Issues with 9-11

[geoffrey]

The pro weighs in and destroys the theory.

I'll bury it in my backyard, I have room next to the grassy knoll shooter.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The pro weighs in and destroys the theory.

I'll bury it in my backyard, I have room next to the grassy knoll shooter.

My theory: it was professor plum in the library with the candlestick.

They couldn't keep eight chicago ballplayers quiet about fixing the world series, but they've kept hundreds of people quiet on this one. Right.

[Hollus]

The pro wieghs in? Give me a break!

You obviously havent even watched the video. It is full of structural engineers who clearly explain the impossibility of the official goverment claim of what happened. Your quite obviously ignoring very appropriate questions raised by some of the most qualified opinions of the matter. Do I have to go through the video and type out the qoutes that prove the impossibility of the collapse? Can you debunk any of the statments made by these experts? Do you have any information that supports the government claim that the collapse was caused by fire? No you don't.

Here is an updated version of the video with even more expert testemony regarding the conspiricy. Watch it, or don't and continue clinging to your unsubstantiated belief.

[geoffrey]

The pro wieghs in? Give me a break!

You obviously havent even watched the video. It is full of structural engineers who clearly explain the impossibility of the official goverment claim of what happened. Your quite obviously ignoring very appropriate questions raised by some of the most qualified opinions of the matter. Do I have to go through the video and type out the qoutes that prove the impossibility of the collapse? Can you debunk any of the statments made by these experts? Do you have any information that supports the government claim that the collapse was caused by fire? No you don't.

Here is an updated version of the video with even more expert testemony regarding the conspiricy. Watch it, or don't and continue clinging to your unsubstantiated belief.

I'm not an engineer, and I assume your not either, so your not qualified to support those claims either. I can't believe you believe everything you hear word for word.

I have watched it. And because some guy on a video says something doesn't mean I need to believe it sorry. The government has experts that say one thing, these people have experts that say another. Both are full of shit IMO.

Here's my own common sense on the matter. Plane hits building, building is going to fall. WTC 7 is still a bit of a mystery to me. Doesn't make sense why another building would by some coincidence start on fire the same day and all that. It's weird.

[Minimus Maximus]

The pro wieghs in? Give me a break!

You obviously havent even watched the video. It is full of structural engineers who clearly explain the impossibility of the official goverment claim of what happened. Your quite obviously ignoring very appropriate questions raised by some of the most qualified opinions of the matter. Do I have to go through the video and type out the qoutes that prove the impossibility of the collapse? Can you debunk any of the statments made by these experts? Do you have any information that supports the government claim that the collapse was caused by fire? No you don't.

Here is an updated version of the video with even more expert testemony regarding the conspiricy. Watch it, or don't and continue clinging to your unsubstantiated belief.

Are these the same structural engineers that say steel heated to near melting point retains its structural integrity?

As far as claiming that thermal imaging showing that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, who cares.

At about 1150F structural steels start to change in microstructure. Cooling rates at this point become very critical, did the sprinklers come on. Do you realize that thermal imaging is affected by dust and particulates in the air? Are these experts being honest with you, or do you want to believe it so badly that you just don't care.

Have you ever seen a documentary on house fires? At flash point the fires are hot enough to melt steel (mild carbon structural steel becomes molten at about 2800F). The governments position is a hell of alot closer to the truth than the so called experts in these clips. Is the US government lying? Perhaps. Are these experts that you rely on for truth lying? Absolutely.

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

Bertrand Russell

[Minimus Maximus]

Hollus, to dubunk more of your beloved conspiracy theory I would ask, did you see any of the clean up footage of the aftermath of 9-11? I saw big ass chunks of concrete being removed from the site during the rescue effort on CNN. Clean up crews claim that only small pieces were left? Bull shite. The massive volume of concrete falling into such a small area would no doubt create a great deal of dust and small debris, and big chunks.

One question I have about the alleged missile attack at the point of impact would be, why? Thats like beating a dead horse. Whats the point of firing a missle into a building which is in the process of being rammed by a passenger jet full of fuel?

The footage showing the planes supposedly firing missiles bothers me as well. At the point of the alleged missle launch the quality of the image is such that it is difficult to tell if the plane has already impacted the building. This could be some sort of blow back from the extreme friction caused by the initial impact itself.

The pentagon attack footage is another questionable piece of work. At times the focus on the building is shifted from the impact site to a location about 20-30 meters away. The repetitive facade of the buildings architecture allows the conspiracy theorists to get away with this. Also, at one point they show some paper which has not been burned by the intense fire which occured after impact. The claim is that fire did not ensue, yet in other footage a raging inferno is clearly visable. More bull shite.

Hollus, have you bought your copy of the DVD yet? If not I will make my own claiming it was an alien attack and sell it to you half price.

[Hollus]

I've watched these 9-11 clips before and find as many questions about the conspiracy theorists interpretations as I do from what they claim to uncover. This leads me to believe that the only real truth about conspiracy theories is that they are a marketable commodity (you can by the DVD version for around 20-30 USD).

So what? The governments "9/11 Commission Report" is on sale for twice that price and its full of ommissions, distortions and flat out lies.

"Of all the possible conspiracy theories about 9/11, the most unbelievable of all is the official conspiracy theory about Osama bin Laden and 19 fanatic muslim hijackers taking the government of the United States completely by surprise and getting 'lucky'."

- Robert W. Bowman, Lt. Col., Air Force (ret.); former director of Advanced Space Programs Development ("star wars"), Air Force Space Division, under Presidents Ford and Carter.

As far as 9/11 is concerned, what is most important for you to understand is the concept of a law of nature. A law of nature cannot be violated, a law of nature cannot be changed, a law of nature requires no enforcement. The rate at which these buildings fell, the temperature at which steel melts, the order in which the buildings fell, and the force that would have been required to turn concrete into a fine powder these are some of the key issues that I am going to address...they[buildings] were designed to withstand the impact of even multiple aircraft collisions...Steel has a melting point of 3000'F, the steel used in these buildings was certified by Underwriters Labratory for 2000'F for up to 6 hours. The highest temperature at which kerosene based jet fuel can burn under optimal conditions is around 1700'F. Underwriters Labratory actually estimated that because insulation and so forth in the building, it was far more likely that the steel itself was not actually heated above around 500'F which of course is obviously far to low to accomidate the melting of the steel. The highest temperatures in the south tower that were measured were about 1300'F, but still way to low for what was required. Now whats interesting about the buildings is the order in which they fell. The southe tower fell at 10AM, actually 9:59am after only 56 minutes from impact. Thats only 56 minutes of exposure at temperatures that were far to low to actually melt steel before the building came down. The north tower however, was exposed for an hour and 37 minutes. So its very curious that the building which was exposed to these fires- which is alledged to be the causes of the collapse of the building- fell in the wrong order. They fell in the wrong order. If it was actually the heat from the fires that were supposed to percipitate their falling, then the north tower which was hit first should have fallen first, but it was the south tower that was hit second that that fell first...It is stunning how the massive concrete- theres a huge quantity of concrete here- was pulverized and turned into very fine powder. Now if the buildings had come down as the government contends, by virtue of this 'pancake effect' there should have been a tremendous residue- a pile of concrete chunks- concrete boulders and all that, no such was found. In fact this concrete was turned into very fine dust which required a tremendous amount of explosives then the energy that would have been released by the pancaking effect of the building...The rate at which the buildings fell is perhaps most remarkable. I mentioned Gallelaoes Law of Free Fall. If you had dropped- say a billiard ball- form the top of the world trade center- a hundred and ten stories up there- it would have taken 8 to 10 seconds to hit the ground, encontering no resistence whatsoever. There is no scenario for a pancake effect of buildings falling that allows them to fall at the rate of free fall. If you were just to surmize hypothetically as an approxomation that it would take a second for each floor to collapse, and if you were talking about the whole hundred-ten floors, it would represent a hundred and ten seconds, or a hundred seconds to many. If you assumen: 'well ya but the one hit on the 96th floor' and your talking about collapse from the 96th floor it would still be 96 seconds if your assuming a second per collapse per floor. Now an engineer in California suggested a second is to high, it may have only taken a half-a-second in order for the mass- the wieght of the upper floors to overcome the resistence of the lower floors- and suggests that it took a half-a-second. Well if its a half-a-second and youve got 96 floors thats still 48 seconds that it should have taken for the building to fall. Yet they only fell in 8 to 10 seconds- far to fast. Similarly, on hitting the 80th floor of the other building would have required 40 seconds at a half-a-second per floor- far to fast for the 8 to 10 seconds they fell. Its not even physically possible that the buildings could have fallen in accordence with the governments claim.

James H. Fetzer, Co-chair of Scholars for 9/11, Truth: www.st911.org

The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I beleive the builing probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your front door- this intense grid- and the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting.

-Frank A Demartini Chief Engineer WTC Construction and Project Manager

It has been admitted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. There could not have been a controlled demolition without pre-positioned explosives. It takes days to rig a 47 story building with explosives.

Any structural engineer will tell you that it is impossible for the 47 steel pillars to collapse into themselves into roughly 30' peices as they did, without use of thousands of pre-positioned explosives.

Is the government being honest with you, or do you want to believe it so badly that you just don't care?

[Hollus]

I'm not an engineer, and I assume your not either, so your not qualified to support those claims either. I can't believe you believe everything you hear word for word.

What leads you to that idea? I have been investigating this for quite awhile, there is much more evidence to this being an inside job than just the impossibility of the governments claim. Do I have to be an engineer to have an opinion on somthing?

I have watched it. And because some guy on a video says something doesn't mean I need to believe it sorry. The government has experts that say one thing, these people have experts that say another. Both are full of shit IMO.

So you agree the government is full of shit? Does that not leave you questioning their legitimacy? They are supposed to be the ones to investigate it and provide the proper analisys but they have clearly missled and avoided it. They did not even provide any examination of the collapse of WTC 7 as if the complete destruction of a 47 story building was not an issue. They lied about the wieght bearing structure of the twin towers and said that the inner core was a hollow elevator shaft when infact it contained the 47 steel pillars that were the main wieght bearing structure of the building.

Here's my own common sense on the matter. Plane hits building, building is going to fall. WTC 7 is still a bit of a mystery to me. Doesn't make sense why another building would by some coincidence start on fire the same day and all that. It's weird.

The towers were marvels of engineering. They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 jetliner which is similar in wieght and size as the ones that were used. Does it not seem strange that when the structure failed, there was no investigation as to why. No examination of the steel which would have indicated what the flaw of the design was. Even in much smaller catastrophies we typically will reconstruct things as completely as possible, as in when flight WTA 800 crashed pieces were dredged off the bottom of the sea to allow a detailed analysis, in this case the exact opposite was done.

[Hollus]

Hollus, to dubunk more of your beloved conspiracy theory I would ask, did you see any of the clean up footage of the aftermath of 9-11? I saw big ass chunks of concrete being removed from the site during the rescue effort on CNN. Clean up crews claim that only small pieces were left? Bull shite. The massive volume of concrete falling into such a small area would no doubt create a great deal of dust and small debris, and big chunks.

One question I have about the alleged missile attack at the point of impact would be, why? Thats like beating a dead horse. Whats the point of firing a missle into a building which is in the process of being rammed by a passenger jet full of fuel?

The footage showing the planes supposedly firing missiles bothers me as well. At the point of the alleged missle launch the quality of the image is such that it is difficult to tell if the plane has already impacted the building. This could be some sort of blow back from the extreme friction caused by the initial impact itself.

The pentagon attack footage is another questionable piece of work. At times the focus on the building is shifted from the impact site to a location about 20-30 meters away. The repetitive facade of the buildings architecture allows the conspiracy theorists to get away with this. Also, at one point they show some paper which has not been burned by the intense fire which occured after impact. The claim is that fire did not ensue, yet in other footage a raging inferno is clearly visable. More bull shite.

Hollus, have you bought your copy of the DVD yet? If not I will make my own claiming it was an alien attack and sell it to you half price.

What are you talking about? Who mentioned planes firing missles before impact? Thats the most rediculous thing Ive ever heard. Dont try and debunk my arguments by introducing wacky theories which I have never endorsed.

I have no comment on the pentagon attack. It really has no bearing on wether or not the destruction of WTC #1 #2 & #3 was an inside job.

[geoffrey]

What leads you to that idea? I have been investigating this for quite awhile, there is much more evidence to this being an inside job than just the impossibility of the governments claim. Do I have to be an engineer to have an opinion on somthing?

To have an knowledgable opinion for the cause of the collapse, I'd say you probably should know a least a few years of engineering knowledge. The structural integrity of a massive building isn't something you can do a little evening research on and be knowledgable enough to have a crediable opinion.

You can believe it if you want. But your in no position to tell others that your opinion is correct based on some research.

So you agree the government is full of shit? Does that not leave you questioning their legitimacy? They are supposed to be the ones to investigate it and provide the proper analisys but they have clearly missled and avoided it. They did not even provide any examination of the collapse of WTC 7 as if the complete destruction of a 47 story building was not an issue. They lied about the wieght bearing structure of the twin towers and said that the inner core was a hollow elevator shaft when infact it contained the 47 steel pillars that were the main wieght bearing structure of the building.

I'm a conservative, of course I don't trust the government.

There are some clear problems with their explaination. Their explaination being false does not give you any more crediability, thats not a logical progression. A is more wrong so B must be more right does not apply here.

The towers were marvels of engineering. They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 jetliner which is similar in wieght and size as the ones that were used. Does it not seem strange that when the structure failed, there was no investigation as to why. No examination of the steel which would have indicated what the flaw of the design was. Even in much smaller catastrophies we typically will reconstruct things as completely as possible, as in when flight WTA 800 crashed pieces were dredged off the bottom of the sea to allow a detailed analysis, in this case the exact opposite was done.

Maybe, it does seem strange.

But why have planes flying in and killing a bunch of people. Why not just collapse them with explosives and say "Oh, Osama planted them!" Much easier, much less trouble, much less collateral damage. Believe it or not, Bush doesn't want to actively kill random Americans at will!

Plus, I could watch the planes hitting the towers and go hmm, thats awfully likely what made them fail, not some internal implosion.

[Minimus Maximus]

Hollus, the first thing you should understand is that structural engineers are not fracture mechanic scientists. A structural engineer can tell you how to build the high rise, but it will take someone schooled in frature mechanics to tell you why it came down.

The article you posted by James H. Fetzer is full of holes. It assumes that the only way fire would have been a factor is if it was hot enough to melt steel. This is small picture thinking Hollus. The big picture would take into consideration the damage done to the structure upon impact. Remember the nicks caused by the planes impact? The damage done on impact alone could have led to catastrophic failure (in the complete absence of fire). The sharp gouges which would have been present from the impact are what we in the industry call "stress risers". Stress risers in the presence of high compression and shear stresses will propagate into cracks, cracks will lead to failure. James Fetzer is not a structural eng. nor an expert in fracture mechanics. This becomes very obvious when reading his interpretation of the facts.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfetzer.htm (he's a prof. of philosophy Hollus)

If you are interested in the truth try reading this, http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml, it should help. If not then I notice that theloniousfleabag posted a great link which puts things in laymans terms.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y

Back to the fire, I had lunch with a fellow inspector on Friday who also happens to be chief of a fire hall here in Calgary and mentioned this conspiracy to him. While rehashing the issue of temperature he raised a few interesting points. First would be the usefullness of using thermal imaging to predict the temp. of the fire. As I stated before the instrument used will be affected by particulates in the air. Second would be the fact that the temp. of the outside walls does not tell you the temp. of the fire burning inside the building. So, where were these readings taken? This theory also seems dependant on the temperature of burning jet fuel. What about the contents of the building?

When I read statements like, "The highest temperatures in the south tower that were measured were about 1300'F, but still way to low for what was required.", I just have to shake my head. At aprox. 1150F the microstructure of mild carbon steel changes. This is all dependant on the carbon content of the steel, as I've stated before. If the sprinklers came on steel which has been heated will cool too quickly and the microstructure will become martinsitic (lowering ductility). This will greatly reduce the yield point at which elastic limits are exeeded and perminent set begins (this is the point at which the steel no longer has the ability to return to its former shape). After perminent set is achieved the UTS (ultimate tensile strength) is also greatly reduced (the steel can no longer be said to exihbit the same properties before it was heated and/or cooled).

Any structural engineer will tell you that it is impossible for the 47 steel pillars to collapse into themselves into roughly 30' peices as they did, without use of thousands of pre-positioned explosives.

This is just laughable. Any structural eng. who says this requires medication. I don't have the construction drawings of the WTC in front of me, but would expect to see bolted and/or welded connections throughout the structure. I would be very surprised to find out that the location of breaks were not uniform and predictable. Locations at which one beam is bolted to another would be regular and uniform. At welded connections the HAZ (heat affected zone) would play a huge role in explaining why the pillars were broken at 30' intervals. The assumption that expolsions could be the only possible explanation for this is ludicrous.

I'm not tring to be ignorant Hollus, its just that you are way out of your element in tring to argue the validity of the information you bring forth. Articles by a prof. of philosophy prove nothing. I have worked with structural eng. for the last 20 odd years and none would back up any of the claims in your argument.

I have no agenda save the truth Hollus. Couldn't care less about GWB or the republican party (in fact the only Bush I love is my wifes!). If you are so content on proving a conspiracy took place you should know that your barking up the wrong tree. Not only does that doggy not hunt, it don't even breathe.

[GostHacked]

Unless demo'd, a building should not fall down at gravity freefall. PERIOD.

And if there was a possibility of WTC being 'pulled' as Silverstein himself said. Then the others could have been pulled to. Sounds fantastic? Too out there?

If the WTC 1 and 2 pancaked, then you would see floor fall on floor, pause, crunch, two floors fall on the other floor, cruch, pause, ect. Even if there was a slight delay in the crunch/fall part, that would still not thave brought them down in freefall speed. Take this into account.

The 9/11 Commision is a book I am looking to pick up soon, I am curious as to what is in there compared to what had happened, and what I know about that time.

[geoffrey]

Unless demo'd, a building should not fall down at gravity freefall. PERIOD.

And if there was a possibility of WTC being 'pulled' as Silverstein himself said. Then the others could have been pulled to. Sounds fantastic? Too out there?

If the WTC 1 and 2 pancaked, then you would see floor fall on floor, pause, crunch, two floors fall on the other floor, cruch, pause, ect. Even if there was a slight delay in the crunch/fall part, that would still not thave brought them down in freefall speed. Take this into account.

The 9/11 Commision is a book I am looking to pick up soon, I am curious as to what is in there compared to what had happened, and what I know about that time.

So someone climbed up there while it was on fire and placed thousands of demo charges? You can't be serious.

[GostHacked]

Unless demo'd, a building should not fall down at gravity freefall. PERIOD.

And if there was a possibility of WTC being 'pulled' as Silverstein himself said. Then the others could have been pulled to. Sounds fantastic? Too out there?

If the WTC 1 and 2 pancaked, then you would see floor fall on floor, pause, crunch, two floors fall on the other floor, cruch, pause, ect. Even if there was a slight delay in the crunch/fall part, that would still not thave brought them down in freefall speed. Take this into account.

The 9/11 Commision is a book I am looking to pick up soon, I am curious as to what is in there compared to what had happened, and what I know about that time.

So someone climbed up there while it was on fire and placed thousands of demo charges? You can't be serious.

Part of the reason my search continues. If that is the case? What are the implications of that?

[geoffrey]

So someone climbed up there while it was on fire and placed thousands of demo charges? You can't be serious.

Part of the reason my search continues. If that is the case? What are the implications of that?

If that is the case, that someone rigged the towers during the attack to collapse with explosive charges, then I'll put on my tinfoil hat and start a nature commune in the wilderness in some small South American country. You can hold me to that.

[Minimus Maximus]

Part of the reason my search continues. If that is the case? What are the implications of that?

Its an admirable thing to search for the truth GostHacked.

Be as critical of the conspiracy theory as you are the topic of investigation otherwise you could find yourself far from the path that will lead to anything resembling the truth. If there is a university with an engineering program near you drop in and see if you could talk to a prof or 3rd/4th year student about the issues which you find suspicious. Go into your local fire hall and talk to a fireman/woman about fire, or e-mail ASTM (American Society of Technical Materials) and see what happens.

Don't read conspiracy theory website after conspiracy theory website and expect to find the truth. There are many exellent sites which explain the inconsistancies in the conspiracy as well (the one theloniousfleabag posted from popular mechanics is very informative).

A little advice would be to stay away from blanket statements like this as well.

Unless demo'd, a building should not fall down at gravity freefall. PERIOD.

You could back yourself into a corner and lose sight of the truth for good. Let me know what you find in the 9-11 commision book. If its credible, I'll accept it. If not I'll let you know.

[GostHacked]

Part of the reason my search continues. If that is the case? What are the implications of that?

Its an admirable thing to search for the truth GostHacked.

Be as critical of the conspiracy theory as you are the topic of investigation otherwise you could find yourself far from the path that will lead to anything resembling the truth. If there is a university with an engineering program near you drop in and see if you could talk to a prof or 3rd/4th year student about the issues which you find suspicious. Go into your local fire hall and talk to a fireman/woman about fire, or e-mail ASTM (American Society of Technical Materials) and see what happens.

Don't read conspiracy theory website after conspiracy theory website and expect to find the truth. There are many exellent sites which explain the inconsistancies in the conspiracy as well (the one theloniousfleabag posted from popular mechanics is very informative).

A little advice would be to stay away from blanket statements like this as well.

Unless demo'd, a building should not fall down at gravity freefall. PERIOD.

You could back yourself into a corner and lose sight of the truth for good. Let me know what you find in the 9-11 commision book. If its credible, I'll accept it. If not I'll let you know.

Not really backing myself into a corner there. For one there would be resistance on each floor if the 'pancaking' did actually take place.

Both towers fell at near freefall speed. 10 seconds for each tower to fall. With 110 stories, this would have taken alot longer. Even if there was a 1/4 second delay in each floor falling, that would make it about 25 seconds, twice as long as what really happened.

Floor falls, pause, crack break, fall pause, crack break. But everything came down in a thunder and fast. Compare demo'd buildings fall speed and the WTC fall speed.

I am trying to be a thourough as possible with what I have. So yeah I am not trying to back myself in corners. I do look at some conspiracy sights, alof of them are cracked, but there are some consistancies with each conspiracy theory, and this is what I am paying attention to.

My next book to buy will be the 9/11 Commission report.

[Minimus Maximus]

Part of the reason my search continues. If that is the case? What are the implications of that?

Its an admirable thing to search for the truth GostHacked.

Be as critical of the conspiracy theory as you are the topic of investigation otherwise you could find yourself far from the path that will lead to anything resembling the truth. If there is a university with an engineering program near you drop in and see if you could talk to a prof or 3rd/4th year student about the issues which you find suspicious. Go into your local fire hall and talk to a fireman/woman about fire, or e-mail ASTM (American Society of Technical Materials) and see what happens.

Don't read conspiracy theory website after conspiracy theory website and expect to find the truth. There are many exellent sites which explain the inconsistancies in the conspiracy as well (the one theloniousfleabag posted from popular mechanics is very informative).

A little advice would be to stay away from blanket statements like this as well.

Unless demo'd, a building should not fall down at gravity freefall. PERIOD.

You could back yourself into a corner and lose sight of the truth for good. Let me know what you find in the 9-11 commision book. If its credible, I'll accept it. If not I'll let you know.

Not really backing myself into a corner there. For one there would be resistance on each floor if the 'pancaking' did actually take place.

Both towers fell at near freefall speed. 10 seconds for each tower to fall. With 110 stories, this would have taken alot longer. Even if there was a 1/4 second delay in each floor falling, that would make it about 25 seconds, twice as long as what really happened.

Floor falls, pause, crack break, fall pause, crack break. But everything came down in a thunder and fast. Compare demo'd buildings fall speed and the WTC fall speed.

I am trying to be a thourough as possible with what I have. So yeah I am not trying to back myself in corners. I do look at some conspiracy sights, alof of them are cracked, but there are some consistancies with each conspiracy theory, and this is what I am paying attention to.

My next book to buy will be the 9/11 Commission report.

The only way I could reach the conclusion that the structure fell "too quickly" would be to assume that as one floor collapsed it exerted no force on the one below until complete collapse had been achieved.

Construction drawings and design calculations would shed some light on this. Problem is that this information has not been made public. Maybe the conspiracy you seek does not involve what happened on 9/11 but instead occured way back when the WTC was engineered, fabricated and constructed.

You can compare the "fall speeds" of demo'd buildings to the WTC collapse all you want but relating the relevance of such information still requires more knowledge of this event which has not been made available to the public.

[Beowulf]

My next book to buy will be the 9/11 Commission report.

No need to buy it if you don't need a paper copy: it is available from the 9/11 Commission site as a PDF:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

[GostHacked]

My next book to buy will be the 9/11 Commission report.

No need to buy it if you don't need a paper copy: it is available from the 9/11 Commission site as a PDF:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

I am going to be better off buying the book. I really despise PDFs, makes my FireFox hurt. OK not really, makes me cringe

Maybe I can buy it, and read the PDF and compare.

[Beowulf]

I am going to be better off buying the book. I really despise PDFs, makes my FireFox hurt. OK not really, makes me cringe

Maybe I can buy it, and read the PDF and compare.

Well one PDF you should peruse is the report on the twin towers fires from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

[GostHacked]

I am going to be better off buying the book. I really despise PDFs, makes my FireFox hurt. OK not really, makes me cringe

Maybe I can buy it, and read the PDF and compare.

Well one PDF you should peruse is the report on the twin towers fires from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Wow! Thanks for this link, I am gonna read as much as I can here at work, and dig into it more later.

I am already finding things wrong with this report. Ugh, I shall report back.

[Beowulf]

Good luck with your research. Just remember that if you are suspicious, you need to be suspicious of the other people who are suspicious.

[GostHacked]

Good luck with your research. Just remember that if you are suspicious, you need to be suspicious of the other people who are suspicious.

Hahaha, lemme get my tinfoil hat on now.

I read the whole article, and without the math I cannot even begin to understand (math is NOT my strong point) the scope of the research and investigation is slim to none. Based on two models that may not really be real world by any means. I don't have time to nit pick on it right now, but I will point out some weirdness to it.

Anyone who has read this thread but have not replied, please read that article in the PDF format. Interesting stuff.

[GostHacked]

OH and a recent CNN poll said that 81% who polled thought the US government covered up 9/11

http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/

Yep, time for a real investigation.