Since 911 keeps popping up in other threads...

..lets hash it out here.
This is my view: I think that the official 911 report is mostly bunk. If you read about how it was assembled you will probably agree. Here is a great link on that (this is not a "conspiracy theory" link or a fringe link)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18660248

That leaves us with a major hole in our understanding on this issue. That is what invites all sorts of speculation. A lot of the speculation is just as much bunk as the 9-11 report itself and it is really hard to sort out the real story from the facts. When you start looking close though you come up with a lot of weird "coincidences" which may or may not be significant. I am a strong supporter of a new real investigation into the facts of 9-11 I feel that we owe it to those who lost their lives.

In any case it is very hard to defend that 9-11 report and I do not expect anyone here will try.

 

You're 100% correct in your assessment but I doubt anyone will bother.

 

I am in 100% agreement with DanR. Lack of time is my enemy, see my most recent thread on CoinTalk.......

With just scant amounts of investigation, I have raised more questions than answers.

 

The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

 

It was the Eskimos. Those damned Eskimos. Anyone know where that line is from?

 

Not familiar with that line but it makes a great point in that it shows that there are a lot of crack pot conspiracy theories out there trying to fill the void left by the lack of a real deal official investigation.

 

Good for you Jack,and that's the point. If folks would just look...the questions multiply almost exponentially. Maybe we all wouldn't have to suffer this same sort of thing again if folks would just look acknowledge it, but, I guess that would place some personal responsibility on their shoulders. Of course, we can't have that. I guess we're all too busy with the "GIMME MINE, MORE...NOW" and "SCREW THE OTHER GUY WHILE I GET MINE" mentalities.

 

Steel and Fire

As an exercise let's set aside all of the evidence about the actual severity of the Twin Towers' fires, and imagine that the fires were incredibly intense and widespread. Let's imagine that the jets were full tankers and spilled 80,000 gallons of fuel into each tower. Let's imagine that there was a strong wind giving the fires plenty of air. Let's imagine that the the fires engulfed over 10 floors in each tower, saturating the capacity of the steel buildings to draw away the heat. Let's imagine the fires burned intensely for hours, completely gutting several stories of each tower. Would that cause them to collapse? Not according to people who have studied steel structures subjected to such stresses.

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

At temperatures above 800° C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.
If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

 

Buildings crushed themselves

Each of the Twin Towers fell completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

In a vacuum, a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the Tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the Towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each Tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?

Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.

 

All of that physics stuff is interesting but what about all of the coincidences of so and so worked for so and so and he was the head of security for such and such. It was quite a tangled web of associations involved in this thing. The thing is that a serious 911 conspiracy debunker can handle physics questions but they really can't handle the amount of coincidences and they can't defend the lack of a credible investigation.

 

I know the physics stuff gets a bit drawn out, but you tell folks that buildings can't possibly fall at freefall speed without some help and everybody suddenly wants further explanation. Common sense somehow goes out the window.

 

We have allready had a debate on the Physical stuff lets talk about the possible Why's

 

One reason for TWC7

 

Famous folks question 911

James Cromwell, Harry Bellafonte, Jesse Ventura, James Brolin, Aaron Russo,
Willie Nelson, Lou Dobbs, Peter Jennings, Charlie Sheen, Naomi Wolf, Ralph Nader, Mark Stefnoski, Sharon Stone, Michael Moore, Ed Asner, Ed Begley Jr.,
Rosie O'Donnell, Woody Harrelson, Tommy Chong, AJ Hammer, AND
about 250 others of prominence that I can list.

 

Well, all I want is a real investigation. I am not personally equipped to argue anything involving physics, but I can make a very good case that the official 911 report is lacking (as I recall it does not even mention building 7).

 

That's correct. They just left it out completely...didn't even mention it. Nothing but oversight, perhaps incompetence I'm sure.

 

Did you know what else?

Given that the people in charge considered the steel garbage, useless to any investigation in this age of computer simulations, they certainly took pains to make sure it didn't end up anywhere other than a smelting furnace. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks that was carrying loads away from Ground Zero, at a cost of $1000 each. The securitysolutions.com website has an article on the tracking system with this passage.

Why would they need GPS for hauling trash? They obviously wanted to keep track of their trash. The question would be why?

 

I can think of a really good reason. One that I am sure you are aware of but will not post because it does not serve your agenda.

 

What does that have to do with whether you believe a government conspiracy took place on 9/11? Should all americans have grabbed a magnifying glass and snooped around ground zero? Are these explanations and theories you posted your own conclusions? You posted a curious statement in one. Where it said there mustve been or perhaps there was charged placed at WTC 7. Now I do believe there was intel indicating terrorist may hijack planes and slam them into skyscrapers. However, if our own government placed explosives at no.7, they were sure taking a chance that these panes would strike downtown Manhattan. Or does this mean some ''black ops'' guys ran around NYC putting C4 on the foundations of the Chrysler building, the UN, the Empire State building, Citibank, etc., etc. just in case those rag heads changed course?

 

I don't have all the answers dude....I just know what they're shovelin' ain't nowhere near the truth.