Affirmative Theory of 9/11 attacks

[candycorn]

I wish I was more surprised that I got the answers, or rather lack of answers, that I expected.

No one is willing to address why anyone would think that crashing planes AND using explosives was a good idea. Why anyone would use a missle on the Pentagon and call it a passenger plane. Or why fake the Flight 73 crash at all.

I don't know whether to feel dissappointed no one has an answer or to feel satisfied that I was right that no one would try to answer.

The title of your thread was a bit confusing...did you mean "Alternative"?

As for the non-answers; why would that surprise you? The 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists have never provided the most basic answers to what they think happened that is different than the facts laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

[pinqy]

I wish I was more surprised that I got the answers, or rather lack of answers, that I expected.

No one is willing to address why anyone would think that crashing planes AND using explosives was a good idea. Why anyone would use a missle on the Pentagon and call it a passenger plane. Or why fake the Flight 73 crash at all.

I don't know whether to feel dissappointed no one has an answer or to feel satisfied that I was right that no one would try to answer.

The title of your thread was a bit confusing...did you mean "Alternative"?

No, I meant affirmative. Most of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is negative: this couldn't have happened, that couldn't have happened, the official story doesn't explain X, Y, or Z, etc.

What I'm asking for is an affirmative theory: This is what really happened:________
Judging by other discussions, I didn't think it likely, but I was curious if there were any.

As for the non-answers; why would that surprise you? The 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists have never provided the most basic answers to what they think happened that is different than the facts laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Exactly..they only point out (perceived) flaws in the 9/11 Commission Report and not an actual theory on what "really happened."

 

[candycorn]

I wish I was more surprised that I got the answers, or rather lack of answers, that I expected.

No one is willing to address why anyone would think that crashing planes AND using explosives was a good idea. Why anyone would use a missle on the Pentagon and call it a passenger plane. Or why fake the Flight 73 crash at all.

I don't know whether to feel dissappointed no one has an answer or to feel satisfied that I was right that no one would try to answer.

The title of your thread was a bit confusing...did you mean "Alternative"?

No, I meant affirmative. Most of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is negative: this couldn't have happened, that couldn't have happened, the official story doesn't explain X, Y, or Z, etc.

What I'm asking for is an affirmative theory: This is what really happened:________
Judging by other discussions, I didn't think it likely, but I was curious if there were any.

As for the non-answers; why would that surprise you? The 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists have never provided the most basic answers to what they think happened that is different than the facts laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Exactly..they only point out (perceived) flaws in the 9/11 Commission Report and not an actual theory on what "really happened."

Oh, okay....

 

[katsung47]

I wish I was more surprised that I got the answers, or rather lack of answers, that I expected.

No one is willing to address why anyone would think that crashing planes AND using explosives was a good idea. Why anyone would use a missle on the Pentagon and call it a passenger plane. Or why fake the Flight 73 crash at all.

I don't know whether to feel dissappointed no one has an answer or to feel satisfied that I was right that no one would try to answer.

1. "Bombing the Pentagon" was a tactic of 'thief cries "thief"'. Pentagon became a victim. No one would have suspected it was a hand behind the curtain.

2. They had to use a missile to hit a designated sect, not to other part of the Pentagon. Remember Rumsfelt was in Pentagon at that time. Only the accuracy of the missile could do that - to damage an unharmful part of building.

Besides, Pentagon, unlike WTC, is only a three storeyed building. It was hard to bomb it with an anuto pilot plane at that angle, let alone a plane piloted by unexperienced hijackers.

3. Yet they must say it was done by a boeing. Because you couldn't say Al Qaeda also hijacked a missile.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I wish I was more surprised that I got the answers, or rather lack of answers, that I expected.

No one is willing to address why anyone would think that crashing planes AND using explosives was a good idea. Why anyone would use a missle on the Pentagon and call it a passenger plane. Or why fake the Flight 73 crash at all.

I don't know whether to feel dissappointed no one has an answer or to feel satisfied that I was right that no one would try to answer.

1. "Bombing the Pentagon" was a tactic of 'thief cries "thief"'. Pentagon became a victim. No one would have suspected it was a hand behind the curtain.

2. They had to use a missile to hit a designated sect, not to other part of the Pentagon. Remember Rumsfelt was in Pentagon at that time. Only the accuracy of the missile could do that - to damage an unharmful part of building.

Besides, Pentagon, unlike WTC, is only a three storeyed building. It was hard to bomb it with an anuto pilot plane at that angle, let alone a plane piloted by unexperienced hijackers.

3. Yet they must say it was done by a boeing. Because you couldn't say Al Qaeda also hijacked a missile.

1) Why hit the Pentagon? The White House or Capital Building would have been a more convincing target if the goal was really the "hand behind the curtain?.

2) Why that particular section? What was so special there? Also, the Pentagon has 5 stories, not 3. And, Hani Hanjour held a commercial pilots license and almost got a job when he went back to Jeddah, so he could hardly be considered "unexperienced".

Oh, and by the way, Bobby (11.2G) Balsamo of PfT says that an auto-pilot couldn't have hit the Pentagon due to the G-load.

3) Did you know they picked up pieces of a Boeing 757-223 painted in American Airlines livery on the lawn and inside the building after the attack? How could they possibly have concealed those pieces inside of a missile??

 

[Mr. Jones]

I wish I was more surprised that I got the answers, or rather lack of answers, that I expected.

No one is willing to address why anyone would think that crashing planes AND using explosives was a good idea. Why anyone would use a missle on the Pentagon and call it a passenger plane. Or why fake the Flight 73 crash at all.

I don't know whether to feel dissappointed no one has an answer or to feel satisfied that I was right that no one would try to answer.

1. "Bombing the Pentagon" was a tactic of 'thief cries "thief"'. Pentagon became a victim. No one would have suspected it was a hand behind the curtain.

2. They had to use a missile to hit a designated sect, not to other part of the Pentagon. Remember Rumsfelt was in Pentagon at that time. Only the accuracy of the missile could do that - to damage an unharmful part of building.

Besides, Pentagon, unlike WTC, is only a three storeyed building. It was hard to bomb it with an anuto pilot plane at that angle, let alone a plane piloted by unexperienced hijackers.

3. Yet they must say it was done by a boeing. Because you couldn't say Al Qaeda also hijacked a missile.

1) Why hit the Pentagon? The White House or Capital Building would have been a more convincing target if the goal was really the "hand behind the curtain?.

Because the Pentagon as was alluded to by the other poster, was the "thief" becoming the "victim", or aren't you familiar that thee part of the Pentagon that was hit held the personnel and offices that were responsible for accounting, and the trillions that Rumsfeld announced was "missing" or unaccountable, the day BEFORE the "attacks".
Better to ask why the hijacker "pilot" didn't slam into the pentagon and cause more damage including the office of the defense secretary and others, that would have caused more damage, that would have been akin to hitting the side of a barn, instead of making his target so much smaller, and concentrating on THIS particular part of the pentagon?
Also, Bushs visit to the school was announced beforehand, why not take Bush out at the Florida school if you are a jihadist and hate the US and its leadership? Because that was obviously not the intended target, the particular part of the pentagon mentioned was.

2) Why that particular section? What was so special there?

Answered.

Also, the Pentagon has 5 stories, not 3. And, Hani Hanjour held a commercial pilots license and almost got a job when he went back to Jeddah, so he could hardly be considered "unexperienced".

This commercial pilots license is dubious and debatable and does not explain the maneuvers the plane experienced, nor explains why
that part of the pentagon was targeted when he had such a larger and more easily obtainable target in hitting it straight on from the top.

Oh, and by the way, Bobby (11.2G) Balsamo of PfT says that an auto-pilot couldn't have hit the Pentagon due to the G-load.

Yes many questions pertaining to this have been raised and not sufficiently answered.

3) Did you know they picked up pieces of a Boeing 757-223 painted in American Airlines livery on the lawn and inside the building after the attack? How could they possibly have concealed those pieces inside of a missile??

The pentagon attack could be resolved perhaps if the PTB were more forthcoming and release more info and videos.

The smoking gun about the 9-11 attacks is still building 7, and how the fuck they were allowed to fly around for so long, and how did they know about the war games terror drills taking place that day that caused the confusion on the radar screens.
These jihadists had assistance from an outside state and from well placed treasonous scum loyal to the Israeli cause from within.
Besides the so called "pilots" didn't have to have 100% flying skills, as it is theorized that the planes could very well have been remotely guided to their targets, especially when one looks at Dov Zakheim's System Planning Corporation, and his position in the Bush administration.
This could answer the questions concerning the way the inexperienced hijackers flew commercial 757's in such a way that shocked flight instructors and US air force pilots.

Flight 93 could have been destined for WTC 7 but a hero air force pilot shot it down. Logistics would dictate that WTC7 could not have been the target because the towers blocking a clear path, but not after they were imploded, which fits the timeline of flight 93, the last of the 4 flights hijacked, and the times of implosion for the towers.
As with any planning somethings don't always go according to plan, so they had to switch to the far fetched 'fire" theory as being the WTC7's demise, after 'something" happened to flight 93.

 

[daws101]

1. "bombing the pentagon" was a tactic of 'thief cries "thief"'. Pentagon became a victim. No one would have suspected it was a hand behind the curtain.

2. They had to use a missile to hit a designated sect, not to other part of the pentagon. Remember rumsfelt was in pentagon at that time. Only the accuracy of the missile could do that - to damage an unharmful part of building.

Besides, pentagon, unlike wtc, is only a three storeyed building. It was hard to bomb it with an anuto pilot plane at that angle, let alone a plane piloted by unexperienced hijackers.

3. Yet they must say it was done by a boeing. Because you couldn't say al qaeda also hijacked a missile.

because the pentagon as was alluded to by the other poster, was the "thief" becoming the "victim", or aren't you familiar that thee part of the pentagon that was hit held the personnel and offices that were responsible for accounting, and the trillions that rumsfeld announced was "missing" or unaccountable, the day before the "attacks".
Better to ask why the hijacker "pilot" didn't slam into the pentagon and cause more damage including the office of the defense secretary and others, that would have caused more damage, that would have been akin to hitting the side of a barn, instead of making his target so much smaller, and concentrating on this particular part of the pentagon?
Also, bushs visit to the school was announced beforehand, why not take bush out at the florida school if you are a jihadist and hate the us and its leadership? Because that was obviously not the intended target, the particular part of the pentagon mentioned was.

Answered.


This commercial pilots license is dubious and debatable and does not explain the maneuvers the plane experienced, nor explains why
that part of the pentagon was targeted when he had such a larger and more easily obtainable target in hitting it straight on from the top.

oh, and by the way, bobby (11.2g) balsamo of pft says that an auto-pilot couldn't have hit the pentagon due to the g-load.

yes many questions pertaining to this have been raised and not sufficiently answered.

3) did you know they picked up pieces of a boeing 757-223 painted in american airlines livery on the lawn and inside the building after the attack? How could they possibly have concealed those pieces inside of a missile??

the pentagon attack could be resolved perhaps if the ptb were more forthcoming and release more info and videos.

The smoking gun about the 9-11 attacks is still building 7, and how the fuck they were allowed to fly around for so long, and how did they know about the war games terror drills taking place that day that caused the confusion on the radar screens.
These jihadists had assistance from an outside state and from well placed treasonous scum loyal to the israeli cause from within.
Besides the so called "pilots" didn't have to have 100% flying skills, as it is theorized that the planes could very well have been remotely guided to their targets, especially when one looks at dov zakheim's system planning corporation, and his position in the bush administration.
This could answer the questions concerning the way the inexperienced hijackers flew commercial 757's in such a way that shocked flight instructors and us air force pilots.

Flight 93 could have been destined for wtc 7 but a hero air force pilot shot it down. Logistics would dictate that wtc7 could not have been the target because the towers blocking a clear path, but not after they were imploded, which fits the timeline of flight 93, the last of the 4 flights hijacked, and the times of implosion for the towers.
As with any planning somethings don't always go according to plan, so they had to switch to the far fetched 'fire" theory as being the wtc7's demise, after 'something" happened to flight 93.

bahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[pinqy]

I wish I was more surprised that I got the answers, or rather lack of answers, that I expected.

No one is willing to address why anyone would think that crashing planes AND using explosives was a good idea. Why anyone would use a missle on the Pentagon and call it a passenger plane. Or why fake the Flight 73 crash at all.

I don't know whether to feel dissappointed no one has an answer or to feel satisfied that I was right that no one would try to answer.

1. "Bombing the Pentagon" was a tactic of 'thief cries "thief"'. Pentagon became a victim. No one would have suspected it was a hand behind the curtain.

And how do you know that? Especially since it's not a tactic I've ever heard used before in the history of ever. Sure, I can buy governments attacking their own people for a causus belli, but then attacking a secondary target just to reinforce the first? And obviously, people like you prove that if that was the tactic, it wasn't a good one.

2. They had to use a missile to hit a designated sect, not to other part of the Pentagon. Remember Rumsfelt was in Pentagon at that time. Only the accuracy of the missile could do that - to damage an unharmful part of building.

Then don't attack it. Any added gain by distracting, which didn't work anyway, is nullified by the added complications.

Besides, Pentagon, unlike WTC, is only a three storeyed building. It was hard to bomb it with an anuto pilot plane at that angle, let alone a plane piloted by unexperienced hijackers.

Easier to use a missile and fake a plane that many eyewitnesses saw?

3. Yet they must say it was done by a boeing. Because you couldn't say Al Qaeda also hijacked a missile.

why not? Al Qaeda had missles.

 

[Mr. Jones]

If you seriously think that a group of jihadists planned and executed this attack all by them selves then you haven't payed attention, or are in deep denial. It wasn't muslims that distorted the laws of physics on 9-11.
And why no one is commenting on the Fox news reporter who wrote how he heard from first responders, and con ed personel that Larry Silverstein was on the phone asking "permission" from his insurance company to CD WTC7, and the ramifications such a statement has, like....How the fuck was that massive building rigged in such short order...OR that it may possibly and most likely had to have been rigged WAY BEFORE 9-11?

Why wasn't this reporter or the people that he heard this from called in to testify at the 9-11 Omission hearings?

 

[Jos]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[daws101]

well done!

 

[daws101]

If you seriously think that a group of jihadists planned and executed this attack all by them selves then you haven't payed attention, or are in deep denial. It wasn't muslims that distorted the laws of physics on 9-11.
And why no one is commenting on the Fox news reporter who wrote how he heard from first responders, and con ed personel that Larry Silverstein was on the phone asking "permission" from his insurance company to CD WTC7, and the ramifications such a statement has, like....How the fuck was that massive building rigged in such short order...OR that it may possibly and most likely had to have been rigged WAY BEFORE 9-11?

Why wasn't this reporter or the people that he heard this from called in to testify at the 9-11 Omission hearings?

hummm... it used to be broke the laws of physics guess broke is harder to prove then distort.
but since there is no evidence of either......

 

[eots]

indeed...

 

[Mr. Jones]

well done!

Applauding such an asinine response is so Dawsghit of you Dawgshit.
And distort, suspend, broke, the laws of physics...it doesn't matter how its described, it was done, and the NIST hasn't provided any viable answers for it, but count on ignorant assholes like you and your friends to ignore the fact that their "explanations" and report don't address the anomalies, and the 9-11 Omission report is a farce and hugely inadequate in viable answers as well.
The fact that Chandler made NIST change their report, and made them run away and hide from their responsibility of explaining WHY there was all of a sudden NO RESISTANCE, and that the destruction of WTC 7 no longer fit with their earlier version of having to have "resistance in the downward acceleration".
All you fucks can ever come up with when your conspiracy theory is taken into serious consideration, is what you posted as a response....Little gif images and making fun of the tragedy that has happened to the people and the country you live in.

You just continue to entertain yourself with short one liner responses and gleefully arouse yourself in little gif images that are akin to prepubescent school grade activity, and leave the important stuff to the grown ups.

As always not a single response that is worth a damn from you and your treasonous ilk.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Hey look, it turns out the OCTA got the 9/11 story backwards.

 

[daws101]

well done!

Applauding such an asinine response is so Dawsghit of you Dawgshit.
And distort, suspend, broke, the laws of physics...it doesn't matter how its described, it was done, and the NIST hasn't provided any viable answers for it, but count on ignorant assholes like you and your friends to ignore the fact that their "explanations" and report don't address the anomalies, and the 9-11 Omission report is a farce and hugely inadequate in viable answers as well.
The fact that Chandler made NIST change their report, and made them run away and hide from their responsibility of explaining WHY there was all of a sudden NO RESISTANCE, and that the destruction of WTC 7 no longer fit with their earlier version of having to have "resistance in the downward acceleration".
All you fucks can ever come up with when your conspiracy theory is taken into serious consideration, is what you posted as a response....Little gif images and making fun of the tragedy that has happened to the people and the country you live in.

You just continue to entertain yourself with short one liner responses and gleefully arouse yourself in little gif images that are akin to prepubescent school grade activity, and leave the important stuff to the grown ups.

As always not a single response that is worth a damn from you and your treasonous ilk.

still wrong! In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

debunking sister jones's bullshit one post at a time!

 

[Mr. Jones]

well done!

Applauding such an asinine response is so Dawsghit of you Dawgshit.
And distort, suspend, broke, the laws of physics...it doesn't matter how its described, it was done, and the NIST hasn't provided any viable answers for it, but count on ignorant assholes like you and your friends to ignore the fact that their "explanations" and report don't address the anomalies, and the 9-11 Omission report is a farce and hugely inadequate in viable answers as well.
The fact that Chandler made NIST change their report, and made them run away and hide from their responsibility of explaining WHY there was all of a sudden NO RESISTANCE, and that the destruction of WTC 7 no longer fit with their earlier version of having to have "resistance in the downward acceleration".
All you fucks can ever come up with when your conspiracy theory is taken into serious consideration, is what you posted as a response....Little gif images and making fun of the tragedy that has happened to the people and the country you live in.

You just continue to entertain yourself with short one liner responses and gleefully arouse yourself in little gif images that are akin to prepubescent school grade activity, and leave the important stuff to the grown ups.

As always not a single response that is worth a damn from you and your treasonous ilk.

still wrong! In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

debunking sister jones's bullshit one post at a time!

Bullshit Dawgshit. All you did was post the crap that has been shown to be dubious and straight up lies, direct from the NIST liars!
You debunk absolutely nothing. How can you say you debunk stuff, by posting the shit that was already debunked?

Care to explain the Fox news reporters account of the WTC 7 CD?

 

[daws101]

Applauding such an asinine response is so Dawsghit of you Dawgshit.
And distort, suspend, broke, the laws of physics...it doesn't matter how its described, it was done, and the NIST hasn't provided any viable answers for it, but count on ignorant assholes like you and your friends to ignore the fact that their "explanations" and report don't address the anomalies, and the 9-11 Omission report is a farce and hugely inadequate in viable answers as well.
The fact that Chandler made NIST change their report, and made them run away and hide from their responsibility of explaining WHY there was all of a sudden NO RESISTANCE, and that the destruction of WTC 7 no longer fit with their earlier version of having to have "resistance in the downward acceleration".
All you fucks can ever come up with when your conspiracy theory is taken into serious consideration, is what you posted as a response....Little gif images and making fun of the tragedy that has happened to the people and the country you live in.

You just continue to entertain yourself with short one liner responses and gleefully arouse yourself in little gif images that are akin to prepubescent school grade activity, and leave the important stuff to the grown ups.

As always not a single response that is worth a damn from you and your treasonous ilk.

still wrong! In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

debunking sister jones's bullshit one post at a time!

Bullshit Dawgshit. All you did was post the crap that has been shown to be dubious and straight up lies, direct from the NIST liars!
You debunk absolutely nothing. How can you say you debunk stuff, by posting the shit that was already debunked?

Care to explain the Fox news reporters account of the WTC 7 CD?

again you have no credible proof that nist lied....
faux news? that's the only explanation I need!