9/11 Conspiracy

[Jackinthebox]

His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.

I don't doubt there may have been explosions or what sounded to Jennings like explosions but he said nothing of - nor was there any evidence of - CD explosions. Keep in mind there were chaotic, unfought fires in WTC7. How do you propose the building was rigged for demo, by whom, for what purpose, and how did that rigging survive hours of fires?

Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed?

There were not chaotic fires in WTC7. There were a few small fires.

How did police know the building was about to collapse? How did the media know it was going to collapse, and reported that it had indeed collapsed, before it actually fell?

There is a lot of evidence indicating that the Twins were rigged to blow, so 7 would have been rigged in much the same way. Clandestinely. By who, for what reason? Well that's the multi-billion dollar question isn't it. But we can see who benefited from it.

Outright lies. So what is your agenda? What are you trying to accomplish?

I don't have to accomplish anything. I already know we were lied to.

Evidently you know only what the little voices in your head tell you. Loosen that foil hat a bit and let the blood flow again.

I know what I learned from years of training and experience as a firefighter. fire does not bring down steel skyscrapers.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Claim: "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
NIST report and press conference: Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.

"Thermal expansion" has never brought down any building before or since. Yet it supposedly happened three times in the same place on one single day. Some claim that this was due to the "unique" structure of Towers 1 & 2, but ignore that fact that a fire in the 1970's in Tower 1 burned larger and longer with no structural failure.

Fire does not cause steel buildings to collapse.

Claim: The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
NIST report and press conference: Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."

Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.

Telling us it wasn't a controlled demo is not evidence of anything one way or the other. Pretty coincidental though that the exact columns you would have to blow to do a proper implosion happen to be the exact ones which failed.

Claim: The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
NIST report and press conference: Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.

Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."

"Unlikely" is an opinion, not a fact, and beyond the scope of NIST expertise.

Claim: At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
NIST report and press conference: The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.

Ah, there it is. The "unique structure" myth. Again, fire does not bring down steel buildings. Ever.

Claim: The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
NIST report and press conference: Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."

So NIST is admitting that their own theory is not based on any tangible evidence. The rapid removal and destruction of evidence from the largest criminal act in history is certainly cause for concern.

The notion that there was no loss of life in building 7 is contradicted by the account of Barry Jennings, who was in the building along with another witness.

Claim: Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
NIST and press conference: NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned.

Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed."

In other words, they had no idea how to explain it, until they stumbled on the "thermal expansion" idea and ran with it.

 

[candycorn]

Explained 10,000 times...

The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building. The fires weakened the metal. The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.

As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.

 

[candycorn]

Computer model:

I thought you said you did your own research? Can we assume your name is David Chandler?

 

[SAYIT]

Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.

NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.

That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.

Computer models show a controlled demolition.

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building.

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.

Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.

Firefighter testimony is that there were only a few small pockets of fire in building 7. I know FFs who were there, I lost a fellow firefighter from my firehouse that day.

It doesn't matter how hot the fires were or what damage they did. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. I don't have to explain how the buildings were rigged to know that fire does not bring down steel buildings.

It's also quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning, considering that, as I said, the fires were minimal.

The fires were not minimal, they raged for hours, and not only it is not "quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning," the alleged charges would had to have been placed in specific locations and there was no way to predict where the fires would be.
Finally, you can't explain "how the buildings were rigged" because all "Truther" attempts to do so have been such embarrassing failures that the Movement has been abandoned by all but the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and the not-too-brights holding brooms.

 

[Gamolon]

Some claim that this was due to the "unique" structure of Towers 1 & 2, but ignore that fact that a fire in the 1970's in Tower 1 burned larger and longer with no structural failure.

Did a jet strike the tower causing the fire in 1970 or are you blatantly forgetting this piece of the puzzle. How much of the supporting structure was severed or damaged due to the impact of the jets? I suppose that had nothing to do with it right?

 

[Gamolon]

The notion that there was no loss of life in building 7 is contradicted by the account of Barry Jennings, who was in the building along with another witness.

Can you point to Barry's account of the loss of life?

Thanks.

Oh, and before you point to the interview where Barry says he was stepping over bodies in the lobby, listen to the interview he had later. It's at 6:20 in the linked video below.


He admits he never SAW any dead bodies. He just assumed.

 

[irosie91]

What fire in the 1970s? the other muzzie pig attack on the WTC
was in 1993 -----a car bomb in the parking lot under the buildings.
The car bomb did not cause widespread fires----just enough damage to
kill ---if I remember correctly----seven people and injure a few more.
The car bomb, itself----kinda fizzled----was not all that effective. The WTC
fired want on at least an hour and one half before the towers caved-----
I watched but I did not have a clock at hand

 

[Gamolon]

What fire in the 1970s? the other muzzie pig attack on the WTC
was in 1993 -----a car bomb in the parking lot under the buildings.
The car bomb did not cause widespread fires----just enough damage to
kill ---if I remember correctly----seven people and injure a few more.
The car bomb, itself----kinda fizzled----was not all that effective. The WTC
fired want on at least an hour and one half before the towers caved-----
I watched but I did not have a clock at hand

I found this:

On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the tower to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.Fireproofing protected the steel and there was no structural damage to the tower. In addition to damage caused by the fire on the 9th - 14th floors, water from the extinguishing of the fires damaged a few floors below. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[20]

World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Jackinthebox]

Explained 10,000 times...

The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building. The fires weakened the metal. The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.

As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.

NIST says that is not true. They say fire was the only reason the building collapsed. They even ruled out some stuff underground and other factors. They pin it exclusively on fire damage, which is utter nonsense. Any firefighter can tell you that much.

Fire proofing? There was no fireproofing even in place at all during the 1970's fire in Tower 1 which burned larger and longer than on 9/11.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Computer model:

I thought you said you did your own research? Can we assume your name is David Chandler?

And that video was included in my research. Next.

 

[Jackinthebox]

NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.

That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.

Computer models show a controlled demolition.

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building.

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.

Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.

Firefighter testimony is that there were only a few small pockets of fire in building 7. I know FFs who were there, I lost a fellow firefighter from my firehouse that day.

It doesn't matter how hot the fires were or what damage they did. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. I don't have to explain how the buildings were rigged to know that fire does not bring down steel buildings.

It's also quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning, considering that, as I said, the fires were minimal.

The fires were not minimal, they raged for hours, and not only it is not "quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning," the alleged charges would had to have been placed in specific locations and there was no way to predict where the fires would be.
Finally, you can't explain "how the buildings were rigged" because all "Truther" attempts to do so have been such embarrassing failures that the Movement has been abandoned by all but the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and the not-too-brights holding brooms.

The fires certainly were minimal, and even if the whole building had been engulfed in flame, it STILL would NOT have collapsed.

One of these things, is not like the others...

How were the buildings rigged? By clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel.

Also, I know people who worked in Towers 1 and 2. They said that for about a month prior to 9/11, there was a thin layer of "construction dust" on everything throughout the building. Building maintenance workers also reported that floors were closed off inexplicably, and work crews were working in areas that were not scheduled for development at that time. On and on it goes.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Some claim that this was due to the "unique" structure of Towers 1 & 2, but ignore that fact that a fire in the 1970's in Tower 1 burned larger and longer with no structural failure.

Did a jet strike the tower causing the fire in 1970 or are you blatantly forgetting this piece of the puzzle. How much of the supporting structure was severed or damaged due to the impact of the jets? I suppose that had nothing to do with it right?

No jet hit Building 7. Besides, if the damage from jets is what caused them to fall, it would have happened almost instantaneously. Even if were are to believe the nonsense explanation that "both" reasons are why 1 & 2 fell, it still doesn't explain global collapse of the structures. The tops would have sheared off, at most.

 

[Jackinthebox]

The notion that there was no loss of life in building 7 is contradicted by the account of Barry Jennings, who was in the building along with another witness.

Can you point to Barry's account of the loss of life?

Thanks.

Oh, and before you point to the interview where Barry says he was stepping over bodies in the lobby, listen to the interview he had later. It's at 6:20 in the linked video below.


He admits he never SAW any dead bodies. He just assumed.

That was not the only interview he gave where he said there were bodies. But make if it what you will. Bodies or no bodies, that still doesn't invalidate his entire experience, or the contradictions exposed by his experience.

 

[Gamolon]

Besides, if the damage from jets is what caused them to fall, it would have happened almost instantaneously.

It was damage from the jets AND the resultant fires. Why did you leave the damage from the jets out previously?

Even if were are to believe the nonsense explanation that "both" reasons are why 1 & 2 fell, it still doesn't explain global collapse of the structures. The tops would have sheared off, at most.

The tops would have sheared off??

LOL!

That's a good one.

 

[Jackinthebox]

What fire in the 1970s? the other muzzie pig attack on the WTC
was in 1993 -----a car bomb in the parking lot under the buildings.
The car bomb did not cause widespread fires----just enough damage to
kill ---if I remember correctly----seven people and injure a few more.
The car bomb, itself----kinda fizzled----was not all that effective. The WTC
fired want on at least an hour and one half before the towers caved-----
I watched but I did not have a clock at hand

 

[Gamolon]

That was not the only interview he gave where he said there were bodies.

Really? Link the other interviews.

But make if it what you will. Bodies or no bodies, that still doesn't invalidate his entire experience, or the contradictions exposed by his experience.

Name a few of his experiences that expose the contradictions.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Besides, if the damage from jets is what caused them to fall, it would have happened almost instantaneously.

It was damage from the jets AND the resultant fires. Why did you leave the damage from the jets out previously?

Even if were are to believe the nonsense explanation that "both" reasons are why 1 & 2 fell, it still doesn't explain global collapse of the structures. The tops would have sheared off, at most.

The tops would have sheared off??

LOL!

That's a good one.

No plane hit building 7.

Oh sure, partial collapse makes you laugh, but total collapse makes sense to you.

 

[Gamolon]

No plane hit building 7.

Oh sure, partial collapse makes you laugh, but total collapse makes sense to you.

Why'd you leave out the jets hitting WTC1 and WTC2 and said it was only fire?

 

[Jackinthebox]

That was not the only interview he gave where he said there were bodies.

Really? Link the other interviews.

But make if it what you will. Bodies or no bodies, that still doesn't invalidate his entire experience, or the contradictions exposed by his experience.

Name a few of his experiences that expose the contradictions.

They have been scrubbed from the internet.

You can read and watch all about his experiences on your own time, with what is still available out there. I am not going to hold your hand and rehash information that you can go and see for yourself.