Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
-
@unknownuser said:
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
no, it was a group of hijackers, what do you mean one person acting alone?
@unknownuser said:
thing is, half of America thinks saddam Hussein did it. who are the crazies again?
Well that was W. and crew conflating Iraq and al-Queda@unknownuser said:
the architects, the ones in the video, are full on legit and well educated people. and there are thousands of them.. to dismiss what they have to say or observations made by them is shortsighted if you ask me..
I also can't recall any of them outright accusing any person or group of people as being the perps.. they're pretty much saying there are holes in the story and would like a new investigation.I'm saying that blaming some Deux ex machina explosions for causing the towers to come down just seems pointless. Finding out more to understand how structures catastrophically fail in extreme conditions is plenty worthwhile.
-
@andybot said:
@unknownuser said:
well it was a conspiracy, right? or did one person act alone?
no, it was a group of hijackers, what do you mean one person acting alone?
[wiki]a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future. [/wiki]
just saying that it's highly highly (highly) probable that a conspiracy took place.. i'm sure you agree with that.. so are you a conspiracy theorist too? (point is, i think it's a bit of a misnomer)
@unknownuser said:
I'm saying that blaming some Deux ex machina explosions for causing the towers to come down just seems pointless. Finding out more to understand how structures catastrophically fail in extreme conditions is plenty worthwhile.
who's blaming anyone? (re: this thread & the subjects of the thread)
but yeah, regarding your second sentence, i agree and i hope most people can.. If those buildings (all 3) fell due to fire and a big amount of people that actually design/build those types of building think they should of fully withstood the planes/fire then.. well, we have a problem.
-
OK, plenty of semantics to get wrong here. What I mean is that there seems to be some underlying notion of a government (or alien...
) coverup. I think the various loose ends are generally attributable to run-of-the-mill incompetence in the original investigation. By "Conspiracy": I mean specifically the idea that some agents (government or otherwise) rigged the WTC buildings to explode and miraculously timed it to look like hijacked airplanes crashing into the building. I don't buy that. -
i don't believe it either (well, let me rephrase.. i don't know what happened but there is a possibility that it was someone(s) other than 19 egyptians and some rich saudi arabian)
i do think it's possible for the buildings to have been rigged with explosives of some sort prior to the plane hitting..
i mean really.. what would it take? a group of 4 or 5 guys with proper security clearance working for a month or two? it's not that farfetched.
not any more farfetched than 20 guys learning how to fly commercial jets over a period of 3-4 years then hijacking them with box cutters and driving them into a few buildings..
both stories, to me, are just as likely to occur.
-
Well, at least the slick thing about the guys with the box cutters and the flying lessons is that it was out of the realm of the imaginable before 9/11. Explosives in the building - that was already tried in WTC, and I would imagine a lot more attention would be paid to that sort of effort, especially considering the quantities of explosives required. Also, to be able to coordinate the two in a convincing fashion would take some serious engineering. Unless you're saying that there were no aircraft hitting the buildings on 9/11... in that case back to the tinfoil hat
-
@unknownuser said:
(...) 19 egyptians and some rich saudi arabian)
If memory serves, there were no Egyptians among the hijackers. Most were Saudis, I believe.
The Pentagon possibly mistook Iraq for Saudi Arabia.
@unknownuser said:
i do think it's possible for the buildings to have been rigged with explosives of some sort prior to the plane hitting..
Could very well be, but where's the proof? So far, no tangible evidence seems to have surfaced. Which would presuppose a giant cover-up. Did someone mention Occam's razor yet?
-
@unknownuser said:
Could very well be, but where's the proof? So far, no tangible evidence seems to have surfaced. Which would presuppose a giant cover-up. Did someone mention Occam's razor yet?
it seems (again, i'm trying to be careful as to how i word this stuff but i'm sure i'll mess it up soon enough
), that much of the evidence, if there was any to be found, was destroyed prior to proper investigation.. that was by far the biggest crime scene ever in the city and i don't think it was treated as such..
(but hey, we've all received the same info here.. we're all drawing conclusions from the same pool.. for all i know, the beams/rubbble were inspected prior to destroying them.. i just haven't read anything about it.)likewise, i don't think it would be a 'giant' coverup… very few people would need to be involved.. it's not like, if it were a u.s. based attack, the whole government is in on it but keeping their mouths shut..
@andybot said:
Well, at least the slick thing about the guys with the box cutters and the flying lessons is that it was out of the realm of the imaginable before 9/11.
nah.. even those bowling for columbine kids were talking about doing the same thing.. and they died a couple of years prior to 2001..
the japanese have definitely used planes for missiles against the u.s.. the buildings were designed with the possibility of an aircraft crashing into them (granted, probably not with the idea that the plane would be a weapon.. but an accident such as the plane that crashed into the empire state building back in the day (but that thing easily survived fwiw)..i think it was fully imaginable prior to 9/11 and i also think the defense dept has had this on their radar since, well, since a few years after kittyhawk..
@unknownuser said:
Explosives in the building - that was already tried in WTC, and I would imagine a lot more attention would be paid to that sort of effort, especially considering the quantities of explosives required. Also, to be able to coordinate the two in a convincing fashion would take some serious engineering. Unless you're saying that there were no aircraft hitting the buildings on 9/11... in that case back to the tinfoil hat
no.. i saw planes flying into buildings
re: 'some serious engineering'
maybe.. i don't know.. i've never blew up a building.. half of me tends to believe it wouldn't be incredibly hard to do though.. (assuming access to high tech explosives and key parts of the buildings etc.) -
Yep Tom - my first post on this thread!
@andybot said:
occam's razor anyone? What kind of rube goldberg setup of explosives and timers and etc. would be required to precisely mimic the obvious and largely accepted version of events?
Jeff, my main point of contention is that the explosives and the planes crashing would have to be coordinated to some degree. That would point to a broader conspiracy.
-
We can but hope for Machiavellian politicians - always hoping that they are on 'our' side...
BUT my enduring experience is that they are always a bunch of 100% dorks - irrespective of their political leanings !
If we were to assume for a moment that Bubba and co, or anyone who might have ever listened to them, were capable of anything half as effective as this outcome then we are all doomed, and deserve the leaders we get !!
BUT, they have capitalized on the fallout, whilst unbelievable sidestepping any 'real' blame [e.g. where was the air-force?]: no more, no less... -
I'm not a quasi engineer, simply an observer of natural events, plus having worked in the construction industry for well over 40 years.
A Semi-trailer truck might weigh as much as one of these beams. A 150 mph tornado has no problem picking up a Semi-trailer truck and tossing it around like a toy. I cant see those type of forces having being generated by this so called natural collapse, much less the total pulverization of gravel/rock into dust particles. Even a typical demolition using traditional methods, involves the removal of broken pieces of concrete, and reinforcing steel. Also keep in mind that buildings, designated for demolition, do not contain combustible materials, they have all been removed prior to the demolition. So how did all these combustible materials disintegrate into dust for these 2 buildings? The Pile which was left, as described by the NYC firefighters, had a temperature of 3000 degrees for several weeks. Where did that heat come from....jet fuel?I'm not here to destroy anyone's belief system, I have not seen God, Jesus or Fee energy machines.
It all depends on your point of view, or who you believe is telling you the truth, its simply your choice.
However what might keep anyone interested in the subject and occupied for some time is trying to get answers to some of the 100's of unanswered questions pertaining to 911:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911q.html?q=911q.html
Also have look at this video where members of the NYFD describe what they saw and heard on 911.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow&feature=related -
How about that a lot of this heat came from potential energy [in the assembled structure] that became kinetic energy as it fell...
Millions of tons of ex-building plummeting to earth and then stopping abruptly.
The contained energy has to be 'converted' in some way - so there's some redistribution as lateral kinetic energy [ejections], but mainly the disintegration of the assembled parts, a lot of noise and then heat are the natural result of this.
Unless we repeat it with another similar building we can never be sure.
But we don't need a complex conspiracy theory to fill in the gaps.
Just some logical ideas...IF the buildings had been deliberately 'brought-down' using thermite etc then the residual heat would have only been in localized molten steel as it acts very efficiently.
One area I not heard explored is what happens at these extremes - when very hot molten aluminum meets hot rusty steel...
Thermite is basically a mixture of powdered aluminum and 'rust', if you get it reacting by applying a hot enough initial 'fuse' then the aluminum oxidizes by taking the oxygen from the rust, leaving molten iron behind in an exothermic reaction...
We have a crashed plane and adjacent office furniture and glazing systems made predominantly from aluminum. In a purely jet-fuel+furnishings fire it could get hot enough to melt the aluminum - unlike structural steel which should only get hot enough to 'weaken'.
There was molten metal seen pouring from parts of the towers - it was yellow and not pure bright-silver, suggesting it was not pure molten aluminum, but perhaps also contained some iron or other molten metals.
Now let's suppose... we have molten aluminum running across floor-plates and down onto the structure below it - where there is potentially rusty steel [exposed when the spray-on fire protection blew off]. If hot molten aluminum meets warm rusty steel does it kick off a thermite like reaction? Producing exothermic heat as the aluminum oxidizes, leaving molten iron behind - and which then most definitely would compromise the steel structure?
Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't - I've seen no tests or experiments either way.
It's just an idea...
I think these kind of 'thought experiments' make far more sense that supposing that the buildings were rigged with explosives and deliberately demolished in some super-conspiracy.
There are many unanswered questions about 9/11, but answering them with a 'bald', "It was a conspiracy..." is naïve.
There were a lot of poorly handled matters, followed by extensive 'arse covering' afterwards, but that doesn't mean a 'prior involvement' leading up to it.
It there is any proof of a prior conspiracy I have yet to see it.
Putting forward a theory that says perhaps this and that happened because of... a 'fagot-of-twiggy-ideas' id not proof. Assuming certainty from ignorance is not a valid stance. The bits of 'evidence' collected to support a conspiracy theory can be explained in many ways. When the more likely explanations are shown to be ineffective the more radical ones step in, the conspiracy-supporters choose to skip over any 'better' explanations because it suits them.
If they are eventually proven right, it's OK, but let's be sensible in our thinking here guys...
We have no more proof it was a deliberate demolition than we do that a cloaked flying saucer zapped the buildings with invisible death-rays to bring them down - we have no aliens to admit to it, just as there are no peripheral-conspirators coming out of the woodwork... we do have lots of unanswered issues - so let's get some proper answers. -
Quote: "Assuming certainty from ignorance is not a valid stance." This is heavy.
-
@tomot said:
The Pile which was left, as described by the NYC firefighters, had a temperature of 3000 degrees for several weeks.
edit: thanks TIG for the cogent response...
no tomot - because there's heat doesn't mean there's explosives. -
It's not 'heavy' at all.
It's a known trait that most humans [especially non-scientist] will often make this leap from 'abject ignorance' to 'complete certainty'; with little or no supporting evidence, and then accept it as the definite 'truth'.
As I said before...
You saw a UFO?
Well it must have been aliens in a space-ship visiting the Earth.There is no valid way you can arrive at such conclusions from the observed phenomena.
But humans hate 'not knowing', so we'll 'assume' an answer to fill in the gaps [i.e. to remove our uncomfortable ignorance]. These 'answers' might be a lucky guess and thereby be valid... BUT it's still a guess based on scant or no evidence, which we then take to fit just the 'facts' that we choose to consider. Self fulfilling assumptions are not the truth.Because some of the aspects of 9/11 might be construed as resulting from a conspiracy doesn't mean they were, or that they add up to much at all.
There are many puzzling and unexplained issues, but blanketing them under the title 'it was a conspiracy' does nothing to answer them. Many government departments and security agencies were both dilatory and inept, before, during and after these events. But it doesn't make a conspiracy, just crass mediocrity that snowballed...In passing... I'm happy to accept that some things - like the terrorists' passport later found on the footpath, which supposedly survived the crash and collapses [that otherwise destroyed virtually everything else] - are very unlikely coincidences; but that doesn't mean it was all a conspiracy, perhaps that one part was just some minion in the secret-services doing some clumsy arse covering...
There is still a lot to resolve, but I can't see a general conspiracy at all; even if some later fudging was done to 'cover up personal failings' it does not follow than there was anything done to precipitate the initial events... Some security guys do need to take a long hard look in the mirror... but their possible complicity by inaction/omission/mistake, is not the same as complicity by deliberate inaction/omission or even worse complicity by direct-action...
-
how much of the jetfuel was incinerated in the initial collision (the huge fireball at impact.. that had to be all jetfuel, right?)
would there be any fuel left to burn after, say, the first minute?
I know if I pour some gas on the ground and ignite it then the fire goes out in a matter of seconds.
just wondering if the fuel was still burning when the structure was compromised or was it entirely paper/furniture/etc burning at that time. ?
-
OK, so the whole 3000 degree thing is bogus. In any case, steel starts to fail before it even gets to 1000 degrees F, and jet fuel can burn at 1500 deg. Do a little googling and it's not hard to find reputable info. Where is the statement 3000 degrees for a week from? That's what I was laughing at, it's just rather suspect - there is no fuel source to sustain that kind of temperature.
-
There's a lot of energy in falling objects.
It turns to heat when it 'stops'... -
Well, yes, I understand about potential energy being converted to kinetic energy. Millions of tons of building material falling hundreds of feet will release a hell of a lot of energy. Not that there wasn't heat generated at all, It's just this 3000 deg thing is a claim of the truthers that jet fuel by itself couldn't get hot enough to cause the steel failure, hence must be explosives.
-
Its rather unfortunate that the entire 911 site was never designated a crime scene, that in, and by itself was a crime. If it had been, forensic exploration would have taken place. But someone made a decision to simply remove all the debris as soon as possible, before such action could or would have been allowed to take place. Hence there are only a few pictures of steel columns, like the attachment. Which raises the question about the the use of termite, and for which more that a few experts have lost their jobs, including Physicist Professor Stephen Jones. Does jet fuel really have the capacity to cut 2" thick steel diagonally? Note: the molten steel still remains solidified on the column as the temperature cooled. The official report is a total sham, and does not even discuss the collapse of WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane some 5 hours later.
-
@tomot said:
Does jet fuel really have the capacity to cut 2" thick steel diagonally?
No, but I bet ya a hundred stories of highrise collapsing will.
Advertisement