9/11 NORAD tapes released...

POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 23:15
VIEWED: 10691
PAGE 3 of 14

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Thursday, August 3, 2006 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
there will always be different opinions of what exactly caused the collapse

Yeah. Some will be the opinions of engineers...other will be from knuckheaded adults playing with legos and muttering 'Bush did it'.

H

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 3, 2006 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The potential explanations that he presented were plausible. If they had not been plausible, he would've been ripped to shreds in the Q and A(If you don't believe me, you've never seen academics at conferences expressing disagreement).

I read the article. I didn't see any hard hitting questions reported. I'd like to ask some hard hitting questions myself. Maybe you can tell me if they were asked and what the answer was.

1. Is it possible that terrorists rigged demolition explosives to critical structures IN ADDITION to flying planes into the buildings?

2. Is it possible that the actual collapse of the buildings were caused by well-placed demolition explosives and NOT by fire?

3. Eyewitness testimony, firefighter transmissions, and video evidence claim there was no "inferno" in the WTC at the aircraft impact level. Do you have any OBJECTIVE and MEASURABLE evidence to counter these claims that would indicate what temperatures the fires reached and how long they burned at the maximum temperature?

4. Is it correct that the temperature needed to forge steel is 1100 degrees F, and the temperature needed to melt un-fireproofed steel is 3000 degrees F?

5. Frank Gayle of NIST found that 157 out of 160 perimeter panels did not exceed temperatures of 250 degrees. Is this temperature sufficient to cause the collapse of the steel reinforcements in the buildings? If so, how?

6. Analysis of one video showed that the core of WTC 1 fell while the perimeter walls at the top remained virtually intact. Is this consistent with the explanation that the trusses fell apart? How do you explain that the perimeter walls, which are not load-bearing, remained intact at the top after they lost all truss support?

7. In 1975, WTC suffered a fire on the 11th floor and burned for 3 hours. Obviously, the fire did not cause collapse. The fires spread to the other floors through cable shafts, but did not escape the shafts on the other floors, leaving other floors with only smoke and water damage. Firefighters reported extremely intense heat; it is claimed that this fire reached 700 degrees. How do you explain how a longer burning and possibly hotter fire did not cause the same damage as the aircraft impact fires? How do you explain that steel reinforced buildings burning for 17 or 20 hours present very different outcomes than the WTC buildings?

8. Is it correct that if you heat the midsection of a steel beam the top section bends sideways? How do you explain not seeing any sideways bending in the top of the WTC, if its steel buckled under heat?

------

Guy may not have time to put together the links, but here is a good starting point for looking at the inconsistencies.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html

It isn't the first time that the official story doesn't make sense. Read what a military explosives expert had to say about the OK City bombing.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok2.htm

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." -- Douglas Adams

If it looked like a demolition job, acted like a demolition job, and sounded like a demolition job, we should consider the possibility that maybe there were demolition explosives involved, eh? It doesn't automatically mean Bush put them there--but would indicate the plane terrorists had some help. Who from is another question.

I don't know enough to jump to conclusions. But I do know enough to ask questions, and know that they aren't being answered.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 3, 2006 3:36 PM

Davye, thanks for sharing the article. I'd laugh it it weren't so sad.

My husband used to work as an air traffic controller. He is also a pilot, and knows lots of other pilots. He said one of his friends flew a little to close to the Seattle city limits one time and found himself suddenly "escorted" by 2 air force planes, telling him to turn around immediately or be fired upon. He was in a bi-plane! To my hub's knowledge, RESTRICTED air space has always been strictly and promptly enforced.

Something definitely went screwy on 9/11. NYC is without doubt restricted air space, and yet, not one but TWO, commercial airliners were allowed in. This is SO unbelievably incompetent that it is no wonder it feeds conspiracy theories.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, August 3, 2006 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I read the article. I didn't see any hard hitting questions reported. I'd like to ask some hard hitting questions myself. Maybe you can tell me if they were asked and what the answer was.

The article didn't touch on the Q&A after the talk (I think the author only mentioned one question). You missed the part where I was sitting in the audience. Based on my memory four and a half years later it's a safe bet that no one asked questions 5 and 6 on your list. So you're right. The Q&A session two months after the event was not as hard hitting as it could have been five years after the fact.

As far as asking about possibilities, those are lawyer questions. Of course something is possible. Probable? Not so much. Throw a number on it? Whole different thing.

So let's cut to the chase. Based on everything you've read about WTC and you had to wager on what was the most likely scenario, where would you put all your family's money?

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
My first thought was...

"These yahoos are in charge of national air defense ?"

What a mess.

Afaik - no building with a steel core structure has EVER collapsed due to a fire, and certainly not straight down like that, it's entirely suspicious and bears the one thing that has not occurred, an actual investigation.

What evidence and testimony that the public in general can get their hands on with a little work is in fact quite disturbing, but is no substitute for an actual investigation by folks who know what the hell they're doing and have no stake in the outcome.

Be it complicity, incompetence, exploitation of events, some stuff went very very wrong that day, and those responsible should be held accountable, instead of being allowed to obfuscate and delay till they're safely out of office... cause no way in hell *should* this have been able to happen, ergo, some folks screwed it up good, at multiple points on the chain of command.

It also bears thinking about that we spend X amount of our money on a national defense and crapload of alphabet agencies that don't do the job.. why reinforce and reward utter and complete incompetence, defeat, even ?

Why do we spend so much tax money on stuff so good at making our lives miserable, but so piss-poor at doing the job they're assigned to do ?

Until a full, impartial and professional investigation of events by folk not involved in the political process occurs, no resolution of this issue is going to happen, and *because* such a thing has not occurred, imma have to side with the folks who smell a rat - although without specifying the breed and size thereof, capisce?

Incompetence is no excuse, not on my tax dime it ain't.

-Frem

Fremd - You state that "no building with a steel core structure has EVER collapsed due to a fire" - How many buildings with steel cores are you aware of that were hit by transatlantic sized planes, directly (or reasonably so) after takeoff and therefore heavily laden with airplane fuel? Have you ever seen a fire fueled by airplane fuel? Additionally, the design behind the WTC was such that once one floor went out and collapsed on the one below it, it would take the whole building down. This is certainly not something anyone in the early 60's would have considered happening.

You say there has been no investigation - funny, even from England I remember seeing engineering reports ad naseum on why it fell.
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm has some design info - "Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all" - go build a model to this design, get a butt load of airplane fuel, dump it on the model and ignite - lets see if the steel buckles or melts.

As far as the "Yahoo's in charge of military defense". Those "Yahoo's" do an outstanding job everyday with some of the crappiest, most outdated equipment I have ever seen. You have a problem with them - talk to Congress, the Senate and the Administration and get the ridiculous amounts of money spent - spent on what is needed, updated equipment.

one of the Forsaken TM

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You missed the part where I was sitting in the audience.

I didn't miss that. That is why I asked you if those questions were asked in the Q&A and what the answers were.

Yes, anything is possible. But why don't they include those possibilities in these expert analyses and explain why they are ruled out? Why don't they say, "We don't know for sure. Possibilities include Method A, B, and C. Methods B & C are ruled out because of these observations. Method A is the most likely explanation." No, instead, it is just a bombardment from all sources that "experts agree" Method A was what happened, and we are supposed to just accept their explanation. Anyone who questions Method A is a conspiracy nut. That smacks of propaganda and not science, to me. Makes me wonder why they feel the need to resort to propaganda.

Quote:
So let's cut to the chase. Based on everything you've read about WTC and you had to wager on what was the most likely scenario, where would you put all your family's money?

If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.

Maybe it was more terrorists who are now walking around scott free because the govt refuses to investigate that scenario. I'd be less conspiracy minded if the govt would at least address this possibility. The govt's obtuse refusal to acknowledge the demolition theory at all is what makes me suspicious. Is the govt trying to hide complicity or gross incompetence by sweeping this possibility under the rug?

I dunno.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FELLOWTRAVELER

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:23 PM

For those of us who are not engineers, this doc. explains things well in layman's terms.

"World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006AUH7/sr=8-2/qid=1154621849/ref=
sr_1_2/103-6527265-2263010?ie=UTF8

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I HAD to jump to a conclusion right now, given what I know so far, I'd say SOMEONE demolished those buildings. I don't know who.

The idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is more outragous and far out there than them coming down from plane strikes. To make a controlled demolition work you don't just pile on a few tons of cemtex and push the plunger, you strategically weaken the structure (which takes weeks) and place explosives literally everywhere.

So for a controlled demolition we'd have to believe people working in those buildings just missed the hundreds of workmen removing and weakening support struts. That no one bothered to ask what the F

K the guys with the wheel barrows full of plastic explosives thought they were doing?

"Err excuse me?"
"Routine maintenance, nothing to worry about."
"Erm, what's the boxes full with 'Danger: Explosive' written on the side for?"
"Rats, big Rat problem, big as dogs."

Come on, if you want a conspiracy theory what's wrong with saying the planes were really remote controlled by the CIA, or that they were flown by highly trained government super apes?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:31 PM

Citizen! Well Said!

As for those that believe the conspiracy theory - this might help add fuel to your fire http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

I guess it doesn't matter what you believe, just believe......

one of the Forsaken TM

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
"World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse"

One reviewer wrote this:

Quote:
This video is definitely a promo piece that works for the official story, but hidden inside this great documentary are interviews with professors that actually take the official story apart.

Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, is interviewed in this presentation during the segment on the British Steel Industrial Fire Test of 1995, where a 5 story building filled with office furniture, computers, paper, and other items, in a non-fireproofed environment was set ablaze and allowed to burn for several hours. And what happened? The building stood there with no chance of a collapse. The video footage of the test is interspliced with Barnett's interview, where he states: "When steel is bare -- when it heats up -- it gets weaker. It's not that it melts in a fire, in fact, fires--normal fires--are not hot enough to melt steel. Even if you were, for example, to use an unusual fuel -- like kerosene -- you cannot achieve temperatures hot enough to melt steel." He then adds, "In over 20 years I have not seen -- until recently -- a protected steel structure that has collapsed in a fire."

His statement might be meaningless to you if he was just some schmoe from around the way, but Professor Barnett was one of the chief investigators of the government's NIST/FEMA team that was tasked with determining what made the towers come down.

**It should be noted that the NIST/FEMA investigation even concluded that jet fuel cannot produce temperatures that burn hot enough to melt steel.

Another great interview/segment is with Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who is shown examining the steel wreckage of the WTC. He says, "What you see here is actually very critical - very, very important. Perhaps, this is the most important piece I have found so far. ...This is the inside face of [the] back columns. ...What you see here is, first of all, it bent. That was due to [an] explosion - but more importantly - this has a signature of [an] explosion. This has happened due to explosive material hitting this column and making that bulge. So this is [the] floor where [an] explosion happened, and the windows are blown away. Everything is burned. Even [the] fire-proofing on this floor is burned and glazed to the steel."

Any 9/11 researchers out there would be smart to grab this video and archive it. There are extraordinary CGI diagrams that show how immense the construction of the towers was, including the 47-steel core columns that made up the support for the buildings.

One conclusion is echoed over and over in this film, and that's on the morning of 9/11 everyone watching was amazed and shocked that the towers fell the way they did -- after all, NO ONE ever thought a steel skyscraper could collapse from just fire. Throughout the history of architecture, no steel structure has ever fallen due to fire, but on September 11th, "they" want you to believe that two 110-story buildings, and a third 47-story building did just that.

I might have to get this video.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE