[madmike]

I promised a friend of mine I would post this for comment. Therefore, I will reserve my comments to avoid bias.


Arrest the president now!

Enough 9/11 evidence exists to hang Bush, imprison thousands

(Will the U.S.A. survive this crisis?)



By John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net



On September 11, 2001, the most infamous day in American history, the
tallest buildings in New York were not knocked down by airplanes
hijacked by Arabs - they were destroyed by demolition charges.

This is no longer wild conspiracy theory - it is a series of
provable facts, deftly presented on a website that every American should
not only read but possibly memorize, so they can repeat it verbatim to
every law enforcement officer in the country. The web site is located
here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/

Briefly synopsized, the site outlines a terrifying proposition: if
the collapse of the Twin Towers were caused by demolition, the entire
official story about that sad day collapses like the house of evil cards
so many Americans and people around the world already suspect it is.

The site, WTC7.net, backs up its conclusions with a devastating
play-by-play of what actually happened on 9/11, and what could not
possibly have happened according to universally accepted engineering
principles.

The official story collapses under scrutiny, the site insists. It
lists five stunning assertions:

1. Fires have never destroyed steel buildings.
2. The collapses were not investigated.
3. The physical evidence was destroyed.
4. The official explanations are ludicrous.
5. The evidence indicates demolition.
6. Demolition is provable.

No steel high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, the site
insists. And on 9/11, three of them collapsed in a matter of hours at
the World Trade Center complex.

The total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were (based on
the official story) the three largest engineering failures in the
history of the world, yet no federal investigation was ever funded.

The evidence of the collapses was quickly destroyed. A series of
explanations was promoted to explain the collapses, but each is
ridiculed and debunked on the site, including killer fires, column
failure, and truss failure. The site's conclusion: official
explanations cannot explain any kind of total collapse.

Other curious phenomena examined were the fires that burned for 100
days, that concrete was curiously pulverized in mid-air, and that the
buildings fell so quickly despite following the path of most resistance,
among other suspicious aspects.

After presenting its evidence, the site concludes the towers were
deliberately demolished. Which means the disaster could not possibly
have been the work of Osama bin Laden.

The implications of the story on this site are enormous. They mean
that the official story told by George W. Bush's American government is
a total fabrication. There is no evidence against Osama bin Laden if the
buildings were demolished. It has all been a lie.

What this means is that George W. Bush is guilty of complicity to
the most heinous crime in American history, the willful murder of more
than 3,000 people and the destruction of a significant part of America's
biggest city. And of course treason. There is no space to delineate here
all the other charges of mass murder and obstruction of justice against
this vain little demagogue who stole the U.S. presidency and now is
raping the world.

Also guilty are Vice President Cheney and the entire Cabinet, the
chiefs of staff of the armed forces, and many other members of the
legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government, plus
many other federal and military employees, plus many state and federal
regulatory officials and private citizens who were either friends of the
Bush conspiracy or conspired in its coverup.

And perhaps the biggest problem is that also guilty of complicity in
this tangled mess is the federal Justice Department, whose leader John
Ashcroft was appointed by the principal defendant in this case.

America and the world have never faced such a colossal crisis, and
that is no overstatement.

The entire American government is now a criminal defendant in the
mass murder of its own citizens at the very moment the entire world is
cringing in fear at America's new policy of preemptive war that
threatens every sovereign nation on the planet.

It's true, my friends, although it's something you already knew -
outlaws rule the world, and they own the cops, the army and the courts,
not to mention all the legislatures.

How can America and the world possibly deal with this?

Well, for starters, the state of New York must assume the lead role,
because all federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA and FEMA, are now
all possible defendants in what will be the most amazing trial in
history. Of course, state officials are as likely to be corrupted as
federal officials, but this still seems to be the logical solution, at
least to begin with.

What is at stake here, among so many other items, is the
relationship of the states to the federal government. To say this is a
profound Constitutional crisis is a severe understatement.

And the larger question becomes, can the people ever trust its
government again. The quick answer, at least, is ... not this government
- ever again.

But first, everyone must get the word out. Every American, or as
many possible who aren't immediately felled by terminal apoplexy as they
confront this material, should read the sequence of events as presented
on this site.

Then, responsible people in many professions should confer as to the
best way to deal with prosecutions on these charges, including how to
suspend the functional legal legitimacy of the Bush adminstration,
especially since this group seems intent on blowing up the world. Then
it will have to be one step at a time with some sort of calmly
constructed provisional government, with the current Congress most
likely having absolutely no role in its creation.

This is a great and necessary opportunity for the individual states
to regain some of the power that has been usurped by Washington when
they create a new federal government without any help from the old one.

OK. I know this is all mind-boggling. Unfortunately for all of us,
it happens to be reality. Shake off your stunned silence and
incredulity. We have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it now.

Proper articulation of the offenses, machinery to effect remedies
and prosecutions - and doing both of things in the proper venues - are
of critical importance at this moment. Not being a lawyer, I don't know
what they are. Somebody knows. That person or persons needs to speak,
and soon.

Because if Bush knows his crimes are exposed and he is allowed to
remain in power, God knows what will happen.

I know you've taken in a crushing amount of information just now,
but I would beg you to try and digest a little bit more, this time from
the mind of Kent State professor Walter Davis, who has articulated in a
very coherent way the argument against George W. Bush continuing as the
commander of the most deadly arsenal ever seen on this planet.

Read the whole piece at some point at

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

It's titled "Compelling Evidence for Complicity." Davis points out
the government has tried to cop a plea of ineptitude in failing to
prevent the 9/11 disaster, but the professor concludes this excuse is
"not consistent with the known facts."

With flawless logic and perfect professorial prose, Davis outlines
and elaborates 22 reasons why he thinks Bush not only knew but helped
plan and execute the tragic 9/11 deception. Davis's items range from the
fact that the entire U.S. intelligence community knew the attack was
going to happen and the American air defenses were "stood down" ... to
historical precedents of leaders who lied about attacks in history. In
between is the definitive version of the charges that should be laid
upon Bush and all the criminal functionaries who participated in this
profound crime against the American people.

I seldom say things are a "must read," but this is one of them,
simply for its articulation of the basic crimes of 9/11 and the
completeness of the magnitude of the atrocity and its implications. Read
the damn thing. Try not to cry.

OK, OK, enough data. It's almost 4 a.m. and I've been up since 7
a.m. after being up til 3 a.m. the night before dealing with my e-mail,
from all of you, my lovelies, who are getting this one.

I'm running out of time, as some of you know, and may not be able to
do too many more of these missives. But this one is important, so I'm
going to stay up til dawn punching in the addresses. Because you're
running out of time, too. We're all running out of time, and we better
do something fast.

The information contained in here is a critical step in the right
direction. Take it and run with it.

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen. As you probably already
know, with the Saudis reportedly aiming weapons at Israel and China and
Russia viewing the pathetic U.S. military performance in Iraq and
Afghanistan with an eye toward maybe taking a cheap but well-deserved
shot at the U.S. for its insane and murderous policies of late, all of
us are going to be in for a very rough ride. In fact, you can be assured
that many of us are not going to make it through these next few months
and years, but we have no choice but to try and fix this problem as best
we can if anybody is to have any hope of surviving.


John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a
collection of his Internet essays. For more information on how to
purchase this book, click
http://www.johnkaminski.com/

[roscoe]

Awesome! Logic need not apply here!

[4570Rick]

:rolleyes:

[Destructo6]

If it weren't so sad and pathetic, it might be funny. The man is delusional and needs to seek professional help.

[Orthonym]

I betcha a lot of newer steel buildings will be destroyed by fire. I think I remember reading that the WTC towers were about half done when the asbestos scare hit. Thus they used inferior insulation on the upper floors. Nope, the greenieweenies have something to answer for here.

[4570Rick]

Thats right. Aprox the top third of the towers were under insulated. The towers were different in that they had an exterior skeleton. They held up to the impact of the planes, but the fuel caught fire. The impact also disabled the sprinkler system allowing the TONS and TONS of paper and other inflammables to burn at temps of between 1500 and 2000 degrees.

Without the asbestos to protect the steel, the steel softened with the heat and the weight of the floors above caused the steel skeleton to begin to buckle.

But we can't use asbestos because of the children. Think of all the children who could have been harmed by the asbestos in the towers.:fire: :cuss: :banghead:

Frickin Blissninnies

[dinosaur]

He forgot the cops and firemen who forced the occupants to stay in the building.:uhoh:

How does one type when wearing a strait jacket?:rolleyes:

[Don Galt]

I bet none of the posters in this thread have a shred of evidence that there were no bombs in the WTC, nor have they seen any evidence on TV, etc that here weren't any.

But you accept the story you're pitched without question.

Do you believe it when Liberals tell you that the social security system is not insolvent? (Or whatever your favorite liberal lie is.)

Fact of the matter is, none of us know what really happened. All we have is what the media tells us (and you guys are suspicious of them when they say things you don't want to believe, but not here?) and what the president and his minions tell us, and thats it.

None of us have first hand knowledge... and yet, the truth about Waco has come out, the truth about Ruby Ridge has come out... and I suspect you guys aren't buying the single bullet JFK theory, are you?

So, you believe the official story abou the WTC, but not the Warren Commission report? Why is that? Is it only because 40 years have elapsed since JFK and so you have less at stake about it?

I don't know what happened on 9/11-- I'm not endorsing any theories.. but it is mighty suspicious that those buildings came straight down. Goes against everything you'd expect-- even against the official explanation: For the buildings to come straight down (especially two of them!) the trusses would have had to give out at exactly the same millisecond on both sides of both buildings... yet the damage in both cases was unequal side-to-side.

What an amazing coincidence! Not impossible, but extremely odd.

[Don Galt]

Hmmm... the impact disabled the sprinkler system? Yeah right. Sprinkler systems use pipes filled with water and a small piece of plastic at the head... head causes the plastic to melt opening the valve and water comes out.

If you damaged the pipe, the water would freely flow....

and in the floors above where the impact didn't damage the system, the plastic would melt and the sprinklers would work.

I cannot think of any way an impact would damage a sprinkler system, other than to cause the water to just flow out of the pipe massively (putting out the massive fire) rather than in a controlled fashion as would be appropriate for burning paper.

Maybe the sprinkler was inadequate. Maybe it was disabled. But it wasn't disabled by the impact of the planes.

[Marko Kloos]

I bet none of the posters in this thread have a shred of evidence that there were no bombs in the WTC, nor have they seen any evidence on TV, etc that here weren't any.


That's because you cannot prove a negative. You also can't prove that the WTC wasn't really destroyed by invisible pink unicorns, but that does not make it any more likely.

Millions of people saw those planes impact the towers, both on TV and on the scene. That alone would have been enough to kick the War On Terror into high gear. The cause of the collapse is ultimately irrelevant, but Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the most likely. That's why I accept it; not because I am an uncritical drone who only holds opinions force-fed by the government via TV.

The towers fell because the jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel. The top floors collapsed, and the floors underneath couldn't withstand the sudden additional weight by the floors above them pancaking. But like I said, the cause of the collapse is ultimately irrelevant. The impact of the planes is undisputed fact.

[Fed168]

This guy is a member of the tinfoil hat brigade.

[Spot77]

Quote:

If you damaged the pipe, the water would freely flow....


Sure, as long as the main water line wasn't severed by the 600 TON JET THAT SLICED THROUGH IT. The water would do no good except to drown the people BELOW.


And do you think water magically elevates itself at high pressure 3,000 feet into the air? If the pumps on the floors where the planes hit were disabled, then again, the water will just drown the people below.


But I was there on the 101st floor and when the tower coolapsed. I rode a wave of rubble all the way to the bottom, while taking pictures that I knew I could post on the internet for my friends....:rolleyes:

[Leatherneck]

I promised a friend of mine
You need better taste in friends. :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Black Dragon]

This may be old news, but I have a document that discusses the Mechanical failure of the WTC. The problem is that I don't know how to post a PDF file.

Engineering
Analysis of
Tragedy at WTC

Thomas J. Mackin
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
Copyright © 2001, Thomas J. Mackin

Consider the details of a 767
Passengers- up to 375
Fuel Capacity –23,980 gallons
Engines – PW 4062 63,300lb thrust
GECF6- 80C2B8F 63,500lb
Cruise Speed at 35,000ft – 530mph
Take- off Weight 450,000lbs


Energetics
Kinetic energy = 1/ 2mV 2
Mass= 204x10 3 Kg
V= 19.7m/ sec
KE= 39. 6x10 6 Joules
Energy Content of fuel around 132x10 6 J/ gal
20,000gallons = 792x10 9 Joules
3 sticks of dynamite is 1Mjoule
So 2,376,000 sticks of dynamite

The kinetic energy of a 767 at impact is on the order of 40MegaJoules. Though this energy is considerable, it is clear that the tower withstood this impact. Though damaged, TWC managed to remain standing for approximately 1 hour. As such, it was not the impact, but the energy in the fuel that compromised the structural integrity of the building. The calculation to the right shows that the energy content of gasoline is roughly 132MegaJoules per gallon. Jet fuel has an even greater energy content. If 20,000 gallons of fuel detonated at once, this would amount to the equivalent of 2,376,000 Sticks of dynamite. (3 sticks of dynamite is 1 MegaJoule.)


Impact Forces
Momentum= mv
F= mv/ sec= 4,018,800N or 903,510lbs
Torque on the building= Force x moment =632,000,000ft- lbs at the base

If we assume that the jet liner was Travelling at cruising speed, and Dissipated all of its energy in 1 second, then the impact force is 903,510lbs. This is substantial and generated a moment, for impact at the 70 th floor if 632,000, 000 ft-lbs. Even so, the building withstood the impact, so these forces are not
responsible for bringing the building down. Though they did weaken the building, the impact of the jet did not bring the building down.


What brought the buildings down?
• Impact was clearly not the cause… no analysis needed.
• Did the fuel melt/or weaken the structural metal?– Adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene = 1727C
– Melting temperature of steel = 1570C
– Clearly, at the flame front the Kerosene can melt the steel
– Flames billowed out the windows… the tower uses a structural steel skin… the flame was licking that skin, so the steel melted.
– Even if T was half the flame temp, the metal would creep rapidly, kink a column and buckling failure occurs.


Why did the building pancake?
. Structural collapse at impact site, leads to drop of upper structure onto lower structure.
. Impact is, at least, 2 times the static load for infinitesimal drop.
. More like:
.
T = 2g*M(1/Ef(D/l)+1)
D=Drop height
L=standing


Estimating the impact forces

T=2g*M(1/0.001*(1/70)+1) = 30.5Mg

The impact force, T, is related to the failure strain of the steel, the weight
above the failed floor , Mg, the drop height, d, and the intact building
height, L. If we presume one floor collapsed, and the remaining height is 70
stories, then the equation given on the last overhead becomes as follows:
The impact force is roughly 30 times the weight of the tower above! There
isn't a building in existence with a factor of safety of 30!


Failure scenario
Fire confined To the impact Site raised the Temperature Of the steel to At or near melting Point. (Remeber the sprinklers are damaged and can not get enough water to the areas that need it)

Local melting caused the local structure to Fail. The remaining Upper structure then Free-Fell onto the intact Lower structure

When the upper Structure hits the intact Lower structure, the impact Force is on the order of 30 times the weight of the mass above! This force Fails all the attachments and causes A cascade of floors pancaking downward. The outer steel skin peels back like an Onion once detached from the floor slabs.

[tiberius]

Is this Democratic Underground now? I don't think this type of drivel should even be acknowledged when it is posted...just let it die.

[Augustwest]

I have no reason to cut the Bush Administration any slack - history may well show that they did more to usurp our freedoms than anyone else in history.

And I've seen an invisible pink unicorn or two in my time.

But what this guy postulates is plain silly.

[HarryB]

Anyone watch this when it aired?

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

[JohnBT]

Somebody explain to me precisely how water from a sprinkler system in a building will put out a jet fuel fire.

Let's see...Why'd they bother with the planes if they had charges planted in the buildings? Why not just blow them up and blame it on somebody else? Maybe they couldn't get their hands on enough explosives. ;)

And about the buildings falling straight down...Ever hear of gravity?

Okay folks, keep moving along, nothing to see here. :)

John

[Bigjake]

I'll belive that when me ???? turns purple and tastes like rainbow sherbert.

obviously the huge airliners crashing into the WTC buildings had nothing whatsoever to do with any of this :scrutiny:

[Mute]

Ah, I see. So the planes that millions of people saw flying into the buildings, WITH THEIR OWN EYES, were really just an illusion crafted by David Copperfield and a cadre of the world's top illusionist, all of whom were co-conspirators in this nefarious plot?

Thanks. That clears up everything.

[BHPshooter]

Hmmm, let's see now....

It couldn't have been the jetliners that cut through the middle of the building, obviously weakening the structures. It also couldn't be that jet fuel, a flammable that rarely is introduced to a structure fire, can't be put out with water!!! I am working my way into the aviation field, and believe you me, water does not put out burning jet fuel. The jet fuel is much less dense than, and floats wonderfully on, water.

I've been called paranoid, but this takes the taco.

:rolleyes:

[Partisan Ranger]

If the wife needs tin foil, I'll have to tell her this guy bought it all.:rolleyes:

[SGT109FA]

WTC theory.

This BS of arrest President Bush now has to be the biggest bunch of horse s**t of have ever heard about 911. Please spare us the liberal jibberish.:fire:

[DaveB]

Links to many articles about WTC structural failure:

http://www.prorev.com/wtc.htm

Example:

BILL MANNING, FIRE ENGINEERING MAGAZINE - Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck - they were two of thousands that fit the description . . .

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything . . .

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions . . .

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

db

[Hutch]

You know, there's people out there that think the moon landings were faked, but that studio wrestling is real. This is worse than that. This is supermarket tabloid stupid, as in, "Man marries two-headed woman, is arrecsted for bigamy" and "Alien space baby kept alive by Bigfoot's mother". I'm going to find some way to strike it rich on stupidity. I've just got to..

[Augustwest]

I love the Weekly World News :p

[Mike Irwin]

I've seen what happens to structural steel in fires. It's pretty amazing to see steel sleepers blow out poured concrete walls as they expand, throwing chunks of concrete 80 or even 100 feet.

The contention that no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire is a chimera. He has absolutely no conception of how the Towers were constructed, how they differed from "traditional" steel buildings, and why it is simply amazing that the buildings stood for as long as they did after being hit.

Essentially, the WTC buildings were lobsters -- their structural skeletons were on the OUTSIDE, unlike a traditional steel building, in which the exterior of the building is essentially hung on the interior skeleton.

I love how people claim that the collapse scenario is "unexplored."

Sorry, folks. It's not unexplored. There have been at least two shows on TV showing the great pains to which the theory has been explored, including the EXCELLENT one that HarryB provides the link for.



Fumegator has the concept regarding the fire, but it needs to go a little farther.

The jet fuel fire actually burned itself out fairly quickly. But it burned long enough and hot enough that it simply outlasted the springkler system.

The sprinklers all over the affected floors went off at once, and many of the sprinkler transmission pipes were destroyed. Both of these events caused the holding tanks on the upper floors to drain very quickly, with the cut supply pipes essentially dumping water that would do absolutely no good in fighting the fires.

Some of the fires may have been knocked back a bit, but once the water was gone, and the jet fuel burned itself out, the building's contents were fully involved and providing for the basis of a fire that eventually became MUCH hotter than the initial jet fuel fire.


This guy's a jackass, pure and simple.

[SGT109FA]

Well you are all just STUPID ! Don't ya all know GWB is responsible for the WTC destruction. A good Democrat would have tossed himself in front of the incoming plane.

[DaveB]

A good Democrat would have tossed himself in front of the incoming plane.

Probably not, but a good Democrat would have seen to it that the second, third, and fourth planes were intercepted by the AF.

db

[SGT109FA]

Probably not, but a good Democrat would have seen to it that the second, third, and fourth planes were intercepted by the AF.

Yes and Captain James T. Klinton would have had the AF go at warp speed to do that mission. :rolleyes:

[goalie]

So, tell me again how the people who allegedly planted bombs convinced the hijackers to fly into the buildings (at exactly the same floor in each building that the alleged explosives were planted, because you can watch the video and clearly see where the collapse begins: right where the planes hit) if they were not Islamic fanatics?? Why even do the plane gig, they could have used the bombs alone then framed the Islamists anyhow.

Hello, anybody home?

Two words: Occam's Razor.

[ARperson]

I happened to catch the PBS show on why the towers fell. Extensive interviews with the main architect. You could tell he was very sad to know that his building was built the way it was because ultimately it lead to lots of deaths. I'm pretty sure he'd be the first crying foul if he thought there were other reasons for the collapse of the towers.

This doc. alone disproves about half of the accusations about the tragedy. Yes, steel buildings are susceptible to fire. No, the evidence was not destroyed. And on and on and on....

[DaveB]

Yes and Captain James T. Klinton would have had the AF go at warp speed to do that mission.

If I recall correctly, W was jetting around the country looking for a place to hide.

Mebbe calling the AF slipped his mind.

db

[Mark Tyson]

I see the John Birch society is alive and well.

You are doing a great service for the VPC and the Brady Bunch, who monitor RKBA forums. I'm sure they will be chuckling as they record this for their next newsletter.

[Mike Irwin]

"Probably not, but a good Democrat would have seen to it that the second, third, and fourth planes were intercepted by the AF."

Nice try, but nothing anyone could have done at that point could have even remotely changed the outcome of the situation.

Among the over 4,000 flights over the United States that day, how do you distinguish which flights are hijacked, and which are not?

Additionally, you simply can't intercept hijacked aircraft when you don't have military aircraft near enough to do the interception.

If the full-time military men, men whose entire careers has been spent in uniform in the service of their nation, couldn't change those facts, how do you expect that a "good Democrat" could have changed those facts?

Calling on their pact with Satan?

Now, if you actually had a concept of a clue, Dave, you'd know that the first military fighter response to the situation occurred less than 10 minutes after it became clear that there was an organized attack going on, but given the peace time conditions under which the United States was operating, those fighters were coming out of New England, and were FAR too far away to be able to effect an intercept in time.

At that point in time it became evident that the United States was under a coordinated attack, Bush was still on the ground, and speaking to a school full of children about the ongoing terrorist attack that was unfolding.

Quite frankly, I suspect that a "good Democrat" such as Al Gore never would have had the testicular fortitude to issue a shoot-down order in the first place. Maybe he would have, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Quite frankly, statements such as these harken right back to the sort of foolish nonsense that one hears about Franklin Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, that he could have stopped the attack if he had WANTED to...

"FDR had personal knowledge, along with full time tables, of the pending Japanese attack and did nothing so that it was assured that the United States would enter the war against Germany." That's one of my favorites...


Look, take a suggestion to heart.

Have a modicum of knowledge about the timetable and facts of the situation before you start spouting off.

It makes you look a lot less foolish in the long run.

[DaveB]

Read http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/dayof911.html in its entirety, and then we'll talk.

db

[Mike Irwin]

I've read it.

It is, essentially, a series of poorly interpreted suppositions, loosely supported by fact, largely by axe grinders, who profess to want to shed light on the historical record, just as, I'm sure, Mr. Kaminski thinks he is doing.

Essentially, they're the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists of the Internet.

There are numerous websites, as well as books, that "prove," beyond a shadow of a doubt :rolleyes:, that FDR was complicit in allowing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and kill thousands of Americans.

If you're looking for substantially factual information on that particular website, you're wasting your time.

There are two things that are patently true in all of this...

9-11 was the result of a long series of intelligence failures stretching back long before Bush, Clinton, Bush, or even Reagan were in the White House...

The United States had its ??? handed to it on 9-11.

Unfortunately, just as with Pearl Harbor, there are far too many people who simply can't accept the fact that the United States isn't infalliable, and are driven to create conspiracy no matter what the cost.

[Hkmp5sd]

Somebody explain to me precisely how water from a sprinkler system in a building will put out a jet fuel fire.

Or how water from a severed pipe at the lower impact zone of the aircraft strike will put out a fire several stories above that location given that fire moves upward as in burns and water tends, when left outside pipes and without pressure, to flow downwards? :)

What this means is that George W. Bush is guilty of complicity to murder

If Bush was going to go to all of this trouble, why do it 8 months after entering office? Do it a couple of months before he needs re-electing in November, 2004. That way, he is still riding at the top of the patriotic, anger and revenge feeling of the voters. The democratic spin doctors would not have enough time to construct all of these demented "proofs".

[keederdag]

YA,.....What Mike Said....:D

[DaveB]

Mike, I didn't read their conclusions. I looked at the timescale, the actions, and the math. I do not accect that the AF 'couldn't get there in time'.

I grew up in DC, and my Father was DOD. There is no place more protected (by fighter aircraft) anywhere in the world.

Why is it that anything posted that calls into question decisions and commands made by our 'leadership' is immediately labeled the product of 'America Haters'?

If the 'Nuge (:rolleyes: ) had written that timeline, using the same numbers, people would take it as the revealed word of God.

db

[keederdag]

Dave, you have to be a seriously angry guy, with a whole lot of time on his hands. Is this the only forum where you pick virtual fights with the native element? C'mon, it was a tragety. It had been planned for over 10years. These guy's did their homework, and hit us where it hurts. I don't buy that you could lay blame on Any Potus for this. And no, I'm not even a Republican!:)

[Hkmp5sd]

I don't buy that you could lay blame on Any Potus for this. And no,

I do buy that you can lay blame on the previous POTUS for permitting the conditions that allowed this incident to occur. It took 8 years of Klinton ingoring the threat, avoiding the threat and being "politically correct" about the ways to stop the threat, that resulted in the conditions to make the attack successful.

[keederdag]

No fan of Klinton here, but I think that if anyone dropped the ball, it was the intellegence community, not the Potus. They plenty of funding during Bill's admin, and he did'nt exactly tie their hand's that I can remeber. Maybe I'm wrong, but as much as I'd like to lay blame on Klinton, I don't see him as the culprit here.:(

[Mike Irwin]

"I grew up in DC, and my Father was DOD. There is no place more protected (by fighter aircraft) anywhere in the world."

Actually, that's an absolute fantasy that there is a tight net of aircraft over the United States at all times, ready to pounce on imminent threats.

Once again, there were over 4,000 commercial flights over the United States on September 11, 2001. There were, as there had been at any given time over the previous approximately 10 years, roughly 14 aircraft assigned to the protection of the CONUS.

Those aren't aircraft in the air, those are aircraft that are readywait aircraft.

When a commercial airliner turns off its transponder, which the highjacked aircraft did, they can essentially disappear, which is exactly what happened, because there are SIGNIFICANT gaps in the radar coverage of the United States, and there always have been, and likely always will be.

"Why is it that anything posted that calls into question decisions and commands made by our 'leadership' is immediately labeled the product of 'America Haters'?"

No, the true question is why do certain elements in the population immediately have to inject vast governmental conspiracies with nefarious purposes as the reason behind what is really a multi-level failure of many aspects of the American intelligence, defense, and political communities?

I've often said that I fully belive that some people are so paranoid that they simply don't feel secure if there isn't a conspiracy upon which they can hang their hopes, dreams, aspirations, and failures.

Please tell me this...

If a "good Democrat" could have done better in this regard, then why were the World Trade Center and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City bombed during the administration of a Democrat?

Why didn't the grace, wisdom, and perspicacity of the "good Democrat" and his administration prevent those nefarious conspiratorial plots?

Evidence exists that indicates that the intelligence community had some knowledge of these plots before they were carried out...

Perhaps, then, a "good Democrat" wouldn't be any more effective than a "hideous Republican" in that sense?

It's common knowledge here that I have an undying hatred for Bill Clinton, Hillary, and all things about their "co-presidency" as she called it.

But I don't for a moment believe that he had foreknowledge of the event, conspired to hide the event or, as a single individual with an enormous workforce under him had specific knowledge of the plots.

[keederdag]

Here, Here....:D

[Mike Irwin]

"If Bush was going to go to all of this trouble, why do it 8 months after entering office?"

Bingo, HK.

The first, and major clue, that the entire conspiracy theory is hokum.

The timeline simply isn't appropriate.

Just as the statement that I quoted above about Pearl Harbor "FDR had personal knowledge, along with full time tables, of the pending Japanese attack and did nothing so that it was assured that the United States would enter the war against Germany" doesn't account for the fact that the United States didn't declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the United States.

Absent that act of idiocy, the United States could easily have been at war with Japan for months, or even years, before being drawn into a European war.

The counter to that fact is that "well, Japan and Germany were allied! Of course Germany would declare war on Japan, they were obligated to!"

Unfortunately, nothing in the Tripartiate (sp?) Pact states that to be the case, and the "proof of the pudding" so to speak of that is that Germany and Great Britain were at war for over two years before Japan finally decided to attack British possessions on December 8, 1941, which finally drew Britain into the Pacific War.

[Hkmp5sd]

and he did'nt exactly tie their hand's that I can remeber.

You might want to check out:

See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism by Robert Baer

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security by Lr. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson

Catastrophe: Clinton's Role in America's Worst Disaster by Christopher Ruddy and Carl Limbacher Jr.

The High Cost of Peace: How Washington's Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism by Yossef Bodansky

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror by Richard Miniter

[keederdag]

HK:I will, Thank's. And I hear Ya, Klinton was a complete %#@!'n retard. And probably the worst pres we have ever had.:cuss:

[DRC]

Now people...

To be fare I have to say that after reading the information given in the original post I'm inclined to believe that there may be something to this. I mean think about it, how can you prove it isn't true? Maybe they did plant charges in the building and blow it up to...to...further something or whatever. Maybe it was a Communist plot. Ever think about that?

Yeah, and GW is actually in kahoots with the Communists. And the Communists are really Klingons dressed as humans, but you can only tell that if you wear these special glasses (you get them at Walgreens I believe) The only way to keep them from sucking out your brain through a large pointed straw is by wearing lambs blood on your forehead and huffing Sterno.

The explosives used weren't explosives at all but rather Plutonium Niborg, mined on the planet Dufus in the Moronicus Nebula. Very dangerous stuff but useful in clear cutting trees. Kind of a matter/anti-matter reaction.

And the Sleastacks, oh God the Sleastacks! Running the Universe from the pylons with these crystals and...BIG DOGS! BIG DOGS! LANDING ON MY FACE! "Old Nick the sea captain was a rough, tuff, jolly sort of fellow. He loved the life of the sea and he loved to hang out down by the pier where the men dressed as ladies." Wednesday is Jello night at the home. "10 minutes to Wopner."

AAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I'm okay. I'll be alright. The medication is setting in now. Aunti M? Is that you?

DRC :D

[Hkmp5sd]

Forget the medication. The other world looks a whole lot more interesting than reality! :)

[Mike Irwin]

Don Gault,

Just saw your message about the sprinkler system.

It's apparent that you don't understand how the sprinkler systems on tall buildings work.

The sprinkler systems most of us are familiar with, ones that are installed in relatively low rise buildings like apartment buildings, some homes, and schools, generally work well when supplied by water taken from regular service mains.

The line pressure is normally more than enough to provide water in sufficient quantities to suppress a fire.

However, gravity eventually wins over line pressure, and you simply can't force water to go any higher without pumps. But supplying constant pump pressure to a sprinkler system in a 110-story building isn't feasible, either. You'd need to have multiple pumping stations. And what if there's a massive power failure, as there was a few weeks ago?

So, the most logical method of providing fire suppression cover is pumping water into static tanks. Yes, you need to do the relay pumping, but you don't have to do it to fill the static tanks as they are drawn down.

And since you're already pumping potable water up into holding tanks (that's the water that's used to flush toilets, provide water in drinking fountains, etc.), the approach in the past has normally been to simply pump water into large holding tanks for the sprinkler system, as well.

(Here's a secret... Ever been in a high rise apartment building or hotel that has a swimming pool on an upper floor? Guess what the pool is part of in many cases... The sprinkler system! It's one of the holding tanks.)

Once you have water in the holding tanks, gravity does the rest -- the water flows through standpipes to individual sprinkler heads as it's called for.

Now, imagine a plane loaded with 24,000 gallons of jet fuel kerosene crashes into the building.

I'm sure you remember the images... The planes go in one side of the building, and on the opposite side LOTS of stuff comes flying straight through the wall and down into the streets.

Remember, too, that those aircraft will impact not just a single floor, but several floors at the same time (they're taller than one floor is high), and one, if not both, planes hit at angles that transected several floors.

Immediately you have a massive breach of the pipes that supply the fire sprinklers in the areas where the jets hit, and likely in a swath right through the building to the other side. Standpipes AND individual trunk lines, on which the sprinkler heads are mounted, are destroyed, causing massive ruptures. Some likely would survive, but given that a disaster of this type was never anticipated when the building was designed, the sprinkler system is generally a large unit -- it's not branched or isolated.

The jet fuel also ignites fires over huge expanses of the floor, which means that those sprinkler heads that do survive are going to activate. They'll suppress the fire in those small areas, to some degree, but what good is that if all around that area an out-of-control fire is raging, and the sprinklers in those areas are destroyed?

So we have a unique situation. The sprinkler system was never designed to deal with such a massive fire, and it was never anticipated that the system would be catastrophically breached in so many places, rendering it largely ineffective.

And there's only a limited amount of water in the static tanks, and a large part of that is running out of the broken pipes and doing nothing to suppress the fires that are now raging across several floors.

Quite frankly, given the situation faced on September 11, I don't think any type of fire suppression system would have survived the catastrophic impact of a fully loaded jet liner going at 500 MPH.

[Hkmp5sd]

Not to mention, you put a fire out by removing the fuel (ie soaking everything) or cooling the fire below combustion temperatures or removing the oxygen (ie smothering). That would take a great deal of water in this situation.

[Destructo6]

As previously mentioned, regular old water isn't the best for putting out jet fuel fires. Probably the best stuff is AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) that can smother the fire by flowing over it and thereby depriving it of O2.

If you want to see jet fuel fought with water, mainly, check out the fire aboard the USS Forrestal. The experienced fire crews were killed early on and the less-experienced hose teams, although fighting valliantly, were hosing off the AFFF with water.
but you can only tell that if you wear these special glasses (you get them at Walgreens I believe)
Those were the "Blue Blockers". Notice they're not for sale anywhere these days?

[Don Galt]

I'm glad someone on this thread was bright enough to recognize that you have to put tanks of water on the top of buildings like this, rather than relying on water pressure.

But when the system is destroyed, the water would just flow out of the tanks. Maybe it wasn't large enough to handle the size of the damage-- but someone saidt he system had been *disabled* by the jets, and that's abusrd... the water would just flow out of the "disabled" pipes onto the fire.

Its amazing how intolerant so many people here are... completely unwilling to consider that this might be something other than what it appears to be.

Course, I'm sure y'all are certain Randy Weaver was a white supremecist who was guilty of sellng a sawed off shotgun and had it coming, and that the Branch Dividians were child molestors with dozens of illegal machine guns and had it coming.

So, is who is in office the sole determiner of whether the government is honest or not? OR are you willing to concede that Bush might be just as much a criminal as Clinton?

I guess its no use pointing out the long history of Gun control from Bush 1 and 2.... only Clinton can pass gun bans, right?

[Standing Wolf]

It was a bunch of mean-spirited Republican Texas, I bet, since after all, they're the ones behind the A.I.D.S. epidemic, and they're causing cancer from coast to coast, and raising taxes on the unemployable, and...

Oh. Whew! There for a moment, I thought I was a leftist!

[P95Carry]

This will remain a contentious subject for much time to come but there are seemingly some anachronisms ....... so I'll throw this in the pot as yet another appraisal floating around ..... no judgement made - simply more angle and perspective, that's all.
Whilst I am a degree engineer, I am NOT specifically a structural engineer or civil engineer. My background and work over the years though covers broad aspects of most sciences and so my opinion is based on this...... and is I stress just that, an opinion. These days, anything much that goes against ''popular belief'' tends to be labelled ''tin-foil'' as if only out to show conspiracy etc ....... people must however ask themselves honestly in many respects ''what makes sense'', and what does not.

I have visited this site .... http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/ ....... and gone thru in some detail and as impartially as I can. I also downloading the video clips on offer plus saving all the pictures.

The site is of course biased ........ naturally - it is out to prove one thing and disprove another. I tried hard not to be swayed by this but instead judge from the facts as presented, apart from which much over and above this site's information has been seen over the last two years also. Several points made deserve another look or interpretation.

1) Much has been made of combustion and temperatures. One side maintains the conflagration was more than adequate to melt steel. The other camp is most decidely disputing this. Now, it is a fact that broadly, a lot of very dark smoke can be indicative of incomplete combustion, smoke after all being in essence a mixture of gases most of which are combustible - in the presence of oxygen. Let us remember however that many of the materials to be found in modern buildings are in fact inherently very productive of black smoke even when burning freely. Styrene foams are a good example. So, the temperatures were probably very high.

''Flash over'', the nightmare phenomenon firefighters face is something to remember here. Slow initial burning of many man-made materials produces dense smoke (a killer in itself) and whilst that process continues for a short time, perhaps two to three minutes, the temperature rises steadily until ''flash over'' occurs .... this being the secondary ''re-ignition'' if you like of this dense smoke/gas, resulting in a fireball type of effect. Temperatures can and do reach high levels such as the quoted 800ºC or even higher.

Now ..... we must remember also that the fire initially was due to a large amount of accelerant .... namely aviation fuel - a lot of it. Add to this the breaching of the building's outer integrity on both sides ......... and we do have potential for copious supplies of oxygen and even a ''chimney'' effect as air is sucked in to feed a greedy fire. A blacksmith will blow forced air onto coke and provide a high enough temperature with which to heat and then forge his iron, usually to a cherry red towards orange. At this point the iron is ductile enough to be worked. This however is an ideal state and it is doubtful such could have occurred in the Trade Center fire - at least not on a broad scale sufficient to produce wide scale plastic deformation of the steel structures and thence the collapse we saw.

So, what are we saying here? I think it is possible that in localized zones, some, and only some, steel may have reached a point of significant plasticity but, bearing in mind the structure with internal box columns, then even if truss floor beams were able to distort, it is more than unlikely that any floor collapses would have been dangerous to the overall structure. Certainly not enough to initiate any ''dominoe'' effect as claimed.


2) The actual collapse. Now here we have a much more apparently cut and dried situation in my opinion.... having already decided now that fire was not in itself anywhere near adequate to initiate a collapse on the scale and in the manner seen, we are left with having to consider alternatives. I cannot believe by any stretch of the imagination that these structures could BOTH have suffered terminal collapse the way it appeared.

Did they fall over? No they did not, they collapsed almost vertically. Even the South Tower where the top 30 or so floors start to topple translates into a seemingly explosive destruction at a lower level such that the top section no longer topples but follows the rest down, due to loss of support from below. As this occurs we see evidence of profound lateral dust clouds moving at substantial velocity. Reports were many that stated that the clouds of dust and debris travelled FAST, even overtaking some erstwhile and unfortunate escapees. Too fast in my view for a pure collapse due to gravity alone....... a relatively much slower event and also one which would possibly have ''stalled'' at a high level.

A structure such as these is of course as strong as the weakest link but, even with the symmetry of construction, a ''natural'' collapse would eventually have probably led to a bias to one side and thus an eventual topple to one side - or at least a bias. The odds against this near vertical collapse are large. If however we look at the techniques of demolition which usually occur in confined spaces in built up areas ....... the whole skill involved is the placement of charges and the timing of same in order to collapse a structure both inwards and on itself.

In many instances, charges are shot first at the base, consecutive floors above then being fired so as to achieve the ideal, though depending on the structural techniques employed in a specific building the opposite may be considered also.

Perhaps the single most damning factor that strikes me is the conversion of many thousands of tons of concrete to dust, and at that, a fast moving cloud of dust that covered a very wide area. Pure gravity induced collapse could not I feel do this - there would be many large sized pieces of concrete to be found after the event. It was reckoned that almost all non steel elements were in fact converted to approx 100 micron dust particles...... compared this with earthquake collapses of even quite tall structures .... there we see huge slabs of concrete, even if rebar is showing.... one reason occasionally a few people survive in spaces formed.

Why was steel disposed of so quickly - sold on often thru export to scrap dealers far and wide. There is even I believe a report of the appearance of one piece of steel which suggested the use of a shaped charge. What is a ''shaped charge''? It is a charge of explosive that is placed against a structure and partially ''contained'' by having a backing of something like copper angle - a sort of focussing device. This can cut thru very thick steel accurately.

Many pictures and reports referred to ''jets'' ...... small puffs of smoke or dust exiting from then intact areas and below the upper collapse. How can these occur thru natural collapse?? I can think of no explanation thus far. They could however be very familiar to demolition experts, as consecutive charges at different levels are fired in a timed sequence.

One big question bothers me. How could it be that not one but BOTH towers collapse on themselves in very similar fashion, and so fast and with such apparent energy? Had they been masonry construction then this would have made a considerable difference - then, the ''house of cards'' deal would be much more expected. I keep looking at pictures showing early collapse stages. Ever evident is the vast amount of lateral and rapid travel of copious quantities of ''smoke'' - probably concrete dust - and this, way before the lower two thirds to three quarters has ''collapsed''

Is this really feasable with a natural collapse event? I really doubt it. Of course I wonder what may have been within the structures that could have acted explosively...... mundane items not normally given a second's thought. I can think of none sufficient to produce this degree of energetic loss of integrity, none at all.

The velocity of detonation of most high explosive is in the region of 5 km/sec to 8 km/sec. The latter mostly detonatators used to initiate charges ... the former perhaps more typical of stuff like 80% blasting gelatine etc. Energy like this is more than enough to render concrete to a particulate state if in sufficient quantity.

--------------------------------

To sum up........ and even take off the ''tin-foil'' hat!! Ask yourself, does it ALL make sense and add up?? Visit the site for which I gave the URL. If you answer ''well no, not quite'' ...... take that a stage further and see what your own explanation might be. Forget the politico/logistic angles and just consider the pure physics of the event, much of which can employ little more than average common sense. There is no need to even think in terms of ''who dunnit'' ...... or whether the powers that be have explained things adequately ....... quite simply, review it as the event it was and decide if it all makes perfect sense.

This commentary is not to represent an indictment of any organization or level accusations - it is merely a look at an event that seems to contain matters that simply do not add up. Look and think, outside of the box - often a worthwhile excercize.

[Don Galt]

I'm an engineer and an ex-physicist... ex because I went into software development.

I cannot come up with a scenario that fits the common story-- the buildings relied on their external framework for much of their support, and this external framework, in both cases, was dispraportionately damaged on one side. Both buildings should have toppled as they fell.

I can't speak to whether its likely the fire weakened the metal trusses or not, so just assuming that's what happened, its unlikely that either building would fall straight down, as the external framework was unequally damaged, and the internal floor collapse would have been unlikely to happen in two places (two sides of the building) at the same time.

If it had happened once, I'd not be suspicious, but two times with the towers, and apparently a third time with another building. Its really odd.

If saying the odds of this happening are very low given the laws of physics makes me paranoid, then so be it.

[Sergeant Bob]

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE
Questions & Answers

Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever.

The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions” and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack.


DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?
Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

Implosionworld.com WTC FAQ (http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm)

[Hkmp5sd]

The buildings collapsed not from the damage of the aircraft but from the fuel fire. The fire was essential distributed to all areas of the effected floors, so the damage was fairly evenly distributed.

The reason it collapsed instead of toppled is due to the way the individual floors were connected to the outside frame. The floor was designed to carry a given weight. Once the first floor failed due to the fire and the weight of the aircraft parts, the next floor down was automatically overloaded and failed. This continued all the way down.

If the effected floors had been able to withstand the weight of the aircraft and weakening from the fire, yet the damaged outside load bearing supports had failed, the building would have toppled.

OR as described in Sergeant Bob's post added while I was typing. :) BTW, that is an outstanding website.

[Don Galt]

Makes no sense.

In order for them not to topple, the timing of collapse would have had to be within milliseconds... soemthing you're not going to get.

Furthermore, the external frame carried most of the weight and was not evenly damaged.

Believe what you want to believe, just don't pretend it makes sense from a scientific point of view.

[gun-fucious]

considering that all the rubble was sorted down to the wrist watch and melted pistol level

dotcha think someone might have found some evidence of explosive damage?

:banghead: :banghead:

[Sergeant Bob]

Makes perfect sense doesn't it? I saw a show on History Channel or something on building demolition. It takes alot of preparation! They can't just go in and place a bunch of explosives, push the plunger and BOOM , down comes the building. They have to do alot of drilling, stripping away of interior walls (to expose beams and girders) and partially cut through the beams they need to demolish. Then they have to run wires from all those explosives to a central location. The amount of time required to accomplish these feats would be extensive, as well as impossible to do without someone noticing something strange was going on. Considering there were what, 50,000 people in those buildings daily, you would think one of them would be astute enough to realize something was amiss!

I know some people hate Bush so much that they want to pin this on him, but he has enough real faults they could pick on without making themselves look like total kooks.

[jimpeel]

invisible pink unicornsIf they're invisible, how do you know they're pink? Ah HA! So YOU were the one! Your slip of the tongue has given you away and revealed you for what you are -- an invisible pink unicorn rancher trying to get free publicity for your new and tasty meat product. Don't try to deny it! You have given yourself away and PETA will soon be at your door demonstrating on behalf of these poor exploited animals! You Bastard! You grd gtz agh ahhhh meds ... taking ... effect. Nice meds. Good meds. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Mike Irwin]

"but someone saidt he system had been *disabled* by the jets"

That can probably be argued as a part of a semantical discussion, but I don't think saying that the fire sprinkler system was largely disabled is an inappropriate way of stating it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to postulate that the initial strike destroyed as many as 50% or more of the sprinkler heads on the floors primarily affected by the strike.

Even worse would be catastrophic ruptures in the sprinkler system piping. This probably would have deprived many of the remaining sprinkler heads of water.

If the system is gushing water from where it's not supposed to be, and it's not being spread about in a manner that will suppress the fire, then it's not really doing jack squat. Just because the water is flowing you can't make the assumption that it's flowing in a way that will be effective.

And no, the people who designed the sprinkler system have stated as much, that they never designed a suppression system to handle the simultaneous ignition of roughly 24,000 gallons of aviation kerosene.


"Its amazing how intolerant so many people here are... completely unwilling to consider that this might be something other than what it appears to be."

I'm certain that people here are more than willing to entertain LOGICAL theories on why what happened did happen, Don.

But so far, the linked threads crying conspiracy haven't presented any logical theories, only wild supposition.

Are we to give creedence to a website saying that because Hillary Clinton has fat calves and thighs that she's actually a rhinoceros just because someone links it?

The rebuttal links, to shows that have aired, have had in-depth interviews with civil and structural engineers, demolitions experts, architects, builders, and even the man who conceived of the design for the towers.

Are they, speaking in concert, to be dismissed as "having been gotten to by the vast speculative conspiracy" simply because Mr. Kamiski posts wild rantings?

We're talking about (like Pearl Harbor) a conspiracy that would involve hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of people.

Yet, just as with Pearl Harbor, there's nothing other than speculation and interpretation to suggest that there was a vast overriding conspiracy driving the events of the day.

Conspiracies and secrets are perhaps the most fragile of all of man's creations.

If someone can be co-opted into participating in a conspiracy, they can also be co-opted out of participation.

Yet nothing credible has been unearthed to date.

There's an old saying that's very similar in nature to Ockham's Razor...

If you hear hoofbeats, look for a horse first. Don't immediately assume it's a zebra.

As for whether or not politicans are honest, that's an entirely different discussion.

We're not talking about relatively petty dishonesty, we're talking about what some are claiming as governmental complicity in the murder of over 3,000 men, women, and children as the end result of a pervasive conspiratorial act.

Remember Watergate?

There were fewer than 50 players who knew fully what was going on.

Yet two schlubs from the Washington Post, and a third from the New York Times, pulled strings in such a manner that an American President was toppled.

What these conspiracy theorists are asking us to do is to believe that they have all of the answers, and that, essentially, every police investigator, every government agent, and every investigative journalist in this nation has been either co-opted or is so grossly incompetent as to be unable to uncover the vast conspiracy that Mr. Kamiski claims to have stumbled into.

Sure.

I'm going to buy that.

When someone has something BELIEVABLE to bring forward, bring it forward.

Don't try to blow smoke up my ??? and tell me that it's fact, and that you're the only one who gets it because everyone else is "co-opted by the evil forces of the government."

[answerguy]

I'm supposed to beleive that it was a combination of the planes and explosives that brought the building down? And that no one saw the miles of wire necessary to set off the explosives? Or the men planting the explosives? What were the planes needed for anyways?

[Mike Irwin]

You don't think the fire in the WTC was hot enough to melt, or at least significantly soften, steel once it got roaring?

A simple residential house fire with no true venting can generate temperatures in EXCESS of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DEGREES FARENHEIT.

With the "forge" effect that would be going on with huge holes punched in two sides of the building it's not at all beyond imagination that the fire could have reached temperatures more than hot enough to cause significant rigidity failure in the structural steel.

As I noted above, I've been on site at more than one fire where steel beams pocketed into brick or steel walls have expanded during a fire with enough force to "blow" masonry chunks upwards 100 feet away from the site of the fire.



Now, as for the "toppling effect" that says that the building should have fallen over on its side instead of coming straight down...

Interviews with numerous architects and engineers have stated that it's not at all unusual for this to happen given the relatively short height of the sections of the building affected.

However, if you actually watch the tapes closely, you'll see that I believe the top section of tower two actually did start to collapse laterally, instead of straight down, and then it self corrected.




It seems that some are trying to correlate the contolled demolition of a building from the BASE with what happened at the WTC. You can't do that.

As John DiLouiazo (sp?) of Controlled Demolition said in one of the specials TLC ran on their business of destructing buildings, you're not trying to fell the building by kicking its head in, you're trying to do it by kicking its legs out from under it.

One of the best explanations I've seen for just why the buildings pancaked, instead of toppling sideways, is because they were designed to resist ENORMOUS wind pressures pushing on them laterally. The idea was to create a building that would flex laterally but be able to resist sustained winds of upwards 150 MPH for over 30 minutes.

The buildings were, in essence, over-engineered to avoid a sideways collapse, but were less so designed to prevent a pancake collapse.

Oh, and in case you don't believe that a top-down pancake collapse is possible?

About 10 years ago in, I believe, New Jersey, a 5 or 7-story building was being erected using the "slab jacking method," in which columns are erected, and the floor slab jacked up the column, set into place with special retaining rings, and another layer built on top of it.

Proven technology, used quite a bit.

Only this time one of the retaining rings failed as a slab was being jacked into place. The slab fell, with the result being a pancake collapse of the entire building from the top down. I belive 11 men were killed in that collapse.

[Hkmp5sd]

Believe what you want to believe, just don't pretend it makes sense from a scientific point of view.

Who is pretending? :) I believe it makes sense from a scientific point of view.

We can pretend to get real scientific and say that as viewed with the theory of General Relativity, time flowed slower at the top of the tower as compared to the base of the tower. This additional time was used by suicide hacksawers to run around weakening the structure to ensure the tower would collapse instead of topple. :rolleyes:

Besides, bin Laden wanted the towers to topple. Lots more damage and dead people that way. Why go to all of this trouble to make them pancake?

[Mike Irwin]

Oh come now, Sgt. Bob.

It's obvious that those people at Implosion.com have been...

co-opted...

by those who are perpetrating this vast conspiracy.

I'd bet that they've been briefed by the President himself.


All of this really reminds me of one of my former coworkers.

He truly believes, with all his heart, that the world economy is run by a council of 13 Jews, headed by the Rothschild family, and has been since the 14th century.

If you ask him why none of this has come out to general public knowledge, his answer is that anyone who actually learns of this is either co-opted or killed.

I kid you not, he believes that World Wars I and II were started by the Rothschilds and the council of 13 Jews a way of getting rid of a large number of people in Europe who accidentally learned of the conspiracy, and that those people were largely killed off in the first year of the wars, but that the wars had to continue for several more years, with millions more deaths, so no one would become suspicious.

If this guy wasn't such a talented programmer I have no doubt that he'd be in a :cuss:ing nuthatch.

[.45FMJoe]

Well perhaps he should stick to coding and leave the real stuff to the experts, no? Oh, in one of my engineering classes, we watched a video on the construction of the towers. Mike is right about how they had to be built to withstand such high winds for even longer than 30 minutes.

The irony in the video is the head engineer talking about the ridgidity of the exoskeleton. He said, with a smile on his face, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of 6 Boeing 737s. Well, they did withstand the impact no problems, it was the fires that screwed them.

[Preacherman]

Are we to give creedence to a website saying that because Hillary Clinton has fat calves and thighs that she's actually a rhinoceros just because someone links it?
Hmmm... Mike, you might be on to something here!

:neener: :p :D

[Sergeant Bob]

He truly believes, with all his heart, that the world economy is run by a council of 13 Jews, headed by the Rothschild family, and has been since the 14th century.
That's just crazy! Everyone knows the Freemason's control the world!
If you ask him why none of this has come out to general public knowledge, his answer is that anyone who actually learns of this is either co-opted or killed.
So-o-o-o-o, what's he still doing here?
If this guy wasn't such a talented programmer I have no doubt that he'd be in a :cuss:ing nuthatch.
He's not an ex-physicist is he?

[Orthonym]

My pore ol' pickup truck, sitting out there in the driveway, is burning as I type. It has holes, it has crumbly reddish-brown places, it's just awful! It's that evil old oxygen, that's what it is! If we react all that nasty oxygen out of the air, so as to make the atmosphere 100% nitrogen, why, then, nothing would ever burn!

[kentucky bucky]

It would be funny if there weren't so many NUT CASES in this country that will believe this hog wash.

[Mike Irwin]

"six 737s..."

If you take a look at the technical specifications, you'll see the vast difference between a 737 and the 767s that crashed into the WTC towers, you'll get a good idea of where the differences are...

The 767s are, in comparison to the 737, huge aircraft.

A 737s maximum takeoff weight, according to Boeing, is just shy of 175,000 pounds.

A 767s is well over DOUBLE that at 450,000 pounds.

A 737 carries 6,875 gallons of fuel.

A 767 carries almost 24,000 gallons of fuel.

Dimensionally the 767 is also quite a bit larger, as well.

Given those basic differences, it's not hard to understand why the damage was so much more catastrophic than had ever been envisioned by the original designers.

[answerguy]

Oh, and in case you don't believe that a top-down pancake collapse is possible?

One more piece of evidence that it can happen is because it did happen.

[Tamara]

For the buildings to come straight down (especially two of them!) the trusses would have had to give out at exactly the same millisecond on both sides of both buildings... yet the damage in both cases was unequal side-to-side.

More than one photo shows the collapse starting asymetrically, but remember that buildings don't topple like trees, they collapse. Look at any city thats been hit by an earthquake or a strategic bombing raid. Buildings come straight down because the force of gravity always acts perpendicularly to the ground.

[Mike Irwin]

"It's that evil old oxygen, that's what it is!"

And that's not all!

A compound of oxygen, dihydrogen oxide, causes hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths just in this country alone every year, yet the government won't do anything about it!

It's a conspiracy to protect the dihydrogen oxide makers!

[sw442642]

I once was on the now gone Tactics list. It had its share of flame wars. However, once a guy came on and seriously posted that the British Empire was going to try to retake the 'Colonies'. He had a well worked out story. The central command of the plot was the New School for Social Research in NYC (a well known grad institution). He had some difficulty there during his studies because he discovered the plot.

So I think it was MI-6 in the first move against America. Yep, that's it. :what:

PS - gun lists are a fertile ground for this kind of stuff. :scrutiny:

[Cal4D4]

A quick 2 cents on steel in construction: Steel loses 50% of it's design strength at temps little higher than a pizza oven (14% loss at 750F, 51% loss at 930F). Don't try this at home without the protection of your tinfoil hats!

[Mike Irwin]

SW,

That sounds like a cocommitant theory of that posed by Lyndon La******, that the Queen of England is the head of an international drug smuggling cartel...


"Steel loses 60% of it's design strength at temps little higher than a pizza oven."

I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!

It wasn't Al Queda flying hijacked airliners into the WTC towers! That's a cover conspiracy story! It was Domino's "The Noid!" :)


I'm trying to find some information on it how much typical construction steel will expand and at what temperatures.

Perhaps not a lot of people know this, but the reason steel construction components are insulated in buildings is not primarily for energy efficiency, it's to protect the steel from fire and keep it from losing its strength and expanding and riping other sections of the structure apart.

[JohnBT]

You know, I've seen some of those tv shows where they drop buildings on purpose. In each and every case you could the see the perimeter charges go off. Since the WTC buildings were supported with 18-inch steel tubes around the edges, don't you think somebody would have seen the explosions? Heck, filmed them, right?

Don Galt - You are not the only person with a couple of degrees. Your Holier than thou attitude leaves a lot to be desired. Just so you know - sticks and stones may break my bones, but your name calling is just so silly. And please don't bother telling me again how smart you are.

John

[jimpeel]

http://www.animateclay.com/noid.jpg

[Mike Irwin]

Snicker!

That looks suspiciously like a crosshairs he's holding in his hand, too...

[jimpeel]

Coefficient of thermal expansion chart (http://www.warmglass.com/basic/COESummary.htm#metal)

and another (http://www.supercivilcd.com/THERMAL.htm)

An explanation of how Thermal expansion in various materials is calculated (http://www.foamaliteplastics.com/tech11.html)

and an explanation for the uninitiated (http://www.sciencebyjones.com/expansion-contraction.htm)

[morganm01]

What good would water sprinklers do to a liquid state gasoline fuel fire? If anything I could see how water would help the liquid fuel spread faster, as the gasoline would float ontop of the water spreading it around even further. I believe that foam stuff would have been the only thing to work well against that fire.

And on the collapse, I am not at all shocked by the strait downward collapse. As soon as one side would begin to give way, the carefully designed geometric reinforcements on the other side would almost instantly give way as well as soon as the geometric integrity was lost. This "report" reminds me of the Aryan Nation type expose' s on the holocaust myth and how their secret and independant researchers discovered that it was pig skin cells or something on the inside walls of the ovens.

In all, I am very sceptical of all "multi agency secret government" plots and here is why. They could never coordinate it all and pull it off successfully. Somewhere in there would be some guy/gal who would blow the whole thing for a Million dollar expose' on Celebrity Justice or Dateline. In the Navy our ship leaked a turd into the bay, disgruntled sailors were calling everyone from the ELF to PETA and the EPA and Greenpeace.

[jimpeel]

When the aircraft hit the towers they sprayed Jet A fuel (a highly refined kerosene) throughout the interior of the buildings. The elevator shafts were breached which formed a venturi, both above and below, through which ambient air (incoming) was drawn at near supersonic speeds. The superheated air from the fires was then carried through the shaft above the fire as well. This endless supply of air allowed the fire to virtually become a blast furnace.

The air from the lower portion of the structure in which the windows had been breached also fed the fire with fresh oxygen from below. This draft effect also allowed the fire to reach extreme levels of heat.

The annealing temperature for steel is 780°C to 840°C (1436°F to 1544°F). This is where the steel becomes ductile and weakens considerably from its tempered state. The Jet A would have burned off rather rapidly but in that time it would have superheated all of the combustibles in the vicinity to a self feeding furnace. The temperatures at the heart of the fire would have reached incredible levels, likely in the range of 1500°C to 2000°C (2732°F to 3632°F).

From: http://www.anvilfire.com/FAQs/heat_faq_index.htm

What makes this metal hard? iron, steel, carbon, heat, tempering?

What makes materials hard is a complicated subject that has to do with internal crystal structures. These in turn are effected by heat treating or mechanical working. Most non-ferrous metals can only be hardened by "work hardening", hammering, rolling, bending. But they can be softened by "annealing" which is heating to a red heat and then cooling quickly (opposite to steel, see below).

The hardness of steel is determined by carbon content. No carbon and it can't be hardened other than by work hardening. Increasing the carbon content from 0.01% to .10% increases the hardenability and the strength. This is then modified by the addition of alloying metals as well as the alloy metals having their own properties.

To harden most steel it is heated to a medium red or slightly above the point where it becomes non-magnetic. It is then quenched in water, oil or air depending on the type of steel. The steel is now at its maximum hardness but is very brittle. To reduce the brittleness the metal is tempered by heating it to some where between 350°F and 1350°F. This reduced the hardness a little and the brittelness a lot. Most steels need to be tempered at about 450°F for maximum usable hardness but every steel is slightly different.

To soften steel so that it can be cold worked and machined is called annealing. To anneal steel it is heated to slightly above the hardening temperature and then cooled as slow as possible. Cooling is done in an insulating medium such as dry powdered lime or in vermiculite. High carbon and many alloy steels can only be cooled slow enough in a temperature controlled furnace since the cooling rate must be only 20 degrees F per hour for several hours.

The set of processes, annealing, hardening and tempering are collectively known as "heat treating".

The degree C rise over ambient would cause the girders to start to buckle from the tremendous loads above them. The thermal stresses due to the coefficient of thermal expansion would be tremendous as well as the girders and supports expanded. Remember, 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire weight of the building was still above the fires. The fires occupied several floors of the building at once meaning that the amount of support structure of the building that was breached or under stress was rather vast by the standard of the amount of weight they were still expected to support.

There can also be no doubt that several of these vertical support structures were severed/damaged/bent by the initial impact of the aircraft. Mass x velocity will give the amount of force that was applied to the structure. A 757 has a takeoff weight of 54,000 kgs (272,200 lb), a cruising speed of 850 km per hour (530 MPH), and a fuel load of 11,466 gallons. A 767 has a takeoff weight of 204,129 kgs (450,000 lb), a cruising speed of 850 km per hour (530 MPH) and a fuel load 23,980 gallons. For you doubters, DO THE MATH!

As for the implosion. It is called “implosion” for a reason. If the material fell away from the building in a great geyser of ejecta, it would be called an “explosion”.

As the building fell in upon itself, the amount of low pressure generated within the structure would be massive as the air was driven outward. This may be seen in the films of the collapse.

As the air is driven outward by the force of the floors collapsing onto one another, the outer walls can be seen being blown away from the exterior. Meanwhile, the only source for air to rush back into the structure is from the top where there is a strong negative, or low pressure, wave being generated. As the material falls away, it is “sucking” air from the top of the structure as it collapses while blowing material away from below the collapsing floors above. The effect can be seen as the dust and particulate matter above the collapse are seen to roll inward over the top of the structure thus holding the matter in the column of negative pressure being generated. This is why the building came nearly straight down in difference to the wishes of Bin Laden who has expressed that the goal was to cause the top floors to collapse; which would have left a major portion of the buildings standing while the broken section crushed whatever it found below it. He has also expressed that the result exceeded his wildest dreams.

There were no explosives.

There was no American government conspiracy.

There were no radio controlled aircraft used to plow into the buildings as one patriot mythology site has speculated.

What we all witnessed that day was pure physics at work. Sorry to disappoint, but it was just the plain ol’ everyday laws of physics. That’s why they are called the Laws of Physics and not the Theory of Physics.

KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!

[Blain]

Since ancient times, despotic individuals have staged and orchestrated crises in order to sway and direct popular opinion and fear. Governments have done this historically by engineering or exploiting a dilemma that they blame on undesirables. The public, sufficiently outraged, demands a solution for this new problem from the government. The government then offers the solution which they had already created and planned to implement upon request. A few famous historical examples include; Rome in 64 AD, Nero burned the city and blamed it on the Christians in order to raise popular support for their persecution. In 1898 treason was committed by William McKinley’s navy as they blew up their own ship in Havana Harbor, the USS Maine, as a pretext for war with Spain. On February, 27, 1933, Adolf Hitler had the German Government building, the Reichstag, burned to the ground. He then proceeded to blame it on his political enemies as justification to promote himself from Chancellor to Fuehrer and to grant emergency powers to the Nazis, as reported by the Encyclopedia Britannica. The police state soon followed.

On September 11th, 2001 America was stunned from a surprise attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As the towers collapsed, the country looked on in horror, jets were initially told to stand down, and the president, upon hearing of the impact for the first time, continued to read a story about goats to a group of school children for nearly twenty minutes. America was caught totally unaware, and the incompetence of our government and its lax methods were to blame, or so our officials told us. Two years after that fateful day many inconsistencies and red herrings remain.

One red flag involving September 11th was when government officials claimed to have had no prior knowledge of any 9-11 style attack, stating it caught them totally unawares. However, what they failed to mention was how intelligence officials from the Philippines, Germany, France, Jordan, and Russia had contacted CIA and FBI officials, specifically warning them that Middle Eastern terrorists had plans to hijack US airliners and use them to hit the pentagon and civilian targets. In fact, during an MSNBC interview, Russian President Vladimir Putin told of how he personally ordered Russian intelligence to warn the US government “in the strongest possible terms” of an imminent attack on airports and government buildings during the months leading up to 9/11. Could the government have been ignoring the warnings simply due to incompetence? It is tempting to believe so at first, however upon examination more questions arise.

Questions such as why were Pentagon officials carrying out detailed emergency drills based upon crashing a hijacked airplane into the Pentagon one year before the attacks? Even more bizarre, why on 9/11/01, the very date of the attacks, was the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) running an exercise involving a plane crashing into one of the agencies buildings? Also, why did the National Command Authority take over 75 minutes to scramble jets to intercept the hijackers when the standard procedure dictates that jets be notified after only 6 minutes of lost voice contact? One hour and fifty-three minutes went by between the time flight 11 was hijacked and had lost contact till flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania; during all of that time, not one fighter jet intercepted any of the airlines. As Bob Arnott of MSNBC stated, "Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... It's considered a real emergency”.

This information is especially shocking when one considers the fact that if NORAD had followed standard protocol in launching the jets, the fighters would have had at least 15 minutes to reach the towers before the first plane impacted. Considering that the F-15 fighters at top speed could have made it from Massachusetts to the WTC inside of 7 minutes, there would have been ample time to intercept even the first aircraft. Four hijacked jumbo jets were able to fly off-course across several states, within close distance of multiple military and air force bases (Syracuse, Philadelphia, Atlantic City, etc.) without any opposition from the most attentive and powerful air force in the world. As a NORAD spokesman stated in The Boston Globe, “Routine response to such emergencies is to order "fighter-intercepts" into the air, to regain contact with the pilot.” Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001, fighters were scrambled 67 times.
It’s clear that the government knew something was wrong. There were multiple reports of top government officials suddenly canceling all public flight plans right before September 11th. CBS News reported that John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in late July due to a threat assessment, Newsweek leaked out a story of how a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns, and Mayor Willie Brown received an anonymous phone call telling him not to fly on September 11th. What exactly did they know, and more importantly, how could NORAD have had such a lapse in security when they knew a large threat was on the horizon?

The failure of NORAD to stop the hijacked airplanes wasn’t the only suspicious activity involving the terrorists, the FBI and Secret Service agents also encountered their own problems while trying to apprehend the terrorists. In fact, FBI agents and defense intelligence officers were actually threatened with arrest if they tried to apprehend Al Qaeda according to FBI testimony reported by United Press International, Judicial Watch, BBC, and others. The draconian piece of legislation which was responsible for this treachery, secret presidential decision directive W199I, was signed by Bush to prevent any serious investigations into the terrorist networks. Multiple intelligence agents, including David Schippers, Robert Wright, and former director of the FBI, John O’ Neal, were outraged over being obstructed from detaining the terrorists due to Bush signing the order, as reported by the BBC and others. Intelligence agents were even ordered to withdraw investigations involving two of Osama bin Laden’s relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living right next to CIA headquarters in Falls Church VA, according to Newsweek. O’ Neal was so fed up that he actually resigned due to what he saw as treason, and had planned to file a lawsuit and go public. Unfortunately Mr. O’ Neal died before he was able to do so, you see, his new job was working as head of security at the World Trade Towers. He died during the collapse of the towers, his first day on the job.

Suspicious happenings in the Federal Government were not the only anomalies involving the attacks of September 11th. Just days before the attacks, there was a highly suspicious amount of insider trading involving the affected Air liners. Between the dates of September 5th, and 10th 4,744 put options (speculation that the stock will go down) were placed on United Air Lines stock, opposed to only 396 call options. This is a highly irregular increase in put option sales, many of which were purchased by Deutschebank/A.B. Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by A.B. Krongard, the current executive director of the CIA, information confirmed by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The San Francisco Chronicle. On the date of September 10th, American Airlines also experienced an abnormal amount of put options, one day before the hijacking. 4,516 put options were placed as opposed to only 396 call options. What exactly was known and who was allowed to prophet from this information?

What could a government have stood to gain from such a disaster? Perhaps one thing is the Patriot bill and Homeland Security act, which widely broadens the power of the Federal Government. Could the government also have used the events on 9-11 as an excuse to exercise military powers in such sovereign nations as Afghanistan and Iraq? What about the proposed “Victory Act”, which serves to expand federal power even further? Does giving up individual liberty for safety actually lead to security, or does it lead to tyranny? What are the implications to our country, our constitution, and our individual rights? It’s important to keep in mind that the aforementioned examples are only a mere fraction of all the suspicious activity and information involving the catastrophe of September 11th. It would be easy to write a small book about all the inconsistencies and deceptions involved, but due to space constraints only a select number of key examples can be presented. For now it should be sufficient to state that at the very least, there are many pressing questions which remain unanswered. Perhaps it is because that subconsciously Americans are aware of what is really at stake and remain content to keep their collective heads in the sand.

[Destructo6]

Rome in 64 AD, Nero burned the city and blamed it on the Christians in order to raise popular support for their persecution.
No proof to support this assertion.
In 1898 treason was committed by William McKinley’s navy as they blew up their own ship in Havana Harbor, the USS Maine, as a pretext for war with Spain.
No proof to support this assertion.
secrete service agents
Just what do these agents secrete?

Glaring errors in the premises don't help this argument.

[Blain]

Many historians DO believe that NERO burned Rome! Even if he did NOT burn Rome, he sure had no problems using the crises to blame it on his political enemies, ala Hitler.


REMEMBER THE MAINE? As it turns out, historians now agree that the USS Maine blew up by "accident" — the result of a fire that ignited its magazines.

http://64.21.33.164/CNews/y99/jan99/27e3.htm
From MSNBC

Whether the explosion was sabotage or accident was never determined. At the time, U.S. officials and the media blamed Spain, and used that as a reason to help Cuban revolutionaries overthrow Spanish rule -- the Spanish-American War.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/22/remember.the.maine.ap/
CNN

The sinking of the Maine, caused the U.S. to declare war on Spain, who was blamed for her loss. Recent research indicates her loss was actually caused by a fire in a coal bunker, which detonated an adjacent 6" magazine. The end result of the loss of the Maine was the U.S. became a naval power and gained the territories of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippine Islands. The net gain of the Spanish American war was that the U.S. took over construction and completed the Panama Canal. The U.S. would not wait 2 months to transfer warships from the west to the east coast. Such was the case went it took that length of time for the Battelship Oregon to travel around South America from California to Cuba via Cape Horn.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/maine.htm




I'd say it's fairly obvious that the Maine was used as a pretext for war with Cuba. It is admited now that the Spanish did NOT blow up that ship, not to mention that It would be pretty foolish to store ammo right next to the ovens. It reaks to high heavens. Just like Nero and Hitler, the US had no problems with using this crises as an excuse to obtain what they wanted.


Just what do these agents secrete?

Secreted resin for building alien hives.....but secreted from what? :D

[Mike Irwin]

Hi, Blain, I wondered when you would be popping up.

Everything you've posted has been dealt with quite thoroughly, actually. Nothing new there, except several new absolute falsehoods, such as the Maine, which has definitively been shown to have been a coal bunker fire. Such happenings weren't exactly common, but they weren't unknown, either.

What is true, however, is that even after the Maine disaster, the McKinley administration worked VERY hard to prevent a war with Spain, attempting to negotiate Spain's withdrawal from Cuba and other Asian possessions, but that the true push for war came from men like Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, who did so more out of the desire to sell newspapers.

The Reichstag fire was likely set by the Nazis to frame the Communists, that much is true, but by that time Hitler was well on his way to seizing power, and it was an unnecessary step, and it was certainly NOT a well-kept secret.

As for Rome, Nero's greatest detractor, and apparently the origin of the "Nero set the fire to blame the Christians" theory, was Seutonius, who wasn't born until several years after the fire.

Nero's persecution of the Christians wasn't very harsh, either, if they were truly to be blamed for setting a fire that burned the major part of the city.

In any event, here, this is for you...

http://www.reynoldskitchens.com/reynoldskitchens/kitchenconnection/_images/products/prod_01.gif

[Blain]

Everything you've posted has been dealt with quite thoroughly, actually.


Good, I would like to see you address the questions within the article.


Also, how do you address the "Northwoods document" which is a US declassified document, available from the FIA, which advocates the engineering of terrorist attacks against the American people as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. I still have yet to decide if I will include that in my article or not, perhaps in place of the USS Maine?


At Havana's City Museum, Nora Benitez, a custodian of photographs, equipment and other artifacts of the Maine, sets out the standard Cuban view: That the warship was destroyed in a cold-blooded American conspiracy.

[Mike Irwin]

What questions?

There aren't any true questions in that article, Blain.

Only supposition based on bogus interpretations.

You want to know why the Pentagon carried out "crashing airliner" drills a year before the attacks?

The same reason they've carried out those, and other, disaster drills at various times since the structure was built -- BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED NEAR TO A BUSY AIRPORT THAT HANDLES JETLINERS!

My facility carries out fire evacuation drills every few months. What does that mean? That my employer, a government contractor, knows that Nero is going to come back from the grave and burn Falls Church, Virginia, to the ground?

We've already discussed fighter response to the highjackings in detail. Try reading the previous posts.

As for the rest of the "questions" raised in this "article," they're not much different than those being raised by the rest of the tin foil brigade...

I KNOW!

Perhaps September 11 was part of the plot by the 13 wealthy banking families to cause a world economic crash so that they could distribute colored money that would allow them to "own" the United States?

Oh, wait, we've already discussed that particular brand of stupidity, haven't we?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12383&highlight=money


It's those pesky reptillian aliens again, I'm telling you...

[Blain]

No where in there does anyone satisfactorily answer any of the questions about the Jet interceptors. If a plane is out of contact, or goes off course by 6 minutes, fighter jets are scrambled. This is standard procedure and does not require a presidential confirmation or order. Again, I shall point to the fact that,

"Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001, fighters were scrambled 67 times."



None of those planes were as off course, or out of flight contact for as long as the ones on 9/11.


This is not to mention the fact that the pentagon was specifically preparing for such drills. How can you be prepared for such drills and then have an actual recreation of the drill and not respond for what you trained specifically for?

Why did the US lie about having knowledge that there was such a plan when they obviously did know and were having drills for it? Heck, top officials stopped flying commercial just before the attacks!

Why were FIB agents ordered with arrest to leave the terrorists alone?

How do you answer these questions? I am awaiting your response.

[Blain]

Since ancient times, despotic individuals have staged and orchestrated crises in order to sway and direct popular opinion and fear. Governments have done this historically by engineering or exploiting a dilemma that they blame on undesirables. The public, sufficiently outraged, demands a solution for this new problem from the government. The government then offers the solution which they had already created and planned to implement upon request. A few famous historical examples include; Rome in 64 AD, Nero burned the city and blamed it on the Christians in order to raise popular support for their persecution. On February, 27, 1933, Adolf Hitler had the German Government building, the Reichstag, burned to the ground. He then proceeded to blame it on his political enemies as justification to promote himself from Chancellor to Fuehrer and to grant emergency powers to the Nazis, as reported by the Encyclopedia Britannica. In 1962, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, L.L. Lemnitzer approved a plan, titled “Operation Northwoods”, as a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. The document called for hijacking jet Airliners, attacking US military bases, blowing up US ships, and using sniper attacks across the states in order to justify an invasion. This document was declassified for the first time in 2001 and reported on by the Baltimore Sun and ABC News.


Here, does this intro please you more?



http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm
Here is a link to Northwoods, to all you who say that the US government would never attack it's own citizens.

[jimpeel]

Since ancient times, despotic individuals have staged and orchestrated crises in order to sway and direct popular opinion and fear. Governments have done this historically by engineering or exploiting a dilemma that they blame on undesirables. The public, sufficiently outraged, demands a solution for this new problem from the government. The government then offers the solution which they had already created and planned to implement upon request. This is called the Hegelian Dialectic.
In 1898 treason was committed by William McKinley’s navy as they blew up their own ship in Havana Harbor, the USS Maine, as a pretext for war with Spain.This has never been proven to be true. If you have links to proof by legitimate sources, not some patriot mythology site, please post them here.
On September 11th, 2001 America was stunned from a surprise attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As the towers collapsed, the country looked on in horror, jets were initially told to stand down, ...If you have copies of those orders I, and the rest of the assemblage here at THR, would be very interested in seeing them. ... and the president, upon hearing of the impact for the first time, continued to read a story about goats to a group of school children for nearly twenty minutes.At the point he was first informed of the impact of the first plane, this was viewed as a tragic accident. The security at the second trade tower broadcast to the entire building that there had been an accident involving the first trade tower and that there was no effect on the second tower. Why would the President jump up and panic a bunch of little kids by running Henny Penny in circles screaming "We're all gonna die!"? He was as unaware as the rest of us that this was anything more than a tragic accident until the second impact. America was caught totally unaware, ...And the President wasn't? ... and the incompetence of our government and its lax methods were to blame, or so our officials told us.So you are saying they took full and immediate responsibility for these failures? Links, please (legitimate).... Two years after that fateful day many inconsistencies and red herrings remain.Conspiracy theorists are never happy with any explanation the government gives them and will make up their own scenario to suit their own needs.
One red flag involving September 11th was when government officials claimed to have had no prior knowledge of any 9-11 style attack, stating it caught them totally unawares. However, what they failed to mention was how intelligence officials from the Philippines, Germany, France, Jordan, and Russia had contacted CIA and FBI officials, specifically warning them that Middle Eastern terrorists had plans to hijack US airliners and use them to hit the pentagon and civilian targets.Yes, there was a group, who the authorities thwarted, that sought to hijack several planes and use them as human guided missiles -- IN 1996! In fact, during an MSNBC interview, Russian President Vladimir Putin told of how he personally ordered Russian intelligence to warn the US government “in the strongest possible terms” of an imminent attack on airports and government buildings during the months leading up to 9/11. Could the government have been ignoring the warnings simply due to incompetence? It is tempting to believe so at first, however upon examination more questions arise. So was the government supposed to set up Ack-Ack guns at every airport and shoot down any approaching aircraft? Did they have some duty to shoot down any and all aircraft which approached any and all government buildings? You seem to be the expert here so tell us what action the government should have taken to thwart attacks to which they were privy to generalized, non-specific warnings and information?
Questions such as why were Pentagon officials carrying out detailed emergency drills based upon crashing a hijacked airplane into the Pentagon one year before the attacks? ...Where did you glean this information that the emergency drills were for the specific instance of an aircraft attack? Sites, please (legitimate). Even more bizarre, why on 9/11/01, the very date of the attacks, was the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) running an exercise involving a plane crashing into one of the agencies buildings? Where did you glean this information that the emergency drills were for the specific instance of an aircraft attack? Sites, please (legitimate). Also, why did the National Command Authority take over 75 minutes to scramble jets to intercept the hijackers when the standard procedure dictates that jets be notified after only 6 minutes of lost voice contact?And this is codified where? Sites, please (legitimate). One hour and fifty-three minutes went by between the time flight 11 was hijacked and had lost contact till flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania; during all of that time, not one fighter jet intercepted any of the airlines. As Bob Arnott of MSNBC stated, "Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... It's considered a real emergency”. Payne Stewart's plane flew for some time prior to there being any scramble to see what was wrong. By your standard, that plane should have been shot down and the government was incompetent for not having done so.
This information is especially shocking when one considers the fact that if NORAD had followed standard protocol in launching the jets, the fighters would have had at least 15 minutes to reach the towers before the first plane impacted.Assuming they knew what the target was and that this was not just a normal hijacking to Cuba. They would have known nothing of the intentions of the first plane that flew into the WTC. They only would have been able to stop the second plane.Considering that the F-15 fighters at top speed could have made it from Massachusetts to the WTC inside of 7 minutes, there would have been ample time to intercept even the first aircraft.Whose intentions at that time were totally unknown unless you are willing to state that the government and F-15 pilots are clairvoyant. Four hijacked jumbo jets were able to fly off-course across several states, within close distance of multiple military and air force bases (Syracuse, Philadelphia, Atlantic City, etc.) without any opposition from the most attentive and powerful air force in the world.You, again, are assuming that they knew that something other than a mechanical failure was in progress. After 9-11 a plane lost its transponder and they were on it within minutes. By your standard, they should have shot it down no questions asked. As a NORAD spokesman stated in The Boston Globe, “Routine response to such emergencies is to order "fighter-intercepts" into the air, to regain contact with the pilot.” Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001, fighters were scrambled 67 times.Sixty-seven times in what time frame? Were they in the air and on them in minutes or did twenty to thirty minutes elapse before the jets were scrambled. This detail seems to be missing. Link (legitimate) to that info would be appreciated.
It’s clear that the government knew something was wrong. There were multiple reports of top government officials suddenly canceling all public flight plans right before September 11th.And these “reports” can be accessed from which legitimate sites? Patriot mythology and conspiratorialist sites need not apply. CBS News reported that John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial in late July due to a threat assessment, Newsweek leaked out a story of how a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns, and Mayor Willie Brown received an anonymous phone call telling him not to fly on September 11th.Links, links, links, please. What exactly did they know, and more importantly, how could NORAD have had such a lapse in security when they knew a large threat was on the horizon? That “horizon” was in the distant future on 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, and 9-10. There was no way to know when that horizon would be reached until 9-11 manifested itself. What specific, not-general, credible information did they have prior to the morning of 9-11 that specified a date, time, or target?

The failure of NORAD to stop the hijacked airplanes wasn’t the only suspicious activity involving the terrorists, the FBI and secrete (sic) service agents also encountered their own problems while trying to apprehend the terrorists. In fact, FBI agents and defense intelligence officers were actually threatened with arrest if they tried to apprehend Al Qaeda according to FBI testimony ... Before what committee or investigative body? Links, please. ... reported by United Press International, Judicial Watch, BBC, and others.Links, links, links, please! The draconian piece of legislation which was responsible for this treachery, secret presidential decision directive W199I, ... I have never heard of any Presidential Executive Order having a “W” prefix. PDD, yes. PEO, yes. ... was signed by Bush to prevent any serious investigations into the terrorist networks. Multiple intelligence agents, including David Schippers, Robert Wright, and former director of the FBI, John O’ Neal, were outraged over being obstructed from detaining the terrorists due to Bush signing the order, as reported by the BBC and others.Links, links, links, please! Intelligence agents were even ordered to withdraw investigations involving two of Osama bin Laden’s relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living right next to CIA headquarters in Falls Church VA, according to Newsweek. Links, please. O’ Neal was so fed up that he actually resigned due to what he saw as treason, and had planned to file a lawsuit and go public. Unfortunately Mr. O’ Neal died before he was able to do so, you see, his new job was working as head of security at the World Trade Towers. He died during the collapse of the towers, his first day on the job. So they blew up three buildings to get this guy before he could blow the whistle on the conspiracy?

Suspicious happenings in the Federal Government were not the only anomalies involving the attacks of September 11th. Just days before the attacks, there was a highly suspicious amount of insider trading involving the affected Air liners. Between the dates of September 5th, and 10th 4,744 put options (speculation that the stock will go down) were placed on United Air Lines stock, opposed to only 396 call options. This is a highly irregular increase in put option sales, many of which were purchased by Deutschebank/A.B. Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by A.B. Krongard, the current executive director of the CIA, information confirmed by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The San Francisco Chronicle.So, purportedly, this guy knew of these attacks, and their exact date of execution, three years in advance of their execution? On the date of September 10th, American Airlines also experienced an abnormal amount of put options, one day before the hijacking. 4,744 put options were placed as opposed to only 396 call options. What exactly was known and who was allowed to prophet (sic) from this information?Prophet might not be all that far off. So there were the exact same number of “put” and “call” options placed on the same companies that were most affected by 9-11? This should be extremely easy to confirm or debunk.

What could a government have stood to gain from such a disaster? Perhaps one thing is the Patriot Bill and Homeland Security act, which widely broadens the power of the Federal Government, expecting people to believe it is to protect against the "perpetrators"? Could the government also have used the events on 9-11 as an excuse to exercise military powers in such sovereign nations as Afghanistan and Iraq? What are the implications to our country, our constitution, and our individual rights? It’s important to keep in mind that the aforementioned examples are only a mere fraction of all the suspicious activity and information involving the catastrophe of September 11th. It would be easy to write a small book about all the inconsistencies and deceptions involved, but due to space constraints only a select number of key examples can be presented. For now it should be sufficient to state that at the very least, there are many pressing questions which remain unanswered. Perhaps it is because that subconsciously Americans are aware of what is really at stake and remain content to keep their collective heads in the sand.If even half of the assertions made are correct, the Republic is lost. Perhaps we should ask the one million Russian troops already on American soil what is the next move. Will they project a hologram of Jesus Christ returning to Earth in the Second Coming to explain the disappearance of all of the patriots, as some have speculated? Should we search the vast array of tunnels crisscrossing the United States which have been dug by the government using atomic boring machines that vaporize the earth as they go? Should we start monitoring the death camps in Southwest Indiana for signs of activity? What role did HAARP have in the 9-11 occurrences and what role has it played since in changing the behavior patterns of American citizens?

[Hkmp5sd]

Let's see, GWB and his government conspired to crash large airliners into the WTC and Pentagon. On the day the Pentagon was attacked by an airliner being flown by terrorists with minimal flying skills, the Secretary of Defense happened to be inside the Pentagon.

If he knew about the attack and stayed at the Pentagon to divert attention from the conspiracy, Rumsfeld is braver than I gave him credit for.

[Mike Irwin]

As I have stated before, and as has been published by numerous sources, there are SIGNFICANT gaps in the radar coverage in the United States.

That's a known fact.

There were over 4,000 commercial flights in the air on September 11, 2001. That's a known fact.

Given the design of the civil aviation infrastructure, once an aircraft turns off its transponder, it is exceedingly difficult to track. That's a known fact.

On September 11, there were 14 fighter aircraft assigned to CONUS protection. Not 14 aircraft in the air, but 14 aircraft. That was no different, really, than that of any day in the previous 10 or so years. The concept that there's a continuous fighter shield of armed, battle ready aircraft in the air over the United States at all times is a fantasy.

Here's another fact. First reports of a hijacking were received around 8:40 a.m., the first fighter jets scrambling, out of Massachusetts, roughly 5 minutes later, with the fighters airborn and on intercept courses a few minutes after that.

Unfortunately, the first plane hit WTC while the fighters out of Falmouth were still in initial takeoff mode.

For the second flight, which hit second tower at roughly 9 a.m. the same two fighters were assigned. At the time of impact, they were still some 60 miles away from New York City.

For neither flight does your proposed timeline work.

Tell me, for people who "prophet" from all of this, are they paid in green money, or colored money?

[WvaBill]

Who prophets(sic), indeed. Who is selling a book on conspiracy?

[JohnBT]

"How can you be prepared for such drills and then have an actual recreation of the drill and not respond for what you trained specifically for?"

Never worked for the government, have you? I see your complete lack of experience reflected in just this one question.

John

[jimpeel]

For those who are interested in more than conspiratorialist theories and patriot mythology, you might consider going HERE (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html).

The PDF of the full 858 page report may be read HERE (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf).

[madmike]

My comment:

The "Professor" they quote, assuming he said anything and they aren't name dropping, has a PhD in "sports ethics." Very relevant.;)

He's also a screaming commie.

That aside, the theory that "jet fuel doesn't burn that hot" is just silly. I can burn steel with a handful of coal.

it would be "suspicious" if the buildings DIDN'T fail vertically, rather than sideways. The support column is in the middle, for that exact reason. There aren't supports on the corners, Mr Galt. It CAN'T fall over sidways.

20,000 gallons of JP5 at 149,000 J per gal = 14 TONS of TNT at 11,000 J per lb.

OF course, a NEW idiots now says, "That's only 140 lbs per floor!" He claims to be an engineer. He certainly doesn't do demolitions...

Thanks, y'all. At least we've had fun.

I'm going to call Mt Weather and have FEMA arrest these people now.:rolleyes:

[Mike Irwin]

You know, I'm trying to think of ANY situation in which a building of more than a few floors has toppled sideways without it specifically being engineered for it to do so (i.e., lots of prior preparation adjunct to demolition).

Even when I building collapses during an earthquake, they generally come pretty much straight down.


I'm also remembering some tape that isn't generally seen in regards to 9-11.

I believe that the last building to fall was 7 World Trade Plaza. It collapsed as a result of damage received by the Towers falling. It was a relatively low-rise building, but built with the same general construction techniques used on the Towers.

When the towers fell the buidling sustained significant structural damage. It eventually pancake collapsed.

What's interesting is that given that the building faced both towers, it would have sustained the majority of damage on the side facing the towers. Yet, as with the Towers, it pancake collapsed, pretty much straight down.




Here's some good information on the Towers and how they were constructed.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

As I thought, the exterior shell provided the lateral rigidity for the building, the central core structure held the structure up against the forces of gravity. Very different from other skyscrapers, in which the internal structure serves both to resist lateral forces and gravity.

When the central supports were sheared by the jetliners, the outer shell of the building was asked to do something that it wasn't designed to do. Fact of the matter was that had the fires been put out, the external structure was so strong, even with huge holes in it, that it likely would have held the building up indefinitely.

[RocketMan]

I thought the "X-Files" had been cancelled?
It appears Mulder and Scully are now on THR.

[SGT109FA]

I thought the "X-Files" had been cancelled?

:D

[MJRW]

Regarding the fireproofing question/point from earlier:

The WTC had spray-on fibrous fireproofing. This is not the cementitious stuff like the VA and other agencies required which can resist some normal impacts. You can knock off fibrous with your hand. It was most likely simply knocked off by the force of an airplane.


Regarding the sprinkler systems:

Mike mostly had the sprinkler system explanation correct. Gravity alone doesn't do the work. There is a whole combo of gravity and pumping going on that gets Mr. Water to Mr. Fire. However, in this situation, water wouldn't have been appropriate. Someone pointed out earlier using AFFF. That is one option, foam-water is another. But these are used in areas where something like Jet A Fuel is the major concern in a fire. Someone else was correct that they basically remove oxygen from the tetrahedron. Water will push fuel around thus spreading a fire. Water doesn't remove any of the portions of the fire tetrahedron (fuel, oxygen, chemical reaction, heat) from a fuel fire. Nor would you install a foam-based system in this type of building. The types of fire you are likely to encounter do not demand it. And foam isn't without its drawbacks. Besides being messy and expensive, you ever try to escape in a big foam filled room?

Even if it were not a fuel-based fire, it was simply to large to contain by sprinklers. Sprinkler systems are designed to provide adequate pressure and flow to a limited area (most remote 1500 or 3000 square feet typically). What this means:

-Assume 1500 square foot design area. This will be driven by code, it's not arbitrary.
-Assume sprinkler coverage of 15x15. Also not arbitrary.
-Sprinkler coverage area = 225 square feet
-Sprinklers in design area = 7
-Calculate to show that 7 sprinklers flowing simultaneously have sufficient water supply to function. If it does, design is adequate.

This fire was much larger than 1500 square feet. Even if all the fuel burned up, there was still one hell of a blaze going on.


Regarding the questions of "wouldn't the water just flow if everything is damaged?"

Even though they were destroyed, it does not mean that the water was flowing all over the place. I mean...really, come on here. Let's look at it:

S = Sprinkler
B = Branch Line
M = Main Line
R = Riser
X = Damaged
W = Water Source

W
R S S S S
R B B B B
X B B B B
RMMMXMMM

How does it get to the sprinklers? It doesn't. Even if it does, with the system damaged, the water most likely will not have sufficient flow or pressure for the sprinkler to operate properly. Some water may come out, but its not going to hit the deflector with enough oomph to get that nice little spray going everywhere.

The sprinkler systems simply could not perform even if they were in tact. I'll leave the structural stuff to the structural guys.

[Mike Irwin]

Jamie,

Hey, that's right, you do commercial sprinkler systems!

Can you go into the design of large building sprinkler systems a little more?

I had thought that they were mostly gravity feed systems, but you're saying that in addition to the pumps that bring water up to the static tanks, there are also booster pumps on the sprinkler feed systems? I'm assuming those are line pressurizing pumps?

What is the average pressure range that a sprinkler head works at? I believe that they are pressure rated, right? That the head is matched with the anticipated supply pressure to give adequate coverage?

[MJRW]

Mike, I should have clarified more. You were correct depending on location regarding gravity feeding the systems. It's my recollection that the WTC used a series of tanks and pumps. Here is how it would break down at WTC, if my recollection is correct (ignore the dots, they are just space holders):

Tank -> Pump -> Riser
^.....................\/
Riser................\/
^....................Floor main - > Branch Lines - > Sprinklers
Pump...............\/
^.....................\/
Tank................Floor mina - > Branch Lines - > Sprinklers
^.....................\/
Riser...............Etc.
^
Pump
^
Tank
^
Riser
^
Pump
^
Water Supply

However, there are places fed specifically and only by gravity. This is prevalent in Chicago. If you go around Chicago and look up top at the high rises, you will often see elevated tanks. Those are gravity systems only there. Like I said, should have added the location differentiation. Those tanks need to be higher than the highest level of sprinkler activation. You can or lose slightly more than 0.4 psi/foot for elevation (+ psi for going down, - psi for going up). So in order to provide any pressure to the highest floor, you must be higher than it by feet = required pressure/0.4. And this is why there are in-line booster pumps on many of the high rise systems. To avoid having to raise the water tank 100 feet over the building.

Standard operating pressure is about 7 psi for a standard coverage head. 6 psi on that sprinkler will give you just a bit less coverage. I think about 20 psi is required to activate an extended coverage head. The system is designed around a couple of factors. The hazard classification sets limitations for the coverage of the sprinklers. However, and I may be mixing up my jobs here right now, but I think it is NFPA 13 that says something about "however current and modern technology shall be" something or another which allows you to exceed that coverage. Even then, there is a listing agency (UL or FM) which says "this sprinkler covers X feet by Y feet, end of story." You can't exceed that coverage. So there are a lot of "if this, then that, but over here, and because of, so I can" going on here. But the long and short of it is "yes, Mike, available pressure can affect the decision of which sprinklers to use."

[Mike Irwin]

This is the image that I was talking about, of the initial collapse phase. As you can see, the top of the South Tower is tipping significantly to the left, but it isn't toppling away from the bulk of the building. The top is rotating, but the base of the collapsing section is acting on the floors beneath it, causing them to pancake.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/images/wtc_collapse4.jpg




Jamie,

Great information about the sprinkler systems. Thanks.

I'm trying to find information on where the static tanks were located in the structure, but I'm having problems finding a schematic.

I seem to recall that some were located in the sections at the top of the towers, behind the "black band" which served as equipment areas.

There used to be a schematic online, but now I can't find it.

[Mike Irwin]

From the same website as the picture that I just linked...

"It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

In other words, simple physics, as has been stated here a number of times, dictated that the buildings come pretty much straight down, not over like a tree falling in the forest.

[buzz_knox]

What you all don't realize is that the people advocating these and other conspiracy theories are actually gov't agents. Their mission is two fold:

1. identify sympathizers likely to side with the real conspiracy theorists, and target them for reeducation.

2. identify intelligent persons capable of seeing through these conspiraces and target them for termination.

You see, the foolish can always be made to think the way you want, while the intelligent will think for themselves and must be eliminated.

[Marko Kloos]

In other words, simple physics, as has been stated here a number of times, dictated that the buildings come pretty much straight down, not over like a tree falling in the forest.

It should be obvious to even the most peripherally educated person that trees topple over because they are solid and thus cannot collapse onto themselves. Buildings, on the other hand, are mostly empty space and have no choice to obey the laws of physics by collapsing mostly down and onto themselves.

Would whoever came up with that brilliant "demolition charge" theory please pipe up and let us know the names of his or her high school teacher, so we can look them up and beat the living crap out of them?

[jimpeel]

I believe that the last building to fall was 7 World Trade Plaza. It collapsed as a result of damage received by the Towers falling. It was a relatively low-rise building, but built with the same general construction techniques used on the Towers.

When the towers fell the buidling sustained significant structural damage. It eventually pancake collapsed.

What's interesting is that given that the building faced both towers, it would have sustained the majority of damage on the side facing the towers. Yet, as with the Towers, it pancake collapsed, pretty much straight down. It is interesting that with all of the reporters and camera crews at the site when Bldg 7 collapsed, none of them heard or recorded the sound of the demolition charges detonating. Imagine that if you will.
:rolleyes:

[Mike Irwin]

Why it's obvious, Jim.

All of those hundreds of people received visits from the evil, ubiquitious governmental THEY (UGTs), who proceeded to co-opt all of those previously upstanding civilians.

Those among the civilians who would not co-opt? The UGTs exterminated them.

Simple, really... :uhoh:


SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Look at the bottom of the screen! It's the UGTs! They're watching us! They know we know!




















































:scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

[Orthonym]

Oleg, these people are using up your expensive bandwidth.

[Sean Cloherty]

Mike Irwin:

I would agree with your assertions about the central supports (which I assume are in the center of the building), but what about the second plane which seemed to go through the corner of the building rather than towards/through the center.

My apologies to everyone else for flogging a deceased equine.

[Mike Irwin]

Sean,

Not 100% certain what you mean, but I'll take a stab at it. If it's not the answer to what you're asking, let me know.

Even if the plane had gone through the corner of the building, it's very likely that it's going to take out, or seriously weaken, at least some of the central supporting structure. If you overlaid the 767 onto a floor footprint of either Tower, you'll see just how much of the floor that the jet would take up.

But again, that wasn't really the big problem facing the towers. Had the fire not happened, or had been quickly suppressed, everyone seems to agree that the towers likely would have survived.

The main problem appears to have been the concentrated effects of the fire working on the steel structural supports. Once they begin to weaking and lose rigid strength, the loss of strength from structural members affected by the impact was magnified many times over.

Huh. I just realized that I linked a picture of the building beginning to collapse, but I never put the website address itself.

What I like about this particular site is that it's an AUSTRALIAN site. The conclusions reached are based on the research of AUSTRALIAN engineers.

If the Aussies reached these conclusions on their own, it would appear that the US Government conspiracy to cover-up the true nature behind the collapse of the WTC is actually an international conspiracy.

Yeah. :rolleyes:

Anyway...

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

[DaveB]

Is it not true that OBL was in the heavy construction business (before taking up his current calling)?

Those buildings were brought down by people who knew exactly what they were doing.

db

[Mike Irwin]

Well, I don't know if OBL was in the heavy construction business, but his family certainly was. I get the impression that OBL was never really heavily involved in the family business, preferring to go to war on Muslim Jihads on a regular basis instead, and use the family money to do so.

Remember, in the tapes that were found after 9-11, OBL was shown expressing surprise and great satisfaction at what happened.

The surprise part is what interests me.

It would appear that they didn't know, or really didn't expect, that the buildings would collapse. That was an unintended consequence of their plot, it would seem.


It was also revealed after the 1993 bombing that the intent with the bomb in the basement was to park it against one of the perimeter walls, and topple the building sideways, preferably into the other tower.

As we've learned here, though, it's likely that that never would have happened, as had the building started to collapse, it would have come more or less straight down.

[bogie]

Howzabout this situation.

I can pick up and carry someone on my shoulders. Not a problem.

Drop that same someone on my shoulders from as little as a few inches up, and I'll be in a world of hurt.

[Hkmp5sd]

It seems that if they had hit the towers on the lower floors, say around 20-30, given the same damage caused by the aircraft and fire, they could have caused the buildings to topple over sideways. This would be especially true if instead of hitting in the middle of one side, they hit toward the edge of one side, weakening only that side's supports.

[jimpeel]

I posted plenty of engineering informational links on Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE), hardness, annealing temperatures, composition, force formulae (F = M X V) with the weights, speeds, and capacities of the various aircraft involved, etc., and got nowhere. I explained the mechanism of the physics of low pressure waves. I posted links to where the CTE is explained in lay language. I posted the link to the full 858 page 9-11 report, picked apart the original contention paragraph by paragraph -- and sometines sentence by sentence.

The dance team of Blain and Galt have crawled back into their shortwave broadcasts; and all is at peace with the world until the cat's whisker finds the correct point on the crystal and the next conspiratorialist broadcast hits the airwaves.

I'm done. This horse (http://www.siliconmeadow.net/~richard/prev/wav/coroner.wav) is officially dead.

[Mike Irwin]

HK,

I used to think that, too, but apparently given the laws of physics and how they affect hollow, collapsible structures, pretty much an impossibility.


Jim,

Don't give up yet. There are those people who no matter what won't accept anything other than the conspiracy theories.

But there are others who are learning, who want to learn, and who are willing to learn, and are willing to make their decisions from an open mind, not a closed one.

You've posted a lot of good information that helps people with open minds.

Don't worry about those who come here with screeds and axes and their minds already made up that they're not willing to accept any explanation other than conspiracy.

No one will ever reach those types.

[Tamara]

Buildings don't have the longitudinal strength to topple sideways like a tree.

Once the upper parts move over-center of their lower support structure, gravity pulls them straight to the ground.

This is very disappointing to me, as a novel I was writing in high school back in the early '80s features a bunch of terrorists dropping the ~1,000ft Peachtree Plaza hotel across downtown Atlanta like a giant redwood with a pickup truck full of nitroglycerine, but there ya go...

[Mike Irwin]

Hum...

You know, the Alfred Murrah building partially collapsed...

The sections that collapsed came straight down...

[Hkmp5sd]

Yea, that makes sense. If you do the math and look at the 'angle of the dangle' (old submarine term), there is a great deal of force pressing down vertically and with no outside forces acting on the building, it would come straight down.

(Speaking of physics, I see were the new democratic presidential front-runner stated he does think people can exceed the speed of light. He needs to hire Stephen Hawking as an advisor.)

[Mike Irwin]

I think we can exceed the speed of light, absolutely.

It happens on my TV every evening on "Spike" between 8 and 9 p.m.

It's a government conspiracy that keeps people from traveling to distant planets and colonizing them. It would interfere with the tax base, you see... :D

[Sean Cloherty]

Oh no, I smell vectors !

[Mike Irwin]

"I smell vectors"

Nah, that's just me. I forgot my deodorant this morning...

[dustind]

I did not have a chance to read the whole thread yet, but it has been entertaining.

The towers came down because the insulation on the center floors and main support beams had deteriorated over time to be almost non existant. The center floors are what cept the main outer skeleton from twisting. When the center floors were heated by the jet fuel fire the centers fell. After enough floors were gone(it does not take many, plus the plains took out several by the impact) the structure would twist a bit due to being damaged on one side. Once the beams were not strait up and down their ability to hold wieght aproched zero. Plus they had been heated way past their limit, way past...

Steel framed houses have collapsed in normal house fires.

[MJRW]

dustind,

What? Support this, please. I mean, they've had numbers, calculations, grammar, and stuff. When you come in with "cept," "plains," "strait," and "aproched," it makes it a little difficult to just accept your credibility on the matter.

[Don Galt]

No point in arguing with people who are unwilling to be rational.

The few who have posted logical arguments, rather than just personal attacks, deserve a better discussion-- even though I disagree with you.

I just see no point in attempting to have that discussion here, where anyone who disagrees with the politicaly correct ideology is shouted down and personally attacked.

[El Rojo]

Ok, so lets get this straight. I have seen the buildings fall as many times as yall have. I noticed that they started falling about where the planes impacted. Not below. So did the plan go so well that these planes traveling many miles per hour hit the precise location they were supposed to so the explosives were able to make the building look like it came down at the point of impact and then crumble down? Or was the explosive plan worked out well enough that they had charges set at just about every point. Then the "powers that be" were able to set off those charges at the right level in order to perpetrate the lie? Were the charges also able to survive the initial impact and the detonating devices remain unscathed? I am not an explosives expert, but is it possible the impact of the plane in a building filled with explosives might have had enough force to detonate at least one of these series of explosives and cause a premature detonation that would have brought down the building instantly? Or are we supposed to believe that enough demolitions experts that were part of the plan were able to get into the building, set up all of the explosives, and detonate them within about what, an hour or an hour and half's time? Not to mention were many of these experts who planted such explosives so dedicated to the cause that many of them would have probably had to die in the resulting colapse because they probably wouldn't have had time to escape. Also, might someone have noticed there were a suspicious number of demolitions experts that all died in the colapse that day?

Sorry if all of this has already been covered, but the thread is too darn long to read through it all. I think there was some shady activity at OKC and the feds have yet to answer some really good questions, let alone release the footage of what happenend that day. However, too many people try to make 9/11 into something it is not. They try to act shocked that terrorists could have pulled such a thing off without monumental government break down in security and intelligence. They further believe that someone is to blame for all of this. This theory that Bush had something to do with it would technically fit under this scenario of some monumental blunder on America's part, wether intential or not.

I chose to look at 9/11 not as some monumental blunder, but as a resounding success. Yes success. Come on everyone, give credit where credit is due. The terrorists had their head screwed on straight. They planned this thing out well and darn it, they did a good job. They manipulated our weaknesses that were really no ones fault other than our own, for becoming complacent and further believing that we were morally superior to other countries and that moral superiority would bring their respect and admiration for our way of life. Sorry wrong thought process. People hate us!!! They think they are at war with us. We believed that appeasing these people would get you home safe and sound that day. That theory lasted about two hours. Two hours was the time frame the terrorists had for keeping Americans afraid and believing that Islamic terrorists had compassion and a respect for life that would prevent a suicide attack that would kill thousands of "innocent lives". God Bless em, the passangers on Flight 93 were the firsts to figure out that theory was bull crap and that the only way to deal with these terrorists was not with diplomacy and fear, but with over whelming force and determination to win.

There won't be anymore successful attacks with aircraft, not for a while anyway. Maybe not ever. People will not allow others to hijack aircraft ever again. Look at all of the little incidents where someone even looked like they were getting out of hand on an aircraft, they got the crap knocked out of them. However, those two hours that Tuesday morning, the terrorists had won their battle. They outsmarted us and darn it, give em some respect. Here two years later, we showed them we deserve respect too. We have over thrown two soverign nations with military force. Terrorists have had a few wins here and there, but for the most part, they are all on the run or dead. Yes, brutal force wins the day in a fight.

[Mike Irwin]

I personally never thought of proven science and personal observation as being politically correct myself...

Nor have I ever considered "conspiracy theories" that are so jam packed with fundamental flaws in science, logic, and rational as being a counter to a supposed politically correct explanation.

Those who wish to see, hear, and smell a massive conspiracy will blinder themselves to all else, and nothing will change their minds. Conspiracy theorists are among the most chauvinistic people I know.

Don't believe that the buildings could have fallen because of a plane strike and fire, despite the explanations of dozens of architects, engineers, and other specialists both here and abroad? Well, all of those people have been swallowed up by the conspiracy.

Don't believe that the buildings could have fallen straight down, but that they should have toppled like trees? Again despite numerous scientific experts, such as physicists, explaning how that's exactly how it happens? Those people have also been gotten to by the conspiracy, and it's likely that Sir Issac Newton was a founding member of the conspiracy.

Asked the explain how a conspiracy that would have to be this massive, involving thousands of people around the globe, could given the fundamental properties of human nature maintain its silence when Richard Nixon couldn't maintain the lid on a limited conspiracy? Well, everyone who even thinks about breaking the conspiracy dies.

There's simply NO rationality in the conspiracy theories that I've read to date.

NONE.

Do I believe that the American people know the absolute truth about EVERYTHING that happened on September 11?

No. I don't.

But do I believe that that is an indication of a massive conspiracy, as opposed to complacency, indolence, sloth, ignorance, etc., on the part of the United States as a whole, combined with the concept that we as a nation are NOT an armed camp?

Not a chance.

But, I guess to the conspiracy theorist, that makes me an agent of the conspiracy.

[ojibweindian]

All I can say to the writer is:

STAY AWAY FROM THE BROWN ACID!

[DaveB]

Ojibwe, how do you know about brown acid? :D

db

[ojibweindian]

Hey, I watched "Woodstock, the Movie" ya know :D

[Tag]

ok, so the towers came down on their own, I believe that is the case. There are other elements to this conspiracy that seem very logical. Were the hijackers not identified by forign intelligence agencys and still allowed to gain entry to this country? Why were no fighters scrambled to intercept these four aircraft?

these are just a few of the questions I would like to see answered.

[Mike Irwin]

"Were the hijackers not identified by forign intelligence agencys and still allowed to gain entry to this country?"

Yes, I think they were on watch lists. But that doesn't mean that they've been conclusively linked to a planned action. It also doesnt' mean that that information was shared with American intelligence. And, finally, it doesn't mean that even if American intelligence had that information that they shared it with anyone who could/would take action on it.



"Why were no fighters scrambled to intercept these four aircraft?"

There WERE.

Go back and read the messages that deal with this. There were at least 2, possibly 4, fighter aircraft scrambled to attempt to effect intercepts.

As has been explained a number of times, though, WHICH of the over 4,000 aircraft in the air on that day do you target for interception? 4 in 4,000... In other words, if you pick 1 aircraft at random, you have what, a .001 chance of picking the right aircraft?

Also, with those 4 aircraft having turned off their transponders, how do you find them?

When a commercial aircraft turns off its transponder, unless you have an absolute radar lock on it at that moment (and there are significant gaps in radar coverage in this country), it literally disappears from the civilian radar net.

[DaveB]

As has been explained a number of times, though, WHICH of the over 4,000 aircraft in the air on that day do you target for interception? 4 in 4,000... In other words, if you pick 1 aircraft at random, you have what, a .001 chance of picking the right aircraft?

C'mon, Mike. What % of your 4000 would be in the Boston/Washington airspace at the time in question?

You go after the one(s) that deviate from their flight plan, or turn off their transponders. If they are not on some controllers' screen, you give the interceptors the last known position.

Why is this so difficult?

db

[jimpeel]

these are just a few of the questions I would like to see answered.Questions answered HERE (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf)

[Mike Irwin]

"C'mon, Mike. What % of your 4000 would be in the Boston/Washington airspace at the time in question?"

OK, for guesstimate's sake, take it down to approximately 4 in 700. Think the odds are really THAT much better on picking the right aircraft?

However, because these flights were heading OUT of the Washington - Boston corridor to the west coast, that opens the window up considerably, to FAR more than just those aircraft that were in the corridor at that time.

You're now up to about 4 in 1,800.

Which of the 4 in 1,800 do you target?

Do you immediately start shooting down each of the 1,800 or so aircraft in the affected areas?

And remember, those 1,800 aircraft? Those are the ones that can be SEEN on civilian radar.

"You go after the ones that turn off their transponders..."

You just don't understand this concept, do you? This has been explained time and time again. When the transponders are turned off, the aircraft DISAPPEAR. THEY'RE GONE. At the point that the aircraft deviates from its flight path, how do you vector in a military aircraft to find it?

Contrary to popular believe, not every aircraft in the United States is on multiple radar sets all the time.

The transponder system is integral to locating, and maintaining location of, these aircraft.

Without it, finding an aircraft that doesn't have an operational transponder, and which has deviated from its planned altitude and route, is like finding a needle in a haystack.

You seem to think that tracking something like this is as simple as pointing a finger and going OOPS, I see you!

None of the conspiracy theorists have so far explained just how two fighter aircraft are to find the 4 hijacked aircraft when the civilian air network can't see them, and the military radar network doesn't have the capability to see them, either.

[Sergeant Bob]

R.I.P.

http://www.judybaca.com/dia/text/images/funeral%20procession

[Mike Irwin]

Obviously, Bob, that funeral is a conspiracy!

There's bricks and tires in the coffin, not the body of the deceased, who is actually a shadowy figure who works for the Great Unidentified Them (GUT) the purveyors and dissimenators of the conspiracy!

[hops]

Did the clown who wrote the piece on page 1 of this posting, get his ideas from the book:

"The CIA and September 11: International Terror and the Role of the Inteligence Services" by Andreas von Buelow published in Germany 2003?

I saw this a few days ago in some German online rag I was reading. Went to Amazon.de and found it.

One reviewer loved and the others pretty much thought is was trash.

As far as US radar coverage - below the NORAD line, coverage is pretty poor. There is a reason that NATO loaned AWACS aircraft to the US for improved radar coverage. I also think that Military aircraft use transponders to allow civillian ATC to know what airspace they are in. Turn the transponders off, and ATC sees zero.

WTC theory indeed. The word crap comes to mind.

[jimpeel]

This is the webpage of the BOS Massport radar that shows what aircraft are in the area up to 90 miles out.

Link takes a while to load. Site is best viewed with a high speed connection.

http://www4.passur.com/bos.html

You can clisk on the various aircraft and it will tell you what they are and where they are.

The explaination page for the site is at http://www.massport.com/logan/airpo_noise_airmo.html

And these are just what is over MA! They also have their TRANSPONDERS turned on.

How about LAX?

http://www4.passur.com/lax.html

[gundam007]

innocent till proven guilty. we have no evidence of there not being bombs, but they have no REAL evidence about there being bombs