What Really Happened on 9/11?

Pardalis said:
It looks like a collapse to me, and there are NO SQUIBS from this angle.
Click to expand...
Heh. The "squibs" are a knowing deception anyway to anyone with even a basic knowledge of how the towers were built. Notice that the CTers keep referring to the "center core columns" (as if they were continuous pieces of steel from top to bottom with no welds, no rivets, etc., but let's leave that aside for now). They know that the Trade center had two support systems -- the interior core and the exterior steel cladding. And yet they refer to the debris from shattering windows, which are clearly not cutting through the exterior cladding, as if it could be doing some useful work in bringing down the towers. Are they alleging that we're seeing explosions placed against the interior columns somehow making their way out to the exterior? Or that these explosions are demolishing the exterior even though the exterior is not harmed by the explosions? No. Neither of those things. They're merely saying that they are "squibs" and counting on the gullible to overlook that the CTers have already acknowledged that there's nothing worth blowing up with an explosive that would be visible from the exterior of the building except for the exterior itself, which is not harmed by the "squibs."
 
CptFarlow said:
And why would he change his mind so quickly
Click to expand...

Because that's how long it took him to look at the evidence, I suppose.

CptFarlow said:
I give up...I've presented my evidence and nobody wants to listen to it. I have looked at yours, and I am going to listen to the FAA recordings...but you won't even listen to a physics professor who has credible evidence. You just want to ridicule. This is pointless anyways...neither of us are going to change our opinions. I won't change mine because things don't add up. Fire doesn't, hasn't, and will not ever bring down skyscrapers like that. You can clearly see explosions coming out, and you can clearly see WTC7 fall from a controlled demolition. Maybe I accept things too quickly, but maybe denial has enshrouded your vision.
Click to expand...

We HAVE looked at your 'evidence' (and I am using that term loosely, as mostly your evidence has consisted of links to more conspiracy theory sites) and found it wanting
 
CptFarlow said:
That doesn't make sense. They were made to withstand fire, multiple plane hits, even a 150 year old storm...

Why would they put in a sprinkler system if the smallest fire was going to cause a total collapse?
Click to expand...

Cpt, do you realize how insane that sounds? Built to withstand multiple plane hits?
I can hear the engineers now "Burt, make sure we design it to withstand several plane impacts". "Sure, no prolem Joe."
A sprinkler system is to slow a fire and to protect people as they attempt to exit.
Really Cpt, you sound just silly now.
 
CptFarlow said:
Anybody who has an iron stove knows that the entire thing doesn't collapse, or even weaken when you have a hot fire in it...
Click to expand...
This is a cast iron grate from a woodburning fireplace:

melted_grate.jpg


It melted when the heap of ashes in the bottom of the fireplace reached the bottom of the bars and they started to overheat. I don't have a photo of it, but I've also seen a stove that has cracked when the fire inside it was allowed to get too hot (close that damper!).
 
CptFarlow said:
Because that JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. The jet fuel burnt off within the first few minutes, so how did it get so hot to make the entire building collapse? Anybody who has an iron stove knows that the entire thing doesn't collapse, or even weaken when you have a hot fire in it...so why would a fire that burnt for less than an hour take down a 110 story skyscraper?
Click to expand...

How do you think they shape metal? First off, the jet fuel did not burn off in a few minutes. It contributed to the extreme fire seen right up to the collapse. You are really trying to make your case but you are using ignorant assertions to do so. I will say it again; it was determined that the extreme heat melted the center supports which collapsed the top floors onto the floors where the plane hit. The weight of the top floors caused a cascading collapse.
I don't know about anyone else but I am bored debating a person who ignores all that is written and continues to profess the same bullsh*t.
 
...Good luck finding the answers guys...I feel sorry for how blind you guys are to the obvious.
Click to expand...

"Behold My Woo" – Evidence for Steven E. Jones's Incompetence Outside the Physics Lab​

CptFarlow, I did as you asked and watched 15 minutes of the Steven E. Jones video that you're so worked up about. I made it all the way to 18 minutes before fear of cerebral aneurysm made me quit. Skeptics, the "meat" of Jones's presentation doesn't start until 11 minutes in, so if you start from the beginning you'll have to sit through him talking about how much he loves the Constitution, while buildings collapse on the screen behind him. This guy is just another sickening fraud. Just another al Qaeda supporter profiting from murder.

Before we get to the video, let's see what Jones considers "evidence" in another of his research endeavors. CTists will say that this has nothing to do with Jones's theories about 9/11. You be the judge.

Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America by Steven E. Jones (excerpt)​

The hypothesis that started my search, that Christ's "other sheep" would have artwork depicting deliberately marked hands, has led to a remarkable conclusion: Hands (and wrists) with clear holes or marks are depicted in the art as well as the hieroglyphic writings of the Maya of Middle America, dating from within about 200 years of the time of Christ. These hands are associated with Itzamna, a kindly Deity associated with healing and teaching the people. He is shown dying in Mayan art, later to be resurrected. Finally, the Maya await the return of this great resurrected Deity in the not-distant future.

These discoveries have provided me a deeper appreciation for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and of His visit to "other sheep" who heard His voice and saw His wounded hands as did Thomas. My hope is that these new insights will encourage you to seriously consider the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ. Why don't you start reading right away? The Apostle Paul said: "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21) Why not? I've done this and for me, the Book of Mormon is a remarkable new witness for Christ, standing as a companion to the Bible. (Source http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm)
Click to expand...
Observation: some Mayan carvings have marks on their hands. Conclusion: Christ was resurrected and visited the Americas to show Mayans his wounded hands, and you should all read the Book of Mormon. Or is that the Book of Moron? We are talking about the Angel Moroni, aren't we? Ugh. "Prove all things," indeed.

So, cats and kittens, that's the kind of "researcher" we're dealing with. But I don't know the guy personally. Here's what his colleagues, and the engineering dept. at BYU, think of him.

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
Click to expand...
Now, unfortunately, to the video. In the 18 minutes I viewed, Jones defines exactly two scientific terms – and he gets them both wrong.

At 12:50, narrating video of the collapse of WTC 7:
Not what I would expect from the law of entropy, which is "Things topple over."
Click to expand...
By the way, he's speaking to a college audience, not to 6-year-olds. Here's the Wikipedia definition of entropy:
In thermodynamics, the Thermodynamic entropy (or simply entropy) is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work. In statistical mechanics, it is defined a measure of the probability that a system would be such a state - this is usually refered to as "disorder" or "randomness" present in a system.
Click to expand...
Jones thinks that WTC 7 should have collapsed in manner more suited to its "disorderly" nature, rather than following a path dictated by its physical structure and the damage done to it.

At 15:25:
Even the FEMA reports writing about this said, "The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field. The facade was pulled downwards, suggesting internal failure and implosion." It's a very interesting term they use there. Implosion is the term used for controlled demolition when you pull the cord and force the building to collapse. Now they're not talking about explosive demolition, I assure you, at FEMA, they're talking about fire, but nevertheless they DO use the word implosion.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia:
Implosion is a process in which objects are destroyed by collapsing in on themselves. The opposite of explosion, implosion concentrates matter and energy. Buildings are colloquially, though mistakenly, described to implode when demolished through explosives, causing them to collapse on themselves. Another example of implosion is a submarine being crushed from the outside by the high pressure of the surrounding water, because of a leak.
Click to expand...
Jones has physics credentials and knows the terminology. He's being deliberately misleading.

Back to the beginning of the video, at 0:35:
6 Weeks after 9/11, why is it so red-hot under the towers?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Lemme take a wild guess: because of the fire that's been burning there for six weeks? It took 99 days to put the fires out. 3.8 billion pounds of debris were removed.

At 2:15
Nice symmetrical implosion.
Click to expand...
How should the buildings have fallen? They fell that way because they were built that way and damaged that way.

At 6:40, Jones mentions the fire in the 32-story Madrid Windsor Building, which was destroyed but did not collapse. He doesn't mention that the Windsor Building was a CONCRETE CORE, curtain wall building. Jones also neglects to remind us that the Windsor Building was not damaged by airplanes or falling buildings, nor were there large fuel tanks inside. The fire was started by a cigarette and was worst on the top 10 stories.

Those, like Jones, who say that a building fire can't bend steel beams to the point of collapse, need to read the following quotes and look at the photo (from a CT website, no less).
With morning light, the damage from the spectacular blaze that lit up the night and attracted thousands of onlookers was evident. The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes. Everything else was burned away. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
Click to expand...
spain_fire7.jpg


Arup, a major fire safety engineering company, weighs in on the Madrid fire:
The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.

The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue. (Source http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150)
Click to expand...
Two minutes of Googling easily shows that Jones is being dishonest in comparing the Madrid fire to the WTC.

More Jones on WTC 7
7:33: It's not an inferno, certainly.

11:25: Building 7 was not hit by a plane. There ws no jet fuel. Fires were random, not particularly large, and certainly not an inferno.

12:00: It collapsed 7 hours after the towers fell – it's not like it's immediate. It's not like the shock from the falling of the towers somehow made that fall.

12:10: Here in this photo you see the fires in building 7. A closeup and you see a little bit of fire in there. Not much.

14:15: Now here are photos seen in the late afternoon. Not a lot of fire here, or damage. There is damage, if you look closely, right down in this corner. The corner from tower 1 did cause some damage here, which would make me think that if it's gonna fall, it's gonna fall towards the southeast corner, and maybe immediately too, you know – you knock your knees out and you start to fall – but that's not the way it did it. Instead it came straight down.
Click to expand...
For more about WTC 7 and fire, see http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

"You knock your knees out and you start to fall." That's Jones's engineering expertise. I wonder if he'll read the NIST report on WTC 7 when it comes out. Jones: "What? NIST hasn't issued a report on that yet? I did mine in a few weeks" No, Steven, because they're CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION. And they've actually invited some guests to participate in it: the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). (Source: Wikipedia)

But everyone in those organizations is part of the conspiracy, right?

13:00 Other scientists and engineers have worried about the collapse of this mystery.
Click to expand...
A definitive statement If ever I heard one.

13:50 Fire and structural damage would not explain steel members in the steel pile that appear to have been partly evaporated. Now that takes a very high temperature, to evaporate steel. Hmm. We'll see how that could happen. It's not due to fire, ordinary fire.
Click to expand...
"Appear," "partly," and "could" equal definitely. Got it.

On bringing down tall buildings with explosives:
16:23 They work real hard to set the charges so they'll collapse straight and rapidly. This feat requires such skills that only a handful of demolition companies will attempt it using explosive devices...
Click to expand...
Agreed. So who dunnit at the WTC? And how in teh world did they do it?

...Now if you can get buildings to collapse like that using fire, you know, we should patent that, and then we'll set a few fires, ha ha, and make a lot of money doing that, but it's not so easy.
Click to expand...
Ha ha. I'm sure the guys at NYFD Squad 1, a block away from me, will love that one, except for the twelve who chickened out and hid under the south tower.

16:50 Now he's showing a slide of buildings that are constructed nothing like the WTC buildings. They have collapsed on their sides.
Here's what happens when you have uncontrolled (laugh) collapses (laugh), okay? (laugh). Ah, this is what you'd expect from earthquakes, IN FACT, THESE BUILDINGS WERE TOPPLED BY EARTHQUAKE. THEY FALL OVER, THEY TOPPLE OVER, THEY DON'T FALL STRAIGHT DOWN. And so, it's just not reasonable that building 7 fell 7 hours after the collapse of the towers, IT COULD NOT BE DUE TO SEISMIC WAVES, and if it were it would have fallen immediately and toppled to the side that was damaged. That's not the case of course. (emphases mine)
Click to expand...
I'll let that passage speak for itself.

About WTC 7 again
17:35 What you'd expect also from uncontrolled fires, something like this, you'd expect it to topple, twist, bend, and cause much more damage than it did [to other buildings]...
Click to expand...
Um, haven't you been saying all along that fire can't bring a steel building down? Yes, you have. Gotcha, Stevie! And when exactly is an uncontrolled fire in a skyscraper not an inferno?

...By the way the surrounding buildings didn't collapse...
Click to expand...
Gee, could that be because they didn't have uncontrolled fires in them?

...A number of them were damaged also – you see what I'm talking about – NON-WTC BUILDINGS, and so this is curious that building 7, about 350 feet away, that's over a football field away to the closest tower, should collapse in this way (emphasis mine).
Click to expand...
Global Zionists, Silverstein, whatever. The Jews did it.

That's about 8 minutes with Steven E. Jones. Please don't support this piece of trash.
 
Last edited:
manny said:
Are they alleging that we're seeing explosions placed against the interior columns somehow making their way out to the exterior? Or that these explosions are demolishing the exterior even though the exterior is not harmed by the explosions? No. Neither of those things. They're merely saying that they are "squibs" and counting on the gullible to overlook that the CTers have already acknowledged that there's nothing worth blowing up with an explosive that would be visible from the exterior of the building except for the exterior itself, which is not harmed by the "squibs."
Click to expand...
And they also use the pulverised concrete as proof of the use of explosives, completely ignoring the fact that if there was such a quantity of explosives in the towers to pulverize the concrete the towers would have exploded like a bomb, sending debris all the way to New Jersey and Long Island.*

And then he claims it would only take 4000 lbs of explosives to do this? There is a serious lack of consistency in the Captain's theory.

Pancaking accounts for the pulverized concrete and the compactness of the debris quite nicely, however.

*exaggerated for dramatic effect ;)
 
Last edited:
Dr. Jones said:
Here's what happens when you have uncontrolled (laugh) collapses (laugh), okay? (laugh). Ah, this is what you'd expect from earthquakes, IN FACT, THESE BUILDINGS WERE TOPPLED BY EARTHQUAKE. THEY FALL OVER, THEY TOPPLE OVER, THEY DON'T FALL STRAIGHT DOWN. And so, it's just not reasonable that building 7 fell 7 hours after the collapse of the towers, IT COULD NOT BE DUE TO SEISMIC WAVES, and if it were it would have fallen immediately and toppled to the side that was damaged. That's not the case of course. (emphases mine)
Click to expand...

What a moron. Pancake collapse is most often demonstrated in Earthquakes:

http://www.eng.ucalgary.ca/CSCE-Students/structural_earthquakes2.htm

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/EQ_Reports/Bhuj/build_rc1.htm

That was excellent work Gravy. That CptFarlow though that nonsense to be 'good evidence', well, I can only say it was even worse than expected

So Farlow, your magic video didn't save you, and in fact made your position even weaker. I can't say I expected any less, but do you have anything to say for yourself?
 
CptFarlow said:
You don't have to be a structural engineer to realize that fire doesn't collapse entire buildings. Watch the video and form your own opinion.
Click to expand...
I just read though this entire thread. I think I need my head examined....

In an earlier post, one of the CTers seemed to be claiming that it took five years to come up with an explanation of why the towers fell (ignoring the fact that it's been only four-and-a-half years since it happened, never mind). So how come the "video" I watched about this was broadcast so long ago I can't remember exactly when it was - might have been within a year of the event. I'm referring to a very detailed hour-long TV documentary examining in great detail exactly what happened from a structural point of view. Can anyone else remember any more details of this programme? I don't think I've seen it repeated.

At first I was a little surprised that anyone was even questioning why the towers collapsed, given what happened. However, a little bit of thought of course brings the realisation that nevertheless there was concern, and if anything could be learned to help prevent something like this in the future then obviously the circumstances will be investigated. The whole story was interesting enough to have been made into a documentary.

There was video footage of the constrution on the towers. There were the original blueprints. There were construction specifications. There were detailed schematics of the structure of the steelwork and drywall cladding. There was a great deal of detail about the fireproof coating applied to the steelwork, and the reason for its necessity explained. This even went as far as the number and specification of the bolts holding the steel trusses in place. There were also detailed schematics showing exactly how each of the planes came to rest within the floor plans of the buildings.

To the best of my recollection, the main take-home message was that the fireproof covering on the steel beams was deficient, and that this deficiency had been identified and was being addressed at the time of the attacks. The parts of the towers hit by the planes had deficient fireproofing, which was essentially blown off the beams by the force of the impact. The subsequent fire was thus able to weaken the beams sufficiently for them to bend, and this bending caused the ends of the beams to slip off their supporting struts, and start the pancake collapse.

Also of interest was the point that the two collapses were not identical. The south tower indeed fell first because it was damaged lower down. But it also toppled, because of the way the structure had been damaged. Video footage of the collapse clearly showed the part of the tower above the impact toppling over at quite an angle, just as the pancaking began. However, as this was still quite a small percentage of the total height of the tower, the angled toppling wasn't all that obvious at first sight in the context of the pancaking of the floors below. In contrast, the north tower, structurally damaged in a different way, did indeed go straight down. They showed footage of that too, telling viewers to concentrate on the TV mast on top of the tower, and to observe how it did indeed fall vertically. And they explained all that detail iin terms of exactly what structural elements of each tower had been damaged in what way. By the airliners.

In the end the conclusion was that there had been deficiencies in the construction, but on the other hand, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it was quite some testimony to the towers as they were that they stood long enough for almost everyone who was below the levels of the impacts to be evacuated. (There was also some detail about there actually being an intact stairway in the north tower, because of the angle the plane hit, but that only about three people realised this and managed to get down it. A better communications system might have saved more lives in that tower.)

Unfortunately, this was a major TV documentary, broadcast in prime time across the country. So it's not just something I can say, here, click this link and tell me what you think of that. But I do wonder, if there are so many unanswered questions and impossibilities in this scenario, just how many people involved in the making of this programme had to be paid off to keep quiet about the inconsistencies and present it as a rational, indeed pretty conclusive explanation.

Rolfe.
 
I just read though this entire thread. I think I need my head examined....
Click to expand...

Ha! Me too. I don't know why I find the 9/11 CTs so fascinating. Maybe because I still haven't heard a coherent explanation of just why such an elaborate conspiracy would be necessary. It's just all so needlessly complicated - why the planes? If 'they' wanted to blow up the WTC, and they already had explosives in place, why not just blow them up and blame terrorists?
 
WildCat said:
eta: Illustration showing differences in kinetic energy from the 707 design spec and the 767's that hit the towers.

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/kinetic.bmp[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Thanks for the image Wildcat, maybe we can put this into terms that the CTers will understand.

Now if my math is right, and if anyone sees a flaw in it, please let me know.

B-25, Mass - 11000 Kg, velocity 3200 Kph or 889 Mps
707, Mass - 119000 Kg, velocity 2900 Kph or 805 Mps
767, Mass - 125000 Kg, velocity 9440 Kph or 2622 Mps

So be Kinetic Energy = 1/2*M*(V^2)

B-25 KE = 4.35E+09 J
707 KE = 3.86E+10 J
767 = 4.30E+11 J

A kilogram of TNT has 4.18E+06 J on energy in it.

That means the impact alone for
B-25 = 1039 Kg of TNT
707 = 9282 Kg of TNT
767 = 102713 of TNT

for the metriclly challenged
B-25 = 2290 pounds of TNT
707 = 20345 pounds of TNT
767 = 226444 pounds of TNT

Now this is just impact energy, the effects of fuel and other things burning is not taken into effect. But in short, why plant explosives when the impact of the 767 alone was on par with the energy released by 100 some odd tons of TNT???
 
CptFarlow said:
But the odd thing is, on this one day, which ended up being the biggest excuse for our administration's actions, a plane was allowed to fly directly towards the Pentagon with nobody blinking an eye until it was too late. If those single engine planes were so easy to spot, why was a commercial jetliner so hard to notice?
Click to expand...

From the article linked in the second foot note:
Ironically, Norad was doing its job: peering 300 kilometres out into the Air Defence Identification Zone encircling North America. Its task: to help assess, within two minutes, if each of the 7,000 incoming aircraft every day is friend or foe.

It was scanning space for something as tiny as a fleck of paint which at nearly 58,000 km/h can damage a shuttle.

It was on alert for intercontinental ballistic missiles which, if fired from rogue nations such as North Korea, will strike North America in 23 minutes.

Norad's 1,100 army, navy, marine and air force personnel -- 12 per cent of them Canadian -- were neither expecting, nor trained, to deal with manned missiles launched out of Boston.
Click to expand...

This is from the main article. I don't know if you have ever read an accident report but if you look at any disaster or major accident they all happen this way. Multible screw ups. The article attempts to put a sinister spin on this but there is nothing sinister here. If fact look at the number of people and agencies that would have to be in on the plot, not one of them has spoken out?

The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

* Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
* Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
* Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
* Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
Click to expand...

To top it off the interception you mention appears to have been after 911. And the way you phrase the question does not fit the facts. No one said the plane was not noticed, see the above outline of the failures from the report you asked me to read. No one ever says the aricraft were not seen. The problem was in the reaction to it.

But that is beside the point. The following people would have to be in on the plot:
ATC personall, both operators and supervisors.
NORAD personal.
Military pilots.

Have you ever been in the military? I find it a little hard to belive that so many military, and in the case of ATC most likely ex military, would willingly cover up the deliberate killing of 3 thousand Americans. I am NOT saying it is impossible, all you have to do is show one shred of evidence it happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom