Why ignore the irrefutable evidence proving that 9/11 was all an inside job?

jlf

"Never waste your time arguing with an idiot."

EnglishDenis

You very sick Pig

elaine

Can I have your autograph Rosie? It's a scary thought that you teach anything!

Submariner 1

What evidence? I see"stories" not backed up by any sort of science! just "if you look, you'll see...."

Steel loses strength with heat. I believe most strcutres are built to ~60-75% max load strength. A 30% reduction in strength of intact structure will cause failure. Add damage, such as a 50 tone plane crashing into it, and destroying load bearing parts, less strucrural integrity to the steel can be lost. This is science FACT. Yes they where designed to survive a fire, or aircraft impact, not both! That is an unreal amount of damage.

On the acceleration, Gravity on Earth has the funny constant of 9.8m/sec/sec or 32ft/sec/sec. Meaning as things fall the acclerate until the drag reaches equalibrium with speed, and acceleration stops (In a vaccum their is no drag and the object will continue to accelrate until impact). The buildings DID sway on impact.

Try these experiments.
Take a bar of butter and freeze it to 0-25 F. Place the bar of butter on end, than place a brick on it. Let the butter warm up to room temp, and the butter will fail, well below melting point.

Build a house of card 10 sets high. Start a failure from the second to the top, and watch cards accelerate as the fall.

Sway_27

Oh, you mean the fact that Bin laden has come out and said that he was responsible for it?

SFC_Ollie

You again? And it must be you because there can't be more people who are still that taken by the falsehoods of these conspiracy nutcases.

Man there is no way those buildings could have been prewired without someone in the press finding out and publishing it.

This Administration couldn't even keep a phone bugging program secret. Nuff Said

beardog4314

If the planes had combusted spontaneously mid-air, then you might have a case. But the fires didn't start until the engines were pushed into a building, so doesn't that pretty much kill the open-air experiment? Besides, I'm fairly confident that jet fuel burns at a higher temperature than my butane lighter.

Still haven't seen anything irrefutable. Why do you cling to shakey evidence? It's a little like disinterring your mothers corpse to find out whether or not she had a drug problem before she died. Is it really worth it?

Aaron W

I don't see anything 'irrefutable' other than the fact that stupid people are breeding.

!~"Fish On"~!

Your brain is molting. Will that stay heated for a long period of time as well ?

Joe

WIth all due respect, most of what you say is simply not true.

1. The towers DID sway from the impact. People all over the building fell down & sheet rock cracked.

2. The towers were NOT designed to withstand the impact of a 767 with a fire.

Leslie Robertson, one of the chief designers of the twin towers, said that the towers were designed to handle the impact of a Boeing 707, but not a 767. He said they did NOT take into account the burning fuel, either. These 2 factors made all the difference. (Popular Mechanics, â€œDebunking 9/11 Mythsâ€ page 31)

Robertson was â€œracked with grief after 9/11,â€ meaning he himself was angry that he hadn't considered the effect of burning fuel

3. The towers did NOT fall at free fall speed:

The fall time was analyzed by NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) , which used seismic recorders & other techniques to measure the fall time. Their results:

a. The exterior panels took 9-11 seconds. They fell this fast because they were not impeded by anything & this is perfectly normal.

b. The inner parts of WTC 1&2 (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. This is far slower than a free-fall.

You can read this in NISTâ€™s own words at Point 6 at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

4. There were no 'pools of molten steel" found--that would be absurd. Nor was there any evidence that steel melted.

QUOTE â€œIn no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsiusâ€

From Point 7 in
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

5. The claim that "no steel frame building ever collapsed from fire alone" is both untrue and irrelevent.

It's untrue because on 2/12/2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. In spite of the fire-proofing (concrete), the building collapsed, solely due to failure of the steel frame due to heat-weakening. See
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

It's irrelevent because THE TOWERS DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM FIRE ALONE. THEY COLLAPSED MAINLY FROM STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE JETS.

As NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) says:

"About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them."

This meant the towers were near collapse from the impact alone. At this point, the fire weakened the remaining supports. (Steel has no strength when even modestly heated & the fire-proofing had been blown off by the impact)

Photos show enourmous bending of steel supports just before collapse.

6. NIST never said they couldn't explain the collapse of WTC7. Here's the NISTexplanation of the collapse of WTC7:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

7. All of your references to temperatures, steel, aluminum, and melting can be addressed very easily:

--a) The towers mainly collapsed because numerous supports were knocked out by the planes. Witness the huge holes in the perimeter columns where the planes hit. These columns were for support, not show.

--b) The fires were a secondary cause of collapse, and ABSOLUTE PROOF OF THE EFFECT OF THE FIRES CAN BE SEEN IN THE PHOTOS OF THE STEEL BENDING BEFORE COLLAPSE:

There was â€œâ€¦inward bowing of the exterior columns, reaching an observable maximum of about 55 in. near column 316 on the 96th floor. The inward deflection appeared to extend over the entire south face of the building at this time, and was visible between the 94th and 100th floors.â€

From: NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) NCSTAR 1-3 Section E.3.5
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Massive bending of steel is a sign of imminent collapse. No bombs or thermite are needed.

8. Arguments about how strong the steel was, how over-designed the towers are, etc are pointless.

EVERY SINGLE PUBLISHED JOURNAL ARTICLE ON THE COLLAPSE SAYS THE TOWERS COLLAPSED FROM THE DAMAGE & FIRE CAUSED BY THE JETS.

Your own personal analysis is not meaningful. If what you say is true, forward your theories on the collapse to the following experts & see if they agree with you:

-- The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057

-- Massachusetts Institute of Technology. See http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

--NIST (National Institute on Science and Technology):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Also see the lead investigator of NIST explain the collapse at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
Click on "Impact to Collapse"

-- The leading demolition journal in the world is against the conspiracy theorists:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

-- Purdue (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

--Professor Bazant (Northwestern Dept of Civil Engineering) is one of only 14 people to win the Prager Award in engineering. He first described the collapse mechanism as follows: http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

--FEMA along with American Society of Civil Engineers, did an extensive analysis of the WTC collapse (ASCE/FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) Team)
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema403.shtm
Itâ€™s useful to see the investigation team & their credentials at: http://www.asce.org/responds/wtc_team.cfm

-- Popular Mechanics published a huge article citing 300 renowned experts in demolition & engineering.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

-- Columbia University has permanent seismographic recorders that was running on 9/11 which clearly show no explosives during the collapse of Towers 1 & 2, or of WTC7 . See page 2 of
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

--The â€œAmerican Society of Civil Engineersâ€ & the â€œStructural Engineering Instituteâ€ (both are non-governmental) investigated the Pentagon crash. Their report is called "The Pentagon Performance Report" & itâ€™s at:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

-- Scientific American. See
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

9. The Popular Mechanics article is just a collection of statements made by world-famous experts. How could that be lies?

Example: Pop mechanics quotes Professor Bazant (Northwestern Dept of Civil Engineering), one of only 14 people to win the Prager Award in engineering.

Bazant first described the collapse mechanism as follows: http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

Bazant showed how the damage & fire from the planes brought down the towers.

What part of this is a "lie"?

10. Plenty of plane debris & body parts were found at Shanksville. The largest plane piece was a fan.

Although there were no intact bodies, over 1500 body parts were found, and most of the passengers were identified through the use of DNA. Mr. Miller (the medical examiner) later reported his findings on this.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-2-coroner.html

11. Pistons resist heat because they are made of a special alloy containing silicon. Structural steel is not made of this expensive material.

12. Thermite theory is disproved.

The person who invented the "thermite" theory, ex-Professor Stephen Jones, has been forced out of his University, Brigham Young University (BYU).

Poor Jones. He had claimed that he found evidence of thermite at ground zero.

Suspecting obvious fraud, BYU launched an investigation & put Jones on leave with pay. He quit just before the investigation could be completed, luckily for him.

He's a fake & now he's no longer a Professor.

So much for the thermite theory.

13. Bush's brother, Marvin, was NOT head of security at the WTC.

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was on the board of directors of a company that provided security for the WTC (Stratesec) from about 1993 to 2000.

Members of the Board of Directors meet a few times a year and are obviously not involved in the daily security operations. They don't give orders to workers or get involved in operatios. They are not "the boss"

It means nothing.

Evil Neo-con Nazi

Wow! You sir, are a true genius.
Now go find the "truth" behind the Titanic..... because let's be honest, "they" really expect us to believe that ICE tore a hole in the steel hull of a ship?!! that has George Bush written all over it!

solarianus

i love that it says beside the little box "No spam please!" So I guess it is only allowed in questions, not answers.

Wounded Duck

And Hitler and Goering had a love child!

Bill

I do not ignore it, I accept the NIST reports. If you are truly a PhD in engineering, you'd have learned somewhere along the way that "aluminum" is not capitalized.

Kindly advise me as to the title of your dissertation, so I can obtain it. I'll be surprised that it was accepted for publication with the level of writing demonstrated in your question.

If it concerns metallurgy, I'll be even more surprised.

Mabus

God I hate people like you. You do realize that the official story wasn't thought up by the Bush administation. It was put together by hundreds of scientists studing the facts.

Advisory Service

Don't worry Osma, my bloodhound is after you and when I catch you. I am collecting that $400 million reward prize.

wraeth - PHA

So the police and fire departments were tipped off to the 'demolition' of the towers huh? So why did they rush into the twin towers and lose a significant number of good men?

roadhazzards

Namely because the evidence you cite has been refuted.

forever_knight101

just what the world need another liberal lying to people trying to get them to believe their insane idea that we attakced ourselves. Why do you librals have such insane consperacy theories? Are you all that insicure that jsut because we were attacked you have to believe that we did it to ourselves.

Gordito

who killed JFK?

Blue_roses

well concidering you got alot of sorces from youtube i would have to say that you are an idiot. They were expecting an attack but didnt know when. and give me a really good reasion why our government would let someone blow up towers with thousands of people inside of it. Bush is an idiot yes, but he isnt "trying" to screw us over. You sir are an ***

wichitaor1

IF you actually have a Ph.D, you would know that steel weakens under heat long before it melts. And of course you would have access to far more reliable sources than assinine websites. Hell, I have access to tons of information and I am only a graduate student.

You have been reported for misrepresentation and misinformation.

Stone K

Dude, seriously... All your claims have been debunked. ALL OF THEM!

tin foil over an open flame? WTF? you do realize all metals react differently to heat right? you do realize that a contained fire produces more heat than an open flame right (ever hear of an oven)? you do realize that a large buildings have stabilizers in them to prevent them from swaying right (Designed to protect them from high winds)?

Look I know you are afraid of the government but maybe, just maybe it's all in your head.

Too Old For Idol

How many times are you guys gonna put this trash up on the forum????????

How's the cave?

jeeper_peeper321

Were still waiting for you to tell us, what melted all that steel ?

Since you say you have a PhD in engineering,

Please explain to everyone, how that steel was melted ?

Did someone install a blast furnamce in the WTC ?

Demoilition charges wouldn't have melted all that steel.

Just look at every other demolition jobs that have been done, no pools of melted steel afterwards.

And since the melted metal, seems to be you entire proof.

How do you explain it ?

Why haven't you explained it ?

Mark H

Because it was not....it was real.

Your name here, cheap.

Yes I believe you, infact Bush confessed to me just last night. I hope that makes you happy so you stop posting this nonsense eerrrr I mean fact here.

Bob

You've asked this same "question" four different times. Each time, you ask us if we "know" that Bush was part of the 9/11 "conspiracy" and then proceed to bombard us with random pablum. I've reported each of your "questions" as violations. Ranting and trolling are both prohibited.

joseph b

Did you forget that the average house fire can be as high, or higher than 600 degrees? So with that in mind, considering the materials present in those towers, couldn't the temperature reach a level to cause structual failure? I have seen I-beams fail in structual fires so there goes your theory.
No signs of sway? THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SWAY, as a physics major you'd know that if a skyscraper doesn't sway, it would collapse.
Yes, they were designed to take the impact of an airplane, and they did just that, if was the fire that took them down.

DietrichVonQuint

Yeesh, cant even spell what one is trying to say correctly. Yessir I believe now. Yes Al Qaida and the Taliban had nothing to do with the attack, therefore that invasion is invalid. Yessir, you got me friend.

Bill

You're a troll. How else do you explain that you've asked this same "question" four times and are not even looking for information, only a reaction. Go find your tin foil hat!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: