The UNofficial Report On 9/11

Originally posted by Se7enex
Hey guys for QUITE a while now I have been working on a report on 9/11 (that isn't dry). I've finally finished it at right around 14 pages and 7 thousand words (with various pictures). Since It's finished I figure I might as well share it with you guys and see what you think. I'll provide a link since it's so long and the infamous wall of text turns people off quick.

The UNofficial Report On 9/11

1) The supposed "squib" you're referring to wasn't a squib. It was air being squeezed out when the building began collapsing. If that was an actual squib there would have been an blatantly obvious explosive flash accompanying the squib, and even then it wouldn't have been squeezed out of the structure like water out of a water pistol.

2) Take the photo of that cut-at-an-angle core column with the firefighters out of your report. That has been proven to have been cut by demolition crews by acetylene torch during the cleanup of ground zero. That photo has been milked to death by the professional liars of the conspiracy movement who are hell bent at grasping at straws to justify their abject paranoia, and it only detracts from your credibility by insinuating it's explosive damage.

Why do I have the feeling your "research" was just a book report on what those damned fool conspriacy web sites are saying?

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia

 

That makes perfect sense but both the dust cloud and squib theories are supported by credited architects. You can see some of Robert Gage's videos on youtube (:

DING DING DING RICHARD GAGE ALERT!!!

You're referencing Richard "The WTC was made of cardboard" Gage as if he were a credible authority. You lose the debate by default.

Originally posted by waypastvne
No you are wrong. Every atom not occupying earths gravitational center has gravitational potential energy.

Gravitational Pe is dependent in it's position, the definition of Pe does not change.

An object lifted off the ground will have GPe, if it is resting on solid ground it won't with nowhere to fall. The act of lifting the object create Ke that is then converted to Pe, when the object is dropped it converts to Ke again. When it hits the ground that Ke is converted to other energy such as sound, heat, deformation etc. Where is the Pe coming from? Pe requires a potential to do work, a body at rest had no potential to do work, unless it is in a position, or configuration, to do so.

Since the force required to lift it is equal to its weight, it follows that the gravitational potential energy is equal to its weight times the height to which it is lifted.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Gravitational energy is the potential energy associated with gravitational force. If an object falls from one point to another point inside a gravitational field, the force of gravity will do positive work on the object, and the gravitational potential energy will decrease by the same amount.
Gravitational force keeps the planets in orbit around the Sun.
A trebuchet uses the gravitational potential energy of the counterweight to throw projectiles over long distances.

Consider a book placed on top of a table. As the book is raised from the floor, to the table, some external force works against the gravitational force. If the book falls back to the floor, the "falling" energy the book receives is provided by the gravitational force. Thus, if the book falls off the table, this potential energy goes to accelerate the mass of the book and is converted into kinetic energy. When the book hits the floor this kinetic energy is converted into heat and sound by the impact.

The factors that affect an object's gravitational potential energy are its height relative to some reference point, its mass, and the strength of the gravitational field it is in. Thus, a book lying on a table has less gravitational potential energy than the same book on top of a taller cupboard, and less gravitational potential energy than a heavier book lying on the same table. An object at a certain height above the Moon's surface has less gravitational potential energy than at the same height above the Earth's surface because the Moon's gravity is weaker. Note that "height" in the common sense of the term cannot be used for gravitational potential energy calculations when gravity is not assumed to be a constant. The following sections provide more detail.

secure.wikimedia.org...

It's easy to find examples of both potential energy and kinetic energy in the world around us. If you push a boulder up a hill, you'll find it's a real effort to get to the top. This is because the force of gravity is constantly trying to pull you (and the boulder) back down. In science, we say you have to do work against the force of gravity to push the boulder up the hill. Doing work means you have to use energy: the muscles in your body have to convert sugar and fat to make the energy you need to push the boulder. Where does this energy go? Although you use energy as you climb, your body and the boulder also gain energy—potential energy. When the boulder is at the top of the hill, you can let it go so it rolls back down again. It can roll down because it has stored potential energy. In other words, it has the potential to roll down the hill all by itself.

www.explainthatstuff.com...

Your definition of Pe being a body at rest is wrong, give it up already.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Why do you always say this about that vid?

If you understood what that vid is demonstrating you would realise you are simply making yourself look stupid by constantly posting this.

It's a very simple, and humorous, demonstration of resistance. The guy has a sense of humour you obvioulsy don't understand. His demonstration is valid, he didn't claim it was a model of the towers or even proof it couldn't have collapsed. It simply shows the stupidity of believing the top section could cause the complete collapse of itself, and the rest of the towers. Those of us who understand the physics involved have no problem relating the simple to the complex, something lost on those who simply don't understand the physics to begin with.

reply to post by ANOK


I notice you didn't address the fact that recently a large portion of Japan fell 2 feet and converted a huge amount of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy, How does your limited concept of PE explain that ?


Every atom within earths gravitational field not occupying earths gravitational center has gravitational potential energy.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Why do you always say this about that vid?

If you understood what that vid is demonstrating you would realise you are simply making yourself look stupid by constantly posting this.

I know exactly what it's demonstrating. It's demonstrating a blatant attempt to artifically introduce innuendo of impropriety by deliberately comparing apples to oranges. First, the building didn't fall freefall. Second, the structure of a cardboard box in no way simulates the design of the WTC...and it IS being used as an analogy of the WTC and if you're claiming it isn't, you're lying. Third, he intentionally leaves out critical factors such as the weakening of the structure due to fire and the plane impact.

Where is the fire and impact induced damaged simulated in his "the WTC is a carboard box" demonstration? Please, point it out to me, Mr Physics expert.

It's a very simple, and humorous, demonstration of resistance. The guy has a sense of humour you obvioulsy don't understand. His demonstration is valid, he didn't claim it was a model of the towers or even proof it couldn't have collapsed. It simply shows the stupidity of believing the top section could cause the complete collapse of itself, and the rest of the towers. Those of us who understand the physics involved have no problem relating the simple to the complex, something lost on those who simply don't understand the physics to begin with.

Bovine Scatology! The whole reason you're even wallowing in all these physics formulae is because you want your "controlled demolitions" theories to be true so you need to resort to calculating out what happened to every nut, bolt, and door hinge in the WTC in desperation in the hopes you can find your smoking gun. I know this to be the case because you truthers have all the information you need to reverse engineer how controlled demolitions supposedly brought down the towers...blueprints, explosives compositions, video footage of the collapse from every angle, still photos of the condition of the steel recovered at ground zero, and so on...and for the last ten years you truthers have been so lazy to get off your butts and break out a calculator and work it out, it borders on being pathological.

We both know why- you simply cannot make two plus two equal five no matter how much you want it to be five.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I can't be completely positive everything I present is accurate. It was just a school project. If I was working on it every day and had proper time it would be far more complete. And hey, if you only find two problems in that entire report, one being just a picture, I think I did pretty good!

And for all the RICHARD Gage haters, this guy builds massive steel structures for a living. I would assume he has far more knowledge on this sort of thing than most people on this site do. Just because he did a basic demonstration doesn't automatically make him wrong. He has spent a lot of time on trying to show the evidence. Not conspiracy, evidence.

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by Se7enex

 

I'm curious, Se7enex - you mentioned that this is a project for school - this is a class project then? What's the class, if I may ask? What grade level? What do you expect the response to be (or what has it been, if you've already turned this project in). I'm interested in the way the events of 9/11 are portrayed in education, and this being a formal class project fascinates me...

Cheers,

I'm 11 and it was more or less to basically prove my science teacher wrong. I suppose it wasn't a formal assignment but my science teacher will have a lot if stuff to disprove! :b

Originally posted by Se7enex

I'm 11 and it was more or less to basically prove my science teacher wrong.

I've said this before, and finally here is my proof!

OS supporters are not smarter than a 5th grader.

sorry couldn't resist.

reply to post by Se7enex
Thanks for answering. I'm really impressed with your research and presentation skills (I teach elementary/junior high). You've put together a lot of evidence, you've got sources listed well, mostly identified which parts are conjecture or opinion, and overall made a pretty strong case. Now I'm really curious to hear how your teacher responds...

In some parts I think you are probably relying too much on those darned fool conspiracy websites (as I'm sure GoodOlDave would have rephrased it had he known how old you are ) - especially the info about Hanjour, the bandana, and the comparisons to other fire-damaged buildings, all of which are a lot less incriminating (in my opinion) than you've made them out to be. On the other hand, I think you've done a great job summarizing the different collapse theories, analyzing Bin Laden's life and death, and scratching the surface of evidence of Mossad involvement (though I think the Odigo story was debunked - I could be wrong).

Keep looking - at sources you agree with and ones you don't - and keep your open mind and full heart with you as you keep learning.

reply to post by magicrat


Thanks lol. Like I've said before if I had proper time and not just random spurts at school it would be more accurate and comprehensive.

Originally posted by ANOK

I've said this before, and finally here is my proof!

OS supporters are not smarter than a 5th grader.

sorry couldn't resist.

Actually, I meant grade 11....:p

reply to post by ANOK


An 11 year old student investigates the OS, and immediately reaches the conclusion that it is inaccurate. This does not bode well for those that continue to back it. How long will they be able to keep spinning this?

reply to post by Se7enex


One of the things I would keep in mind when thinking about Richard Gage as an expert on steel structures is that the Twin Towers were not conventional steel structures by any means. They had truss floors with welded ends attached to the core columns and the wall panels. This means that if weight concentrates on the trusses at any point, they will fail catastrophically. As the trusses fail, the outer load-bearing panels cannot maintain their strength, as they will no longer be rigid. Without horizontal protection from wind and such, the core stands no chance, because the panels were the protection, and the debris from the trusses and falling section above will not bode well for any part within the tower, including the core (though a large amount of the core survived the collapse anyway).

Honestly, it was just a design not meant to withstand a collapse. There was no way to prevent it once it started.

Originally posted by Se7enex
I can't be completely positive everything I present is accurate. It was just a school project. If I was working on it every day and had proper time it would be far more complete. And hey, if you only find two problems in that entire report, one being just a picture, I think I did pretty good!

Now THIS is the care free, irreverent attitude with the truth that concerns me. If you as a truther don't subscribe with the 9/11 commission reports of the NIST, FEMA, or Perdue reports, then it's your obligation to provide us with an alternative scenario that better explains the facts. "I can't be completely positive everything I present is accurate" is just another way of saying you wouldn't give a cat's coughed up hairball about integrity of research; you're just throwing whatever sexy sounding drivel you come across onto the wall to see what sticks.

You obviously have an agenda to convince others of these conspiracy claims regardless of what the truth is. I would appreciate it if you would be honest about your intentions and admit it.

And for all the RICHARD Gage haters, this guy builds massive steel structures for a living. I would assume he has far more knowledge on this sort of thing than most people on this site do. Just because he did a basic demonstration doesn't automatically make him wrong. He has spent a lot of time on trying to show the evidence. Not conspiracy, evidence.

No, actually, these days he just tours around to push his "secret controlled demolitions" conspriacy conferences for a living. In 2011 he's had THIRTY SEVEN speaking engagements and still counting, including a month long tour over in Europe, so it sounds he found a more profitable career.

At what point will it finally dawn on you that you've been had?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Now THIS is the care free, irreverent attitude with the truth that concerns me. If you as a truther don't subscribe with the 9/11 commission reports of the NIST, FEMA, or Perdue reports, then it's your obligation to provide us with an alternative scenario that better explains the facts.

It's not enough to be able to prove those reports to be pure propaganda, you want a better explanation?

How about the WTC was due to be demolished for 15 years? The perpetrators are people within the military, government, media and business, with accomplices in law enforcement, academia and the judiciary. Jets were not used because they can be and ARE identified, and they would not have caused the required damage. The buildings were largely empty, with "brass plate" companies being the primary tenants; office contents, walls, plumbing, dividers, generators, windows, etc. were removed in preparation for the demolition, as is done for all controlled demolitions.

Propaganda movies were filmed in advance, with staged photos of jetsam and staged eye witness accounts concocted.

False identities were created to be "killed" so the family of the deceased could collect from the victim's compensation fund.

Propagandists fanned out to saturate the "alternative" media with stories about planes, and arguments about physics.

Anyone who points out the fraudulence of the photographic evidence is marginalized.

How am I doing?

reply to post by septic


Your post is completely delusional. The WTC complex was at what was considered full occupancy. It wasn't scheduled for demolition. You truly do need to find real sources rather than conspiracy sites.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

Your post is completely delusional.

And yours was completely predictable.

Based on the available evidence, my post was pretty accurate.

The WTC complex was at what was considered full occupancy.

So say the prime suspects. Without victims, the outrage of the American Public would have been directed towards the Port Authority for demolishing buildings the EPA had mandated them to dismantle. Of course they claim they were fully occupied; they were faking a terrorist attack.

It wasn't scheduled for demolition.

I have read several articles to the contrary,

You truly do need to find real sources rather than conspiracy sites.

Yes, I need to take the word of the people who broadcast images of cartoon airplanes slicing through steel like butter.

reply to post by Se7enex

I can't be completely positive everything I present is accurate. It was just a school project. If I was working on it every day and had proper time it would be far more complete. And hey, if you only find two problems in that entire report, one being just a picture, I think I did pretty good!

You did a great job on your report, don’t worry about what some of these 911 truth haters say, I usually skip past reading most of their hateful drivel.
The fact is we don’t all have the facts and evidence to what happened on 911, we do know evidence is being withheld from the public and there is plenty of evidence of a mass cover-up of information from the White House to the Pentagon.

Let’s also remember that the 911 Commissioners wanted the Justice Department to do a criminal investigation against the Pentagon the White House and FAA because they were caught lying about their actions concerning the events of the morning of 911. The 911 Commissioners publicly announced that the Whitehouse stonewalled their investigation. The fact is 911 was never investigated and the Official Story of 911 cannot stand up to scrutiny or science, and it is a conspiracy theory.

Great job on your report.

reply to post by septic


You're right for once. Anytime someone offers up a post as full of...inaccuracies...as you did. It's easy to predict I'm going to point out how delusional it is. But I will point out that you have once again added a few thousand more people to the conspiracy....since no one was actually in the towers according to you...

reply to post by impressme


Thanks a lot. I can't believe they expect me, a 16 year old coping with various problems(seizures for instance) with extremely limited computer usage to provide a bona fide completely true report. The internet is the ONLY source I can use and therefore it's difficult to make a report that is without flaws. Ironically enough a lot of the finger pointers have only scrutinized others and not contributed to anything useful themselves.

reply to post by impressme


Umm Apollo, you ARE aware that the 9/11 Commissioners believe that the report is accurate in regards to the history and events of that day, and they were mad about was the cover up in how inefficient/inept our response was that day, compared to the way it was originally reported to the public, before their investigation? You do know that right?