Originally Posted by The Bear:
Yes they did, the failure process is well understood.

Why do you keep spreading garbage about what took place?

Garbage ? Don't think so -I think you're the one talking garbage.....

Refute all the evidence I've posted about 9/11 using logic and argument(remember no namecalling) and then I'll come back to you.

You might want to start with why WTC7 fell after nothing hit it, and there were a few small fires, and why the BBC reported it had collapsed 20 minutes before it fell.

But don't forget the other 39+ points too....... (using "bear" facts)

Have a nice day.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Garbage ? Don't think so -I think you're the one talking garbage.....

Refute all the evidence I've posted about 9/11 using logic and argument(remember no namecalling) and then I'll come back to you.

You might want to start with why WTC7 fell after nothing hit it, and there were a few small fires, and why the BBC reported it had collapsed 20 minutes before it fell.

But don't forget the other 39+ points too....... (using "bear" facts)

Have a nice day.

Terrorism is not a modern phenomena but it has certainly been refined in recent years.

But what actually IS terrorism? On the basis that least is frequently most I like the Princeton definition ---

“The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”

To my mind there are three key words contained therein. The first is ‘civilians’ and the second is ‘threat’ and the third is ‘fear’.

I suggest that a terrorist act can take many forms and that an actual outrage culminating in the disgusting attack against the twin towers (not to mention the London Bombings of 7/7) is simply the physical means of establishing the bona fides of a terrorist organisation, with the most of the damage and instillation of fear actually coming from the subsequent exploitation of what has been done in various ways including changes in the law, as well as the creation of an atmosphere of distrust of the government by the spreading of lies and conspiracy theories.

The heart breaker for me is that so often it is groups with no connection with the terrorist groups who launch conspiracy theories in order to further their OWN political aims.

Such is certainly the case with the **** being presented as ‘hidden truths’ by those either with a vested interest in bringing down the government, or the remainder who are simply mad, bad, or sad and who just love to display their paranoia.

It is this last group who are often in turn exploited by the original terrorists or their fellow travelers to add further ‘authenticity’, as well as those others who inherently dislike some aspect about the government or, especially in the case of the US, the whole nation and its people.

The truth about 9/11?

Very simple.

A party of islamic terrorists obtained sufficient skills to steer aircraft into ground targets. They in concert hijacked aircraft on a day with a date that already resonated with the American public (911 – the same as our 999 telephone number) and committed the terrible acts that they did.

The ‘it was a government put up job’ story? Utter rubbish.

The stories that say so are nothing other than the ranting of the mentally disturbed, the exploitation of the situation to cause even MORE damage to a nation, or propaganda being put about to gain political status by detracting from the government in office by those with political ambition of their own.

Although it’s a good policy to keep a healthy scepticism in this life, to ignore the blatantly obvious in favour of believing a story written by someone who has obviously first decided on the outcome that they wanted, and then cherry-picked from the facts to come up with a storyline that (seems to) support the pre-determined end result is simply being silly. The WTC fires were intensive fires concentrated within a few floors of 110 storey buildings. Engineering analysis of failed structural steelwork shows the temperatures were in the order of 1000 degrees C.

The WTC fires had 90,000 gallons of Jet fuel explode into a fire ball that was hot enough to ignite alluminium, as well as the building structure and furniture.

There is a big difference between heat and temperature: a spark has a huge temperature, but almost no heat; a 1000 degree sparkler won't burn through my trousers!

In the WTO fires there was huge amounts of temperature and heat concentrated into just a few floors..

Once the floors where the fires were burning collapsed there was no way to stop a runaway process; the weight above them was so great and accelerated by gravity to create a huge impulse to punch through the lower floors; a classic house of cards collapse.

I in no way see this as showing anything unusual about the WTC collapses; quite the opposite it confirms that fires, even extensive, non-fuelled fires, pose a great risk.

Then there is the "motive" question. Why should it be necessary to have blown up WTC 7?

What would be gained? Why was it necessary to set fire to it and let it burn for 7 hours before blowing it up? How were the explosives and fuses kept from detonating during these 7 hours?

Dosn't stack.

Let's consider some facts about building W7 failure on the WTC site.

W7 was constructed in an unusual manner owning to its being built over a major underground electrical substation. The construction comprised in part of a series of beams in cantilever form with unusually massive floor slabs in order to distribute the load as well as make up building load bearing components. This is quite unusual in steel framed buildings apparently.

The design using cantilevers would not require an inferno to bring down an inherently high stress structure, plus the cladding, unlike the Twin Towers, was different and a fire within the core of the building would not be significantly visible from outside.

Add to that the reported number of fires burning within the building which had been abandoned by fire-fighters at the time, not least because of the number of diesel fuel tanks within the building which also contained emergency electrical power generation plant to serve the whole complex and a disaster waiting to happen becomes rather bloody obvious.

The existence of these fires combined with the probability of damage to concrete structures due to shock from the massive energy release resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers all leads to a scenario that doesn’t need any conspiracy theories to explain. There would have been massive weakening of the concrete structure simply from that factor alone.

In any case substantial deposits of what was molten steel had been found beneath the Twin Towers indicating the ferocity of the fires within the structures, itself explainable by the events and the construction of the buildings, and the presence of a deposit of what had been molten steel beneath W7 would also indicate an intense fire within the building, a fire that may not have been particularly obvious from outside owing to both the nature of the cladding of W7 but patently obviously sufficient to ‘bring the house down’.

QED.

By the way,


Many huge American corporations lost billions of dollars in the WTC collapses; Warren Buffets Berkshire Hathaway being the most famous example. These companies aren't involved in Iraq or the military or oil, but have truly huge resources to be directed to preserve their interests.

They had a huge vested interest in ensuring the insurance claims the attacks caused were not paid out. For example there were major legal battles fought over whether the WTO attacks were one or two incidents; ie whether the companies involved could claim once or twice.

These companies employed structural engineers, lawyers, and investigators by the thousand to attempt to prove the buildings were badly designed, or badly built, or whatever reason they could think of to stop having to pay out the insurance claim, but they could not find any thing other than a perfectly rational explanation of the events.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
These companies employed structural engineers, lawyers, and investigators by the thousand to attempt to prove the buildings were badly designed, or badly built, or whatever reason they could think of to stop having to pay out the insurance claim, but they could not find any thing other than a perfectly rational explanation of the events.

Never catch on to a CONspiracy theorist (the CON is deliberate)
[Rep]

Bear,

That's a nice essay you've written there but let's go over your points in more detail....

"A party of islamic terrorists obtained sufficient skills to steer aircraft into ground targets"

Does that include the pentagon ? If so why is there no footage of the plane hitting it, and almost no wreckage ?

New 9/11 Pentagon video released, shows explosion and no plane [video]

Also it is very debatable if a bunch of amateur pilots had the ability to fly an airliner into the world trade centre's with exact precision.

But let's not take our word for it, let's see what Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg
who actually flew the planes has to say[video]:

Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn't believe official story [video]

"RUSS WITTENBERG: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11... Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

So if he thinks it's impossible, what makes you so sure ?

"The heart breaker for me is that so often it is groups with no connection with the terrorist groups who launch conspiracy theories in order to further their OWN political aims."

I don't have any political aims, and I would doubt it would "break your heart" if I did.
Obviously there is some other reason you're getting very uptight about it all....

"It is this last group who are often in turn exploited by the original terrorists" -

Yeah right, get real.

"mentally disturbed, the exploitation of the situation to cause even MORE damage to a nation" - a very old emotional blackmail trick similar to "support the military in time of war" - people are asking questions, and want answers, simple as that.

"The WTC fires were intensive fires"

Wrong, and prior to 9/11 fire has never brought down a steel framed building, but on 9/11 two fell. People say WTC7 has a "raging inferno" but I can show you a photo of a few small fires - nothing more.(follow link ahead on WTC7)

Furthermore there is definite scientific evidence that explosives were used.

Alex Jones at Ground Zero: The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack

"The evidence that explosives were used in the 9/11 attack is so overhwelming that three full length films could have been made on the subject alone. In this 22 minute clip Alex reports from ground zero and talks to eyewitnesses who were there on the day who reported bombs. Alex also points out the relation of Building 7 to the twin towers and the impossibility that it could have collapsed from minimal fire damage."


"The WTC fires had 90,000 gallons of Jet fuel explode into a fire ball that was hot enough to ignite alluminium, as well as the building structure and furniture." -

But hot enough to melt steel.... ?

WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures
Article Added To Journal Of 9/11 Studies On How Melting Steel Requires Chemical Explosive

"Once the floors where the fires were burning collapsed there was no way to stop a runaway process; the weight above them was so great and accelerated by gravity to create a huge impulse to punch through the lower floors; a classic house of cards collapse."

That's pancake theory you're referring to which has been debunked comprehensively by leading scientists.

9/11 Truth: NOVA's "Pancake Theory" Simulation Debunked

9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test

"cherry-picked from the facts" - it's more a case of those who want us to beleive the fairy tale that is the official story, cherry picking the facts they want to refute, one by one, in a vain attempt to prove "there's nothing to it".

"Why should it be necessary to have blown up WTC 7?"

I've gone into WTC7 collapse on another thread, so no point repeating myself too much..

People can follow this link where I discuss WTC7 and Silverstein

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/poll...tml#post465586

But why ? Basically insurance money - Silverstein(no jew hating comments please) not only used the phrase "pull it", he also made a fortune too, and he specifically made sure that his policy covered him against terrorist attacks.

"Many huge American corporations lost billions of dollars in the WTC collapses"

Fair point, but it doesn't prove that much when you consider that if a plan had been made it would have been made by only a select group of people.

"there were major legal battles fought over whether the WTO attacks were one or two incidents"

Indeed and one of the people claiming for 2 incidents was Larry Silverstein himself !!!!!
WTC leaseholder Silverstein wins court battle

"A New York jury has decided that the 11 September 2001 attack on the two towers constituted two separate events."

"He has been fighting the insurance companies, arguing he was owed $7bn (£3.6bn) - double his $3.5bn policy."

So you've totally debunked your own argument....

"they could not find any thing other than a perfectly rational explanation of the events."

Of course not, becasue the official story said terrorism was the reason for the attacks.

So come on face it Bear, I've debunked all your points, you haven't a leg to stand on....

Let alone all the other points you didn't mention....

911truth.org ::::: THE TOP 40

The only explantion is that the official story is simply unbelievable.

P.S If you want to write another essay, feel free, but I wouldn't waste your time if I were you.... :-)
[Rep]

OK Sunshine, let’s leave the “support the terrorists with further undermining confidence in the government” stuff and the conspiracy rubbish aside.

Let’s also set aside that as with anything if there’s a dollar to be made someone will find a way such as coming up with things that get them paid by having books published, by the Red Top Press, or by having their web sites “clicked”.

Let’s also recognize that the claim that there was no evidence that a Boeing had gone “bong” into the Pentagon is also garbage. (It is, by the way.)

Let’s also put aside the idiots who haven’t learned to shave with Occams Razor.

Let’s instead simply look at a napkin map of what energy was released at the WTC event.
Energy content of jet fuel: 5.67M BTU per barrel
Standard petroleum barrel : 42 US gallons
767 Fuel capacity : 23,980 US gallons
767 fuel use : 1,380 gallons/hr
(To convert BTU to calories, multiply by 251.996)
Assume 22,050 gallons in the tanks when the plane hit the building.
22,050 gallons = 525 barrels
525 barrels * 5.67M = 2,976,750,000 BTU
2976750000 * 251.996 = 750,129,093,000 calories
Energy content of fuel: 750,129,093,000 calories
For two planes : 1,500,258,186,000 calories
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity ** 2
To convert joules to calories, multiply by .23901
767 empty weight : 82,737 kg
Fuel Weight : 10,000 kg
total : 92,737 kg
Assume velocity at impact 400 mph = 645000 m/h = 179 m/s
KE = .5 * 92737 * (179 ^2) = 1,485,693,109 joules
Hence KE = 355,095,510 calories
Result? Impact of two planes: 710,191,020 calories
Now factor in
Given. Potential Energy = mass x gravity x height
212,500 cubic yards of concrete per building
Mass of concrete is 4,000 lbs per cubic yard
Hence 850,000,000 lbs concrete
Add in 200,000,000 lbs steel
Estimated gross building weight: 1,000,000,000 lbs = 453,600,000 kg
Height of building: 415 meters
Estimated Potential Energy: 836,983,600,000 joules
That’s 200,047,500,000 calories

For two buildings : 400,085,000,000 calories
(The official definition of a kiloton is 10E12 calories.)
So ---
Fuel content of planes : 1,500,000,000,000 calories
Kinetic Energy of impacts : 710,000,000 calories
Potential energy of buildings : 400,000,000,000 calories
Grand total: 1,900,710,000,000 calories
Hence Energy released in WTC event : 1.9 kilotons
For comparison the Hiroshima bomb yield was 13 kilotons

Go figure.

Oh yes – “hot enough to melt steel?”
Yes. Especially when the presence of substantial amounts of Aluminum is factored in. Aluminum will burn in a similar way that Magnesium burns in air. Aluminum will not only melt steel but given enough of it mass to mass relative to the steel will actually cause the steel to burn. Burning low grade steel such as used in common “I beams” and “re-bar” is the principle of the Thermic Lance in case you didn’t know.

Now I’m going to leave this. Your points have been blown out of the water but I suspect that because you WANT what really took place not to be what you WANT it to be you will not ever leave it alone.

Sad really.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Silvbird:
My father, who has been an architect for more than sixty years, sent me this article by Christopher Bollyn

who hasn't been an architect, has been fired by the AFP, taken part in the white supremist movement, etc etc etc.

Inother words, hardly a reputable source.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
"The WTC fires had 90,000 gallons of Jet fuel explode into a fire ball that was hot enough to ignite alluminium, as well as the building structure and furniture." -

But hot enough to melt steel.... ?

Why do you need to melt steel ? You only need for it to get hot enough to lose structural integrity.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Cooper:
Why do you need to melt steel ? You only need for it to get hot enough to lose structural integrity.

Exactly and it was hot enough for that
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Cooper:
Why do you need to melt steel ? You only need for it to get hot enough to lose structural integrity.

I'd accept that if it collapsed bit by bit, in an uneven fasion. I don't accept it for all of the main support collumns failing at exactly the same time and in a uniform way.
[Rep]

I do. Here’s why.

If the energy released by the top section was sufficient to grossly overload the structural strength of the surface that they landed upon, then there would have been massive and devastating failure much as a sample of a material fails under a shock load test.

If the failure had been due to a gradual increasing load (even over a few tens of milliseconds) then the failure would not have been similar to the process that results in rupture like failures, and more like the creep failure seen as a result of a material having entered and passed its tertiary stress phase in a lab creep machine.

Therefore if it were a case of materials failing as a result of an increasing stress load, then I would agree that a gross uniform structure failure would be less likely, and that there would have been some scatter in terms of which members failed first with a corresponding randomness of the building disintegration, but with the loads involved this quite simply was not the case.
[Rep]