What are the top five best controlled demo facts? (n/t)

[Informed Citizen]

[Kevin Fenton]

1. Most people

don't know the real facts at all. They think the towers were hit by 747s loaded with 30,000 gallons of fuel, burned for a couple of minutes and then collapsed "normally".

My approach is to start with the plane (767), then go on to the quantity of fuel - 10,000 gallons (the planes were only on a relatively short hop to LA) - and say that 10-30% of it exploded "harmlessly" outside the towers (everybody remembers the fireballs). Then say how long they burned for - 56 and 102 minutes - and that the jet fuel burned up in 10 minutes max. (even NIST says this), so the collapse wasn't just a result of the jet fuel. Then discuss which way the towers fell - more or less straight down - most people would expect a tower damaged on one side to fall to that side, not straight down. At this point it might be a good idea to suggest explosives, but profess not to know who put them there or why, so you don't sound like a "nutjob".

[pox americana]

2. Those are good

Here are mine:

1. WTC 1, 2, and 7 all experienced total symmetrical collapses in a just few seconds.

2. There are no signs of WTC perimeter or core column buckling even though the NIST report contends that every column must have buckled in order to produce progressive collapses.

3. The fires in all three buildings were brought under control by functioning automatic fire sprinkler systems.

4. A series of confluent explosions in WTC 1 and 2 was reported by hundreds of eyewitnesses including first responders (firemen).

5. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.

[philb]

4. many firemen witnessed explosions; and the videos show explosions

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

http://www.flcv.com/wtcexplo.html etc.

lots of videos of squib explosions
no logical explanation that I've seen
big cover-up

[petgoat]

3. "profess not to know who put them there or why"

The prevailing CT (Conventional Thinking), that "it couldn't have been
explosives because the government would never do that" prevents logical
thinking.

Only when it occurred to me that explosives could have been planted by
al Qaeda operatives (many tenants used the WTC as a warehouse) was I
able to consider the possibility objectively myself.

If explosives WERE used by al Qaeda, the officials would be highly
motivated to cover that fact up because it is embarassing to Marvin
Bush's security company.

Also in your analysis, Kevin, don't forget to allow for fuel that
presumably fell down (or flowed down) the elevator shafts.

[petgoat]

5. I consider the character of the investigation to be the most damning

1. The 9/11 Commission never addressed the collapse of WTC7

2. Photographs of the site were forbidden, the FEMA investigators
were excluded from the site, the materials were removed in great haste
over the protests of the firemen (they rioted because of the
descretation of the dead) and Fire Engineering Magazine

3. The steel was destroyed before adequate samples could be taken.
Since every piece of steel had a stamped id number, it seems the
pieces of interest from the impact floors could have been pulled out
of the pile.

4. The FEMA report was unable to explain why WTC7 came down, and
concluded that their best guess (diesel fires weakened the steel) was
unlikely. FEMA investigators were poorly funded, and had to fight to
see the blueprints, which still have not been made public. The later
NIST report claims that WTC7 fell from structural damage (a ten-story
gash on the south side) for which there is no photographic evidence.
How come FEMA didn't know about this gash?

5. The MIT zipper hypothesis blaming the collapse on weak floor truss
"clips" at the perimeter columns was the conventional wisdom for three
years, though believing that requires that the truss clips at the core
side be so strong that the falling floors took the core down with
them. NIST's recent report claims that the perimeter truss clips were
so gol-darn strong that sagging floors buckled the perimeter columns.
NIST's report contains an excess of irrelevant and distracting detail,
including pictures of hypothesized data that can easily be confused
for measured data. NIST's model stops in time at the initiation of
collapse and stops just below the fire zone--and so it assumes what it
sets out to prove: that the initiation of collapse equals progressive
collapse, a phenominon that appears to have been invented on 9/11.

6. (Sorry. Take away #1) The evidence for the blazing infernos is
very poor. Brian Clarke walked down from the 81st floor of WTC2 right
through the fire zone. He saw a few flames, no inferno. At the 31st
loor he stopped to make phone calls. Walking away down the street
a friend said he thought the tower might fall. Clark said "No way!
That's a steel-frame building!"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

Where is the blazing inferno in this picture?



Here's a whole page of pictures of the wimpy fires:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html

I would submit that our impressions of a blazing inferno are largely
built on the notion that "jet fuel" necessarily burns hotter than
"kerosene" and on this image here:





Refusal to consider the possibility of explosives is irrational IMHO.
The whitewash investigation is evidence for explosives IMHO.