Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

[BustedWing]

Oh dear . . . poor misguided Glacier

You obviously haven't read the reports tendered above because in none of them do they make the claim that Jet Fuel melted, weakened or in any other way contributed to the destruction of the twin towers. As usual, this is a truther argument that sounds good but when investigated falls flat because no one has ever contended this is what happened.

What the NIST do say is that the jet fuel was the catalyst for the fires in the towers, not the destruction. These fires were then fed with the office furniture, carpets, paper and other office consumables which indeed caused the fires to burn hotter and hotter. Samples taken from the site demonstrate that the fires got to as high as 1000 degrees celsius, which is hot enough for steel to lose up to 90% of it's strength. That, along with the severe trauma caused to the structure was all that was needed to initiate collapse.

With regards to the Pentagon missile, first of all I would dispute that it was anything like the ratio you claim regarding eyewitness accounts. Secondly, show me in which accounts the eyewitness actually inferred it was a missile. In all the eyewitness statements I've seen where they they've used the term missile to describe what they saw, the inference was still always that it was indeed a commercial airliner. Show me where I'm wrong.

It's like when witnesses to shark attacks refer to the shark as a torpedo, or a silver rocket. Most people would understand this to mean that it is a description of the shark and it is not to be taken literally . . . or do you actually think that surfers are being murdered by silver rockets and torpedoes and then covered up by blaming it on white pointers?

However, this is typical CT nonsense. Statements taken out of context, re-spun and then presented as flaws in the investigation and by extension the "official story" are par for the course with this supposed search for the truth. This kind of faux reasoning and distortion of the facts is less about the truth seeking and more about disproving what they don't believe - by any means necessary.

Whether you believe it or not, the documents I've tendered above are supportive of the null hypothesis (referred to here as the the "official story"). This remains thus until it is disproven - which as yet, it has not been.

Finally someone on this page with a shred of sanity! Ive been reading this thread with great amusement over the past few weeks. Surely nobody really (and I mean in their heart of hearts, not in a "wouldnt it be amazing if it were true!" type way) believes the controlled demolition/fell at free fall, symetrical footprint, missiles, lazers from orbit garbage anymore?

Anything the CT'er have EVER put forward has been well and truly debunked.

Sure, it can be fun to joke about, but noone actually beleives it do they??

Do they???

 

[Samsara]

Keep swallowing the kool aid

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[lenny&carl]

There's a new 911 film out, and like this thread tries to, it directs the questions towards the supporters of the official conspiracy theory, asking "how can you explain this?" "how can you explain that?" After all, the official story is clearly a conspiracy theory, and it is right to ask questions about them.

Here is the 3 minute preview...


and here are the three, 90 minute sections of the fillum...







I would give the production values of the film 9/10, and also similar high-marks for the position presented. (If you've not got a spare 4.5 hours, probably skip to film 3, which itself takes 5-10 minutes to warm up.)

Happy to answer any questions on this topic.

 

[Kellythatsit]

I do like a good debate with you mate, at least you show you have a brain
However, just to pick you up on a few points, so lets do some maths
A hydrocarbon fire, such as those in the WTC ( jet fuel, other flamible material in the offices etc) can at most rise to 1700 degrees Fahrenheit - fact which is not quite 1000 degrees Celsius
So lets for argument sake say that, as you said, the fires could and did somehow get to 1000 d Celsius ( or 1832 F) and lets take into account that steel STARTS to melt at about 1521 d Celsius ( or 2770 F), this means that these fires would have to burn for an awful long time at 500 d Celsius less than required for the steel beams to weaken
However we had one building collapse in 56 min and the other in 102 min
Common sense would question how this was so
So lets look at the 9/11 commission and the basic answer to why the buildings collapsed at all

" the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch wide steel columns which bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft in elevators and stairwells were grouped"

Ok so a big arse plane smacks into this building which is sufficiently weakened by the impact and resulting fire and collapses, simple eh ?
But hang on a minute, this is a complete fabrication by the commission
How so?
Well the core of each tower was not hollow at all but was supported by 47 massive steel columns
At its base, each column was 14 x 36 inches with 4 inch thick walls !!!
As its design stated " these bore most of the weight of the buildings "

The commission however avoids this embarrassment by simply denying the existence of these steel columns
So I ask you, ignorance or lie ?
And lets not even start on the topic of molten steel which burned for months afterwards

Intriguing?
Am I still " misguided " ?

Yes and for several reasons:

a) the incorrect claim that this was a hydrocarbon fire
(it was actually a mixture of cellulosic and hydrocarbon)
b) the incorrect claim that max temperature of a hydrocarbon fire is 1700 degrees Fahrenheit
(a hydrocarbon fire can reach that temperature within minutes and continue to on to approx 2000 degrees Fahrenheit)
c) the incorrect assumption that because steel starts to melt at 1521 degrees Celsius, this is also the temperature that is required to weaken or soften steel.
(I see what you did there though and you must be applauded for your efforts to try and make a square peg fit into a round hole.)

More factoids that get thrown around by truthers as if they mean something but are deliberately misleading.

What the NIST says is that due to the fires, the steel was weakend by up to 90% of its strength. Steel starts to weaken when heat is applied, at about 600 degrees Celsius it has lost about 50% of it's strength. At approx 1000 degrees Celsius or 1700 degrees Fahrenheit, which you've admitted the fires could have reached, steel retains only 10% of its strength. This weakening or softening of the steel caused the floor trusses and supporting beams to sag, causing the columns to bow and buckle, causing them to finally snap, causing . . . collapse.

Your next error is looking to the Commission report (the source notes no less) to provide an accurate description of the the twin tower structure. However, lets look at what it says. The basic description is quite accurate - there is a hollow shaft at the centre as any photograph of their construction will plainly show. How on earth could the the elevator system function if it wasn't? The statement further describes it as a steel shaft which is a pretty good summary of the 47 steel columns which surround the core. Perhaps it should have said that the exterior columns shared the weight of the buildings but for a two sentence summary, presumably written hastily by a junior staffer, it communicates well enough the general structure of the towers. Furthermore, anyone sufficiently interested could then go to the FEMA report which the summary references directly. This gives a much more specific and accurate description of the building design.

So again, we have the usual dishonest tricks of the conspiracy theorist - "well if they can get this wrong, how can we trust anything it says". This report was the conclusion of the criminal investigation into the terrorist plot. It is not, and has never pretended to be any kind of technical document analysing the collapse of the towers. That is what we have two NIST reports for.

. . . and OMG please tell me you did not bring up molten steel under the rubble . . . poor misguided Glacier

 

[Kellythatsit]

There's a new 911 film out, and like this thread tries to, it directs the questions towards the supporters of the official conspiracy theory, asking "how can you explain this?" "how can you explain that?" After all, the official story is clearly a conspiracy theory, and it is right to ask questions about them.

and here are the three, 90 minute sections of the fillum...

I would give the production values of the film 9/10, and also similar high-marks for the position presented. (If you've not got a spare 4.5 hours, probably skip to film 3, which itself takes 5-10 minutes to warm up.)

Happy to answer any questions on this topic.

. . . so now we are hit with this awesomeness!

I took your advice and began watching the last one, hoping to be suitably impressed with new material and solid evidence (because you know . . . it's YouTube)

Instead we find it is just a rehash of everything that has come before it.

Though I can't say it wasn't an emotional rollercoaster . . .

I laughed out loud when it claimed that to avoid looking like a controlled demolition "they" set the preliminary charges to detonate at non specific intervals (detonating any chance of a precision drop along with them)

I was shocked when it actually tried to compare demolitions using Verinage technique to the collapse of the twin towers.

And I was enraged when it referenced Barry Jennings as a witness to the explosions inside WTC7, while sourcing the footage and interviews from the BBC documentary in which Jennings actually denies those claims. Tell me, is that simple ignorance or is it deliberately misleading? I'd especially like to get Glacier's take.

Then after the montage where it shows the buildings collapsing from a variety of angles to a suitably emotional soundtrack I switched it off.

I love Albinoni's Adagio in G-minor too much to let this truther-redux rubbish ruin it for me.

 

[lenny&carl]

These are all peripheral issues that you're dissing, Kelly. Did Jennings recant his testimony? I hadn't heard about that. Oh well, he's dead now. I know that Hess changes his story from "we nearly got blown to shit in building 7," to "nah, nothing happened," I guess he liked his career or something, or maybe they were both very confused what building they were in at the time?

What do you think happened to the hat trusses? They were at the very top of the buildings, so there was nothing to fall onto them....five stories tall and an acre wide of heavy metal construction, yet there was nothing recognisable of them in the rubble pile. Seems a bit odd to me.

My favourite argument is a one word argument, and a video of building 7. The argument goes "Look."

 

[Glacier]

. . . so now we are hit with this awesomeness!

I took your advice and began watching the last one, hoping to be suitably impressed with new material and solid evidence (because you know . . . it's YouTube)

Instead we find it is just a rehash of everything that has come before it.

Though I can't say it wasn't an emotional rollercoaster . . .

I laughed out loud when it claimed that to avoid looking like a controlled demolition "they" set the preliminary charges to detonate at non specific intervals (detonating any chance of a precision drop along with them)

I was shocked when it actually tried to compare demolitions using Verinage technique to the collapse of the twin towers.

And I was enraged when it referenced Barry Jennings as a witness to the explosions inside WTC7, while sourcing the footage and interviews from the BBC documentary in which Jennings actually denies those claims. Tell me, is that simple ignorance or is it deliberately misleading? I'd especially like to get Glacier's take.

Then after the montage where it shows the buildings collapsing from a variety of angles to a suitably emotional soundtrack I switched it off.

I love Albinoni's Adagio in G-minor too much to let this truther-redux rubbish ruin it for me.

My take on the Jennings thing, to be fair is it is misleading
We will just add it to the mountains of misleading stuff about 9/11 shall we, including your comments about the temperatures at which the type of steel in the WTC begins to weaken
Or your comments, or non comments re the steel columns
9/11 is far from black and white
Surely even the likes of yourself must raise their eyebrows at the official findings??
Surely ??

 

[lenny&carl]

I was wondering Kelly how you go at explaining wtc7's 2+ seconds of freefall?

 

[Glacier]

I was wondering Kelly how you go at explaining wtc7's 2+ seconds of freefall?

Mate
Ask difficult questions around these parts and expect ridicule and scorn
Besides, how can he answer when nobody has in the 12 years since ...

 

[Kellythatsit]

These are all peripheral issues that you're dissing, Kelly. Did Jennings recant his testimony? I hadn't heard about that. Oh well, he's dead now. I know that Hess changes his story from "we nearly got blown to shit in building 7," to "nah, nothing happened," I guess he liked his career or something, or maybe they were both very confused what building they were in at the time?

What do you think happened to the hat trusses? They were at the very top of the buildings, so there was nothing to fall onto them....five stories tall and an acre wide of heavy metal construction, yet there was nothing recognisable of them in the rubble pile. Seems a bit odd to me.

My favourite argument is a one word argument, and a video of building 7. The argument goes "Look."

Not too sure what it has to do with anything, but I'll play.

When you say that there is nothing recognisable of them are you actually expecting to see these top sections still fully constructed laying on top of the pile?

Just to clarify ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lenny&carl]

m

Not too sure what it has to do with anything, but I'll play.

When you say that there is nothing recognisable of them are you actually expecting to see these top sections still fully constructed laying on top of the pile?

Just to clarify ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not fully constructed any more, but still recognisable. Nothing fell on them, after all.

 

[lenny&carl]

and wtc7's freefall?

 

[Kellythatsit]

My take on the Jennings thing, to be fair is it is misleading
We will just add it to the mountains of misleading stuff about 9/11 shall we, including your comments about the temperatures at which the type of steel in the WTC begins to weaken
Or your comments, or non comments re the steel columns
9/11 is far from black and white
Surely even the likes of yourself must raise their eyebrows at the official findings??
Surely ??

Why? There has been nothing presented that would dispute it. Of course there are intriguing anomalies and unanswered (and unanswerable) question marks.

But to take the view that grey areas = multilayered, government conspiracy at the highest level is a flying leap of faith that, frankly, I'm astounded people can take seriously outside of a Hollywood movie. All the known evidence we have supports the null hypothesis. It has been examined to the minutest detail over the past decade. Indeed, 911 is the most documented event in world history - yet despite this, not a shred of credible evidence has ever surfaced to dispute the general findings of the official investigations.

Also Glacier, show me exactly how I've been misleading over the steel temperature issue? What information have I provided that is not true?

How is my take on the steel core columns a non-comment? You are simply dismissing my statements because you can't be bothered going into any more depth or heaven forbid, verifying the comments. It's much easier to just wave your hand, say "tosh!" and attempt to back away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kellythatsit]

m
Not fully constructed any more, but still recognisable. Nothing fell on them, after all.

Seriously? You want to continue with this?

They fell over 110 storeys - do you think that may have effected how they landed? You do know what gravity does, yes? It doesn't just stick our feet to the ground.

Perhaps you could also explain how this is even relevant and how it is proof against the null hypothesis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kellythatsit]

Mate
Ask difficult questions around these parts and expect ridicule and scorn
Besides, how can he answer when nobody has in the 12 years since ...

Haha ... Just because the answer bores or confuses you doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

There's no point even bothering with answering this because it will simply be dismissed with the usual Truther responses but the short answer is:

After 7 hours of intense and uncontrolled fires, the structural steel columns lost their integrity and total collapse ensued.

For a full account check out the actual report as linked earlier.

Let the insanity begin ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lenny&carl]

Seriously? You want to continue with this?

They fell over 110 storeys - do you think that may have effected how they landed? You do know what gravity does, yes? It doesn't just stick our feet to the ground.

Perhaps you could also explain how this is even relevant and how it is proof against the null hypothesis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a difficult one to quantify for sure, and indeed they fell 110 stories. For them to be totally disintegrated is surprising to me. Well it's relevant because it's another aspect of your story that seems a bit odd, but it's not one of the clinchers like wtc7's 2+ seconds of freefall. As for "proof against the null hypothesis..." - well I know what each of these fancy words means, but I don't think you're using them properly. The hypothesis in question is the official conspiracy theory outline by the us govt, and supported by yourself, despite it's many fanciful aspects, and it's contradictions of the known evidence.

Can you give a good explanation of wtc7's freefall? You're the one vociferously supporting a wild conspiracy theory, it's up to you to back it up if you're capable.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

not a shred of credible evidence has surfaced to dispute the general findings of the official investigations.

The perpetrators continuing to live their lives after being incinerated in an all-consuming fireball might beg to differ.

Credit for perseverance KTI I've never seen someone piss into the wind for so long. You must be soaked

 

[Kellythatsit]

It's a difficult one to quantify for sure, and indeed they fell 110 stories. For them to be totally disintegrated is surprising to me. Well it's relevant because it's another aspect of your story that seems a bit odd, but it's not one of the clinchers like wtc7's 2+ seconds of freefall. As for "proof against the null hypothesis..." - well I know what each of these fancy words means, but I don't think you're using them properly. The hypothesis in question is the official conspiracy theory outline by the us govt, and supported by yourself, despite it's many fanciful aspects, and it's contradictions of the known evidence.

Can you give a good explanation of wtc7's freefall? You're the one vociferously supporting a wild conspiracy theory, it's up to you to back it up if you're capable.

What do you mean a good explanation of free fall? I've given you an explanation as to why it fell. Can you tell me what is wrong with it?

While you are at it, please tell me these fanciful aspects? How do the official findings contradict the known evidence?

Please tell me in your great wisdom garnered from endless YouTube raids why the hat truss laying undamaged on top of the rubble pile not only should be an expected outcome, but the fact that it doesn't must mean the official story is all wrong.

The hypothesis in question is not only supported by myself but four fully documented investigations. The general findings have also been supported by the vast majority of experts, a consensus. Being there is no other credible hypothesis that enjoys the same level of support it has become the "null" hypothesis.

You see you have it all wrong. The evidence has been assessed, the reports are in, the hypothesis is laid out - it is up to you, as a critic of this hypothesis, to show why it is wrong.

To do this you need to not only show where the findings are at fault and why it is relevant, but you also need to provide an alternate hypothesis which accounts for the known evidence.

That is the way science works.

You see, too many of you in the Truther mold are only too happy to keep yelling "but what about tower 7?", "Silverstein said pull it!", "where's the tail section?" Yada, yada, blah, blah and call this evidence. It is not. They are questions and statements derived from ignorance of the true evidence and what it tells us. None of it refutes the findings and none of it is remotely credible.

Show me where I'm wrong l&c


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lenny&carl]

wtc7 falling at freefall for 2+ seconds (and there's all the evidence you could ever want for this claim, admitted by NIST eventually too,) is incompatible with an innocent explanation for the building's demise.

 

[Kellythatsit]

wtc7 falling at freefall for 2+ seconds (and there's all the evidence you could ever want for this claim, admitted by NIST eventually too,) is incompatible with an innocent explanation for the building's demise.

Please explain why


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lenny&carl]

Your explanation here

"After 7 hours of intense and uncontrolled fires, the structural steel columns lost their integrity and total collapse ensued.

For a full account check out the actual report as linked earlier."

...is empty. All the video evidence of the wtc7 fires shows them to be anything but intense. Certainly nowhere near as intense as many other high rise fires that left those structures unmolested. Nothing like the sort of fires that would be needed to "make the structural steel columns lose their integrity." Nist's report anyhow did not claim what you claimed here, they claimed that thermal expansion from the fires caused one of the girders to walk off it's foundation and then pull the rest of the building with it.

Anyhow, the freefall acceleration of the first hundred foot drop of wtc7 indicates clearly that the falling structure was meeting no resistance from the rest of the building underneath it, (which of course had done a perfectly good job of providing resistance all it's life, being a building & all.) The simultaneous failure to give support by the bottom half of the building there can only brought about by totally eliminating the structural integrity of said building.

 

[lenny&carl]

Just got sick of the love-in this thread was becoming. Most people in my camp are too smart to keep coming back and listening to the same tired points being regurgitated like its meaningful. They move onto more interesting topics and debate with people who understand the value of logic and reason.

I on the other hand have always preferred to play chess with pigeons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A nice humble attitude, conducive to learning.

 

[lenny&carl]

Sham Sunder himself - head of the nist investigation- when asked about wtc7's freefall, explained that it couldn't of course fallen at freefall because that would indicate that there was no resistance beneath, when of course there was. But then the final edition of the nist report acknowledges that it did fall at freefall, so where did your guy go wrong?

 

[Kellythatsit]

Your explanation here

"After 7 hours of intense and uncontrolled fires, the structural steel columns lost their integrity and total collapse ensued.

For a full account check out the actual report as linked earlier."

...is empty. All the video evidence of the wtc7 fires shows them to be anything but intense. Certainly nowhere near as intense as many other high rise fires that left those structures unmolested. Nothing like the sort of fires that would be needed to "make the structural steel columns lose their integrity." Nist's report anyhow did not claim what you claimed here, they claimed that thermal expansion from the fires caused one of the girders to walk off it's foundation and then pull the rest of the building with it.

Anyhow, the freefall acceleration of the first hundred foot drop of wtc7 indicates clearly that the falling structure was meeting no resistance from the rest of the building underneath it, (which of course had done a perfectly good job of providing resistance all it's life, being a building & all.) The simultaneous failure to give support by the bottom half of the building there can only brought about by totally eliminating the structural integrity of said building.

Actually the NIST state quite clearly that the free fall 2.25 sec is to the north face only, the exterior shell. The core of the structure had already collapsed as indicated by the east mechanical penthouse collapse several seconds earlier. There was no structure there to resist it.

With regards to the comments about video evidence showing only fires that were "anything but intense" this is a clear misrepresentation of the facts (I will assume through ignorance and isn't deliberate) which can be demonstrated by a 20 second google image search for "wtc 7 south side damage". Check it out and tell me they are "anything but intense"!

And beyond this, what is your alternative hypothesis? CD? The hand of god? What? Remember evidence will be required.

Then we also need to get Into the who and the why.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kellythatsit]

Sham Sunder himself - head of the nist investigation- when asked about wtc7's freefall, explained that it couldn't of course fallen at freefall because that would indicate that there was no resistance beneath, when of course there was. But then the final edition of the nist report acknowledges that it did fall at freefall, so where did your guy go wrong?

Well actually there wasn't any resistance for those 2.25 sec because the core structure fell first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk