Third Party & Independents: Archives

Interesting. What would you need that you do not now have for any investigation?

This is not to imply that I believe either the government’s version or the other versions so readily available. I had not seen this one. I do try to keep an open mind.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 5, 2007 10:59 AM

I’ll “take the easy way and just criticize those who question the official story.”

Seriously, who do you think brought down the towers? Was it the Jews? Was it Rudy Giuliani? Name some names.

Was it just a coincidence that the al-Qaeda hijackers crashed two giant planes filled with jet fuel into the towers on that day? Did Giuliani already have tons of explosives in the towers for just such an occasion? Was Giuliani in league with the terrorists? Was it really Rudy recruiting and training the 9/11 terrorists instead of bin Laden?

C’mon Joel. The whole idea is ridiculous. The problem is the President’s insistance on secrecy about everything. In the absence of hard facts, all kinds of conspiracy theories spring up. That’s the problem with the Middle East where the leaders lie so often that people make up their own facts. And it’s a sad commentary on Bush’s leadership that stories like this spring up in the US.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 5, 2007 11:14 AM

This is just ridiculous. The analysis has been done plenty of times. Significant amounts of burning jet fuel, combined with the physical damage of the buildings supports due to the crashes, combined with weakening of the metal, combined with misapplied insulation of the metal led to a cataclysmic failure.

This is just sad.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 5, 2007 11:31 AM

The 9/11 event planned or not planned by the bush crime family, could not have been exploited to the degree that it has by a more ruthless group of predators!!!!!! If it was not planned by them it was certainly see as the greatest positive event in modern republican history. By using this event to fill their offshore bank accounts theses traitors have taken full advantage of this disaster as well as the Katrina disaster!!!!!!!! Every disaster is another opportunity to make a killing off some unfortunate group of people. The bush crime family has created the largest corporate welfare program ever in the history of this country!!!!!!!!! All from the blood of the victims of disasters!!!!! They have brought such shame to our country!!!!!! The people of the world have lost all respect for us because of what we have done to our own people and the people of Iraq, just to make a quick buck!!!!! This has to be the lowest point in this countries history!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 5, 2007 11:32 AM

I think we need to investigate the government ties to the collapse of the Minnesota Bridge as well. Doesn’t anyone find it odd that the Bush Administration so quickly had funds allocated to the rebuilding of that bridge? Doesn’t anyone find it odd that the bridge was being worked on during the time of its collapse. We definitely need to investigate to see if there were any secret Republican ties to groups which may have worked on the bridge in the last five years to see if any suspicious irregularities can be found. I think the strangest thing about this collapse is that the structure fell straight down. It did not collapse to the side or destroy anything else in the path of its collapse, almost as if it was planned to fall where it did. We need an independent group investigating this, because we surely can not believe the governmental agencies of this Administration that were sent so quickly to investigate the collapse. Something smells really fishy here!!

JD

Posted by: JD at September 5, 2007 12:14 PM

interesting???
When one seriously looks at what is required to accomplish a controlled implosion (demolition) of structure such as the twin towers, it would be possible
IF
no one were working in the building
IF
many of the key structural elements were exposed and weakened, and
IF
Numerous strategic charges were placed and wired properly to detonate at precisely the proper time and timing
AND
be placed so as not to be disrupted by two large 767 crashing into the building
and
OH yea
Have the 767’s PRECISELY crash into the buildings

These conspiricy theories would hold more water if the implosion appeared to be initiated anywhere but where the airplanes crashed and burned.

Controlled demolitions do not start near the top of the building and hopefully fall down properly
They are initated at the base, and then in a controlled fashion up the building to controll the fall.

Besides
considering this administrations show of incompetency in Iraq (and most other illicit activities it has been involved in for the past 6 years)
Do you REALLY belive they have the competence and the capability to have orchestrated such an phenomenally complicated, secret endevor in only 8 months??? (look at Iraq after 5 YEARS and the still don’t have a clue!!)
Get Real and give it up!

Posted by: Russ at September 5, 2007 12:26 PM

First of all, I’m not sure Joel is saying there was a conspiracy or that the towers were demolished. He appears to simply be saying that an investigation should be permitted. Why the secrecy?

Yes, the secrecy of this administration is a problem, and fuels suspicions.

And rightfully so, since someone is usually trying to conceal something.

I’m curious too why WTC7 collapsed.
But it could be because of:
(1) fire
(2) poor construction

It does seem a bit of a stretch that the buildings were controlled demolitions.
But the secrecy makes one wonder.

The History Channel did a program on this.
At the moment, I have not yet seen credible evidence that a demolition occurred, but I’m think we should keep an open mind.

Here are some things to ponder:

• (1) The towers collapsed from the top down. Most demolitions occur from the bottom up.


• (2) It would be near impossible to plant explosives after the building was built. Explosives would have to be planted when the builing was built.


• (3) The floors above the jet impact remained intact momentarily as the top section fell onto sections below. Conspiracy theorists claim the telephone system was used to set off the explosives and damaged wires above the jet impact, so the top-down demolition started below the jet impact.


• (4) Some report that inadequte or no fire-proofing was used above the 47th floor. If so, the fire very well could have collapsed the floors at the jet impact location.


• (5) It could be the buildings were not very sturdy.


• (6) It seems plausible that once the floors at the jet impact location collapsed, the upper section would pancake successive floors below, one by one, with increasing momentum (mass x velocity)


• (7) Some conspiracy theorists say the free fall (and it did appear that way) is not possible without explosives. However, the buildings are so fragile, like a chain with one weak link (floor), it fails miserably if one link (floor) fails.


• (8) There is no forensic evidence of explosive chemicals. But access to the site was somewhat restricted.


• (9) Some conspiracy theorists claim shape charges sheared box columns (leaving very clean, smooth cut edges). But the evidence of that is not confirmed. I have seen some box columns with rough edges because they were cut with a torch. If shape charges were used, there should be an abundance of evidence of box columns with clean, smooth cut edges, or other evidence of steel columns that appear to be mishapen due to explosives. And it seems plausible that someone would have swabbed one of those columns to check for forensic evidence of explosive chemicals.


• (10) Some conspiracy theorists claim witnesses heard explosions. But a collapsing building, as each successive floor pancakes onto the next, could sound very much like explosions, since the mass and weight is so tremendous.


• (11) Several studies have been done and some evidence that you’d believe would be present to make it easy to prove if it was a demolition is not present. That does not mean everything has been explained. The collapse of WTC7 is a puzzle, because fire usually is not enough to collapse a building.


• (12) Some conspiracy theorists claim there were puffs of smoke and debris shooting out at certain locations below the current collapsing floor. This could be a result of massive air pressure as the collapsion upper floors compressed air down, blowing out windows below.


• (13) Some say the pulverized dust was a result of explosives. However, sheet rock in walls of every floor would prodice that fine dust.


• (14) Some say the floors could not fast. That all depends on the studiness of the structure. The structure probably was not that sturdy. In fact, some say the towers were very fragile.


• (15) Some say floors were collapsing faster than the free falling debri from already collapsed floors above. But they appear to be falling at the same rate (even accelerating). But, structural weakness and momentum (mass x velocity) could explain that too.


• (16) Some say the towers should have toppled, instead of collapsing. That could have happened had the jet impacts occurred much lower. But each jet impact was at or above 80% of the heighth. Thus, the relatively smaller top sections pancaked onto lower floors and disentigrated as the collapse proceeded.

40% of Americans polled believe there was a 911 conspiracy of some sort perpetrated by someone other than hijackers of the jets.

I’m skeptical about a conspiracy, but want to keep an open mind.
There are questions that deserve more investigation, but I do not yet see sufficient evidence of a demolition. But I wouldn’t yet rule out that possibility even if it is unlikely. If it really was a conspiracy, it is one of the most despicable and sinister plots ever perpetrated.

However, our government failed miserably to heed warnings.
The Federal Government was exrtremely negligent.
It was not a mere inability to connect the dots.
It was a complete, utter, dismal failure and an obvious example of federal incompetence.

The Pentagon, for all the trillions they spend on defense (where trillions of dollars disapper and are never accounted for), can’t even stop jet planes from flying into their own building, for cryin’ out loud !

Posted by: d.a.n at September 5, 2007 12:29 PM

Oh, come on, people. Think about what you’re saying here.

Democrats, leftists and Bush haters all say the same thing.

BushCo is populated by a bunch of incompetant boobs. They point to Iraq and Katrina as prime examples of their incompetance. Just ask Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. They will say that the Bush Administration is nothing but a bunch of dummies and stooges.

Now…knowing that…are you now willing to admit that George W. Bush is nothing less than a brilliant, competant genius that engineered one of the greatest disasters in American history and then convinced us that it was just a handfull of dedicated suicidal terrorists?

George W. Bush…brilliant genius and master of the universe.

Puh-LEEZE!

Posted by: Jim T at September 5, 2007 12:53 PM

Russ’s argument is the most succinct and cogent, from my perspective. Jim T makes a good point too! Can’t have it both ways. Besides, this would require the cooperation and assistance of covert agencies within the government, and from what I have read and learned of them, they are patriotic Americans who would not remotely consider doing something like to this to America and Americans. Just doesn’t wash.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2007 01:13 PM

interesting???

Is that all you read of my post? I find all these theories interesting. Does that in any way imply that I believe them? Of course not. So please restrict your denigration to someone who believes as you seem to imply that I do.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 5, 2007 01:22 PM

Joel,
You misnamed this writing. It should be called “Another Loony Tunes Group Heard From”. Conspiracy theorists, of which this is a prime example, are most often looking two two things: attention, or, self satisfaction in getting a wildly ridiculous point of view out. Not too sure which group this one fits into. Then there are the ones who truly believe what they say, and those are the most frightening.

I would be very interested in seeing a roster of names of those in this group. Especially the number of those who are considered to be “experts” in the field of structure demolition. I have seem several programs on 9/11 featuring interviews with people who make their living taking down buildings with controlled demolition, and I have yet to hear one back up the theory that the Towers fell by that means.

But, if anyone out there believes this group, or any other conspiracy group, I have some fascinating evidence(which I have just this minute manufactured) proving that JFK was assassinated by the Dalls High School PTA. It seems they were upset because school was let out that day to celebrate the President’s visit! Believe it, or don’t.

Posted by: Old Grouch at September 5, 2007 01:35 PM

Joel, if you will remember, this issue was discussed to the nth. degree a couple of months or so ago in the red column. There were some excellent analyses hashed over and rehased, with what I thought were some extremely questionable theories still left satisfactorily answered. These were all legitimate and highly trained, credentialed people submitting this alter information.
Guess it’s just easier to insist that those who still have those niggling feelings are just paranoid, or too stupid to grasp what the others feel is a slam-dunk and done deal. Why not launch a multi-faceted, “bi-partisan” investigation and put it all to rest once and for all. There are certainly numerous other things we don’t balk at for a minute to spend time and money on.
WT7 was probably the most controversial part of the discussion.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 5, 2007 01:37 PM

We came from area 51 and did it.

I confess.

We will soon ask you to take us to your leader, but we understand he just quit. We don’t want to talk to his pet chimp.

D.a.n.,

I’m not sure where you got that list but it’s so full of holes, it collapses on it’s own weight. Being open minded does not imply one being a fool.

The 911 truth group has been repeatedly debunked as junk science and a money making scam for the founders. Better than a grassy knoll in the bank.

To wit:

(15) Some say floors were collapsing faster than the free falling debri from already collapsed floors above. But they appear to be falling at the same rate (even accelerating). But, structural weakness and momentum (mass x velocity) could explain that too.

Ummm, Free fall IS accelerating. F=mg g being a constant of earth’s gravitational pull (9.8 m/sec /sec). Without an external force a system tends to conserve momentum. Since in free fall a body is acclerating and momentum, p = mv, the velocity is increasing in proportion to the momentum.

As to comparing the fall rates of debris it depends on the aerodynamics involved and resistance of the building to failure. It’s complex and not a job for the eyeball in a cloud of dust.

I’m not picking on you, it’s just that particular misstatement of physics made my brain percolate a little.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 5, 2007 01:47 PM

Don’t shoot the messenger. You know what’s really difficult to find? … evidence backing up the official story!

Here’s one of the more decent videos I came across in one simple google search: Has some cool music too.

You know, all you people stamping your feet and screaming HOGWASH so quickly are really not doing your side of the arguement any good. When you read something like this, and disagree as strongly as you do, you might want to consider planning an intelligent counter post and providing some evidence to back up your government. If you really feel that the government was NOT involved in the attack, maybe you should ask yourself, WHY not? Why did they not respond? That’s a good place to start. Nothing like asking questions if what you want are answers.

Posted by: wtc7 at September 5, 2007 02:21 PM

wtc7,

If you really feel that the government was NOT involved in the attack, maybe you should ask yourself, WHY not?

There are three ways 9/11 could have happened:
1. Incompetence and bureaucracy that caused the threat to be overlooked.
2. The attack was allowed to happen.
3. The government orchestrated the attack.

Given the way our government works (or more accurately, doesn’t work), #3 is almost an impossibility. Our government, the Bush administration in particular, is simply not efficient enough to carry out such a plan.

This undeniable inefficiency probably caused the attack to be overlooked; but it is within the realm of probability that it was allowed to happen.

Why did they not respond?

Tell the rescue workers and fighters who died that day that they didn’t respond.

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 5, 2007 03:02 PM

Given the way our government works (or more accurately, doesn’t work), #3 is almost an impossibility. Our government, the Bush administration in particular, is simply not efficient enough to carry out such a plan.

While I tend not to believe the conspiracy theories, I think this kind of statement is inaccurate. While Bush and a number of his administration appear close to incompetent, there are those in the administration who are highly comptetent, not to mention highly secretive. It’s not a matter of having it both ways, there are both types in the administration.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 5, 2007 03:14 PM

womanmarine,

…there are those in the administration who are highly comptetent

I know several people around here, mostly from the Blue Side, who will disagree with that…

Seriously, the secrecy required for something like 9/11 is beyond the scope of our government. Can you name one other thing that the Bush administration has done (or wanted to do) that hasn’t been leaked to the media in advance? Bush only wants this to be the most secretive administration.

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 5, 2007 03:35 PM

The Traveler:

You may not realize this, but I am from the Blue side. Like I said, I don’t necessarily believe these theories, but I don’t dismiss them based on those kinds of statements. It isn’t all black and white, either/or.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 5, 2007 03:43 PM

Since I am a former ironworker who has rattled many a beam to a column, I will throw my two cents worth in. I have seen the conspiracy theories and watched the buildings collapse. From what if saw, the buildings collapsed because of the initial impacts and explosions of the planes followed by the the extremely hot burning fuel which weakened the structures. If there were other factors involved, I would suggest that the original construction and the contractors. I am well aware of some of the things contractors are willing to overlook to save a minute or a buck. If the inspectors catch it, you fix it. If not, well.

Why did 9/11 happen? Our foreign policy in the Middle East which has gone basically unchanged and supported by both Democrats and Republicans for 50 years now has been a major contributing factor in the rise of militant Islam, from the PLO to Al Quaeda.

The terrorists were well trained, had an excellent plan and plenty of Saudi money. Even so, they were found out before hand and we were warned. But, government agencies, especially the FBI and the CIA are so jealous of each other and so worried that one might steal the others glory that they won’t share information. This has supposedly changed.

If you want a conspiracy theory with merit, read Outraged post because he knows where it is at.

Posted by: jlw at September 5, 2007 05:08 PM

D.a.n., I’m not sure where you got that list but it’s so full of holes, it collapses on it’s own weight. Being open minded does not imply one being a fool.

alien from planet zorg,

Where exactly is it full of holes?

Where did I imply anyone was a fool?

Of course it is plausible that it collapsed under it’s own weight.

Didn’t I suggest being openminded?

Or are you meaning that being openmided is foolish?

The list of (16) things above are all valid and plausible explanations for what some claim are due to demolition and explosives.

Ummm, Free fall IS accelerating.

Yes. And? Who said it wasn’t?

I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, so I am familiar with statics and dynamics.
And I said (above) it was accelarating.
Yes, Force = Mass x Acceleration
So, where is the error (i.e. holes) you speak of?

F=mg ; g being a constant of earth’s gravitational pull (9.8 m/sec /sec). Without an external force a system tends to conserve momentum. Since in free fall a body is acclerating and momentum, p = mv, the velocity is increasing in proportion to the momentum.

Yes. Momentum = Mass x Velocity

I still don’t see what holes you speak of.
I acknowledged the acceleration, since the rate at which objects fall accelarate.

As to comparing the fall rates of debris it depends on the aerodynamics involved and resistance of the building to failure. It’s complex and not a job for the eyeball in a cloud of dust.

Well, air offers little friction to steel columns and chunks of solid concrete weighing hundreds of pounds. The main towers collapsed in about 10 seconds (according to estimates from testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds). Air friction is neglible except to pulverized concrete and sheet rock.

Sorry, but I don’t see your point, nor the holes you allude to.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 5, 2007 06:45 PM

Joel,
Thanks for the laugh. This stupid conspiracy theory is one of the most absurd loads of bs around.
The impact of 2 large airliners hitting at high speed would easily weaken structures like the Twin Towers enough to make them collapse. The steel in them was tempered. Tons of burning jet fuel is hot enough to remove the temper and soften the steel to the point where it won’t hold the weight above it (it doesn’t have to melt), in addition to the physical damage caused by the impact.
I’ve seen videos that show puffs of smoke (dust) at the base of the towers as they collapsed. This is supposed to be proof of explosions. I think it’s proof that debris fell down the elevator shafts.
WTC 7 was sitting next to 1 1/2 million tons that hit the ground-hard. The surprising thing is that more buildings didn’t collapse. (I’ve forgotten how many did collapse and I don’t feel like looking it up right now)-I think it was a total of 5 with 2 others so badly damaged they had to be torn down)
For the towers to be brought down by explosives one of 2 scenarios would have to be true:
either the explosives were installed at the time of construction as part of a dastardly plan, with the collusion of thousands of construction and maintenance workers with perfect secrecy for over 30 years and continuing, or:
holes were cut in walls, column wraps and floors, explosives with all the necessary wiring for controlled detonation installed and everything patched back up without any of the thousands of office workers and maintenance people ever having a clue what was being done unless, of course, they were part of the conspiracy.
The official version of events is obviously true to anyone with knowledge of construction and common sense.
Questioning whether or not the government had prior knowledge of what was coming or intentionally left us open to attack without specific knowledge of an impending attack is valid. Just don’t stop with Bush. Remember who conducted an air war to install a radical Islamist narco terrorist group in Kosovo and refused to take down some high profile terrorist leaders.

Posted by: traveller at September 5, 2007 07:46 PM

I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, so I am familiar with statics and dynamics.

You took dynamics for a BSEE? That seems an odd requirement. Was that required?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 5, 2007 08:46 PM

Conspiracy theories are always more interesting than the truth. The conspiracy theories make better stories because they are fictional.

Why not have an investigation? Because it is silly. Why not investigate if Martians caused Katrina?

I wanted to put in one comment on this conspiracy. I will not be reading the responses or coming back to this post. One does not have to eat the whole egg to find it is rotten.

Posted by: Jack at September 5, 2007 09:15 PM

Yes, Statics (AE2312 or CE2311; a.k.a. Mechanics 1) and Dynamics (AE2324 or AE3323; a.k.a. Mechanics 2) were both required for EE majors (at least when I went in the early 1980s at the University of Texas, it was required). The course numbers are different now. It is quite common for all engineering degrees to take courses in other engineering departments. Most engineering degrees require courses in other majors.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 5, 2007 09:34 PM

Why not have an investigation? Because it is silly.

Actually, there is an ongoing investigation by the responsible powers that be. The theorists are asking for a separate “independent” investigation.

Silliness.

d.a.n.,

I have a couple engineering degrees myself (Chemical Engineering and Systems Engineering), so I’m familiar with the general idea that “(m)ost engineering degrees require courses in other majors”. It’s just that at my alma mater EEs (like my wife) weren’t required to take either Statics or Dynamics. I wasn’t required to take either class for either of my majors, although I did take Statics later for my job.

I just was surprised by the curriculum choice.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 5, 2007 09:40 PM

Tell the rescue workers and fighters who died that day that they didn’t respond.

Where was the Air Force, which should’ve been scrambling within minutes, but took more than 20 minutes…

Posted by: Rachel at September 5, 2007 10:03 PM

Joel, I hope you are wearing your tinfoil hat, because for sure the Men In Black™ will soon be swooping down your house in their Black Helicopters™

Posted by: JoelIsNuts at September 5, 2007 10:17 PM

Sometimes, the painful truth is, what you would like to believe is not true.

That we were attacked on 9/11 is pretty ugly. What’s uglier than that is the inappropriate way in which the Bush Administration has dealt with the issue, wringing it for it political value, yet still leaving us more vulnerable to these guys for all the promises they made.

Some people react to this ugly truth by believing that everything was a lie, that it was all a complete deception; malicious deception is a lot less scarier than people who mean well but are completely out of their league on foreign policy.

In some ways, though, these people are as much the victims of conspiracy theories as some of their critics, buying into Laurie Mylroie’s idea that al-Qaeda was a Saddam front.

The fun of a conspiracy theory is the blessed freedom from doubt. But that’s also the poisonous aspect of it. Doubt is a natural feeling one gets when confronted by countervailing evidence. Resist doubt too much, and the world in your head and the one outside parts ways.

You can pull a thousand strings, and a conspiracy theory won’t unravel. Unfortunately, that’s because most Conspiracy theories are just balls of yarn. They lack a structure which would allow them to be falsifiable. Appearances and suspicions are given high value at the expense of material evidence, which its often assumed the conspiracy has been tampered with, or prevented the public from examining.

The Approach Joel is asking for is fundamentally unscientific. You don’t go looking for a cause, you work up hypothesis, and eliminate them as evidence does and doesn’t show up. Those who believe Flight 800 was downed by a missile disregard evidence that indicates that the explosion came from the inside out, including the structural damage which does not resemble the inwards blown damage associated with such a weapon going off.

Much in the real world is uncertain, and clean, intuitive causes do not always turn out to be what investigators bring to us. It is not just our opponents who must face inconvenient truths, but ourselves.

Despite what Joel says, the reports of the major engineering and architectural societies and groups that investigated sided with the official explanation. Joel is making big waves about a group that comprises about 150 Architects and Engineers, with about 350 students. There are tens of thousands of these folks out there, these small numbers do not a mainstream movement make.

Horrific events can lead us to seek out comforting explanations, especially those that lay the blame at the feet of those we don’t trust. Much as I dislike Bush, I find little comfort in the elaborate circular arguments that conspiracy theorists engage in. Bush can be a terrible president who misled us into a disastrous war without him having faked the 9/11 attack. The towers didn’t need to be brought down with controlled demolitions, not with jet-fuel ignited infernoes weakening steel laid bare by the impact.

And yes, heat short of the melting point can weaken metal, that’s what blacksmiths do for a living at their forge: weaken the metal by heat, then shape it as desired. There certainly where great enough loads above the floors hit by the planes to cause the collapse, once the weakend supports gave way.

And yes, fires can affect structural steel buildings, that’s why the fireproofing is put on, and sprinkler systems put in place in tall buildings. Unfortunately, nobody then, or since, has figured out a way to deal with a massive jumbo jet impact.

Everybody will come to their own opinion about what happened on 9/11, but folks shouldn’t feel intimidated by this kind of paranoid us vs. them rhetoric into accepting dubious theories.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2007 10:18 PM

I just was surprised by the curriculum choice.

I’ve noticed some differences between Universities. But it could also be the difference in time (e.g. early 1980s versus 1990s)? I’m glad I took both Statics and Dynamics (two different courses). Also, material science was a useful course an important in understanding how steel can be weakened by heat, even though the temperature is far below the melting point.

Personally, I have not seen convincing evidence to believe the WTC towers were destroyed by demolition. The collapse of WTC7 is curious, but there’s no evidence that it was a demolition either.

I’ll try to keep an open mind, and I’m not opposed to an investigation, but I believe that the WTC buildings were not very sturdy to begin with. The structure is similar to a bird cage inside a birdcage (and connected with floors). The structures are very fragile. Had the jet impacts had hit much lower, the damage might have been far worse due to toppling instead of top-to-bottom pancaking.

A good analogy for these buildings is a trick used some in karate/martial-arts. They stack several concrete slabs with pencils or slivers fo wood between each layer. Then they smash the top layer with their head/elbow/fist. The only force that is really required is to break the first layer. The weight and momentum of the top layer causes a cascade failure of all subsequent layers below. Due to the fragile nature of these buildings, when the few floors at the impact location failed, the upper-section caused a similar cascade failure. As the floors below pancaked, the floors above the impact location also pancaked, and the falling weight of 20% of the uppermost section was too much for the fragile structure to withstand.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 5, 2007 10:22 PM

Where was the Air Force, which should’ve been scrambling within minutes, but took more than 20 minutes

Rachel, the real world is unfortunately a lot more complicated than the movies.

Do you really think that it’s unreasonable to take more than 20 minutes to discover that a blip on a radar screen is in the wrong place (when planes not taking off or landing are not closely monitored and there was no communication from the planes that something was wrong), to verify that it’s an actual reading and not an equipment malfunction, to notify superiors, to realize that more than one plane is involved, to co-ordinate between the air traffic control system and the military, to get proper authorizations from the military to proceed, to get the crews ready, and the fly the fighters from the bases to the scene?

If our national defense had been set up to expect and respond to hijackings of that nature (which had never happened before), then perhaps a more streamlined system would have been in place. However, our defenses were reasonably and appropriately not geared for a trigger response to such an event.

If the fighter jets had been there in less than 20 minutes, I’d take that as more of a sign of conspiracy, because someone would have to have been tipped off for the necessary events to have taken place. Instead, you look at the reality of a messy situation, wish that it weren’t messy, and then claim that the difference between reality and your imaginings is a sign that something is wrong.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 5, 2007 10:34 PM

TheTraveler said: “Tell the rescue workers and fighters who died that day that they didn’t respond.”

I believe you know good and well that I was talking about the military (the air force in particular), but congratulation’s on scoring a couple of cutesy points.

There are so many questionable moments in time on 010911 that it’s difficult to find a good place to begin explaining to people who don’t care. I used to be concerned enough with this particular topic that I would vehemently argue with anyone who believed the official story, but after years of running smack into brick walls close-minded disinterest, I begin to lose hope for We People. An utter lack of inquisition may keep you comfortable and safe, but truth of knowledge is the whole point of having a brain like ours.

Besides all this, why, during a time like this in history when such a vast expanse of people distrust our government, would so many people be so willing to dismiss alternative explanations out of hand? For instance, after all the money that was promised, wasted, printed, used, and gathered during this Iraq war, and now realizing the strategic trap we’ve been led into, do you still believe that we went there to find WMD’s or to spread freedom? You may believe in the monstrous lie to get us into Iraq, then why not the likely monstrous lies that surround 010911?

Posted by: wtc7 at September 5, 2007 10:48 PM

A conspiracy here makes no sense to me. Apart from my finding it difficult to believe our government would do such a thing, what did it hope to achieve? We had such a jones against Afghanistan we needed an excuse to attack? And if Iraq was the real reason, why didn’t we frame Saddam? Why would we blame a bunch of Saudis working for Al Qaeda?

No. It makes no sense to me, but then, I don’t believe our moon landings were hoaxes, either.

Posted by: Gerrold at September 5, 2007 11:15 PM

Rachel and wtc7,

The air Force is, unfortunately, just as bureaucratic and inefficient as the rest of the government. Trust me on this one, I know from experience. Besides, this was not the type of attack they were looking for; see LawnBoy’s post.

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 5, 2007 11:27 PM

There are so many questionable moments in time on 010911 that it’s difficult to find a good place to begin explaining to people who don’t care

I’ll bite, Name one. Start there and after we shoot that one down, name another. I’m sure we can go down this ‘immesurable’ list after a while and see what sticks at the bottom.

I’ll start with the topic of the article, the burning jet fuel (not aviation fuel, there’s a difference) caused the metal strusses, which were already weakened by the crash, to weaken further, just enough to cause one floor to collapse, the resulting weight dropping down on already weakened strusses below caused them to collapse, etc. in an exponential way that the building wasn’t designed or capable to support.

All ‘demolition’ of buildings is done from the bottom up, not the top down, so that argument made by some theorists is crap too. In fact, they all are (and I’ve looked into all of them that’s I’ve come across). It’s simple physics, and here we are on ground I know something about.

Oh, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

So, what is next on the list?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2007 11:41 PM

The Bush/Clinton crime family was also behind the Garfield and McKinley assassinations… If you don’t believe this obvious fact, you are a victim of World Order mind control.

Posted by: Norton at September 5, 2007 11:43 PM

Joel, first, I want to thank you for lending your knowledge and for having the balls to unapologetically become a part of this research. Second, I want to tell you that I too question the official version of the events regarding what happened on 9/11. I lost a friend in the North Tower that day, and I think that the families and friends of the victims deserve a comprehensive investigation that addresses every and all factors surrounding what took place.
I am no conspiracy theorist. This is to say that I’m not one who goes around acting certain that George Bush and the Neocons did 9/11 as an inside job — even though I refuse to ignore the fact that Bush’s cousin and brother owned the company that was in charge of security for the WTC complex. As someone else mentioned, it is entirely possible that 9/11 was simply allowed to happen. That cannot be a shocking thought when we know that Bush and Rice totally ignored a memo that said “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US” and claimed that they had no idea that terrorists would ever think of flying planes into buildings, when our intelligence agencies were aware enough of it idea to have conducted studies on that very concept. Is it so terrible to question their credibility when we know that for many years before 9/11 there were Neocon think tanks writing about how another Pearl Harbor would give them the opportunity to wage war and remake the Middle East, as well as usurp and exert power over America in ways unprecedented in all of American history? I don’t think it’s terrible. And it’s not as though there is a complete absence of motive for them to have allowed 9/11 to happen.

But do I know for certain? No, I don’t. But I certainly do wonder.

What I do know is that there are just too many things that don’t add up about that day and in the days that followed, and the investigations (FEMA, 9/11 Commission, NIST) that followed. Some of these investigations are ones that the Bush Administration fought every step of the way. WHY would they fight these investigations? How could they not want to know everything about what happened? That makes no sense to me.
Everywhere we can look, from the way the towers fell, to the fact that Dick Cheney in charge of Norad was coincidentally conducting an “terrorism exercise” that very day, (which made Norad responders question the actual validity of the air traffic controllers reports of multiple hijackings in several locations), to the many never explained abnormalities surrounding why on earth WTC 7 building would have fallen at all and in the way it did, to the fact that no forensic tests were EVER done on the steel from the twin towers, or from WTC 7 (and why that steel was quickly sold off and shipped to Asia, so that no tests could be done even well after the fact), and on, and on, and on.
None of it makes sense, and thus I agree that we need a totally independent investigation that would actually attempt to answer at least some of these many questions that have been simply left dangling.
It isn’t Un-American to ask questions or want some solid answers about the largest terrorist attacks to ever take place on American soil in different locations on the same day. However I think it is Un-American to simply suspend all belief, or buy into a lot of nonsensical propaganda wholesale, just because it seems too psychologically taxing to entertain thoughts that something rather more sinister might have taken place, or been allowed to take place.

Sandra wrote:
“Joel, if you will remember, this issue was discussed to the nth. degree a couple of months or so ago in the red column.”

Indeed it was, but I’m not sure whether Joel was writing and reading this blog at that time. In that thread, I was the one folks were trying to force into the tinfoil headgear, but I tried my best to hold my own. Joel, if perhaps you’d like to read those exchanges:
here it is.

d.a.n., I’m glad you’re keeping an open mind. Too few people seem to want to, and that’s something I can’t begin understand. If the official version of events had been competently and well researched, I could understand it — but they weren’t. Anyone who reads them will immediately grasp that this is the case because all three of them conflict and contradict each other in many places, and often, they simply ignored certain factors entirely.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 5, 2007 11:44 PM

wtc7-
One of the most difficult truths some people have to face is that it’s not the other person’s fault that they’re not agreed with. One of the guiding principles of my approach is that agreement is earned by those who satisfy the right questions that people have, rather than being the reward of the virtuous speaker.

What people believe and what really happened are always two different things Some people are closer to the truth than others. That we are the ones closer is not by any means guaranteed.

If you cannot allow for the possibility that you are not the one closest to the truth, then you will not search out the evidence that tests your theory. If you will not let your cherished conclusions be tested, then you will be unready to answer those who have researched this information. If you cannot answer their objections without coming across as somebody who’d believe what they wanted to believe no matter what, you’ve already lost the argument.

My experience of the literature surrounding the Iraq war leads me to believe that the failure of the Bush Administration’s duty to properly assess the situation was likely not deliberate, but mostly the bi-product of their unwillingness to believe anything else was the case. Thus, they lead an organized effort which looked for what supported their case, and which disregarded what didn’t. This is the main pitfall of approaches that operate in circular fashion to reinforce a desired conclusion: they undermine the judgment of those who trust in them.

There is more than enough evidence out there, clear and unambiguous, to indicate who did this, and how the towers collapsed. There is plenty of substantive and circumstantial evidence to discount the demolition theory.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2007 11:56 PM

d.a.n.,

Perhaps the problem is one of communication. The statement that the buildings were falling(even accelerating) is presented as something to keep an open mind about. Given your background in engineering, please explain how this differs from the official explanation and physics that coincides with a collapse. (Hole#1)

But they appear to be falling at the same rate (even accelerating). But, structural weakness and momentum (mass x velocity) could explain that too.

How does momentum play into fall rates? (hole#2)

As I stated these statements jumped out at me as divergent from the physics I learned. Maybe it’s just the way the sentences were constructed. I think it’s pretty much a waste of time to refute these rather ridiculous claims.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 6, 2007 01:13 AM

Rhinehold says: “I’ll bite, Name one. Start there and after we shoot that one down, name another. I’m sure we can go down this ‘immesurable’ list after a while and see what sticks at the bottom.”

You must think I’m particularly naive. This is the typical political king o’ the hill arguement trap, in which you claim to have the top first. It’s especially telling that you assume, by saying “we can go down this ‘immesurable’ list”, implying that you have the majority to back you up.

I will not bite. It’s absolutely futile for me to go dig up information already so prevalent on the internet. I merely suggest that you do your own leg work. I have, and I have been swayed more thoroughly to one side than the other. However, my mind is not a well hardened sculpture. Furthermore, I have already confessed my disinclination to compel anyone to research the alternative theories.

Stephen Daugherty says: “There is more than enough evidence out there, clear and unambiguous, to indicate who did this, and how the towers collapsed. There is plenty of substantive and circumstantial evidence to discount the demolition theory.”

I have not seen enough of it, Stephen. And you say,

“Bush can be a terrible president who misled us into a disastrous war without him having faked the 9/11 attack.”

What is the difference here? You could use fewer words to describe a lie, and still fewer to commit one. I do not see the difference between one lie and the next, except for its placement in history. You, Stephen, can write voluminously about how terrible the government is under the direction of the Bush administration, yet with a simple switch of the face, do just as much to defend the other half of a beautifully painted prison.

I don’t believe that George Bush had any more to do with 010911 than he does with being President, as a matter of fact. Except in both instances (if that’s possible) that he is an opportunistic politician who dutifully follows orders.

I wish you all would understand that, if I were to say that I don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald shot John Kennedy, that it wouldn’t mean I don’t believe in the existance of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Posted by: wtc7 at September 6, 2007 01:15 AM

If you want a really good conspiracy theory here it is.

Last week, a b-52 bomber flew from Minot AFB, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB, in Louisiana with five nuclear tipped cruise missles mounted on its wings. The official story is that the missles were to be decomissioned but were mistakenly mounted on the bombers wings. The loading crew involved was temporarily decertified pending retraining and investigation.

Unless the Air Force has drastically changed it’s procedures reguarding the handling of nuclear weapons, the story is a fabrication. Nuclear weapons don’t go nowhere without an armed escort. Weapons are delivered to the designated plane to be loaded and then and only then do the loaders assigned to that plane take charge of the weapons and load them. This only occurs when a) the base is on alert and an exercise is being conducted or b) the weapons are going to be moved to a specific site. Usually when b) occurs, the weapons are placed in containers and shipped on USAF cargo planes.

The plot thickens: Barksdale AFB, where the weapons were delivered, is the jumping off point for Middle East operations.

The other day, someone at a neocon think tank blew the whistle on Cheney and the neocon medias upcoming push for a war with Iran which was scheduled to commence September 9-11. Now someone has blown the whistle on the missles which could have quite possibly been headed for the Middle East, and in the Army Times no less.

Posted by: jlw at September 6, 2007 02:33 AM

jlw, it just never ends, does it? Yet people still think anyone questioning things like this are either totally delusional, or foil-wrapped crazy. Go figure….
I actually heard the same report off and on all day…and the one reported said he had gotten from the Air Force, that these bombs were not “activated”, or weren’t set up with the detonating device and attached to the actual misile that would launch it. Some kind of double talk no doubt that would fool about 70% of the public.
Should be interesting to follow it for a while and see what other spins come out about it.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 6, 2007 03:48 AM

d.a.n.

I agree with all your points except this one:

(2) It would be near impossible to plant explosives after the building was built. Explosives would have to be planted when the builing was built.

I know no buildings been controlling demolished that had explosives planted at *build* time. Explosives are always planted only a short time before the controlled demolition is fired. Most often, the same day, when security and wiring double check give their respective green lights.

Anyway. WTC collapsed because they were not designed to resist such scale of damage to their hyperstructure. After all, why should they?
Even if today one will design a tower to resist better to a big plane crash, what will stop terrorists to fly several planes into the same tower?

Nobody can design for 100% safety.
Because is not achievable. Towers are designed to be towers, not bunkers. And even bunkers can be destroyed, go figure.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 6, 2007 06:05 AM

I will not bite. It’s absolutely futile for me to go dig up information already so prevalent on the internet.

Ah, the exact response I was expecting. When confronted with specifics the conspiracy theorist wilts away knowing that their ‘logic’ will never hold up to scrutiny. All they have are theories with no backing in actual fact. They just ‘know’ that something is going on and we aren’t getting the real story.

It has nothing to do with being fed an ‘official’ story as much as looking at what happened, without an agenda of irrational distrust (scepticism is healthy, irrational scepticism is not), and realizing what happened. Because it makes the most sense.

So, I’m with Jack. The burdeon of proof is on the theorists and their supporters, not on the people they are trying to convince. I’ve ‘done my own leg work’ and looked into nearly all of these theories and they are all flawed and wrong.

So unless you have something specific to offer I’ll accept that you don’t and we can move on to realty and start dealing with the things that are really affecting this country, not the paranoid delusions of people who have read a few too many pamphlets and seen far too many youtube videos…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 6, 2007 09:57 AM

It’s theories like this that lead legitimate conspiracies to be brushed off by the public.
i.e. the Kennedy assassination where overwhelming proof of conspiracy is dismissed by most.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 6, 2007 10:25 AM

Rhinehold, first of all, it’s somewhat annoying that you would refer to me as a conspiracy theorist, since your use of the term indicates a hint of forward contempt. I don’t make theories, I read them and speculate. I like information of all kinds, especially the abstract and unusual. So I think, with regard to your Hannity-style challenge, we are at an impasse, since you state that you have already researched nearly all of the theories and have made up your mind, and I will only say one final time that I don’t desire to change it.

I, on the other hand, feel that because it’s only been six years since the greatest and most tragic specticle of an attack in American history, the entire truth about it couldn’t possibly have been discovered. Not with all the government secrecy we have. It’s perhaps going to be a controversy spanning generations.

And by the way, it’s places like YouTube which will lead the way in supplying the most truthful (as well as untruthful) volume of information in the future, not the major mass media. This is probably because people like to diectly tap into general knowledge, rather than have it condensed to fit between commercials, and edited for political correctness.

So, you take Jack, I’ll take YouTube, and we’ll call a cease-fire, as it’s painfully obvious that niether of us would do any good to continue.

Posted by: wtc7 at September 6, 2007 11:30 AM

I agree with all your points except this one: (2) It would be near impossible to plant explosives after the building was built. Explosives would have to be planted when the builing was built. I know no buildings been controlling demolished that had explosives planted at *build* time. Explosives are always planted only a short time before the controlled demolition is fired. Most often, the same day, when security and wiring double check give their respective green lights.

I wrote “near impossible”, because exposing the box columns requires tearing through walls and floors. That would be difficult with people all around. That’s why even the conspiracy theorists claim that the explosives were planted when the building was constructed. I wrote “near impossible”, since it is usually foolish to speak in terms of certainties.

alien from planet zorg wrote: d.a.n., Perhaps the problem is one of communication. The statement that the buildings were falling(even accelerating) is presented as something to keep an open mind about. Given your background in engineering, please explain how this differs from the official explanation and physics that coincides with a collapse. (Hole#1)

There’s no hole there. What exactly differs? First of all, anything that is free falling is accelerating in velocity due to gravity. Thus “even accelarating” is a fact. Where’s the hole?

alien from planet zorg quoted d.a.n: But they appear to be falling at the same rate (even accelerating). But, structural weakness and momentum (mass x velocity) could explain that too.

Again, free falling means the rate of descent increases (i.e. accelerating). That is consistent with the facts. And as the velocity increases, so does the momentum. Also, the mass is increasing as additional floors collapse. Again, there is no hole, and I see no communication errors either.

Direct observation shows that the WTC collapsed in a time that was 2 or 3 seconds greater than the 9.1 second free fall time of an object dropped from a height of 416 meters onto a base about 10 meters high. Momentum and Energy transfer calculations can show the minimum Time_Of_Collapse for each of the WTC towers. Thus, direct observations show the collapse times to be about 12.1 seconds.

Minimum_Time_Of_Collapse = Square Root(2 Height / g) = Square Root (2 (416m - 10m)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
The Actual_Time_Of_Collapse = Minimum_Time_Of_Collapse + Delay_Due_To_Resistance

Since there was some resistance, the rate would be decreased and the total collapse time increased.
WTC1 took about 13.48 seconds to collapse.
WTC2 took about 12.07 seconds to collapse.

Thus, there was some resistance since both times are greater than 9.1 seconds.

alien from planet zorg quoted d.a.n: How does momentum play into fall rates? (hole#2)

Again, Momentum = Mass x Velocity . Momentum is increasing as the velocity and mass increases. As momentum increases, it increases the force (Force = Mass x Acceleration) over time. The velocity is increasing due to gravity (i.e. it is accelerating). The falling mass is increasing as more floors collapse. The falling mass is increasing as the static mass (still standing) of the buidling is decreasing. Thus, the increased momentum makes each subsequent floor easier to collapse since momentum is increasing.

Again, there is no Hole # 2 (nor Hole #1).

alien from planet zorg: As I stated these statements jumped out at me as divergent from the physics I learned. Maybe it’s just the way the sentences were constructed.

Again, I do not see the Hole #1 or Hole #2 that you allude to. Thus, I fail to see anything that is “divergent from physics”.

alien from planet zorg: I think it’s pretty much a waste of time to refute these rather ridiculous claims.

Perhaps. But discussion of it will help people understand that there are plausible explanations to refute a conspiracy. I personally find the conspiracy theories hard to believe, but I know better than to rule out other possibilities 100%. That is, we can state what we believe, but seldom with 100% certainty. 40% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. That is largely due to secrecy, growing corruption in our own government, voters choosing to blame government alone rather than admit that own their government is a reflection of themselves since most voters re-elect and reward that government with 90% to 95% re-election rates. Our govenment was miserably incompetent and irresponsible. But we empower and reward it for that. The Pentagon spends Trillions of dollars and it can’t even stop jet planes from flying into its own building. It’s not a mere failure to connect the dots. It’s a dismal failure to do anything. Our government is where important information and good ideas go to die. But voters not only tolerate it. They empower it. The voters have the government that they deserve.

WORLD TRADE CENTER FACTS:
HEIGHT of Tower 1 (North) = 1,368 ft = 417 m
HEIGHT of Tower 2 (South) = 1,362 ft = 415 m
NUMBER OF FLOORS in WTC1 and WTC2 = 110
Allowing for floor thickness: 12.1 ft (3.7 m) height from floor to ceiling
WIDTH OF EACH TOWER = 209 ft (63.7 m)
GROSS FLOOR AREA = 43,681 sq ft = 4058 m2
DIMENSIONS OF CENTER CORE = 89 ft (27.1 m) x 139 ft (42.4 m)
AREA OF CENTER CORE = 12,371 sq ft = 1,149 m^2
NET FLOOR AREA = 31,310 sq ft = 2,909 m^2
VOLUME OF OFFICE SPACE PER FLOOR = 10,996 m^3
USABLE OFFICE SPACE PER FLOOR = 20,550 sq ft = 1,909 m^2
WEIGHT OF EACH TOWER = 510,000,000 kg
WEIGHT OF EACH FLOOR = 4,636,363 kg
Miniumum_Time_To_Fall = SquareRoot(2 Height/g) = SquareRoot((416-10)/9.81) = 9.1 seconds; g=Acceleration of Earth’s gravity=9.81m/s^2
Maximum_Impact_Velocity = Minimum_Time_To_Fall x g = 9.1 x 9.81 = 89.3 m/s = 199.8 mph
Each floor had a layer of lightweight concrete 4 inches (0.1 m) thick.
The net floor area was 2909 m^2, giving 290.9 m^3 of concrete per floor.
If the density of the WTC concrete was 1500 kg/m^3 we have 110 x 290.9 m^3 x 1500 kg = 48,000,000 kg of concrete flooring per tower
Each tower also had 96,000,000 kg of structural steel

CONCLUSION:
(1) These towers were very fragile and lacked adequate fire-proofing to protect structural steel in the core column.
(2) Seismic impact of 154 million kg (of one WTC tower, 1 or 2) of falling debris (in 12 to 13 seconds) and fire probably brought down WTC7.
(3) It is not unreasonable for people to have suspicions. The collapse of the towers is hard to understand. But once people understand that the collapses could occur as they did, most will put the conspiracy theories to rest. I admit, unitl I studied it at lengnth, I had suspicions too.

One last thing. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Joel Hirschhorn is saying there was a Conspiracy. He seems to be asking “Why all the secrecy and opposition to an investigation”?

After all, Joel has a Ph.D. in Metalurgy and I know he understands quite well how steel can be weakened by heat even if the temperatures are far below the melting point of steel.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2007 12:03 PM

NOTE: Seismic impact of 154 million kg (that’s just the steel and concrete; the total weight of WTC1 or WTC2 is 510 million kg).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2007 12:07 PM

He seems to be asking “Why all the secrecy and opposition to an investigation”

Which doesn’t make sense at all, since the official investigation is ongoing, with a planned release of results by the end of the year. This is, of course, on top of many other investigations.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 6, 2007 12:08 PM

wtc7-
Explain this: in a controlled demolition, you get the blasts cutting the columns first, then you get the collapse of of the structure, as these supporting columns naturally fail.

If it was charges that brought the towers down, Why didn’t the windows blow out first, followed by the explosion of debris from within as it collapsed? With most of the windows still intact, that would have been the result on all the floors. Normally, they take out the windows from buildings undergoing controlled demolition for that very reason. Instead of that happening, though, the windows blew out with the pulverized debris during the collapse.

Another discrepancy comes when you consider the normal procedure for controlled demolition. First, buildings are never blown from the top, but from the bottom. Second, this kind of demolition takes weeks to set up, and you have three towers here, frequented by tens of thousand New Yorkers everyday, that are all larger than the tallest tower ever demolished. Nobody saw anything like the kind of effort it would take to pull this off.

It’s easy to imagine an all powerful conspiracy pulling things like this off, but they don’t hold water if you work out the requirements, or look for their actual signs.

The charm of the conspiracy theories, though, is the same charm one might find in an movie or novel: it sounds or looks good. The problem is, conspiracy theories reflect the attitude that you should look for the evidence to support your theory rather than look at the evidence to see what kind of theory it supports. The evidence does not support controlled demolition.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2007 12:19 PM

Which doesn’t make sense at all, since the official investigation is ongoing, with a planned release of results by the end of the year. This is, of course, on top of many other investigations.

Perhaps. I’m not going to go too far out on a limb on this, since I can’t speak for Joel. Also, to date, without more convincing evidence, I believe there are plausible reasons to explain the collapse of the buildings as they actually collapsed.

WTC7 collapsed differently than WTC1 and WTC2.
If you observe the videos of the collapse of WTC7 (which exist from different angles), it collapsed from the bottom. WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed top-down. Personally, I think these towers were incredibly fragile to begin with.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2007 01:18 PM

Did anyone go to Joel’s link?
I thought these articles were interesting on that website:

Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager

Why the towers fell: Two theories

The above from a Civil Engineer who worked during “the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed” and “found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.”

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2007 02:02 PM

Also, this article was very interesting:
Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design, analysis and project management of construction of major projects, including large steel structures, questions the official account of the events of 9/11

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2007 02:07 PM

“Personally, I think these towers were incredibly fragile to begin with.”

They certainly weren’t in a league with the Empire State Building, but probably superior to what replaces them.

Posted by: jlw at September 6, 2007 02:24 PM

d.a.n., you might be interested in checking this out:

Can physics rewrite history?
Specifically: ‘Dramatic Features of the Tower Destruction that are Ignored by All the Official Theories’ and ‘The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7’

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2007 02:30 PM

Adrienne,

Yes. I read it. And those are good questions. While many of the reasons and facts could be explained by explosives, they could also be explained by causes having nothing to do with explosives.

The squibs of smoke/debri could be due to air pressure due to the floors above compressing air in the floors and elevator shafts below. Some windows are weaker than others, and the smoke (after all, the building was on fire) and debri shoot out the window. Also, what can’t be seen are floors that may be collapsing where the squibs are located due to stresses on the core column.

At first, I admit, it looks like a demolition. But the evidence is still lacking.

I’d recommend looking at this analysis by Popular Mechanics on most (if not all) of the issues raised.

They also had many teams (300 persons and organizations) working on the report:
Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2007 02:39 PM

Stephen, I think with towers 1 & 2, you make a really good point, in that nothing that tall, to my knowledge, has ever been demolished. So I wonder, how exactly should buildings that tall be brought down? It might be possible that bringing them down top first would reduce the chance of toppling over. That’s something I’ve never thought of. There are plenty of videos showing far shorter buildings being dropped, but usually not in such dense locations.

Another way to look at it is that we’ve never seen a building like this (steel frame and concrete at that height) just collapse. That may very well be just how it would look if a similar building suddenly gave way under comparable catastrophic stress. There’s simply too little precedent to be sure.

WTC 7 is another matter, which is why I use it as a screen name (to remind myself to search up on it every now and then for new stuff). With building 7, there are many videos with which to compare. Actually, the one I linked earlier even shows a similar building being dropped with all the windows still in it, though it was timed for visual effect (I assume). That proves that the windows are not always removed, and besides, if some criminal element of the government is indeed responsible, I’m sure they didn’t even think twice about what to do with the windows.

All I can say is that, you’re right, in that I do not understand what happened to building 7. I don’t think there are many people who do. I don’t want to leave it alone though, because I have the hopeful feeling that one day, some definitive information will show up, and either kill or confirm the demolition theory. That’s really all I want to see is iron-clad proof, one way or the other, which I find quite lacking so far.

Posted by: wtc7 at September 6, 2007 02:43 PM

I personally like how the articles start off rational, with a question of the NIST findings that the insulation was partially destroyed which helped lead to the collapse rather than a good question as to the building’s constructional defectds. But, then they start to devolve into ‘the buildings were brought down purposely’, etc even when the original articles state that there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest such a thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 6, 2007 02:52 PM

d.a.n.

Excellent link with the Popular Mechanics analysis. It should quiet the silly conspiracy, but reality is never as sexy or fun as fantasy.

Oh well.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 6, 2007 02:55 PM

d.a.n., you might be interested in checking this out: Can physics rewrite history? Specifically: ‘Dramatic Features of the Tower Destruction that are Ignored by All the Official Theories’ and ‘The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7’

Adrienne, I was initially very intrigued and disturbed by the thought of a conspiracy. Keeping an open mind, I started investigating it and spent many days over many months reading everything I could find on it. When you read the conspiracists side, it sounds very convincing. That is partly why 40% of American believe there was a conspiracy. And I’m not saying 100% that I know their wasn’t. I’m dealing in percentages of probability. Based on the vast amount of information provided on countless web-sites by the consipracists and the other sites with a differing opinion, I’ve come believe with about 95% probability that the towers collapsed because they were fragile to start with, fire-proofing was inadequate above the 47th floor, two jet planes hit the towers which caused the fires, and the claims of free-fall are not entirely true. The buildings took longer than 9.1 seconds to collapse (about 45% longer than free fall; between 12 and 13 seconds).

Thus, a conspiracy is not impossible, but improbable based on the evidence available.

Had someone come up with forensic evidence of explosive chemicals, that would have been very interesting. After all, it would take tons of explosives. I once saw some box columns cut at an angle that looked pretty convincing, but if you looked closely, you could see the jagged edges indicative of a blow torch. I only saw one photo of a smooth cut box column, and I could not tell if it was during construction of the building, or after 911.

So, I think I’ve looked at it with an open mind, and simply fail to see the evidence of a conspiracy. But the collapse of such large structures is easy to confuse with what we have all seen on TV of controlled demolitions.

But, since there is a small chance I could be wrong, I not against more investigation.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2007 02:57 PM

wtc7:
“I don’t want to leave it alone though, because I have the hopeful feeling that one day, some definitive information will show up, and either kill or confirm the demolition theory. That’s really all I want to see is iron-clad proof, one way or the other, which I find quite lacking so far.”

This is exactly how I feel as well. And it is crystal clear that the FEMA, 9/11 Commission and NIST investigations (taken individually, or when read and compared to each other) have not come close to providing such proof thus far.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2007 02:58 PM

wtc7, I doubt you will find ‘iron-clad proof’ as there was no reason to collect it and there is no way to prove it was brought down by other than explained means.

BTW, what would the gain be for that building to be demolished if 1 and 2 weren’t? It housed the offices of the CIA and Dept of Defense, but who would gain from that building coming down? It makes absolutely no sense nor does it even pass the muster of a good conspiracy. They usually have a sinister motive of some sort.

Everyone admits that the building was on fire, that it was left to burn unattended for hours and no one was allowed anywhere near the building as it was burning.

Common Sense tells us that the fire finally took out enough structural stability and it eventually collapsed on it’s own. Until I see a single bit of actual evidence to even suggest otherwise, I don’t see a reason to waste any further time or money on the issue. There is no evidence or motive that can be provided, one of those two would be necessary for most people to believe there is a reason to investigate. Which is why no one talks about it, there is nothing to talk about. Yet we hear ‘hushed tones’ of media coverup, etc…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 6, 2007 02:59 PM

but reality is never as sexy or fun as fantasy.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 6, 2007 02:55 PM

Thus, the real issue here, perhaps! The left finds fantasy over 9/11 sexy and fun!
Hmmmm?

JD

Posted by: JD at September 6, 2007 03:31 PM

d.a.n. Excellent link with the Popular Mechanics analysis. It should quiet the silly conspiracy, but reality is never as sexy or fun as fantasy. Oh well.

Thanks. It was also on the History Channel a while back. However, I can understand why people think it may have been a demolition. In fact, in the beginning, I was suspicious too. Some skepticism is healthy. It wasn’t until looking at the rate of fall (about 45% slower than free-fall; still some of the collapse reached 199 mph), momentum and energy transfer equations and calculations, and truly looking at both arguments (claim by claim; side by side) that the demolotion theory failed to prove itself out. However, I would also say this. I also discussed it with a huge Conspiracy Theorist (with his own web-site, video, and book) and talked with (by telephone) someone that worked on the construction of the WTC towers and they said that those building are extremeley fragile, and since they stopped installing fireproofing (due to protests) above the 47th floor, the building was doomed.

Building Construction has changed a lot of the years and buildings are much more delicate and fragile now. An older building like the the Empire State Building is much tougher. It was struck in 1948 by a B-25 bomber. 14 people were killed and the building sustained damage and fire which was confined to one corner of one floor. The fire did not spread due to fireproofing.
Also, the steel in the Empire State Building was much heavier. The floors on the Empire State Building are reinforced concrete using regular rebar. The towers on the other hand used a four inch thick floor in a pan, with wire mesh for reinforcement. People claim they could see the floors move in the WTC towers.

The elevators in the Empire State Building are a foot thick. The WTC towers were 8 inches thick. The WTC towers were a much lighter and delicate construction than the Empire State Building.

Cost, as usual, is a big driving factor for these differences. Had the WTC towers had adequate fireproofing, they would probably still be standing now.

Lastly, a top-down explosive method is totally unnecessary (and expensive). All that is needed to bring them down is to plant explosives on the first few floors. However, the building could be brought down by taking out any floor (except perhaps the uppermost two or three floors).

Still, I don’t think ALL people that think there it was a conspiracy are nut cases, because the collapse we witnessed could have been the result of either (i.e. explosives, or fire & pancaking collapse). Unfortunately, there’s no forensic evidence of explosives to support the explosives theory.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2007 03:31 PM

d.a.n.

As I read your later posts I see you do conclude that it was a collapse. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. The only questions I had was your use of the words open mind and a list that supposedly were open questions. I saw no open questions (except the convoluted mixing of momentum and free fall). I concluded a long time ago that these conspiracy theories were about making money. I’m not sure why people conclude that having arrived at that conclusion is evidence of a closed mind.

My experience is that people with a poor understanding of physics are convinced by the use of science-like terminology. They then conclude that NIST and ASCE MUST be lying. I guess I can conclude that they have closed their minds.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 6, 2007 04:01 PM

A near perfect pancake collapse.
The fuel from one passenger jet saturated every floor beneath it, which then enabled the fire to weaken every support structure below the crash site and allow a near perfect pancake collapse without significant toppling.
A technique I’m sure future demolitions experts will be excited to use when they start bringing down such large buildings.

Conspiracy? Who knows.
But there is no harm is asking for answers such as Joel is doing.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2007 04:03 PM

d.a.n.:
“Unfortunately, there’s no forensic evidence of explosives to support the explosives theory.”

Actually, there is some forensic evidence that suggests that thermate was used to bring down the WTC towers. An analysis was done using dust that a woman had collected while cleaning up her apartment a week after 9/11. The apartment was located very close to the South Tower.
You can read about that research on the ae911truth.org website in an article entitled: Revisiting 9/11/2001 —Applying the Scientific Method
Dr. Steven E. Jones

Specifically search for:
‘The World Trade Center Dust and the Message of its Iron-rich Microspheres’

Obviously Jones finding means that there should be an attempt made to duplicate that in a lab elsewhere. And certainly there needs to be more research conducted using what still remains at the Fresh Kills Landfill where large amounts of debris from 9/11 still sit.
The NIST investigation chose to do no forensic research at all, which makes no sense.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2007 04:19 PM

Joel, d.a.n and others who haven’t completely closed their minds to other possibilities…when one suffers a loss and there isn’t a complete and irrefutable explanation for it, it leaves a hole in us big enough to drive through. In that respect, I thoroughly understand Adrienne’s need to exhaust whatever research is available.
And, as has also been brought out here, the more someone tries to get one to change our minds before satisfaction has been reached, the more we feel “conspiracy” is the reason.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 6, 2007 04:21 PM

wtc7-
Controlled demolitions work from the bottom with good reason: It puts the weight of the building to work destroying the rest of it. If you start from the top, there’s less mass starting the collapse, which means less force ensuring that the collapse is thorough and uniform.

Take a look at some of those videos, preferably those with sound. I found a number on youtube. The explosives used to cut the columns are damn loud. You could not have hidden them. Also, these are some pretty powerful explosives used, so the pressure would likely blow out any windows left in the building. Nothing like that occurred. If you look at the controlled demolitions, the sequential nature of the explosions is quite obvious.

The Twin towers did not merely fall for no reason. They were hit by large jets in ways that compromised multiple floors, starting widespread, intense fires almost instantly. These fires burned all across these floors, with all of the debris piled up by the crash, including tons of office paper serving as fuel once the jet fuel burned off.

As for WTC7? Photographs of it reveal an immense gash across the backside of the building. One reason why many demolitions look the way they do is that that they time certain detonations to collapse one part of the building first. those parts then pull in the others after them. If a part of WTC7’s central structure sustained massive damage, a collapse caused by a failure at the ground floor would preferentially affect that portion.

I think the major point of confusion here is of cause and effect. Controlled demolitions are events where those doing the job deliberately compromise the supports of the building, causing the structure to fall in on itself. This compromise brings about the pancaking and the rising dust cloud that are so familiar, and which seems suspicious to people.

However, These familiar effects are just as easily cause by a structural collapse caused by terrorist attack or natural disaster. The progressive collapse happens anytime parts of a building start falling on top of each other instead of resting on good support. The blowing out of material at the sides and the dust cloud were a natural result of the air which composed most of the tower’s volume getting violently shoved out by the tower’s progressive collapse.

This shoving out of air is one reason people don’t leave windows in these buildings. Think nasty shards of death.

So what about controlled demolition? Consider this: would you want to be carrying around detcord or other explosives in buildings burning badly out of control? And wouldn’t folks have noticed if the stuff came preinstalled? It wasn’t as if the construction was secret.

Though some might have a motive to do this, the means and opportunity to pull of something like this, much less the superhuman intelligence, are seriously lacking. There are failures enough, failures we really need to figure out, without inventing new ones.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2007 06:01 PM

Sandra Davidson,
I agree. It takes a lot of serious research to come to a conclusion.

Adrienne,
Yes, I’ve see that. However, the WTC dust and steel samples provided to Prof. Steven Jones changed many hands before they were sent to Prof. Jones at BYU, and inspected by him and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer. Also, The total element compositions of the dust and metal samples reflect a chemical make-up that is consistent with a myriad of other materials commonly found in many large buildings.

Professor Jones claims that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel, but steel specifications reveal otherwise. Manganese is very found in the data sheets of many structural steel standards (especially from the time period with the WTC was constructed).

Therefore, Steven Jones’ conclusions fail the standards of evidence collection, and the results are not even convincing since structural steel can in fact contain quite a bit of Manganese.

There is a video of what appears to look like Thermate, but it also looks like what could be other materials burning (such as jet fuel and electrical cables, plastic, and or carpet).

Could it be thermate? Maybe. But there still isn’t chemical proof of it, since the chemicals found are already consistent with other materials commonly found in many large buildings.

Even as cynical as I may be (certainly appear to some), I do not yet see sufficient evidence to support the demolition theory, but I can understand why many do because it truly is not that easy to draw an informed and educated conclusion either way. Especially when it looks very much like a controlled demolition. But looks can be deceiving, as can conclusions drawn from chemical compositions when the existence of those chemicals are actually normal.

There are possibly thousands of web-sites with photos and articles theorizing 911 was a conspiracy. As I read through them, it’s easy to see why 40% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy.

Regardless, Americans should be angry.
Not just at the perpetrators that flew the jets, but at their own govenment for being so pathetically incompetent, irresponsible, and negligent. Despite the trillions the Pentagon spends on defense, it can’t even stop jets from flying into its own building.

And our borders are ports are still wide open to this day. And 911 was exploited to invade Iraq based on flawed intelligence (WMD that did not exist). And we’re still there; occupying Iraq even though most Americans oppose it and even most in the military oppose it. Yet, Congress, whose duty is to declare war but never did, allows the Executive Branch free rein to do as it please no matter how badly and futile it is; no matter how many American soldiers have to die or be maimed to safe face. Our troops deserve better.

If the American voters want to be mad about something, it should be that. Yet, in the last election, 90% of Congress was re-elected and rewarded for it. Government won’t become more responsible and accountable until the voters do too.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 6, 2007 07:08 PM

d.a.n.:
“Adrienne,
Yes, I’ve see that.”

But maybe not in awhile? Since you claim:
“However, the WTC dust and steel samples provided to Prof. Steven Jones changed many hands before they were sent to Prof. Jones at BYU, and inspected by him and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.”

Actually, according to Jones’ account in his paper, that isn’t true at all. He stated there that the first sample was sent directly to him by the woman who collected the dust from her apartment because she had read about the research he was beginning to do online and knew he was looking for such samples. To take the second sample from her, Jones went directly to her home (she had moved from NY to California) and took the dust sample with witnesses who were all scientists, present to document the event, which he then began examining using electron microprobe methods.

“Also, The total element compositions of the dust and metal samples reflect a chemical make-up that is consistent with a myriad of other materials commonly found in many large buildings.”

Really? Are you a metallurgist or chemist who is familiar with the chemical make-up of building materials from the era that the WTC complex was built? If so, this is something I didn’t know about you.

“Professor Jones claims that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel, but steel specifications reveal otherwise.”

Could you give me a link to back up this statement?

“Manganese is very found in the data sheets of many structural steel standards (especially from the time period with the WTC was constructed). Therefore, Steven Jones’ conclusions fail the standards of evidence collection, and the results are not even convincing since structural steel can in fact contain quite a bit of Manganese.”

Again, I’d need a link to verify these claims. And preferably one from someone who is an expert on such things.
Please don’t be offended that I am saying that, but this is exactly the problem I have with so many of the people making claims to the contrary and automatically dismissing Jones for his research and findings. They never actually bother to get into the nuts and bolts of why what he has done, or has found has to be wrong.
And you must understand, it’s not that I even want to defend Jones’ findings per se. I would much rather it be the case that many people are studying identical samples and debating their findings, rather than only him. But I do have to say that I feel the need to defend the fact that Jones is attempting to do this kind of research AT ALL. Indeed, he may very well be wrong from start to finish, but that still doesn’t take anything at all away from the fact that he has actually attempted to do this kind of research ONLY BECAUSE NO OTHER FORENSIC RESEARCH WAS EVER COLLECTED AND STUDIED ON WHETHER OR NOT EXPLOSIVES MIGHT HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF THESE THREE STEEL BUILDINGS — AN UNPRECEDENTED OCCURRENCE PRIOR TO 9/11 .
A great many people, including myself, would like to know why that happens to be the case even after three official investigations have taken place. (Most especially the NIST investigation.) It seems very suspicious. Additionally what it says is that explosives were for some reason completely ruled out of consideration well beforehand. Which means that these people weren’t starting from the place that all careful and truly valid scientific research must ALWAYS start from: By including all possible and probable scenarios, and then eliminating those probabilities and possibilities one by one, until the most satisfactory and likely outcome is finally reached.

Jones, no matter how right or wrong his findings happen to be, is at least taking significantly important factors into account. Factors that seem to have been stupidly or suspiciously overlooked or eliminated for no good reason that I can discern.
Can you see my point? I hope so.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2007 10:30 PM

ONLY BECAUSE NO OTHER FORENSIC RESEARCH WAS EVER COLLECTED AND STUDIED ON WHETHER OR NOT EXPLOSIVES MIGHT HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE COLLAPSE OF THESE THREE STEEL BUILDINGS — AN UNPRECEDENTED OCCURRENCE PRIOR TO 9/11

True.

Also, no forensic research was ever collected and studied one whether or not ravenous locusts might have played a role in the collapse of these three steel buildings - an unprecedented occurrence prior to 9/11.

The reason that no research was never done on locusts as a cause is that there is no evidence at all that locusts are a cause, that it doesn’t make sense that locusts could have done it, and the primary explanation makes much more sense than the locust hypothesis. Ignoring the locust hypothesis is not the result of a conspiracy, but the result of a proper decision about the allocation of resources based on the rational leads.

But, hey, maybe we should call for independent investigations into the locust hypothesis. After all, this government is so secretive that it just could be.

And let’s investigate how the moon landings were faked, how every climate scientist in the world is being paid off by Ted Turner, how the truth about a 6,000-year-old earth is being hidden, and why Kansas City is being turned into a super port for a massive highway stretching across the country.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 6, 2007 10:58 PM

Really? Are you a metallurgist or chemist who is familiar with the chemical make-up of building materials from the era that the WTC complex was built? If so, this is something I didn’t know about you.

Adrienne, No, but I have studied Chemistry, molecular structures of many metals and various alloys in Material Science (especially steel and electronic components), Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetics, etc.

Could you give me a link to back up this statement?

Here is the report about the existence of Chromium (Cr) Manganese (Mn) in many steel standards.

Adrienne, Sandra Davidson,
I am not making fun or denigrating anyone regardless of their beliefs about 911. It is very understandable. To be honest, the event had me going for a while too. I initially thought it may have been a demolition, but the more I looked at it, the more it also looked like a collapse. There are a LOT of things that look similar to a controlled demolition. However, each one, one by one has a plausible explanation too. There is a mountain of evidence to look at. That also makes it difficult to figure this thing out. As for forensic evidence, Prof. Steven Jones recieved the dust second hand. But, even if the dust and steel were genuine, the conclusions he drew about Chromium (Cr) and Manganese (Mn) were not definitive proof of Thermate. It’s a good theory. But I’m not quite convinced by it, since these elements (and others that existed at ground zero) are not unusual. If explosives were used, I would think ample evidence of it would exist on the huge box columns lying all over the place. I’ve seen lots of pictures of torn steel box columns, but not anything that really looks like thermate cut it. Also, other types of explosives would have been more effective. Also, thermate burns (doesn’t explode) and wouldn’t create the squibs seen. Explosives could create the squibs, but so could air pressue forced down the elevator shafts (in the core) and from floors collapsing inside ahead of the exterior wall collapse.

ALso, a top-down demolition is very unusual. If the intent was to make it appear like a collapse due to the jet impact, why not simply take out the lower floor?

There are good questions on both sides of the debate. I think the preponderance of the evidence points to a collapse caused by fire and subsequent failure of one or more floors at the impact location.

But, I’m not 100% certain. I leave a small (say 5%) chance of a demolition conspiracy. But that means other evidence we have not yet seen must exist somewhere.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, I think there’s a higher likelihood that Pearl Harbor may have been a convenient way to get into the war. I don’t have any proof of it, even though that was hotly debated too. There were several communications that were mysteriously ignored and not passed on. Perhaps it was merely incompetence, neglect, and the usual bureaucratic inefficiencies. But it makes one wonder. After all, some had actually predicted an attack on Pearl Harbor. Like 911, many had essentially predicted it too. There was already a previous attempt to bring down one WTC tower.

Unfortunately, without more evidence, we may never know. Like the assassination of JFK, I expect there will be many theories about 911 in the years to come.

Was 911 a demolition? Maybe. But not likely.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 7, 2007 12:34 AM

…thanks for your patience, d.a.n

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 7, 2007 01:38 AM

Lawnboy, why are you trying so hard to insult me?

You know, there really is something about questioning the offical theory and investigations into 9/11 that brings out extreme viciousness in a lot of people. Why does saying that more research is needed, especially in light of the shoddy investigations that have been done thus far, seem bother people so much? I think it’s totally bizarre.

d.a.n.:
“I initially thought it may have been a demolition, but the more I looked at it, the more it also looked like a collapse.”

I don’t see how planes flown into both buildings could have brought them down alone. And in an identical manner, even though they were hit by the planes in different places. I have read a lot about the design of the buildings, which btw was notably award winning, and they never fail to mention that they were specifically designed and built to be able to withstand airplanes flying right into them without causing a complete collapse. I especially don’t see how the core columns, how everything really, could have been shattered into such tiny pieces, and how everything else was pulverized into dust that way, just from the collapses alone. Even if every floor had collapsed, it seems like at least some portions and large segments of the core should have been left standing. I also don’t understand how other enormous steel structures, built during the same era, with the same crappy spray-on fireproofing, had withstood fires that burned hotter, and for over 24 hours, yet had not totally collapsed like the towers did. In one case I read about, the firefighters couldn’t even attempt to put out the inferno because there was no water pressure to do so. Yet, approximately 4000 gallons each of jet fuel was able to bring both of the towers down, in same exact same way, in an amazingly short amount of time? Sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense.

“There is a mountain of evidence to look at. That also makes it difficult to figure this thing out.”

Well d.a.n., they’ve had six years, yet the official reason seems very elusive, doesn’t it? Was it the Fire? Was it the Trusses? Well, that seems to depend on which investigation one decides to look at. Since they didn’t agree, and still haven’t come to any consensus, what is the problem with looking at another theory, such as whether there might have also been explosions (whether thermate or otherwise) that weakened the entire structures enough to bring them both down quickly and in an identical way?
Lots of people did describe seeing and hearing explosions and flashes — so why didn’t they just take a quick look at that to satisfy everyone who saw those things? They didn’t bother. They didn’t do forensics on the steel, and they quickly sold it off and shipped it off to Asia. They did this despite and against the extremely strong objections of fire engineers, and the NYFD, and the victims families.

As far as WTC 7, well nothing explains that. None of the investigations have even bothered to try to make a truly educated guess about that one. I’ve heard that NIST is supposed to come out with something soon though, so I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

“But, even if the dust and steel were genuine, the conclusions he drew about Chromium (Cr) and Manganese (Mn) were not definitive proof of Thermate. It’s a good theory.”

If it’s a good theory, then why not let a bunch more independent scientists simply take a look at that dust and maybe at some of the debris still sitting at Fresh Kills, and let them run their own lab tests? It’d be great if they could make it unequivocally clear that demolition could not have been what brought the towers down. Even if it’s only to make everyone who is still talking about that possibility shut up about it.

“ALso, a top-down demolition is very unusual. If the intent was to make it appear like a collapse due to the jet impact, why not simply take out the lower floor?”

Workers in the sub basement and underground parking areas of the towers claim that there were large explosions there. But eyewitness accounts were not considered all that important to the people conducting the official investigations thus far.

“There are good questions on both sides of the debate.”

I think so too, and I don’t understand why so many people seem to prefer ignoring all these questions.

“I think the preponderance of the evidence points to a collapse c