I cannot "unprove" every single wild-side 911 theory...

by james_woods 35 Replies latest social current

• 

  Big Tex

  how these three buildings collapsed due to fire, when other known high rise buildings on fire remained standing?

  Please tell me how many other high rise buildings were hit by a 767 traveling over 500 mph and nearly full of fuel. To my knowledge what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 was unprecedented. It wasn't just fire, it was also the damage done to the buildings, the necessary support structures in conjunction with the fire that weakened, not destroyed, but weakened support enough for a collapse.

  Okay let's take WTC7, the 47 story building standing next to the World Trade Center. I'm attaching a few images to help explain. I wish I could paste them here where they could line up with the text but I don't want to steal bandwidth so I'm attaching them instead.

  The first image is an image whereby colored lines have been overlayed on a picture of the collapsed building. The white lines indicate an area that was "scooped out" (quote by NIST) during the collapse of the twin towers. The light brown rectange is approximately where the louvers were. The light green is approximately where the third floor promenade was.

  Another image is of WTC7 undamaged, before Sept. 11. As you can see if the columns (represented by the white lines in the first image) were taken out, it is not unreasonable to think the mechanical floors (behind the louvers and above the lobby) that contained heavy equipment, would fall into the open lobby. On those mechanical floors, there were transformers. According to FEMA, "WTC 7 contained 10 transformers at street level, 12 transformers on the 5th floor, and 2 dry transformers on the 7th floor."

  Transformers are filled with oil and can explode. Want to see a transformer explode? Just one?

  http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

  Remember WTC7 had been in flames for hours. It is reasonable to surmise the building's condition was worsening over that time.

  Additionally, there is video showing a gash on WTC7 running from the top of the building down. I'm attaching it as the third image. Why is that gash important? Because it lined up with the fuel system that I am attaching as the last image.

  There is more, quite a bit more and quite a bit more detailed, that is found here:

  http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

  But I wanted to give you just the barest overview and to give you an answer. With all due respect, this has nothing to do with your experience, but rather simple physics, mathematics and gravity.

  Chris
• 

  wha happened?

  Well I thought I was one of just a few people who's head wasn't spinning around ranting theories. Glad to see there are some clear thinking individuals left on this board
• 

  Big Tex

  All I'm asking is, give me independent experts that support your claim, not government FUNDED groups

  Okay, this is a pdf from Structure magazine regarding the idea that WTC7 was caused by a single point of failure, i.e. the collapse of one column:

  http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
• 

  RAF

  There are enough experts to support both therories (cause there are at least 2 to 3 SOLID theories, the third being the 2 in one)

  1. conspiracy as an attack from saoudi arabians - against who nobody has retaliate ... O_O !!! - there was no alkaida before IT - but now there's alkaida everywhere O_O !!! and since it means against occidentals (somehow) it might be true now, morevore if most of arabians feels that you are againsts them all
  2. conspiracy as a strategy to support war for oil (and at the same time revange against Sadam for not being the american puppet - Not against OBL ! the famous Oussama)
  3. and even both conspiracies could have worked together (they know - but they help it to happened - in an even worst way )

  You want to support one of it in saying that experts says this, or no proof about that and that, you'll probably stay on your belief relatively to what matches your opinion ... And my opinion is that the course of events from before to after supports 2 or 3 ... voilà ... that's my opinion ... why ? Because there's no real arguments to support 1 (regarding to who the gov decided to retaliate against) and the GOD'VERNEMENT experts and puppets do not have any exclusivity in my attention.

  Then of course we can call whoever stupid to believe wathever, but what do any of us really sur of ? Time may tell ...
• 

  Finally-Free

  The government tells one story. Conspiracy theorists tell another. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Governments have often lied and/or withheld facts from the common people about a wide variety of issues. Nothing new there.

  W
• 

  Leolaia

  Well, since my name came up in the OP, I suppose I'll give a short reply.

  1) I posted in the original 9/11 thread only to correct golf2's misunderstanding of what the "official story" (e.g. NIST's conclusion of the cause of the collapses) claims. I was pointing out that he was criticizing an explanation of the collapse that does not exist and that his points were pretty much irrelevant. I really wasn't trying to do anything else, other than express my agreement of the views of some other posters on the utter implausibility of CD hypotheses. In response to me, golf2 basically reiterated the same misunderstanding of the collapse, arguing that the columns could not have been heat-weakened, and then again in reply I reiterated my original point:

  "Why are you still talking about the weight and thickness of the columns when my last post already explained that no one attributes the collapse to heat-weakening of the columns? These columns failed instead because they were being dragged into the building by the heat-weakened trusses that sagged downward (as I mentioned, photos and video clearly show the sagging floors and the outer columns being gradually pulled into the building over time)."

  But in reply he continued making his strawman arguments without recognizing that his criticisms have nothing to do with what is posited by the leading scientific explanation of the collapse:

  For anyone to convince me that a building designed to withstand a 727 airplane, dispersing enough gas not only to melt down 47 columns uniformly and systematically, but also, for this gas to be dispersed to the lower floor which also consisted of 47 columns with the same intensity of heat, is far-fetched.

  how can jet fuel simultaneously and uniformly burn through 47 columns and the inner columns being 8" thick weighing 60 tons throughout the building? Your asking me to believe that jet fuel went through concrete floors and melted these steel columns many floors below the crash of the plane and all having the same intensity of heat to make the building collapse. I'm talking about 20 to 60 floors below having the same intensity of heat!

  So, jet fuel was able to burn 287 steel columns uniformly and simultaneously where the plane crashed?

  My contention all along has been about the inner core columns of the wtc. No way in hell could these massive columns collapse by jet fuel uniformly and simultaneously.

  So I gave up trying to explain this point which really was the reason why I posted in the thread in the first place.

  Also:

  2) The insulting attitude expressed by certain people (not golf2 who had been pretty polite) in these recent 9/11 threads was a massive "conversation stopper" for me. Being told I am "drinking the kool aid" or have a "JW mindset" for not going along with certain ideas being preached in those threads was basically telling me that my views (and the facts supporting them) were not welcome and that the people saying these things are already "true believers" (who say they are "just asking questions" one moment and then repeat their conviction that "9/11 was an inside job" the next). Another "conversation stopper" has been golf2's repeated appeals to his own authority as an ironworker, which I respect but which I also recognize as misguided since engineers and firemen are the ones who are expertly familiar with the performance of unprotected steel in fire. But since firemen don't write reports and scientific articles and since golf2 views engineers with disdain, that pretty much ends the discussion there as well.

  And:

  3) As the OP suggested, I certainly am not interested and don't have the time and energy to chase down every error, claim, assumption, and theory that could be raised; I really only wanted to correct the basic misunderstanding of NIST's theory of the WTC collapses in the original thread. I really can't go into detail on why I think Ryan, Gage, Jones are crackpots, why Forbes' claim of "power-downs" is not only insufficient for CD hypotheses but contradicted by known facts, why the antenna falling first in the North Tower collapse is not indicative of a core failure prior to a perimeter column failure -- these are just a few of the many things that have come up in these threads and because 9/11 is such a vast subject with tons of minutiae, it will always be a matter of "what about this? what about that?" In previous 9/11 threads, I have found it hugely time-consuming to have to respond to every point or explain in detail why a claim is erroneous. All I can say is to get better informed and do your own research (such as starting with reading the NIST report to see what it actually says), and apply critical thinking skills and some common sense.
• 

  RAF

  But but but, the probleme is that even about "why" and "how" THOSE (not only 2) buildings collapsed the very same way has differents theories also supported by EXPERTS so who is right who is wrong ? They are all experts ... are we experts to say who is right or wrong ? NOPE so we stay with a personal opinion don't we ?
• 

  RAF

  Thousands of people watched planes filled with passengers fly into the twin towers. Have them refute that first. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have never been able to get around this basic fact.

  Also when I read something like this, I have to wonder ... what does it change really ??? Do the anti conspiracy theorists stick to that ? I hope not (what about production) Now about the precision : "thousand of people watched planes filed with passengers" is just impossible nobody saw that, a plane flies too high and to fast really !
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Leo,

  2) The insulting attitude expressed by certain people (not golf2 who had been pretty polite) in these recent 9/11 threads was a massive "conversation stopper" for me. Being told I am "drinking the kool aid" or have a "JW mindset" for not going along with certain ideas being preached in those threads was basically telling me that my views (and the facts supporting them) were not welcome

  I guess this happens when someone has a lot of emotional attachment in these conspiracy vidoes,, no doubt because they have already taken a stand on the matter and are not open to any other explantion to prove them wrong or gullible.

  Not to mention limited understanding, based on previous experience, and strongly held opinions, can create quite an obstacle to over come.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  man did not land on the moon - it was a conspiracy - prove it