The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

Exponent,this is a good idea.A coherent debate without all the posturing and raving and ranting that has derailed so many good threads.I do wonder what people on both sides of the issue make of Richard Clarke's accusations?

reply to post by exponent


High exponent nice post s&f

How hot were the fires?

We cant tell but fire tests have been done here are some results from an office fire test without the use of aviation fuel

Cardington Fire Tests

First column time other three temp in degrees C for steel at various locations.

21.5 78 365 628
22.0 80 386 654
22.5 83 404 676
23.0 86 420 697
23.5 88 435 716
24.0 90 450 734
24.5 91 466 746
25.0 93 481 764
25.5 95 494 778
26.0 99 505 788
26.5 104 515 795
27.0 108 523 798
27.5 113 529 798
28.0 119 534 798

21.5 mins steel at 628 c at the temp steeel has lost 50% of its strength.
27 mins steel at 798 c at that temp steel has lost 90% of its strength.



Was the fireproofing damaged or defective?

Again we cant tell if defective but the impact of the crash was bound to remove some of it, it was also part of the huge dust cloud during collapse!!!!

Could the fires have affected the steel?

See data above!!!!!

What would heating the steel have resulted in?

That would all depend on location and temperature!

Can trusses cause the exterior colum bowing?

Well we can see pictures/video of walls bowing so probably.

The REAL problem with 9/11 on here and eleswhere on the net is the simple FACT repeat FACT the nobody on either side of the fence can know exactly what happened.

So lets look at ACTUAL FACTS.

Did planes hit the towers YES.
Did they cause structural damage YES.
Can office fire get hot enough to effect steel strength YES.
So could what we saw have happened YES !!!!!!

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by phroziac

 

Could you repeat that in the form of a list of the 5 biggest questions you'd like to see answered?

1 what other buildings in the history of concrete/steel towers have ever pancaked by accident?
2 pancaking at freefall speed requires floors below the collapsing floors to be blown out of the way entirely, how did this occur?
3 how can a passport fall out of the wreckage intact, yet the rest of the plane was totally unrecognizable and burning with intense heat, and even then, how do you know its a hijackers passport and not an innocent victim? Also no desks, chairs, filing cabinets fell out
4 why do terrorists only come from countries with oil?
5 why do rothschild operated central banks always pop up immediately after occupation of evil countries?

1) What other buildings were 110 floors high and impacted by aircraft at high speed?

2) They didn't pancake at freefall or this could not happen



How could the wall panel's fall and overtake floors if they were at freefall?
Please reply in your best physics

3) Strange things happen all the time for example

JAT stewardess Vesna Vulović survived a fall of 33000 feet

How can that happen?

4) I am from the UK we had terrorists from Ireland NO OIL there!!!

5) Typical conspiracy cliche!

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
The video of Flight 175 clearly shows an object mounted under the fuselage that should not be there if it were a commercial 757. Analysis shows that it is an actual 3D object, and not a trick of light and shadow.

That's some crazy ish right there. I don't have sound on my comp at work but I was watching all the comparisons of the videos that show that mini explosion on impact....that is very strange. If these planes were rigged then you have to start questioning how exactly these planes took off without the engineers saying anything about these planes. You have airport personnel inspecting planes before take off, people loading luggage, etc. It's a stretch to say these people were in on a conspiracy unless you have an alternative explanation. I know the idea that the passengers weren't real is hard to comprehend but I always questioned why there was never any footage released of the passengers going through security at the airport. (unless there has been and I just haven't come across it). Footage of the hijackers passing through security was widely released but none of the other passengers. All the phone calls from the flights also make me question it too, they all just don't sound like these people were in panic mode. I'm not saying they're 100% B.S. because I have no definitive proof, but all the calls just sound suspicious to me. I've heard the voice morphing theory, but I've also considered the idea that the passengers on these planes were told to make calls as part of a realistic hijacking exercise. (It's just an idea, I'm not promoting it, just throwing it out there. I know this had never been done before which is why it's a very fact-ridden theory)

My point...if these planes were not commercial airliners and the passengers were indeed real...then how does it all make sense? So many damn questions

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Exponent,this is a good idea.A coherent debate without all the posturing and raving and ranting that has derailed so many good threads.I do wonder what people on both sides of the issue make of Richard Clarke's accusations?

Thank you. Guys please do not debate in this thread, I appreciate that usually you see a bunch of false claims, but this thread is for listing anti-OS questions only

I want to put these together into coherent threads that can have a set topic, not have endless bickering in this very thread.

Cheers!

Originally posted by maxella1

You started comparing the Pentagon with WTC. So I stated that WTC also had some very important agencies.

I don't want to derail this thread so I will be reading only from no on.

You don't need to "be reading only from now on". All you need to do is stick with the theme of the OP as the OP requested.

The question that comes immediately to mind is, just why is the mayor's bunker being in WTC 7 an issue with "the official story"? The logic escapes me.

Was the fireproofing damaged or defective?

Could the fires have affected the steel?

Answer is YES

Fireproofing at WTC was always an issue. When designers was first imagining WTC had to consider how
to fireproof that much steel

The Fire Codes in force then (1938 Code) mandated that steel be encased in several inches of concrete or
terra cotta masonry to pass

Port Authorithy as a government agency was able to fudge the issue and get the code changed to the
performance based 1968 code which said dont care what you use to fireproof the steel long as it can
resist the heat for minimun of 2 hrs

Then choose material called BLAZE SHIELD, the original formulation contained asbestos fibers mixed with
cement binders. This material was NEVER TESTED - instead went by manufacturers brochure which
recommended be applied to depth of 1/2 inch. In 1974 asbestos was banned had been used in North Tower
for first 40 floors. Hurried reformulation led to asbestos being replaced by mineral fibers

In 1996 Port Authority chief engineer order thickness increased 1 1/2 inches

Even then were problems with material adhering to steel, was very friable and easily peeled off. If steel was
dirty, greasy or painted material would not properly adhere. Also found that motion of building would
dislodge it. Every spring were forced to inspect and reapply fireproofing as building flexing over the winter
would dislodge fire proofing. Was found that air movements through HVAC ductwork created enough
vibration to dislodge fireproofing over time

FEMA and NIST in their studies of building behaviour believed that much of the fireproofing in the impacted
areas was knocked off by the shock and impact of debris from the aircraft and secondary sources

George Sleigh, a marine engineer with American Bureau Shipping was in office on 91st floor North Tower
when it was destroyed by impact of American 11 above him 91 st floor is highest point in building where
survivors able to get out. The impact dislodged the ceiling tiles from drop ceiling exposing the floor trusses
and floor decking on floor above him Sleigh noticed that there was no fireproofing on this steelwork

Was it knocked off by the aircraft impact, dislodged by building motions or never applied at all?

Probably never know......

As for heat effecting steel

Refer to other poster listing of steel performance as it is heated

Also why if steel is not affected by heat do they spend so much time/money applying fireproofing to it...?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The question that comes immediately to mind is, just why is the mayor's bunker being in WTC 7 an issue with "the official story"? The logic escapes me.

Okay.. You said

I say low value because, yeah, it had the Cartoon network studios, a bunch of mortgage companies, and it was a popular symbol of NYC, but what else did it have have other than a lot of people in one spot at a time?

I said

It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.

That's all..

Giuliani, 9/11 and the Emergency Command Center, Continued

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Well it does seem to me WTC7 was never part of the official story...it came years later...

I question why a Reinforced ECC (emergency command center was evacuated before the collapse of the first tower...I mean it was the ECC would it not make sense to utilize the facility while it could be...i mean if it was true...and the WTC7 was evacuated before the first collapse....then there would not have been any damage to the building and there would not have been any fires in the building at this point...I do find it a bit odd...So lets put this together.

*why was WTC7 evacuated so promptly yet people in the towers were told to stay where they were...
*why was WTC7 not part of the official Story
*why was all that money spent on making "the bunker" but abandoned on the very day
*why did the MSM mistakingly say the building collapsed before it did.
*why was did NIST eventually show such large amounts of damage to WTC7 based mostly on apparent witness testimony rather than the video evidence.

It seems to me the facts should decide the scenario...not the scenario decide the facts....

I could go into great detail on these question...but i will try to respect the OP's wishes.

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by thegameisup

If it was an inside job, then it would be difficult to explain how bin laden got access to the towers to rig them up from top to bottom.

I think it is difficult to explain how anybody got access to the towers to rig them up...inside job or not. You can probably tell that I believe the task would have been impossible to pull off.

Did you watch the Gordon Ross presentation I posted? He details where explosives would have been needed to be placed, and you'll be surprised that they could have been spaced out quite a bit.

He states that the best place would have been in the lift shafts, and that the lift shafts had maintenence to them.
If something is an inside job, then bypassing the necessary security is not a problem.

Please do watch the Gordon Ross presentation, it's only about 25 mins long, and is very interesting.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by thegameisup

If it was an inside job, then it would be difficult to explain how bin laden got access to the towers to rig them up from top to bottom.

Why 'top to bottom' when bottom would be sufficient? And why couldn't Bin Laden buy a way into the basement?

Compromise the buildings near the top then use incendiaries to weaken the bottom followed by modest explosions to finish it.

'Just my imagination, runnin' away with me' M. Jaggar

I don't know why top to bottom becuase I did not put any explosives into the towers myself!

Perhaps it was done that way to make it seem more like a natural collapse. Watch the 25 min presentation by Gordon Ross that I posted, it might answer a lot of questions you may have.

Why couldn't bin laden buy a way into the basement, no one is saying he couldn't, but it's probably be harder for him to do so, and easier for an inside job to have occured imo.

Is there any conclusive evidence that bin laden did 9/11? Not to my knowledge.

Compromise the buildings near the top then use incendiaries to weaken the bottom followed by modest explosions to finish it.

That is pretty much what I'm saying, and what Gordon Ross is saying. Top to bottom, doe not necessarily mean on every floor, as Gordon states in his video, explosive would only have needed to be place 4 per floor, approx every 15-20 floors.

Originally posted by maxella1
I said
...It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.
That's all..

Are you seriously suggesting Al Qaida targetted the towers because it had the mayor's bunker in it?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
I said
...It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.
That's all..

Are you seriously suggesting Al Qaida targetted the towers because it had the mayor's bunker in it?

I'm beginning to worry about you Dave. It seems you developed some kind of attention deficit disorder...

They got lucky that WTC 7 suffered from the sudden building collapse syndrome... It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I think it depends on who really did 9/11, and what their actual agenda was? There could have been quite a few different agendas. If the attacks were commited by bin laden, as the USA government say, then the towers are not a low value target, because deaths of Americans would most likely have been their main objective.

The buildings were The World Trade Centres, very symbolic buildings, the tallest in America, and they dominate the skyline.

If this was an inside job, then there could have been many finacial benefits for various different people, Larry Silverstein for example got 2 asbestos hazards out of the way, and a nice insurance packet to go with it. The felling of both towers would be more dramatic than say WTC7, and from a fear and disbelief perspective, they were good targets.

The Pentagon might be a higher value target to bin laden, but we have no conclusive proof it was him, if it was an inside job it could have been a perfect alibi for the government. Although, depends on what your definition of high value actually is.

It doesn't matter what you think are other more higher value targets, they just do not come into the equation because those buildings were not involved. We could argue what if's all day long, but we can only go off the actual evidence and verifiable facts we have to work with.

If you have read the OS, I'm am guessing you have, then you know as much as I about what the government claim actually happened, and that being 4 attacks against the American people and their government. However, this is just the government's version of 9/11, and as you know there is also a good argument for an inside job by the government.

reply to post by plube


If I was the building manager of a high rise and I just watched two of my high rise neighbors get hit, I'm going to issue an evacuation order for MY building, in case it's next. Why didn't they immediately evacuate the Towers? Well, they had already been hit and at first, it seemed more important to have stairwells clear for emergency response. After all, there was a mistaken belief that the Towers could withstand being hit.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
They got lucky that WTC 7 suffered from the sudden building collapse syndrome... It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.

Thus the reason why these threads always gets dragged away from the OP's topic- truthers coming along and posting something argumentative that has no relation whatsoever with the OP's topic.

You do know nowhere in the "Official story" does it state precisely how the towers or even wTC 7 collapsed, right?

edit on 8-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

It's pointless making a thread like this if we cannot actually discuss each other's questions.

I don't think this thread could, or should replace any of the other exisiting threads, no one topic should be deemed more important that another. If people ask questions, then there will be people wanting to discuss those questions.

Originally posted by thegameisup
I thought the idea of this thread was for everyone to post 5 questions, and then for those that who participate to discuss each other's questions?

It is, but it seems people here are constitutionally incapable of focusing on an OP

Seriously, I'll bold this so maybe people will see:
The point of this thread is to list questions, not to debate about them. Please keep debate to threads for that, we just want a list of questions to be consolidated

Thank you.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
I thought the idea of this thread was for everyone to post 5 questions, and then for those that who participate to discuss each other's questions?

It is, but it seems people here are constitutionally incapable of focusing on an OP

Seriously, I'll bold this so maybe people will see:
The point of this thread is to list questions, not to debate about them. Please keep debate to threads for that, we just want a list of questions to be consolidated

Thank you.

I actually was in the process of editing my previous post as you posted this, and as you can see, I have stated, there is no point posing questions if we cannot answer them.

I don't think you should be the one to decide which other threads get trashed in place of this one, they are all relevant, and should all be free for people to discuss the content. Asking questions is just pointless if those questions cannot be discussed!

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
I thought the idea of this thread was for everyone to post 5 questions, and then for those that who participate to discuss each other's questions?

It is, but it seems people here are constitutionally incapable of focusing on an OP

Seriously, I'll bold this so maybe people will see:
The point of this thread is to list questions, not to debate about them. Please keep debate to threads for that, we just want a list of questions to be consolidated

Thank you.

I'm sure there have been many times when you have strayed away from the OP.

What is the point of consolidating questions into another thread when they can be discussed here?

Also, you said:

we just want a list of questions to be consolidated

Who is we?

Originally posted by thegameisup
I actually was in the process of editing my previous post as you posted this, and as you can see, I have stated, there is no point posing questions if we cannot answer them.

I don't think you should be the one to decide which other threads get trashed in place of this one, they are all relevant, and should all be free for people to discuss the content. Asking questions is just pointless if those questions cannot be discussed!

I made this thread. I think it's fair that I get to detail exactly what it's about. If you'd bothered to read the OP properly you'd know that I am suggesting creating new threads for discussion of the most important points.

I'm sure there have been many times when you have strayed away from the OP.

What is the point of consolidating questions into another thread when they can be discussed here?

I'm sure I have, but I created this thread to avoid that. All discussion threads in this forum degenerate to bickering as people cannot accept being incorrect on an issue or cannot justify things beyond trust.

So yes, the point of consolidating questions is to create a thread for each where going off topic could theoretically be grounds for mod action. Consolidating discussion is much more valuable than the current anarchic approach.

Who is we?

People participating in this thread as I requested in the OP