I'm now officially MIHOP on 9/11

[berni_mccoy]

I've watched the new movie, Loose Change. While I don't subscribe to all the 'theories' the movie presents, there is more than enough evidence to suggest a complete cover up by the government.

The video evidence alone is enough to raise questions that have never been answered.

One thing that I find shocking are the many scientists, eye-witness accounts and video evidence refuting that the collapse of the buildings was caused by fire, but that their points were never included or considered in the government's investigation.

In fact, a fireman had reported in that he had most of the fire out or contained on the 74th or 75th floor. That's the fire that supposedly caused the 2000 degree rated steel to buckle even though the fire lasted no more than 45 minutes.

And don't give me any B.S. about planes crashing into the building at 500 MPH... if that's what took the buildings down, then explain how WTC 7 imploded.

I suggest everyone here see the movie. You can download the entire movie for free.

It's amateurish, and some theories I just don't by, but as I said, there is too much evidence and too many unanswered questions for me to be satisfied with the 'official' explanation.

Movie Part 1: http://www.alciada.net/dload.php?action=file&id=145
Movie Part 2: http://www.alciada.net/dload.php?action=file&id=146

[ixion]

1. link?

:shrug:

[AverageJoe]

4. Link

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/loose_change_dvd.html

[berni_mccoy]

7. Updated OP to include direct links to download

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. gotta link for that download?

[berni_mccoy]

5. Updated OP to include direct links to download

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Thank you

[JohnnyCougar]

3. The Bush administration already proved how little they care about American

cities by ignoring New Orleans. It's a small step from the lack of Katrina response to the attacking of one of our own cities to allow them to carry out their plans of domination of the Middle East.

[Quakerfriend]

6. Thx for the tip. I'd never heard of this film!

I said to my 83 year old, sharp-as-a-tack, MIT educated dad who happens to still run his own business doing hetreating for NASA and the US Navy, among other clients:

When you think back to the video of those towers falling, knowing what you know about hetreating, can you tell me that that was anything other than an implosion??

He was shocked. He had never even thought that it might not have happened the way they said it did!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. Welcome to my reality Berni! I have probably seen every documentary

on 9/11, including Loose Change, and each makes their valid points. I didn't need to see the videos as I have done quite a lot of reading on this, but these videos affirm what I do believe.

This post is not going to last for long in GD, so here is a present for when it's delegated to the dungeon (9/11 Forum). I have my own very firmly in place.

:tinfoilhat:

[berni_mccoy]

11. Even though it's easier to go back to the matrix, I just can't anymore...

tinfoil, firmly in place:

:tinfoilhat:

[pinto]

10. I love the smell of tin foil in the afternoon....n/t

[Al-CIAda]

12. Related info topic, re:aired on local TV...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5509845

[BuyingThyme]

13. Stay awhile.

There's plenty of room.

[Spinzonner]

14. And putting out the burning materials

caused all the weakening of the steel joists and their connections to be undone so they recovered their strength and structural integrity ?

The engineering ignorance and simplistic analysis that is done when people address this issue never ceases to amaze me.

There are indeed lots of questions about the investigations of potential terrorists by the FBI and other agencies, the actions of the FAA and NORAD and other military elements, and the national security apparatus of the WH, but the ability of planes to intiate a series of events that weakened the structural integrity of the twin towers and caused them to collapse of their own weight is well established.

[berni_mccoy]

16. What brought down WTC 7?

Answer that.

[Spinzonner]

18. Open question, at least in my knowledge

But even if there were other issues and there were facilities or actions that caused it to be taken down purposefully for protective reasons, that does in no way prove that the twin towers were not taken down by a series of events and failures initiated by crashing the planes into them.

[Rich Hunt]

15. question

Why do all of the theories lately hinge upon this 'controlled demolition' stuff, and whether the building was 'brought down by fire alone?"

First of all, this is a mischaracterization. No one is really saying the towers were 'brought down by fire alone". The fire and fuel load, the weight of the plane and collapsed floors, not to mention the significant damage to the exterior support structure brought it down.

So why the disingenuousness here? Sorry, I will entertain your unscientific conspiracy theories when you people stop misrepresenting the 'official' assessment of what happened.

Moreover: which "74th or 75th floor" are we talking about? There were TWO. Please do not insult the intelligence of those you are appealing to by being so sloppy. Furthermore, that is one floor, and a floor that I believe was further away from the impact.

It is insulting to expect you can 'persuade' people through peer pressure (i.e., "if you don't believe us, you love Bush") and 'cliff notes"-style argument. If you want to persuade people with a sincere desire for civil discussion in mind, you would anticipate constructive criticism. I have NOT seen any sign that the 'controlled demolition' people are willing to do that.

Moreover, about the collapse of the buildings : it just so happens I watched much news footage of the collapses this week. I saw fire and smoke as the buildings were collapsing this week. Now we are being expected to accept THAT THERE WERE NO FIRES?

With regard to the collapse of the south tower, I saw that in slow motion, and the collapse was initiated when the southeast corner of the impact zone gave way totally. I love how these non-scientific 'true believers' have nothing to say about the support structure of the WTC. There was plenty of information about this in the mainstream media in the yearly anniversary specials after the WTC attacks.

I saw it with my own eyes a number of times. The footage showed it close up: the building literally collapsed at that southeast corner, and the lower portion of the building cannot withstand the weight of the upper portion collapsing on top of it - this is especially true in the case of the south tower, where the 'bisected' upper portion of the building is larger than in the north tower.

Try again in your pitch to get me to DO MORE LABOR and watch this video.

[berni_mccoy]

17. If you haven't watched the video, you have no place to argue it's evidence

[thefool_wa]

20. Thank You

I read an excellent 9/11 myth debunking site over the holiday last week (sorry, I cannot find the link) and, beyond the fact that the manner of collapse is perfectly explainable AND observable (as you point out) both towers would have to have been strung with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS of super high-grade explosive to be brought down as efficiently as the two 727's apparently worked.

This type of demo would have taken crews of OVER 100 HIGHLY TRAINED explosives technicians over two months to set and wire. They would have been seen at some point.

(to the original poster)
We need to just accept the fact that these acts were carried out in front of our eyes exactly as they appear. The conspiracies lie in the motivations of both those who planned the attacks those who allowed them to happen. None of us want to believe it was possible or that it actually happened, but believe what your eyes see and look for answers the the WHY and not the HOW.

[berni_mccoy]

22. The movie address your point about the trained technicians

You should watch it before dismissing it. Then you too can see with your eyes WHAT happened.

[thefool_wa]

28. Rest Assured

I love exploring 9/11 information and plan to see the movie. I just cannot DL them on my work computer (shhhhhh. I'm posting at work)

As for seeing with my own eyes, I have watched those building collapse over and over and over, all of the footage is the same, and quite honestly I do not think there is any logical debate about the fact that 2 727's could EASILY destroy two buildings of ANY size not designed to absorb the impact. The conspiracies are behind the scenes, not in the pictures.

[thefool_wa]

29. Found the link

I got the link in the Myths Debunked forum here at the DU. Here it is:

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[berni_mccoy]

30. Wow, I can't believe you believe this crap

First of all, the movie doesn't even touch on HALF of the crap these guys (who have hired a proxy group to register their domain... can't even whois the owner of the site).

But let's just DEBUNK A SINGLE DEBUNKING on their site...

The WTC category, the fire temperature. They're *claim* is that 500 degrees Centigrade (about 900 F) is enough to collapse the WTC. The only problem with that is that structural grade steel used in the WTC retains over 90% of it's load bearing strength until it is COMPLETELY heated to 550 degrees centigrade (1022 F). Those beams and columns were rated to more than three times that heat for the duration of an hour. When the entire mass of structural steel has reached 550 degrees centigrade, the strength of the steel is about 80% that of room temperature. It would take HOURS for that to happen in the WTC. Jet fuel only burns that hot in a PURE OXYGEN ENVIRONMENT. And given that there was PLENTY of ways for the heat to dissipate out of the building and the fact that most of the fuel exploded out of the building during the first few minutes, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the COLUMNS or GIRDERS got that HOT IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. And by the way, the debunker's links don't work and I can find no reference to that person directly given testimony or discussion about the topic.

Read this study for more information: http://www.corusconstruction.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Construction/Library/Fire%20resistance%20of%20steel%20framed%20buildings.pdf

and if you aren't afraid to see physicists discuss the topic, go here:
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_2.htm

or here:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[theSaiGirl]

31. No one really believes the stupid official myth of 9/11

They just can't face the practical implications of the truth.
That elements of our own government,military and private sector would cold-bloodedly murder American citizens on our own soil, perpetrate a massive media hoax using their controlled broadcast networks and supine print media; manufacture a false-flag "terrorist attack" as pretext to launch aggressive wars aborad, stip us of our basic rights and civil liberties, and impose a domestic police state on us ... in order to "protect" us.

Yes.. that's the reality that most Democrats simply don't want to face.
Propaganda never depends ulitmately on the truth or its own credibility.
The 9/11 Big Lie is as transparently fake as the Nazi engineered
"Reichstag Fire" of 1933.
And few really bought into that at the time.
They just bowed to the superior will and power of the Nazis.
No.. the success of the propaganda depends on its ability to rationalize the moral cowardice of people who have enough common sense to know better, yet can't face the practical demands of what the truth really means.

[IndyOp]

39. I beg to differ - if only to get you to believe that plenty of people *do*

believe the stupid official myth of 9/11 - or at least enough of it to believe that it was only LIHOP instead of MIHOP.

I'm a little disoriented because I've been watching "Loose Change" all weekend (over and over and over) --

I never imagined/heard about half of the stuff on this film -- including eyewitness reports of explosions in the building, bombs in the basement, well...

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[IndyOp]

38. The steel used in the towers was more than 'structural grade', right?

Do I understand your post? I am asking for clarification because this is all new to me. I've been watching "Loose Change" all weekend (literally) and am trying to understand the film:

Jet fuel burns at up to 900F in pure oxygen environment - and it would not have been that hot in the towers because the windows/walls had been blown out and a lot of fuel in the plane that hit the 2nd tower exploded outside the tower.

The fact that the steel in the towers was rated fireproof (ASTM-E11-9) means that it would retain over 90% of it's load bearing strength until completely heated to over 3066 F for an hour??

And it is NOT possible that the jet fuel could heat those beams to 3066F over the time that the fires raged - a little over 1 hour and about 1.5 hours...?

IndyOp's rough transcript of key statement in Loose Change:

Kevin Ryan (employee of UL, the company that certified steel components used in the towers) steel used in World Trade Center met all requirements for fireproof. ...the steel components were certified to ASTM-E11-9 -- specifications required samples to be exposed to temps 2000F for several hours.

Even unfireproofed steel won't melt until reaching redhot temperatures of nearly 3000F --

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt I am sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.

Alternatively, the contention that this steel melted at 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on September 11

Ryan's statements directly contradict statements of govt and experts who claim that 2000F heat caused Trade Center to collapse..

[thefool_wa]

42. Alright, but

The buildings collapsed where the planes COLLIDED with them. That ALONE is enough force to SERIOUSLY damage the structural integrity of the floors involved and foul the figures for the amount of stress they can take. Beyond that, the floors involved DID burn for HOURS (two and a half if I'm not mistaken).

Also, discussion is one thing, but using attacking and inflammatory language toward me in this discussion is uncalled for ("wow I can't believe you believe this crap" "if you aren't afraid"). Opinions are for everyone and all I'm saying is that a 727 is a HUGE aircraft and, for the most part, I'm surprised they did not come down sooner. My opinion, I'm entitled to it, don't attack me for having it.

There are valid arguments on both sides of this, but IMHO there is NO WAY anything other than two 727s brought down those buildings (with the exception of WTC7 which I'm sure the CIA took care of for themselves, even though the collapse of the towers SEVERELY damaged it).

[thefool_wa]

44. hmmmm...

I checked the article at your first link and this is 2003 information, not 1950 information (approximately when the towers were built). I don't pretend to know the details of the difference, but I'm sure there was an advancement or two in structural engineering in the 50+ intervening years.

The second link ignores the fact that A 727 COLLIDED WITH THE BUILDING! Fire was not the single cause of the collapse, logic alone tells us that without physics. Fire was merely the final straw. Its not like someone spread jet fuel with a squirt gun and lit it on fire. Yes, sooooooo many reports blame fire, but again I say that is because it was the linchpin. Had the planes just collided and not exploded into flames the buildings MAY have remained standing, but it is doubtful. Additionally, all of this information is based on NO EVIDENCE! Does anyone have temperature readings from the floors involved? Do they know the EXACT conditions surrounding the exterior supports immediately before the collapse? Theories can be developed to support ANYTHING.

As far as WTC7 - who knows. No structural engineers toured the building prior to its collapse and I'm sure it was not designed to take the seismic shock (felt for over 6 miles) or flying/falling debris created by BOTH towers collapsing right beside it. I am one of those who believe the CIA demolished it to protect sensitive information inside, who knows what, but it seems not only plausible but down right practical.

LOOK ANT THE WHO AND WHY, NOT THE HOW! I am in no way saying that there is no validity to the idea that our government, by action or inaction, was involved in 9/11, but those are WHY questions, not HOW.

[IndyOp]

46. The buildings burned for 56-minutes (S) and 74-minutes (N) and

they were built in the 1970's - not the 1950's.

Don't know if this changes any of your points...

So your basic conclusion here is that 100-tons of airplane (in combination with 56-minutes or 74-minutes of fire) brought down the buildings?

Please don't yell at me - I am not an engineer, I am trying to pay attention to this information for the first time.

Also, please see my post above - Kevin Ryan's quote - the guy from UL - the folks who were responsible for the quality of steel in the WTC --

[thefool_wa]

48. My apologies

The all caps were directed at the original poster (as were the comments about structural engineering) - did not mean to yell.

Also, I completely mis spoke myself on the age of the buildings (faulty memory, it happens) - but my comment still stands over advances in structural engineering.

Overall, yes, my point is that a 100-ton Airplane, nearly full of fuel, colliding with the building could do more than enough damage to the structures in the area of impact to lead to that floor's collapse, brining the floors above it down and setting off a chain reaction that levels the whole building. No extra explosives necessary.

Again, the severe comments were directed at the original poster, not you. I did not mean to offend.

[IndyOp]

49. No problem. Onward...

If I give you the point that a 100-ton plane + a very, very hot fire for 56- to 74-minutes would soften/crack structural grade steel -- so that explosives were not necessary to explain the collapse - this, of course, does not mean that explosives were not used.

What about 'other' evidence of explosions?

Do you believe that the massive damage in sub-basements and lobby could have been due to a fireball that came down the elevator shafts, even though there were no lingering fires in those areas? Why were the concrete walls in the garage blown out, rubble all over the lower floors, if there weren't bombs in the basement? Couldn't that have been due to bombs exploding in the basement at the time the plane hit the tower?

A camera on a tripod many blocks from the WTC shook 9-seconds before the South Tower started to collapse. The geologists in Palisades who monitor the seismograph indicate that it will register events only if the energy is 'coupled' to the ground. Lerner-Lam (seismologist) said: “During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage – but not causing significant ground shaking.”

What caused the ground to tremble, camera to shake 9-seconds before the South Tower started to collapse? My thought: Bombs on the 47-structural beams that were embedded in the bedrock.

To 'pull' a building down you have to destroy the infrastructure from underneath -- so said Peter Jennings when commenting that the Tower seemed to collapse in on itself like buildings demolished on purpose.

[thefool_wa]

50. Interesting enough...

I have a couple comments:

<snip>
A camera on a tripod many blocks from the WTC shook 9-seconds before the South Tower started to collapse
<snip>
comment: not particularly convincing as anything can shake a tripod. Sorry.

<snip>
“During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and neighboring structures, <snip> not causing significant ground shaking.”
<snip>
comment: I've read reports that say the collapses (1&2) set off car alarms six miles away, that HAS to wield some seismic force.

As far as bombs in the basement, that would that not have brought the building down from the bottom, not the top?

And lastly, in re the garage doors and no fires in the basement. The explosion from the plane's impact could very easily have created a non-fireball pressure wave that pushed its way down the elevator and ventilation shafts. I have no idea of the magnitude of pressure wave required as I know little about the damage you are talking about. Do you have more info?

[IndyOp]

51. Okay...

A camera on a tripod many blocks from the WTC shook 9-seconds before the South Tower started to collapse...
Your comment: not particularly convincing as anything can shake a tripod.

True, enough - including my older sister's desire to scare me when I was a kid. :rofl:

Nonetheless, IF the tripod was not shaken on purpose (by someone's hand) or by some nearby event, then something powerful happened at a distance that shook the camera. The video clip on "Loose Change" points out a piece of debris that falls from the tower just as/after the camera stops shaking - implying that the shaking was due to whatever was happening in the building before the collapse. Given: The piece of debris falling at that moment could have been coincidence. It does give them a bit more right to claim that the tripod shook because of something happening at the tower.

“During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and neighboring structures, <snip> not causing significant ground shaking.”

So, following the idea that bombs at base (and other locations) in building caused the shaking before the tower collapsed - then the car alarms would have been set off by the bombs near support beams carrying energy down into the bedrock and outward. While it seems obvious to attribute the car alarms and 'earthquake' to the building materials crashing to the ground, it seems that the seismologist quoted is not embracing that explanation. Any idea whether controlled demolitions of other skyscrapers cause similar seismic events?

As far as bombs in the basement, that would that not have brought the building down from the bottom, not the top?

I was thinking (following Peter Jennings, an expert engineer if ever there was one!) that they blasted the basement when the plane hit - not enough to bring the building down, but enough to weaken it so that the building would fall down into its own 'footprint.' Then allow building to burn, then set off remaining bombs from top down --

And lastly, in re the garage doors and no fires in the basement. The explosion from the plane's impact could very easily have created a non-fireball pressure wave that pushed its way down the elevator and ventilation shafts. I have no idea of the magnitude of pressure wave required as I know little about the damage you are talking about. Do you have more info?

Lengthy transcript (rush from IndyOp) - commentary & eyewitness accounts of explosions in "Loose Change." Note: I omitted many accounts of explosions in favor of presenting just a few of the more specific and credible:

One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-half-blocks from the South tower, when he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by “a crackling sound” before the tower collapsed.

Windows in lobby of North Tower were blown out and marble panels were blown off the walls – explained as fireball that rushed down elevator shafts, but there was no fire, no fuel residue, instead entire lobby is covered in fine dust – signature of high explosives.

Mike Peccoraro was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the first plane struck. He was working with a friend. The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. “There was nothing there but rubble,” Mike said, “we’re talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press - gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.

The two make their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 3000 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the enter in 1993. Having been through the bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off.

“When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible.” He recalled. “The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-food section of marble. 20 by 10 foot sections of marble gone from the walls.” The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.”

Could an explosion 90 floors above cause uniform damage to lobby and sub-floors of basement?

Firefighters:
“I wasn’t expecting to see the damage I saw in the lobby – the burnt people the injured people…”
“The lobby looked like a bomb had exploded there, all the glass was taken out…
“I went around by the freight elevator and I could see it was just blown …”
“…30th floor we hear another explosion…’

One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51 told People Weekly on Sept. 24: “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip, a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

Then in the radio transmissions, firefighters report numerous additional explosions…

Pat Dawson, NBC: “I spoke with the Chief of Safety for the FDNY. He received word of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off…he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit…there was another explosion that took place. He thinks that there were actually devices planted in the building. We are continuing to hear explosions here downtown…”

About the fire -

9:52 pm Chief Palmer had reached the fire on the 78th floor and devised a plan to put it out: “Battalion Seven Chief: “Battalion Seven…Ladder 15, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones”

If the 78th floor was a raging inferno as the government would have us believe, then Palmer would not have been able to make it as far as he did, and certainly would not have been able to to put it out.

Kevin Ryan, employee at Underwriter's Laboratory (the company that certified steel components used in the WTC) sent a letter to NIST arguing that the steel used in World Trade Center met all standards for resistance against fire. "We know steel components were certified to ASTM-E11-9. The time-temperature curves for this standard require samples to be exposed to temps around 2000F for several hours. As we all agree the steel applied met those standards.

"I think we can all also agree that even unfire-proofed steel won't melt until reaching redhot temperatures of nearly 3000F --

"This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I am sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans."

Ryan's statements directly contradict claims of government and experts who claim that 2000F heat inside the WTC caused it to collapse.

Ryan was fired within weeks of writing this letter.

[thefool_wa]

56. I'm at least partially convinced..

While I am still wondering how weakening the bottom of the infrastructure would promote the type of collapse we witnessed, I am convinced enough that Loose Change might have some credible information that I am willing to see it. Truth be told, I was going to anyways, but the discussion here at least has the old wheels turning. The mind is always open to new things.

I did just run into a problem though, it is not available to add to my BB online service queue, and I only have a dial up connection at home (minimalist living, what can I say)

Any ideas on where I might get a copy? Seems like this isn't exactly mainstream video. LMK.

[IndyOp]

61. Here you go!

Buy a copy here:
<http://cgi.ebay.com/Loose-Change-911-Documentary-by-Dylan-Avery_W0QQitemZ6436339580QQcategoryZ617QQcmdZViewItem>

Download WMV files here:
<http://www.question911.com/links.php>

Watch online here - the picture and audio are out of sync --
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change>

[SittingBull]

57. Not at all

As far as bombs in the basement, that would that not have brought the building down from the bottom, not the top?

***

You should divide two items:

First you vaporize the inner core columns in the basement, the effect will likely be the same as was we did see.
( the antenna e.g. sinks rapidly down )

Plus the demolition of steel and concrete by extra explosions from top to down, that was unsual in normally demolition, but not impossible.

[dailykoff]

19. All of us have strong feelings about this,

which are understandable, but from a purely scientific perspective, there's no question but that all three buildings were demolished. It simply isn't possible that the crashes and/or fires could have inflicted catastrophic structural damage to either of the towers, and of course building 7 wasn't struck by a plane.

I only caught the first few minutes of the video (slow connection), but it shows the first crash, and it's clear that if the plane was real, its impact was fully absorbed by the steel structure, just as it was designed to be.

Regarding the top sections, which fell down through the cores instead of rotating off, I believe that the scientific principle in question here is not conservation of momentum, but its cousin, conservation of angular momentum, which (simplifying) says that once a rigid body begins rotating around an axis under the influence of a constant force, like gravity, it will maintain that rotation unless some additional force (like dynamite) interferes with it.

Here's a little more on angular momentum:

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/rot/node7.html

p.s. this is just my opinion, so I hope no one takes it the wrong way.

[pauldp]

24. welcome to DU!

:thumbsup:

[dailykoff]

34. thanks, paul!

It's a great pleasure to be here!

[TheWraith]

25. Uh, yeah, there IS *considerable* question.

It's very possible that the WTC was destroyed by the plane crashes. As noted above, it's a lot more practical than the idea of needing explosives. When the planes crashed into the buildings, they caused damage to the central core supports, which were a series of steel columns which held up the center of the building. Those columns that weren't destroyed were immolated in burning jet fuel. Once these columns began to soften in places, it allowed the central core of the floors above them to buckle and begin to come down. This, combined with the added weight of the plane, and the impact of the debris from the upper floors, caused each lower floor to collapse in turn. This is what produced the chain-reaction collapse. It's a pretty straightforward and logical progression, and not at all unlikely. It's the product of a lot of people who are experts in determining this sort of thing.

To the OP:

Remember the old saying: Never attribute to malice that which is sufficently explained by incompetance. Look around at everything the government has done over the last few years, and then try to tell me that they could keep a secret of this magnitude under wraps for more than 30 seconds.

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who disagree about the way the towers collapsed, but there are a lot more who agree that it's pretty straightforward. More to the point, where's the evidence of this one firefighter putting out an entire floor by himself? Radio logs? Recordings? Given the communication difficulties, and the near impossibility of getting up into the towers, what is the real likelyhood that a firefighter actually got up to the level of the fire, let alone was able to get the massive jet fuel fire under control in the few minutes he would have, then report in? This strikes me as a myth, along the lines of all the Israelis staying home that day.

As for WTC 7, that building was the home of the CIA's New York field office. Knowing them, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had a plan to evacuate and destroy the building in the event of a major security incident.

[dailykoff]

33. I felt the same way

until about a year ago, so I understand what you're saying. Up until then, I figured the outrageous lies and spin ("no one could have imagined," the 9/11 Commission Report, etc.) were covering up gross incompetence and negligence. The demolition stuff sounded like late-night radio paranoia.

Then I realized that not only had the Trade Center been demolished, but in a completely obvious and shameless way, and that we'd been lied to by FEMA, NOVA, MIT, the NIST, the FDNY, National Geographic, Rudy Giuliani, Leslie Robertson, and on and on.

So yes, it sounds like a sick joke, until you realize it's true.

As far as the collapses go, the FEMA/NIST explanation makes intuitive sense, like a falling house of cards, or a collapsing wedding cake, or something along those lines.

The problem is that it makes no structural sense, because the towers weren't built in layers, like cakes, but in rings around immensely strong cores, like giant redwood trees, and trees don't experience chain-reaction collapses.

That's the simplest way I can describe it.

[IndyOp]

40. Um, does all that fancy talk mean that the tower should've fell

down sideways, instead of imploding (falling straight down, in on itself)?

I've been waiting for someone to say this aloud - the tower that was hit at its corner, especially, should have (at least in part) come down sideways.

:dunce:

[thefool_wa]

43. No Way

It would have taken 150 feet of lateral movement at the top to cause the buildings to fall over sideways (see my link above). THat is simple physics (moving the center of gravity).

Plus, if you watch the video, they didn't really come straight down, more peeled apart and fell in an area several hundred feet wider than the base.

NOTHING could make those towers fall sideways short of them targeting the first few floors with the planes and felling them like a timber tree (the sites I've read say that even that may not be enough).

[dailykoff]

47. Yes, I believe so, IndyOp.

There are really two questions here: 1) could the plane crashes and subsequent fires alone have produced catastrophic structural damage? The scientific answer is no, for a host of reasons that I won't go into at this moment.

2) Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the crashes and fires DID cause catastrophic weakening of structural members. What should have happened?

Conservation of angular momentum tells us that the top sections should have simply settled, tipped, and/or rotated off, leaving the rest of the towers standing. But there's absolutely no reason that would cause the structure beneath them to fail.

That's my opinion, but mileage may vary. :)

[IndyOp]

52. Conservation of angular momentum -

"the top sections should have simply settled, tipped, and/or rotated off, leaving the rest of the towers standing. But there's absolutely no reason that would cause the structure beneath them to fail."

Got pictures? Videos of this happening with other steel skyscrapers?

[dailykoff]

53. To my knowledge, no steel skyscraper has ever

suffered even a partial collapse for any reason other than demolition, which is one reason the answer to that first question is "no."

But there are many examples of concrete structures experiencing this kind of overturning (rotation around a failure point, in this case their foundations) during earthquakes:



Highrise collapse in Taiwan quake 1999.
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/09/03/d3090315.htm



Eight-story building in Manilla
http://archidose.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_archidose_archive.html

[IndyOp]

54. Good bit of info - No steel skyscraper ever fell except by demolition.

Now if we could just find evidence that another steel skyscraper hit by plane and fire that did not fall.

In the meantime, I found a pic of the top of the tower tipping as it starts to fall - just scroll down a bit.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x57872#58350>

[LARED]

55. Opinion yes, factual no.

Conservation of angular momentum tells us that the top sections should have simply settled, tipped, and/or rotated off, leaving the rest of the towers standing.

Please explain why you believe this is true.

The conservation of angular momentum tells us nothing of the sort.

[dailykoff]

59. Here you go:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=62209&mesg_id=62229

If that doesn't do it, PM me and I'll try to help.

[LARED]

60. Well thanks for the link,but

I was not looking for advice or instruction. I was trying to tell you that the conservation of angular momentum has nothing to do with why or why not the top collapsed.

Your mistake is assuming the top section continued to be a solid body as it started to rotate. See, without the core steel and perimeter steeel in the top section maintaining its connection to the structure it cannot be considered a rigid body. Look up building drift.

If you need additional info, PM me and I'll try to help.

Regards

[dailykoff]

65. Very happy to help!

Is that all that's bothering you? Because I can easily lay to rest any doubts about rigidity with this photo that IndyOp linked to:



Notice that the top section has become completely detached (how, I wonder, but never mind) and has already rotated some 20 degrees, but shows little or no loss of rigidity, and no effect on the structure below.

You have to remember that these were ridiculously overdesigned steel skyscrapers, heavily crossbraced and trussed, not lightframe masonry dingbats. They had to withstand staggeringly high wind loads.

p.s. thanks to petgoat who posted this photo. :)

[LARED]

66. And you need to remember that BS like saying

these were ridiculously overdesigned steel skyscrapers is not based on facts, nor is it material to the issue.

if you actually want an informed opinion, let me know.

[killtown]

21. Glad to hear that!

Welcome aboard!

[InaneAnanity]

23. My analysis

I can't be sure one way or another whether the WTC were brought down by the planes and fires alone, or whether there was some additional conspiracy involved with explosives. There is certainly compelling evidence that there was something else involved, but I haven't seen conclusive proof.

what does seem conclusive, though, is that the damage to the Pentagon was not inflicted by a commercial jetliner flown by an amateur pilot right out of flight training. That is simply too far fetched and implausible for me to go along with. The evidence for a conspiracy regarding the Pentagon is, in my mind, much more compelling than the evidence for the WTC.

Here's the problem, though: If you admit to yourself that the Pentagon attack was NOT a result of a commercial jet, that that explanation is highly improbable and not supported by any kind of evidence, then how can you believe the rest of the official explanations offered by the government?? How can you explain to yourself that, while the official explanation for the Pentagon is incorrect, that the official explanation for WTC is correct?? I can't do that.

The Pentagon is where the evidence is most compelling, I think, and thats where the focus should be. I think, also, that proof of a conspiracy at the Pentagon is circumstantial proof of a conspiracy everywhere.

[berni_mccoy]

26. Excellent post and welcome to DU!

[InaneAnanity]

27. Thanks.

I like it here.

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Hani wasn't flying American 77

I'm sure you're right about that. But I think the damage is consistent with a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Take a look at the errors highlighted on this page:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
To get more details just click on the links on the left-hand side of the page starting with "757 manouvres."

[SittingBull]

35. This is LC first edition

now we speak about the 2.nd

[InaneAnanity]

36. Any Demolition experts out there??

I spent last night researching and here are my new feelings.

I feel that even though the Pentagon is very suspicious, and my personal opinion is that a passenger jet didn't cause the damage, the easiest piece of evidence to look at is building 7.

I've watched building 7 fall over and over, and every single time it looks like a controlled demolition. The damage doesn't look nearly bad enough for the building to fall on its own. Plus, Larry Silverstein said to pull it on PBS. I'm entirely convinced that by "pull it", he meant to demolish it manually.

Here is my question: would it have been possible for a team of demolition experts to rig building 7 with explosives in 8 hours?? At 9 AM the building was evacuated, and at 5 PM or so the building fell. So, would it have been possible for Larry Silverstein to order a demolition after the fact, not requiring him to have prior knowledge??

This is very important to me. I've accepted that building 7 was demolished manually. If it is impossible to rig a 47 story building, like building 7, with explosives in 8 hours, then that means someone had prior knowledge of the attacks, because the explosives had to be planted there prior to 9/11.

It is a fairly easy argument to make that building 7 was manually demolished. If it can also be argued that a manual demolition requires that explosives were in place prior to 9/11, then that proves prior knowledge and, thus, proves a conspiracy took place.

A conspiracy only needs to be proven in one instance to be present. IMO, this is the easiest instance to argue.

[berni_mccoy]

37. I'm not a demo expert, but I know it takes more than 8 hours

To demo a building THAT PRECISELY. Review of architecture, access to VERY CONTROLLED materials and planning to make sure everyone is out (even though the building was evacuated, proper safety measures must be taken to ensure no workers or safety officials are out).

The only debunk theory I give ANY credit to was that because the building was occupied by CIA and other gov't agencies that require secrecy, they *may* have had explosives pre-planted in the event of an attack. But imagine the risks of such a case... if one pre-planted explosive went off... And NO Insurance company would honor a contract knowing that or finding out about it. And Insurance companies are one set of organizations that get to the bottom of an event like this...So if this debunk theory is true, then it requires that the insurance company was in on it.

[InaneAnanity]

41. I considered that

That maybe, because there were DoD, CIA, and other government offices in that building, that somehow they might have explosives in there for some emergency.

Then I realized how insane that idea is. Explosives, designed to demolish a building, present in the building at all times??? Incredibly risky, foolhardy, unlikely, all those things. That's not the case.

If it indeed does take longer than 8 hours to plant explosives in a building like that, then the government had prior knowledge of the attacks and had planned to demolish building 7 beforehand.

[screembloodymurder]

62. then that proves prior knowledge and, thus, proves a conspiracy took place

Not necessarily. The building housed some very sensitive paper. The ability to demolish such buildings could be a CIA requirement.

[InaneAnanity]

64. That's ridiculous

It's ridiculous to assume that a building is constantly armed with demolition-style explosives for emergency purposes. That's incredibly dangerous, and if something malfunctioned, would cause quite a scandal.

And even if true, that just opens a whole new can of worms. The government would be making a building a potential death-trap without informing innocent citizens who work there of that fact.

[atfqn]

45. I just finished Loose Change as well.

Something jumped out at me though. With the talk about the Pratt and Whitney engine being used on the A3. Which they pointed out as only a few of them remaining. Well, remaining in the hands of the defense contractor Raytheon. Interestingly/sadly Raytheon lost four employees that day.

Three on flight 11:

Kenneth Waldie, 46, of Methuen, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. senior quality control engineer for electronic systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for 17 years.

Peter Gay, 54, of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. vice president of operations for electronic systems based in Andover, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for more than 28 years

David Kovalcin, 42, of Hudson, New Hampshire, was a Raytheon Co. senior mechanical engineer for electronic systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for 15 years.

One on flight 77:

Stanley R. Hall 68, director of program management, Raytheon Co.

This brought me to an interesting question. Why if there were so many people within the defense community, government, upper class notfied by phone to switch flights why not these guys? I mean heads of projects, electrical and mechanical systems... I am not devaluing the literall "loss" (who knows where they are now) I just wanted to throw out that maybe they new something about the designs or systems that others shouldn't have known. Maybe something like how a flying "coke can" is able to puncture a steel building like butter...

[Ferry Fey]

58. Tree cutting analogy

Just a comment on thefool_wa's tree-cutting analogy. When I was heating with wood and we cut our own, it was always a two part process.

You'd cut a low wedge out of the "front" of the tree (the direction you wanted it to fall). Then you'd go to the back, and make another cut opposite it, but not meeting it entirely. It would fall using the center material as a hinge. So I don't know that it is the best way of visualizing what happened here.

[screembloodymurder]

63. Dead men don't talk.

If one wanted to limit the number of people with knowledge that could prove embarrassing, dead men don't talk. I wonder who else was on those flights. I don't believe more than a handful of people could have actual knowledge of MIHOP. It's just too risky.

[MellowOne]

67. The question I ask......

If 9/11 had not occurred, would we be in Iraq? But now the war's about democracy. In reality, it's all about the oil.

[martymartin]

68. Loose Change - the movie

The evidence keeps accumulating.
Soon, there will be a flurry of media coverage, and then a true independent scientific investigation.