9/11

[Riverwind]

It can easily be shown that the fires and damage would not have been sufficient to collapse the towers under their own weight. Less than half the steel vertical load bearing supports was destroyed and and the remaining supports had greater strength than half the original due to temp increase.

Sigh. The fire caused the floors to buckle. This pulled the perimeter columns inward which weakened them and triggered the progressive collapse.

Floors were tested and connections for these would have withstood a 2000 deg F temperature for several hours (Kevin Ryan).

Hearsay that means nothing. Ryan was an not involved in conducting the tests therefore he is not qualified to comment on whether the test was representative of the conditions inside the WTC. Ryan's letter to NIST is full of inaccuracies that demonstrate that the guy is clueless (i.e. the UL does not certify structural steel).

Therefore fires and damage did not cause the building to collapse. It should have remained standing with no signs of global cotastrophy like both towers did after the collapse & fires for 1/2 hour and over 1 hour.

You have zero proof. This is something basically you have made up because it justifies your paranoid fantasies. NIST has spent years investigating and consulting with 100s of experts and witnesses. Their explanation is more than reasonable from the perspective of the ovewhelming majority of structural engineers and fire safety experts.

There are plently of people in the world that have no ties to the US gov't and would definately speak up if they seriously believed that the US gov't murdered 3000 of the citizens. The deafening silence from the serious academic community is evidence that they see no problems with the official explaination. Most people understand this and that is why most people think your theories are rubbish.

In any case, it is clear that you are no different from a born again Christian who argues that world is 6000 years old and God created dinosaur bones to confuse us. You will deny whatever evidence and logic is place in front of you because you belief system requires you to do so. Nothing will change your faith in your god unless you are faced with a serious personal crisis. I can understand why people want to believe in a god, however, I will never understand why someone would want to believe in the dark and paranoid god of conspiracies that you worship.

[Canadian Blue]

Two people have testified in congressional hearings that Cheney gave a defence stand down order after both wtc's were hit while at the Pentagon for Pentagon/White House defences while there was in inbound target. He repeated the order several times. Want a link ?, because I'll get one for you but lets talk about how important this is first.

Provide the link.

QUOTE

Black Dog:So you're basically saying there's no difference between wiring a building for demolition (a complex procedure carried out by experts in teh field) can be done by any joe-schmoe electrician? Uh. Huh.

No I am not saying that.

I believe you did.

I explained that the stuff required to make the explosives go off - wiring - air tubes - whatever was probably installed by a legitimate contractor who thought he was installing something else such as a network of fire alarms, computer communications, loudspeakers, whatever. Then the people who placed the explosives did this in a few days after all the wires were in place.

[jbg]

It can easily be shown that the fires and damage would not have been sufficient to collapse the towers under their own weight. Less than half the steel vertical load bearing supports was destroyed and and the remaining supports had greater strength than half the original due to temp increase. The buildings were over built by six in the middle and 20 on the outside. Floors were tested and connections for these would have withstood a 2000 deg F temperature for several hours (Kevin Ryan). Therefore fires and damage did not cause the building to collapse. It should have remained standing with no signs of global cotastrophy like both towers did after the collapse & fires for 1/2 hour and over 1 hour.

The word "perseveration" (link to dictionary definition) comes to mind:

perseveration

One entry found for perseveration.

Main Entry: per·sev·er·a·tion

Pronunciation: p&r-"se-v&-'rA-sh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin perseveration-' date=' perseveratio, from perseverare

: continuation of something (as repetition of a word) usually to an exceptional degree or beyond a desired point

- per·sev·er·ate /-'se-v&-"rAt/ intransitive verb

- per·sev·er·a·tive /-"rA-tiv/ adjective[/auote']

[kimmy]

I believe you did:

I explained that the stuff required to make the explosives go off - wiring - air tubes - whatever was probably installed by a legitimate contractor who thought he was installing something else such as a network of fire alarms, computer communications, loudspeakers, whatever. Then the people who placed the explosives did this in a few days after all the wires were in place.

Oh, come on. Who hasn't mistaken loudspeakers for thermite or C4 from time to time?

-k

[blackascoal]

NORAD was unusually prepared on 9/11, because it was conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian.

On 9/11, North American Aerospace Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was fully staffed, its key officers and enlisted supervisors already manning the operations center "battle cab." [Aviation Week]

COLONEL ROBERT MARR, US AIR FORCE: We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board. [...] We had 14 aircraft on alert, seven sites, two aircraft at each site. [ABC News]

That's a ratio of 3.5 'hot' fighter jets per hijacked airliner.

.

* Bush clearly and undeniably had advance knowledge of a terrorist attack on US soil using planes as weapons by 9:05 am on September 11.

* NORAD had it by 8:45 in an unprecedented simultaneous hijacking of four planes.

* The Pentagon had it, as did everyone in DC by 9:05 as well, and the Pentagon began to evacuate the building, as did the White House and Capitol.

* EVERYONE had advance knowledge of Flight 77 coming towards DC for 40 minutes.Yet, there was a complete defensive stand-down. Interceptors from distant Langley AFB took off late and flew at subsonic speeds to arrive 5 minutes too late. Planes from nearby Anacostia Naval Air Station, Andrews Air Force Base, and the 73rd Air Wing at Atlantic City, NJ never took off. Scramblers in the air already at 9:05 from Otis AFB turned to target Flight 77 and were called off, despite a formal shoot-down order from Bush/Cheney "moments after" the 9:05 crash -- which had ended any speculation of accident or coincidence or hijacking motives.

By that moment they undeniably knew in advance what was coming and where it was headed. Local news announced that DC was the destination. Surface-to-air missiles at the White House and Pentagon remained sheathed in their silos. Despite the planes having turned off communications with ground control towers and their identifying transponders (which also shuts off their own near-range radar screens to avoid mid-air collisions), they were clearly visible to all external radars, they were being tracked by NORAD and DC towers, and they were somehow being navigated directly to their target.

So where is the Stand-Down order ...

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.".

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must be approved by the Secretary of Defense.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysi...ercept_proc.pdf

Thus, responsibility for scrambling NORAD was stripped from commanders in the field, which had worked successfully for 40 years, to the Secretary of Defense, who never gave the order until it was too late and then sent fighters from distance, not Andrews, even though Andrews is there for just such purposes, and even though he KNEW what was going on.

Why was the orders for hijacking response changed after 40 years of successful intervention only MONTHS before the attack on 9/11?

In the words of Col Robert Bowman, former head of the Star Wars program ..

If our government had merely done nothing - and I say that as an old interceptor pilot and I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were and I know what they changed them to - if our government had merely done nothing and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of Americans would still be alive. My sisters and brothers, that is treason!

Don't you guys do any research?

[Canadian Blue]

Robert Bowman is also part of the movement which believes that phaser's and microwave weapon's brought down the twin towers, I question his sanity.

Sorry, all my research comes from credible resources, not some college dropout's that do a bunch of pot and can't do anything with their lives so they make up bogus conspiracy theories.

[blackascoal]

Robert Bowman is also part of the movement which believes that phaser's and microwave weapon's brought down the twin towers, I question his sanity.

Sorry, all my research comes from credible resources, not some college dropout's that do a bunch of pot and can't do anything with their lives so they make up bogus conspiracy theories.

Excuse me .. YOU are more accomplished than Col Bowman?

YOU have more expertise on any subject regarding this issue than Col. Bowman?

YOU were/are a fighter pilot .. closely involved with NORAD?

I doubt that .. and so do you.

[blackascoal]

For those putting forth the "great impact causing giant buildings to melt" theory ...

go here ...

http://thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/stool.jpg

Exposed side of the impact area .. what is that inside?

Not only are the walls unblemished and show no sign of heat damage, soot, or smoke .. but also ...

Notice a green file cabinet with a plastic computer monitor sitting on top.

Two floors below that, an open book sitting on a wood stool. ..

So a plane carrying 8,000lbs doesn't burn the pages of an open book nor burn or melt a wooden stool or a plastic monitor only a few feet away ... but melts giant buildings ..

Even though a 757 is almost as tall as the Pentagon, the roof didn't collapse after the impact until nearly a half-hour later and left only a 16 x 14ft. hole .. didn't samage the manicured lawn at all .. left no burn or skid marks on the lawn even though the plane HAD to be flying at ground level.

http://thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/rpt2.jpg

Roof still intact .. notive firefighters are already on the scene .. but the roof is still intact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020321022743/...ncrustation.jpg

Superimposed 757 on the Pentagon .. which left a 16 x 14 ft hole .. and no evidence of a plane .. no evidence of wing damage on the building whatsoever .. and couldn't melt a plastic monitor..

[Riverwind]

Excuse me .. YOU are more accomplished than Col Bowman?

Accomplished people can have a breakdown in later life and support bizarre causes. So his past accomplishments mean nothing if he makes absurd claims today. Look up the story of William Shockley if you want an example of how the most mighty can fall.

YOU have more expertise on any subject regarding this issue than Col. Bowman?

YOU were/are a fighter pilot .. closely involved with NORAD?

There are many, many people with similar expertise yet they have said nothing. Their silence strongly suggests that Bowman is full of it.

[Riverwind]

Superimposed 757 on the Pentagon .. which left a 16 x 14 ft hole .. and no evidence of a plane .. no evidence of wing damage on the building whatsoever .. and couldn't melt a plastic monitor.

So where are the collaborators that help pull the job off? There would have to be thousands. Yet none of them have had twinge of conscious and a desire to cash in big time.

So where are the real experts (i.e. the ones with actual expertise in building construction) that agree with your analysis? The deafing silence from the serious academic communitity tells us that the real experts are satisifed with the official explaination.

[blackascoal]

Any idea what these are ...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/t...nwtccolumns.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_anglecut.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w...tter_debris.jpg

Of course you don't.

This is what they are ...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/cutter_opposite.jpg

What they are is evidence of shaped cutter charges .. and they are not caused by fire or collapsing debri.

[blackascoal]

Superimposed 757 on the Pentagon .. which left a 16 x 14 ft hole .. and no evidence of a plane .. no evidence of wing damage on the building whatsoever .. and couldn't melt a plastic monitor.

So where are the collaborators that help pull the job off? There would have to be thousands. Yet none of them have had twinge of conscious and a desire to cash in big time.

So where are the real experts (i.e. the ones with actual expertise in building construction) that agree with your analysis? The deafing silence from the serious academic communitity tells us that the real experts are satisifed with the official explaination.

I've already demonstrated how the fraud happened without tipping off "thousands" to the trick .. which you ignored. With all sincerity, please feel free to continue to ignore what you don't want to hear.

Interesting, but seriously flawed theory. .. Silence means that you're right .. even though ooposition by experts is far from silent.

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed. Governments all over the world would demand and require radical changes in building construction and there would be a flurry of activity surrounding the massive examination and modification of existing buildings.

You see any of that happening?

Does the silence of the construction and engineering community all over earth also suggest that you're right?

[Riverwind]

What they are is evidence of shaped cutter charges .. and they are not caused by fire or collapsing debri.

It is evidence of nothing. A 500,000 tonne building that collapses on itself is going to have a lot of random damage to components. That random damage could easily include beams that look like they have been cut at an angle. Furthermore, it is possible that is simply the original shape of the beams when they were installed in the building. You cannot know if they were 'cut' during the collapse or during construction.

All of the truthie 'evidence' is like this. Inconclusive and would only mean something if there wasn't any evidence that directly rules out the possibility of a controlled demolition.

[blackascoal]

What they are is evidence of shaped cutter charges .. and they are not caused by fire or collapsing debri.

It is evidence of nothing. A 500,000 tonne building that collapses on itself is going to have a lot of random damage to components. That random damage could easily include beams that look like they have been cut at an angle. Furthermore, it is possible that is simply the original shape of the beams when they were installed in the building. You cannot know if they were 'cut' during the collapse or during construction.

All of the truthie 'evidence' is like this. Inconclusive and would only mean something if there wasn't any evidence that directly rules out the possibility of a controlled demolition.

It is only "inconclusive" to those who don't know what they're talking about.

"That random damage could easily include beams that look like they have been cut at an angle."

Mind-boggling uneducated response.

"it is possible that is simply the original shape of the beams"

WOW

"You cannot know if they were 'cut' during the collapse or during construction"

AMAZING

Let me guess .. you have no idea why columns would be purposefully cut in this manner which would only weaken anything it supports. Don't worry, neither does anybody else.

INCREDIBLE

[White Doors]

How do 'truthies' explain airplane debris on the lawn of the pentagon?

[blackascoal]

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed. Governments all over the world would demand and require radical changes in building construction and there would be a flurry of activity surrounding the massive examination and modification of existing buildings.

[Riverwind]

I've already demonstrated how the fraud happened without tipping off "thousands" to the trick .. which you ignored. With all sincerity, please feel free to continue to ignore what you don't want to hear.

You have made the unproven assertion that the job could be carried out with the collaboration of a small number of people. However, there were hundreds of people involved in the clean up and any one of these people would have noticed any cover up. Furthermore, you have to explain the 100s of people that were on those missing planes.

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed.

They have already started to update fire codes to accommodate what was learned from the WTC collapses. Here is a broucher from the UL that describes what they are doing to improve the safety of buildings. When they build the new freedom tower they are planning on encasing all of steel supports in concrete to provide maximum protection in the case of a similar fire.

In any case, you are wasting your time babbling about how fires melt buildings. Nothing was melted - it was weakening of structures caused by overheating. A weakening that would not have caused the collapse if there was not additional structural damage caused by the plane impact.

You see any of that happening?

Yes.

[White Doors]

It is only "inconclusive" to those who don't know what they're talking about.

"That random damage could easily include beams that look like they have been cut at an angle."

Mind-boggling uneducated response.

"it is possible that is simply the original shape of the beams"

WOW

"You cannot know if they were 'cut' during the collapse or during construction"

AMAZING

Let me guess .. you have no idea why columns would be purposefully cut in this manner which would only weaken anything it supports. Don't worry, neither does anybody else.

INCREDIBLE

Do you find it hard to be so mind bogglingly aware of reality and find it frustrating that the rest of the world has their collective heads stuck in the sand?

[Riverwind]

Let me guess .. you have no idea why columns would be purposefully cut in this manner which would only weaken anything it supports. Don't worry, neither does anybody else.

Can you prove that the only way a beam could end up like that is by deliberate 'cutting'? Not a chance There are so many variables in the collapse of a huge structure that you could never prove that they were cut before the building collapse.

Have you gone over the detailed architecture designs for the WTC? Can you prove that not one piece of steel in the entire structure was cut at an angle during construction? I doubt you have access to the plans that would allow you make such a claim.

So don't bother wasting time with claims you can't prove.

[blackascoal]

I've already demonstrated how the fraud happened without tipping off "thousands" to the trick .. which you ignored. With all sincerity, please feel free to continue to ignore what you don't want to hear.

You have made the unproven assertion that the job could be carried out with the collaboration of a small number of people. However, there were hundreds of people involved in the clean up and any one of these people would have noticed any cover up. Furthermore, you have to explain the 100s of people that were on those missing planes.

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed.

They have already started to update fire codes to accommodate what was learned from the WTC collapses. Here is a broucher from the UL that describes what they are doing to improve the safety of buildings. When they build the new freedom tower they are planning on encasing all of steel supports in concrete to provide maximum protection in the case of a similar fire.

In any case, you are wasting your time babbling about how fires melt buildings. Nothing was melted - it was weakening of structures caused by overheating. A weakening that would not have caused the collapse if there was not additional structural damage caused by the plane impact.

You see any of that happening?

Yes.

A UL brochure?

That's your evidence of a massive re-examination of building engineering all over the world?

[Riverwind]

That's your evidence of a massive re-examination of building engineering all over the world?

What makes you think that a 'massive rexamination' is going to be that obvious to the average person? The circumstances at the WTC were unique. Without the damage from the plane impact the structures would not have collaped. Since the chances of a plane impact are pretty small in most places there is no need to retrofit existing buildings. However, new buildings that go up will be designed to deal with the lessons learned from the WTC. The UL broucher is simply evidence that there is a conversation going on within the building/fire safety fields.

It is also evidence that the experts in the field are perfectly satisfied with the official explanation.

[blackascoal]

Let me guess .. you have no idea why columns would be purposefully cut in this manner which would only weaken anything it supports. Don't worry, neither does anybody else.

Can you prove that the only way a beam could end up like that is by deliberate 'cutting'? Not a chance There are so many variables in the collapse of a huge structure that you could never prove that they were cut before the building collapse.

Have you gone over the detailed architecture designs for the WTC? Can you prove that not one piece of steel in the entire structure was cut at an angle during construction? I doubt you have access to the plans that would allow you make such a claim.

So don't bother wasting time with claims you can't prove.

I can "bother" doing whatever the hell I want.

What you can do is not "bother" to talk to me if you choose .. and that is all you can do.

And yes, I have indeed seen the detailed architecture .. which is not difficult to obtain. You haven't because your opinion is unstudied. I have also attended a plethora of hearings and commissions on the subject in my capacity for the US Congress.

[Riverwind]

And yes, I have indeed seen the detailed architecture .. which is not difficult to obtain. You haven't because your opinion is unstudied. I have also attended a plethora of hearings and commissions on the subject in my capacity for the US Congress.

Your capacity for the US congress? Isn't posting on a Canadian political message board a bit off the beaten path for you?

In any case, there are only really two possible explainations for why the beams look like that. They were either cut during construction or they were cut during the collapse. If you know that they were not cut during construction then it must have happened during the collapse. You cannot prove otherwise.

[White Doors]

blackascoal, do you also have a degree in Electrical engineering?

[blackascoal]

And yes, I have indeed seen the detailed architecture .. which is not difficult to obtain. You haven't because your opinion is unstudied. I have also attended a plethora of hearings and commissions on the subject in my capacity for the US Congress.

Your capacity for the US congress? Isn't posting on a Canadian political message board a bit off the beaten path for you?

In any case, there are only really two possible explainations for why the beams look like that. They were either cut during construction or they were cut during the collapse. If you know that they were not cut during construction then it must have happened during the collapse. You cannot prove otherwise.

The good thing about being me is that I can do whatever the hell I want, including posting on a Canadien message board.

The GLARING failure in your "weakened structure" cartoon theory is the rate of speed of all three collapses.

Neither you, nor NIST, nor Popular Mechanics can address the free-fall speed of all three buildings, particularly the collapse of WTC7.

It does not take rocket scientist intelligence to recognize that mass meeting mass slows the rate of speed of the colliding mass. It's 8th grade science covered by the Law of Falling Objects .. which you obviously are unfamiliar with.

In fact, there is NO science that supports the cartoon theory.

9/11, if seriously considered with the cartoon theory, would have been the greatest failure of science and engineering in modern history. It would be a scientific, engineering, and physics anomaly that has never before happened. But according to the cartoon, it happened THREE TIMES on the very same day with different impacts and causes.

As I've repeated many times .. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Just supporting what I believe.