September 11th conspiracy theories

Chris_Morganti · 09-03-05, 11:55 PM

Quote:

The engineering establishment’s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68–9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.

Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is that some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the northeast hole were so short, probably less than three feet (p. 105) high (p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its frontal area. The engines are a special problem because each engine is enormous and dense, consisting mainly of tempered steel and weighing 5–6 tons, depending upon model. No engine was recovered in the rubble yet no hydrocarbon fire could possibly vaporize it.

The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not even have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead contained substantial WTC material (p. 27) just left of center (pp. 62, 105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration by a jumbo jet. These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons.

In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower. Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are unconvincing, to put it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can testify to the contrary. Further contradicting the official account, the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was completely intact upon initial impact. The government never produced a jet engine yet claimed it recovered the passport of alleged hijacker Satam al Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic collapse of the North Tower. The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack either, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes.

Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by FEMA or other government agents. I’ve never seen any objective analysis of this wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.

The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller than the North Tower hole.

The next question is whether the fires were hot enough to cause the WTC buildings to collapse. In defending the official account and its clones that try to explain the unprecedented collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers without demolition, heat arguably is more important than structural impact. That’s obviously true for building WTC 7 because there was no alleged airplane impact.

First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.

Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing.

12356234242

Chris_Morganti · 09-03-05, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Third, the impact opening was 15 floors lower in the South Tower than in the North Tower, where core columns were thicker, so the South Tower fire had to produce more heat to raise the steel temperatures to soften up (thermally weaken) the steel columns. Yet its fires were considerably smaller and 30 minutes shorter in duration. The Tower collapsed after burning only 56 minutes. A prime candidate to explain why "the wrong tower fell first" is that the small dying fire in the South Tower forced the hand of the mass murderers who decided to trigger demolition earlier than planned in order to sustain the lie that fire caused the collapse. The North Tower stood for another 29 minutes and its core steel was thinner at its upper stories. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors.It did not collapse.

Fourth, implicitly trying to explain away these difficulties, the current NIST investigation, conducted by "an extended investigation team of 236 people," makes "dislodged fireproofing" the key variable to explain the collapses. Supposedly, "the probable collapse sequence for the WTC towers are (sic) based on the behavior of thermally weakened structural components that had extensive damage to fireproofing or gypsum board fire protection induced by the debris field generated by aircraft impact" (p. 111). "Had fireproofing not been dislodged by debris field," this team of government-paid experts claims, "temperature rise of structural components would likely have been insufficient to induce global collapse" (p. 108). Perhaps acknowledging the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that "a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112). The NIST will have to boost its creativity to plausibly explain the WTC 7 collapse because it won’t have the benefit of tales of aircraft and debris fields.

Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:

* Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
* By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
* The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
* FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
* Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.

Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:

1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).

2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).

123523423424234

Chris_Morganti · 09-03-05, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.

A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret.

Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that the perpetrators used Mayor Giuliani’s sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer might set his victim’s dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in four fires is arson). Giuliani’s "undisclosed secret location" was perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers.

There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.

If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up.

It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely prove to be sound. Revised engineering and construction practices, for example, based on the belief that the twin towers collapsed through airplane damage and subsequent fires is premature, to say the least.

More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in today’s "security state" demands daring because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

1231321312312312312

Freiheits Kämpfer · 09-04-05, 12:03 AM

Question for those that believe the planes brought it down: How is it that the planes hit the building 3/4ths of the way to the top, but the building collapsed from the bottom? Look at the footage-even though the top collapses first, there is no way that 1/4th of the building could bring down the rest.

Hmmmmm...

-FK

Chris_Morganti · 09-04-05, 12:09 AM

Actually if your talking about the North Tower it is alot more like 1/10th.

Freiheits Kämpfer · 09-04-05, 12:13 AM

I flunked my math class in the past year.

-FK

danarhea · 09-04-05, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Morganti

Actually if your talking about the North Tower it is alot more like 1/10th.

Ever see the movie "Loose Change"? It delves into a lot of questions about 911, and concludes that the US is run by a tyranny.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 09-04-05, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiheits Kämpfer

Question for those that believe the planes brought it down: How is it that the planes hit the building 3/4ths of the way to the top, but the building collapsed from the bottom? Look at the footage-even though the top collapses first, there is no way that 1/4th of the building could bring down the rest.

Hmmmmm...

-FK

Because the intense heat of the fire weakened the main support beems in the center of the building with catastrophic results. I suppose you're one of these people who believe that U.S. launched cruise missiles brought down the towers, tell me, did the illuminati make them do it, or maybe it was the elders of the protocals of zion?

Chris_Morganti · 09-04-05, 01:14 AM

There is no evidence to prove those fires were a raging inferno like the government claims.

http://911physics.co.nr

Go to the WTC 1 & 2 section, somewhere in there is pictures of the holes made by the planes, you can clearly see how intense the "raging inferno" clearly is.

I notice there are 3 things that skeptics of this never seem to want to touch.

1. The near free fall collapse of the towers.
2. Virtually all the concrete was pulverized into micro dust.
3. The incredible tempereatures of the steel a week after the attack.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 09-04-05, 01:20 AM

So what is your contention? Do you actually believe that there was a plot by the administration to destroy the world trade center?

09-04-05, 12:03 AM	#474
Freiheits Kämpfer User Join Date: Sep 2005 Last Seen: 09-06-05 07:03 PM Location: Burning with the Gods in Walhalla Posts: 25 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender:	Re: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? Question for those that believe the planes brought it down: How is it that the planes hit the building 3/4ths of the way to the top, but the building collapsed from the bottom? Look at the footage-even though the top collapses first, there is no way that 1/4th of the building could bring down the rest. Hmmmmm... -FK
	__________________ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...n2001/ERFK.jpg

09-04-05, 12:09 AM	#475
Chris_Morganti User Join Date: Sep 2005 Last Seen: 09-04-05 09:17 PM Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Lean: Private	Re: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? Actually if your talking about the North Tower it is alot more like 1/10th.

09-04-05, 12:13 AM	#476
Freiheits Kämpfer User Join Date: Sep 2005 Last Seen: 09-06-05 07:03 PM Location: Burning with the Gods in Walhalla Posts: 25 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender:	Re: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? I flunked my math class in the past year. -FK
	__________________ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...n2001/ERFK.jpg

09-04-05, 01:14 AM	#479
Chris_Morganti User Join Date: Sep 2005 Last Seen: 09-04-05 09:17 PM Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Lean: Private	Re: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? There is no evidence to prove those fires were a raging inferno like the government claims. http://911physics.co.nr Go to the WTC 1 & 2 section, somewhere in there is pictures of the holes made by the planes, you can clearly see how intense the "raging inferno" clearly is. I notice there are 3 things that skeptics of this never seem to want to touch. 1. The near free fall collapse of the towers. 2. Virtually all the concrete was pulverized into micro dust. 3. The incredible tempereatures of the steel a week after the attack.

09-04-05, 01:20 AM	#480
Trajan Octavian Titus Banned May True Debate Winner Join Date: Aug 2005 Last Seen: 03-05-08 05:10 AM Location: We can't stop here this is bat country! Posts: 20,915 Thanks: 169 Thanked 565 Times in 482 Posts Lean: Very Conservative Gender:	Re: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? So what is your contention? Do you actually believe that there was a plot by the administration to destroy the world trade center?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/12931-september-11th-conspiracy-theories.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
The WTC Twin Towers Were Pulverized on 9/11 - Page 4	This thread	Refback	01-04-10 04:31 PM
You Ain't Gonna Like Me - Muslim Online - Islamic Forum, Arcade, Friends	This thread	Refback	04-11-08 07:34 PM
..and The Horse You Rode In On... - Liberal Forum - America's Political Chat Room	This thread	Refback	03-07-08 10:19 AM
Breakeven Calculator Mortgage Refinance - breakeven maryland mortgage, calculator pace breakeven	This thread	Refback	11-15-07 07:03 AM
×òî æå ïðîèçîøëî 11 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2001 ãîäà?	Post #599	Refback	05-31-07 11:33 AM
×òî æå ïðîèçîøëî 11 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2001 ãîäà?	Post #599	Refback	05-31-07 06:10 AM
The WTC Twin Towers Were Pulverized on 9/11	This thread	Refback	05-10-07 01:40 PM
Scarborough Blasts Barbara Walters - Hardcore Politics	Post #22	Refback	03-25-07 11:52 AM
I read somewhere that one of the Bush brothers was in charge of security for wtc \| The Unofficial WRH Messageboard	Post #474	Refback	03-02-07 11:29 AM