forced to rethink my position on these boards several times. It sucks to admit you're wrong, but real people who are interested in real answers do that sort of thing. I have yet to see anyone of the OS faithful rethink their position. I have only seen them nay say and ridicule, and when cornered either fabricate an eye witness or ignore you.

reply to post by hooper


What, no love for my link?

reply to post by hooper

Uh, I think you have to read it a little closer than that. It was more complicated than just a "fire caused" collapse. There was substantial damage from the initial impact and explosion that caused the loading system of the building to become unbalanced. Also, those particular test were limited in that there is not a facility wherein you can test a full length section. So I will beg your question as the NIST did not simplify the collapse as "fire caused".

Uh, not so. Common misconception. NIST used the Irfanoglu and Hoffmann study for this purpose, the substantial damage had not effect on the collapse.

You can read it for yourself to see why, this is quite important:

From an engineering perspective, impact damage to the core structure had a negligible effect on the critical thermal load required to initiate collapse in the core structure.

www.cs.purdue.edu... [I can't seem to find a link to the published article immediately, sorry, in a rush]

reply to post by Darkwing01


That is the core structure. The core remained standing after the collapse for 10-15 seconds before it also collapsed. The outer colums provided lateral suppport to the core and when they collapsed, that support was lost.

reply to post by trebor451

These laugh lines have been debunked more times then Carter has pills.

What a meaningless reply... why dont you trying adding some information to the debate instead of your two bit opinion..
Put your money where your mouth is... debunk...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

That is the core structure. The core remained standing after the collapse for 10-15 seconds before it also collapsed. The outer colums provided lateral suppport to the core and when they collapsed, that support was lost.

The core did not stand after the collapse, one column out of 47 did. The core was one mechanical structure, not separate columns independent from each other. The outer columns only provided lateral support when the building swayed from wind etc. Lack of lateral support would not cause the core to telescope down into an increasing mass, it would cause it to topple if it could not stand without that support. Try holding a broom stick vertically with the bottom on the floor, then remove the lateral support you are providing, does the broom stick fall straight down?

The core did not need the floors for it's support, that is nonsense. The core was 47 box columns cross braced, it is a common mechanical structure, and by its design it needs no support from anything but it's own structure. Stop spreading misinformation.

Visual evidence proves you wrong...



If the antenna dropped ahead of the floors it mean the core collapsed ahead of the floors, not because of the floors. The core was what failed first. If the core failed the whole building would fail because it is the core, not the floors, that hold the damn building up.





And buildings don't fall straight down through an increasing path of most resistance, without slowing and arresting, when the floors fail. There is a reason those types of collapses are called 'pancake', because the stacked up floors, post collapse, resemble stacked up pancakes. If there are no stacks of pancake then it wasn't a pancake collapse, the floors were ejected out of the footprint, which means they were losing mass, not gaining mass, during the collapse.

Adjust your misunderstanding, and see if your claim can still be logical.