Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

Originally posted by Facefirst
Another thing is that the Bush family has business ties to the BinLaden Group. (namely the late Salem Bin Laden.) Not Osama. Osama has around 50 siblings.

Your delusional then. Can you say Carlyle Group? Or How about Osama's ties to to the CIA during the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan... Let's see, who was in charge... hmm was it Reagan? Hey what do you know. What about the Saudi Defense Contracts? Osama's family never ostracized him, that is pure spin. Wow Salem died in a 'freak' plane crash in Texas... Who bought the big anti-tank rifle he carried around? etc. No i don't need to do any research to see what is pretty damned obvious.

Originally posted by QuietSoul

How is it possible that 24 hours after the attack, we already apparently had solid proof it was Al-Queda. Solid proof except with an aired video showing us Osama Bin Laden saying AlQueda did NOT do it, but praising whomever did.

So with in 24 hours, we had proof of who did it, but the guy we said did it denies it.

How is it possible to conduct such an investigation in 24 hours without a confession at hand that day?

You are now obviously forgetting that there were several threats in the past that Al Qaeda was going to make such an act, we had some intelligence reports that said Al Qaeda was talking about making attacks with planes, but it was not taken seriously. Terrorists make many claims, how do you know exaclty which one they are going to go after? How many threats did terrorists make after 9/11 and many people started saying it was all just a way to keep the public scared...when after 9/11 so many people were screaming that they were not told about Al Qaeda talks on using planes in terrorist attacks....

How did the government know it was Al Qaeda? because of the information that said Al Qaeda was thinking on using planes for terrorist acts...which was though to have been a bluff. Why did the intelligence fail so much, look back at Clinton's years and what he did to the intelligence community as well as the armed forces...China was freely stealing our military secrets for crying outloud when Clinton was in office... of course our intelligence failed...

BTW...to the member that was saying that those who do not think the WTC were demolished by the US...and that we should just discuss it....the thing is we have, many times, and it gets boring having to bring out the same points over and over. There are many threads dealing with this and the information we have that points all this was an attack by Islamic terrorists, contrary to what many people claim.

Look in the forums, one of the threads is called "9/11 the Feds did it" or something like that. Its tiresome having to bring the same information over and over, i am also getting tired of bringing Kerry's Flip Flops to those members that seem to forget this so easily...

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Facefirst
Another thing is that the Bush family has business ties to the BinLaden Group. (namely the late Salem Bin Laden.) Not Osama. Osama has around 50 siblings.

Your delusional then. Can you say Carlyle Group? Or How about Osama's ties to to the CIA during the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan... Let's see, who was in charge... hmm was it Reagan? Hey what do you know. What about the Saudi Defense Contracts? Osama's family never ostracized him, that is pure spin. Wow Salem died in a 'freak' plane crash in Texas... Who bought the big anti-tank rifle he carried around? etc. No i don't need to do any research to see what is pretty damned obvious.

Pure spin? Look in to the Bin Laden's History. Osama was expelled from Saudi! Now don't you think that the most powerful family outside of the Saudi royals could used some pull and influence to keep him in. NO! They washed their hands clean of him.

Yes, I know about the plane crash. Hence why I wrote "The Late Salem." We are talking abouth the Bin Laden Group Ltd, not the family religious wacko. Most of the Bin Ladens have very heartily embraced the Western lifestyle which Osama abhors. ie, the cars, the jet-setting, the houses, etc. Why the hell would they want to throw it all away over a overzealous looney? They didn't, so they did not help him when he was kicked out of Saudi.

What do defense contracts have to do with Osama? Explain that.

What does who buying Salem an anti-tank rifle have to do with anything? Explain that as well. How does that tie into Osama beyond him being Salem's brother? Explain that.

And what about Osama's ties to the CIA? That has been pretty well known for 20+ years. Osama was one of the leaders against the Soviets. So what? We used him to fight communism via proxy and the Mujahadeen used us to for training and weapons.

"Don't need to research what is pretty obvious?" You are assuming things. That is embracing ignorance, not denying it.

Originally posted by Muaddib
How did the government know it was Al Qaeda? because of the information that said Al Qaeda was thinking on using planes for terrorist acts...which was though to have been a bluff. Why did the intelligence fail so much, look back at Clinton's years and what he did to the intelligence community as well as the armed forces...China was freely stealing our military secrets for crying outloud when Clinton was in office... of course our intelligence failed...

You also have to remember that the US's intelligence's phone taps lit up like a Christmas tree right after the attack. I think the calls of congratulations kind of gave it away.

Originally posted by twitchy
"The Palisades seismic record shows that � as the collapses began � a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth." . . .

But what did create two extreme spikes on the seismic equipment were the circumstances which occurred BEFORE the towers collapsed (www.world-exposed.com...). Yes, you read that correctly � before they crashed to the ground. In fact, in the moments before the South Tower fell at 9:59:04 am, something happened to register a magnitude of 2.1 on Columbia�s seismic equipment. Likewise, moments before the North Tower was brought down, something registered a seismic spike on the magnitude of 2.3 on Columbia�s equipment.

[voice=�Tony Montana�]

�Let me introduce you to my li�l friend�

[$object=�ClueByFour�]

THAT (thwack)

"SPIKE" (thwack)

IS (thwack)

NOT (thwack)

BEFORE (thwack)

THE (thwack)

IMPACT (thwack)

IT (thwack)

IS (thwack)

THE (thwack)

IMPACT!

[/voice]

The rest of your evidence is similarly flawed.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The rest of your evidence is similarly flawed.

Flawed? Do you mean the eyewitness reports of explosions or Pallisades own report of the seimic activity spiking as the collapse begins. What is flawed, is your claim that the pools of molten steel were unsubstantiated, or your misquotes adn personal affronts. The only flaw here is your lack of rebuttal to fact. Of the three graphs from Pallisades, I notice you fail to include the one that shows the time line. What specifically in my arguement is flawed? You have yet to debunk anything with more than a flippiant, "That's not true." or "That is not the Case", dude if I said the sky was blue, you would get on here and argue that it wasn't. Your assertions regarding the evidence I presented are not only poorly argued, but fail to address anything other than your blatant ignorance of the seismic issue. Keep spinning, the evidence I have presented in various articles show you to be completely clueless and unwilling to address anything. Do you have a legitimate case to make in support of the offical accounts of 9-11, or are you going to continue to waste our time with your wieghtless rebuttals? Have you read anything I have posted here or are you just so hell bent on debunking me that you fail to address the facts? WTC was demolished, if you have evidence that suggests otherwise, I would reccomend posting it because your loosing this debate, badly.

Originally posted by Facefirst
Pure spin? Look in to the Bin Laden's History. Osama was expelled from Saudi! Now don't you think that the most powerful family outside of the Saudi royals could used some pull and influence to keep him in. NO! They washed their hands clean of him.

If Uncle Sam came on the tv today and said the Grover Monster was a terrorist, and had cut his ties to the Peaceloving Sesame Street Regime, you fools would swallow it hook line and sinker, even though Grover Monster would still be on the same show still. If you are deluded enough to believe that the Bin Laden Family cut their ties to Osama, then you have a very poor understanding of Islamic family values and of western propoganda, incidentially then I have some beach front porperty in Kansas I would like to sell you.

The 'Wall Street Journal' article implicitly supports the official story, that Osama has broken with his family, by telling us, as if it were a fact, that Osama only "worked briefly in the [family] business." This is not true. In an article in preparation, Emperor's Clothes will show that Osama directed the family business in carrying out at least two large projects for the CIA, one in the 1980s and one in the late 1990s, building facilities to be used by terrorists.Moreover, the only pieces of evidence that Osama bin Laden broke with his family are statements by him, his family, and U.S. officials. Since these parties have an interest in convincing the public that the connection was broken, their statements are of scant value. Also, there is evidence to the contrary. In "Body of Secrets," the new book by National Security Agency expert James Bamford, the author cites freedom of information documents revealing that:"[National Security] Agency officials have sometimes played tapes of bin Laden talking to his mother to impress members of Congress and select visitors to the agency." (quoted in 'Baltimore Sun', 24 April 2001)And another article states:"Yossef Bodansky, director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said "Osama maintains connections" with some of his nearly two dozen brothers. He would not elaborate." ('San Antonio Express-News,' 14 September 1998)

As a Public Television program reported in 1993:"Scott Armstrong: A $200 billion program that's basically put together and nobody's paying attention to it. It's-- it's the ultimate government off the books...
"Scott Armstrong: The Saudis have been the principal backers and financers of the largest armaments system that the world has ever seen, in any region of the world, that includes over $95 billion worth of weapons that they bought themselves, includes another $65 billion worth of military infrastructure and ports that they've put in. We've managed to create an interlocking system that has one master control base, five sub-control bases, any one of which is capable of operating the whole thing, that are in hardened bunkers, that are hard-wired, that is to say, against nuclear blast or anything else. They created nine major ports that weren't there before, dozens of airfields all over the kingdom. They have now hundreds of modern American fighter planes and the capability of adding hundreds more. The Saudis alone have spent $156 billion that I can document line by line, item by item, on weapons system and infrastructure to support this." (FRONTLINE Show #1112 Air Date: February 16, 1993 "The Arming of Saudi Arabia". Scott Armstrong is a top investigative reporter for the 'Washington Post'](For official PBS WebPage for the show, click here; for the transcript, click here)The contracts for building those bases, ports, and airfields went in part to Saudi construction companies. Osama's family company, Saudi Binladin Group (the name is spelled differently but it's the same family) is intimate with the Saudi royal family; moreover it is the biggest Saudi construction company (and also a giant in the telecommunications field). So as sure as death and taxes, Saudi Binladin Group got a nice chunk of that $200 billion. And while the bin Ladens were building those U.S. bases, who did Osama think was going to be using them? Martians?

Getting back to the matter of construction contracts, consider what happened after the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran was bombed on June 25, 1996. Osama bin Laden was accused by the U.S. of masterminding that bombing, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded about 500 others. Afterwards, a new 'super-secure' facility was erected:"The facility very likely is the most heavily guarded operational installation used by the US military. This, clearly, is what retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing had in mind when in 1996 he released a report criticizing security at Khobar Towers and recommending more extensive force protection measures. "� In a supreme irony, the complex was built by the giant contractor, Saudi Binladin Group -- owned by the same family that produced international terrorist Osama bin Laden, now an outcast in his homeland." ('Air Force Magazine,' February, 1999)'Irony' is not exactly the word I would use, but OK.

And now this report from the BBC that the Bush administration suppressed investigations into connections between members of the bin Laden family and possible terrorist groups.Doesn't all this point to a working relationship between U.S. covert forces and Mr. b. L?"WE ARE DEADLY ENEMIES, SO TAKE THESE 400 TRUCKS, O CURSED ONE!"Earlier I said I doubted the reality of the 'break' between bin Laden and the Saudi Royals. According to the book, "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia,'' by Ahmed Rashid, who is the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asian correspondent for the 'Far Eastern Economic Review': "Surprisingly, just a few weeks before the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, the book tells us...'In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates.''' (Quoted in 'The creation called Osama,' by Shamsul Islam. Can be read at
emperors-clothes.com... They were all, I am told, Toyotas.

FAMILY FEUDS?One final point. Part of the official Osama story is that the elusive Mr. bin Laden broke with his family because of his extreme Fundamentalist religious-politics.Really?Let us consider a few pieces of information which might suggest we adopt a stance of extreme skepticism:1) "...when Osama bin Laden decided to join the non-Afghan fighters with the Mujaheddin, his family responded enthusiastically." ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001)2) The entire family is known for its fiercely conservative Islamist (Wahhabi) views: "His father is known in these areas as a man with deeply conservative religious and political views and for his profound distaste for non-Islamic influences that have penetrated some of the most remote corners of old Arabia." UPI, quoted at www.newsmax.com... 2) It is true that families have feuds. In the typical U.S. family, wars may happen. People fight; they make peace.But Osama does not come from a 'typical U.S. family.' He comes from an intensely conservative rural Yemeni clan. Such families don't have petty fights and stop talking to each other for ten years and then make up and it's no big deal: "Though he grew up in the Saudi Arabian city of Jiddah, about 700 miles away across the Arabian peninsula, those who know him say he retains the characteristics of the people of this remote Yemeni region: extremely clannish and intensely conservative in their adherence to strict forms of Islam." www.newsmax.com... 3) If such clans do feud, it can get violent. And certainly, it is hard to believe that Osama would be disowned by this sort of clan-family (as the official story claims he was) but nevertheless maintain cordial relations with family members. Consider this report:"[National Security] Agency officials have sometimes played tapes of bin Laden talking to his mother to impress members of Congress and select visitors to the agency." (quoted in 'Baltimore Sun', 24 April 2001)And this:"Bin Ladens building U.S. troops' housing By Sig Christenson; Express-News Staff Writer
"Bin Laden family members have said they are estranged from their brother, who turned against the Saudi government after joining Muslim fighters following the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.
"But Yossef Bodansky, director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said 'sama maintains connections' with some of his nearly two dozen brothers. He would not elaborate." ('San Antonio Express-News,' 14 September 1998)And, finally, from 'Le Figaro':"While he was hospitalised [in the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001], bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis." (6)The article from the 'Times of India' follows.-- Jared Israel[Correction: As originally posted, this article included a longer quote from the 23 September 2001 'Pittsburgh Post-Gazette': "His father backed the Afghan struggle [meaning: the U.S.-supported terrorist war against the Afghan government] and helped fund it; when Osama bin Laden decided to join the non-Afghan fighters with the Mujaheddin, his family responded enthusiastically." Since Mohammed Awad bin Laden died in 1968, this is most likely a typographical error. It should most likely read, "His family."]

Since Saudi Arabia is one of the most secretive nations in the world, it is impossible to be sure that everyone in the Saudi establishment has completely cut off its ties with Osama Bin Laden, and there are good reasons to believe that many have not. Despite his present disgrace and loss of Saudi citizenship, Osama has much high-level support in Saudi Arabia, and many are waiting for him to return and reform the corrupt Saudi government on fundamentalist grounds. In Saudi Arabia, family connections are everything and the formal central power is extraordinarily weak. It is a mark of the influence of the bin Laden family that Osama's brother Mahrouz, who participated in the 1979 attack on the grand mosque in Mecca (an attack aimed at the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy), was the only one of 500 attackers who was not executed. (He works to this day in a family business in Medina)....

The Wahhabi Taliban in Afghanistan had the blessings of the Saudi royal family and of The Big Three--the bin Laden family, the al Ahmoudi family, and the Mahfouz family--the richest clans in that medieval kingdom. (Khalid bin Mahfouz is bin Laden�s brother-in-law). The desert oligarchs profited from world-wide investments as well as sleazy banking schemes such as the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International.


Times of India.' It reports that according to the BBC program, 'Newsnight,' the Bush administration told the FBI to back off from investigating the bin Laden family's terrorist connections before the attack on the World Trade Center. According to the publication, 'Le Figaro,' a CIA agent visited Osama bin Laden last July. 'Figaro' reports that this meeting took place while bin Laden was being treated in the American Hospital in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates.

Date: 11 Apr 2004 18:53:00
From: Tony Parkinson Subject: Bush Sr. met with Bin Laden's brother on 9/11
Bush Senior Met With Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11
Paul Joseph Watson
Comment: Despite studying September 11 for two years solid, one fact I only just discovered is that George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin
Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on the morning of 9/11. They were on Carlyle Group business just a few miles from where hijackers supposedly acting on behalf of Osama bin Laden would fly a plane into the Pentagon.
Recall that the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11. He also met with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of the attacks, who would later go on to head the first 9/11 investigative committee.

Yes, I know about the plane crash. Hence why I wrote "The Late Salem." We are talking abouth the Bin Laden Group Ltd, not the family religious wacko. Most of the Bin Ladens have very heartily embraced the Western lifestyle which Osama abhors. ie, the cars, the jet-setting, the houses, etc. Why the hell would they want to throw it all away over a overzealous looney? They didn't, so they did not help him when he was kicked out of Saudi.

Bin Ladens Bail on Carlyle GroupFTW, Oct. 26, 2001, 1700 PDT - The New York Times is today reporting that, "The Saudi family of Osama bin Laden is severing its financial ties with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm known for its connections to influential Washington political figures, executives who have been briefed on the decision said today." Some of those influential figures include George H.W. Bush and his son, our President.The Times story indicates that the decision by the bin Ladens was the result of "public controversy" about the family�s investments in the nation�s 11th largest defense contractor. The Carlyle Group employs former President George Bush, who met with the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000. As a result of explosive increases in the US defense budget the Carlyle Group is facing enormous windfall profits. And there is still strong suspicion that, in spite of mainstream reports indicating otherwise, the family has not severed all ties with the alleged mastermind of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.One of the most detailed investigative reports on bin Laden and Bush business connections was published by FTW just weeks ago. We know that it has received worldwide attention and close scrutiny within the Bush Administration.

Originally posted by twitchy
If Uncle Sam came on the tv today and said the Grover Monster was a terrorist, and had cut his ties to the Peaceloving Sesame Street Regime, you fools would swallow it hook line and sinker, even though Grover Monster would still be on the same show still. If you are deluded enough to believe that the Bin Laden Family cut their ties to Osama, then you have a very poor understanding of Islamic family values and of western propoganda, incidentially then I have some beach front porperty in Kansas I would like to sell you.

All of that gibberish and what did you prove, not much at all. What does Osama himself have to do with contracts? You keep forgeting that the Bin Laden Group has first construction contract rights to EVERYTHING in Saudi. Who else was going to build those bases? Martians?
Osama's family built the bases, not Osama.

I would imagine that he has at least some contact with some of his 100+ family members. 40+ of them are siblings! But do you think he is stopping over for dinner anytime soon?

There is strong support within Saudi for him, but they would rather have the fat US dollars.

Alot of what you posted is specualtion. Tapes of Bin Laden talking to his mother? Prove it. Just hearsay as far as that article is concerned.

So what if Bush was with a Bin Laden on Sept 11th? Was it Osama? No, it was one of his many, many relatives. Rich tend to hang out with the rich.

Stop watching the X-Files.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by twitchy
A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>2500� C) and it provides a credible explanation for the hot spots and molten steel (a byproduct of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings - they were a result of thermite detonations on 9/11.A thermite reaction also generates large amounts of ultraviolet radiation.On 27 September, the officials ordered 2000 gallons of [Pyrocool FEF], which when added to water produces a slippery, low-viscosity foam.[...]Berger adds that "Pyrocool also contains two powerful ultra-violet absorbers." [New Scientist]

Your contention that thermite was planted in the WTC and was still burning two weeks later is flawed. Here is a neat video of a thermite reaction.

Please explain how this reaction could still be burning two weeks later or admit that this evidence in support of your theory is flawed.

Originally posted by twitchy
Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University�s Center for Hazard and
Risk Research, stated in the above-mentioned article, �Only a small
fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into
ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the
towers was extremely small.�
He then went on to explain that what did create the huge seismic data was an energy source beneath the towers that preceded their collapse.

Let's look at the original article that you are quoting there dude.

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small." Last November, Lerner-Lam said: "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage-but not causing significant ground shaking." Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source? While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

Hmm, it doesn't quite say the same thing you are saying does it. It appears to me that you are attributing statements to Mr. Lerner-Lam that he did not make. I'll tell you what, let's look at the original report and see what he actually did say.

Seismic report from Columbia

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 10 11 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for M L 2.3 is about 10 6 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.

WOW, that is a far cry from the claim that there was some unidentified energy source under the towers. It appears that your claim that this scientist stated this is flawed.





[edit on 1-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Twitchy, you keep throwing around the term "oxygen poor" like it is some sort of tantric mantra. But have you ever stopped to think that oxygen poor is another way of saying "fuel rich?"

What does this mean, exactly. It means that when the superheated pyrolisis that are trapped within the structure. as these gasses accumulate, and they find their way into areas of the structure with sufficient oxygen to burn, they ignite.

Thus the black smoke emerging from the sides of the WTC was a hint of the major infernos that were working their way up the building's core. This is actually very apparent in the collapse video, where you can clearly see that the fire has reached sections of the building ten floors or more above the impact point.

Thus your contention that black smoke indicates a "cool" fire is flawed.

Edit: See my post Exploding the Cool Fire Myth, the third down on page 6 of this thread for more info.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by twitchy
Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he
acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazant, a professor at Northwestern University. "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements�floor trusses and columns�
so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse," he said.
To turn the columns into the consistency of chewing gum would have
required heating them to at least 1200� C, well above what can be achieved with jet fuel, even with a directed flame and pressurized oxygen.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Steel loses it's strength rapidly at temperatures over 800� C. That is a fact and any other contention of yours is flawed.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not true. You are confusing heat and temperature. The amount of heat energy released in a given chemical reaction like the combustion of toluene, for example, is a fixed value based on the amount of materials involved. Since temperature is an average of the kinetic energy the maximum temperature is a totally different thing.

Sorry, this just don't cut the mustard. It doesn't cut steel support columns either. Again i reiterate, NO STEEL STRUCTURED HIGH RISE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE, on 9-11, it happened twice in one day, arguably three times when the order came

That is cute how you sidestep the question.

Pull is also a firefighting term used to mean pulling a crew off of a burning structure. This is a fact. Pull is also a term used by skeet shooters before they fire their shotguns.

I know, I have a new theory. 100 firemen lined up with shotguns and all yelled "PULL." They then fired shotguns at WTC 7 and caused the collapse.

Yeah, That's it.


Sorry, but like the quote from the seismologist, taking something out of context and twisting the meaning to suit your distorted view of reality is flawed/

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Modern steel buildings are designed to withstand fire for 4 hours.
WTC 7 burned for 7....

This is perhaps the most ignorant thing you have posted so far. There are cases of "Modern steel buildings" burning for three and four days without collapse. Spin on Spin Doctor! Also an order was given to "Pull" WTC 5. Another matter of public record which raises an interesting question about how they intended to do that without already having some way to do it planned and implemented as it fell shortly there after. LOL four hours. Guess I need to change my engine block in my car every four hours then.

No, that is the most ignorant thing you have said.

First of all, it is a fact that building codes only call for a four hour fire resistance. This is applied to a variety of building materials. from drywall assemblies, to doors, ceilings and yes fireproofing.

What exactly is fireproofing? is it there to prevent the building from burning? No, structural fireproofing is insulation. The entire purpose of structural fireproofing is to insulate the structural members from the heat of a fire. if a fireproofing is rated for 4-hours that means that it will protect the structural member from the fire for 4 hours, after which, of course, there is no protection, and the structural component is subject to failure.

What do I know about fireproofinig? Well I spent about ten years designing and managing asbestos abatement projects to remove and replace fireproofing from a number of high-rise buildings.

There are more different types of fireproofing then you can possibly imagine. Often a typical building will have several different types reflecting different construction phases, renovations and even from changes in contractors in the progress of building construction.

Older building from the 20's, 30's and 40's generally have non-asbestos fireproofing. The beams and columns of these buildings are usually encased in masonry such as clay tiles or Pyrobar blocks. In the 50's you sometimes see a sort of vermiculite plaster applied over a wire lath. The mid 50's through the early 70's was the heyday of sprayed on asbestos fireproofing. This material was mixed in the field and sprayed onto the steel with an air powered spray gun.

There were many different manufactures and because the spray was mixed in the field, there can be any number of different forms of the sprayed on materials. Some are light and extremely friable. The slightest touch is enough to dislodge the stuff (this is the real nasty stuff that was responsible for a number of asbestos related diseases among the workers who applied it). Some formulations have high vermiculite content, others are very cementicious. the stuff is literally like concrete and is a bitch to remove. In some cases, the contractor used too much water in the mix, resulting in poor adhesion of the fireproofing to the substrate.

Regardless of what particular formulation was used, one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty, floor joists of the type used in the WTC are almost impossible to spray properly. The thin cross section of the joist components and the open webbing, meant that most of the spray misses the joist entirely and winds up on the deck or the floor. Furthermore, the intricate pattern of diagonals is impossible to cover with any regularity. Usually only the the top and bottom chord get sprayed properly, and even then sometimes only the bottom portion of the bottom chord.

The fireproofing is sprayed on first, then the other trades will come in and do their thing. What do you think the pipe fitters, plumbers, tin knockers, electricians, sprinkler fitters, etc, do when they want to hang something in the ceiling plenum? they scrape a section of the fireproofing off the beam or joist and attach a clamp to it. The General Contractor is supposed to go back and patch all of those scrapes, but when you have a 30" duct and a bunch of conduit in the way, it almost never gets done properly. If the floor is later renovated with extensive retrofit of the electrical system and the ducts, replacement of the fireproofing is never addressed.

In addition, I have seen a lot of buildings where it was clear that shortcuts were taken during construction. Beam connections missing bolts, areas not fireproofed, concrete decks with too much chloride, sagging floors, sagging roofs, cracked bearing walls, etc.

Yes, there have been a couple of building that suffered catastrophic fires and did not collapse. BUT, trying to compare them to any other building like the WTC 1, 2, 5, or 7, is like comparing apples to oranges. First of all, none of those other buildings suffered structural damage like the WTC buildings. None of them was designed or built the same. Even the overall shape of the building such as the ratio of the width to the height has to be considered. The style of construction is guaranteed to be different, the types of fireproofing used, the thickness of the floor slabs, the wind resistance and strength of the windows, the floor loading, all of these things have to be considered.

Additionally, due to changes in business practices and interior office designs over the last ten years, the fuel load of an office in 2001 is totally different from the fuel load of an office as recently as 1990.

Therefore, your attempt to lump all steel framed high rises into one catch all category is simply wrong.

That is kind of like saying that because a SAAB survived a rear end collision without catching fire, then your 1973 Ford Pinto is safe in the same sort of accident.

This, dude, is simply flawed logic.

Guess I need to change my engine block in my car every four hours then.

First drain all of the coolant out of the engine and then see how long it will run.

Originally posted by twitchy
The sprinkler systems for the WTC were disabled on the floors where the planes impacted, a violation of NYC building codes btw. and the roof access hatches were locked that day, unlike any other day.

Provide proof, or consider this to be more flawed evidence.

Well just to throw in my two cents. Here is a interesting story I came across at rense.com. My wife said from day one that it happened that Bush and company were behind it. At the time I thought she was wrong, but after what I have seen and read and I feel in my heart I now believe Bush and company were behind it. Here's the link.

www.rense.com...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by twitchy
The sprinkler systems for the WTC were disabled on the floors where the planes impacted, a violation of NYC building codes btw. and the roof access hatches were locked that day, unlike any other day.

Provide proof, or consider this to be more flawed evidence.

this says the planes disabled the water supply, but to both buildings? strange.

(AP) The intense fires that erupted when hijacked airliners hit the World Trade Center's twin towers disabled the water supply for hoses, sprinkler systems and other fire-suppression equipment in the buildings, according to a federal report

cbsnews.cbs.com...

Originally posted by Sauron

this says the planes disabled the water supply, but to both buildings? strange.

You missed this part.

The report said debris sent flying by the impact of the planes almost certainly sliced through pipes that supplied water for fire hoses and sprinklers.

In other words the sprinkler systems on the impact floors were wiped out. Sprinkler pipe is relativley thin, schedule 20 as opposed to the more common schedule 40 used for most applications. Plus, sprinkler systems are designed to put out typical office fires that start small. If more than a few sprinkler heads open up, the system can depressurize faster than the fire pumps can keep up.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The rest of your evidence is similarly flawed.

Flawed? Do you mean the eyewitness reports of explosions or Pallisades own report of the seimic activity spiking as the collapse begins. . . .The only flaw here is your lack of rebuttal to fact.

Well I think that the actuall seismic report that I linked to earlier in this thread rebuts your claims all by itself. The fact that you can read it, and yet so totally misunderstand the information presented is amazing.

Of the three graphs from Pallisades, I notice you fail to include the one that shows the time line.

Feel free to cut and paste that one into ATS, I have used up my 100 kb of space.

The following image was posted by QuietSoul on page two of this thread.

Notice how it is missing some fundamental information that is included in the report!!!



However, you can still note one rather significant item. Each of the line sections represents 30 minutes of data. Let's say that each of these line segments is three inches long. that means that 1 inch equals ten minutes. and that 20 seconds equals approximately 1/32th of an inch long.

If you look at the time expanded chart from the actual report, (and which I posted on pages 5 and 6 of this thread), the shaking from the impact lasted less than 20 seconds. Also, if you look at those charts I posed on the other pages, the amplitude of the movement was scaled down from the graph above. Those spikes on the chart above are from the impact. To suggest otherwise is either disenguous or stupid, take your pick.