Jump to content

An evidence-based 9/11 discussion


bascule
 Share

Recommended Posts

There seems to be a great deal of interest in these forums in discussing whether the official accounts of 9/11 are accurate. Originally the other 9/11 threads were locked due to far too much bickering and far too little evidence-based argumentation.

 

Most of the controversy surrounding 9/11 has centered upon two events: the alleged collision between Flight 77 and the Pentagon and the alleged collapse of WTC7.

 

In regards to these events, there are two pieces of evidence I'd like to bring to the discussion.

 

The first is the video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, which was released today:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdHdX6Znvc4

 

And the second is the official FEMA report regarding the collapse of WTC7:

 

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf

 

I'm now curious if someone alleging a coverup in the official explanation can use either of these pieces of evidence to make their case. Please keep the discussion directly related to the evidence, as if you fail to do so, I'm certain this thread will be locked shortly.

 

From what I can tell: The video seems congruent with the official explanation.

 

The evidence at the site of WTC7 shows it collapsed due to an oil fire which weakened the steel structure along the east wall until the building collapsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see much from the video. It looks like there is already smoke coming from the building at the beginning of the footage.

 

Do you know if they are planning to release the security tapes confiscated from the hotel and the convenience store?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "buildings collapsed because of a fire" story is highly unlikely. Might I bring to your attention that if the buildings collapsed because of a fire they will be the first skyscrapers in modern history to do so? I fear I'm straying into the zone of opinion, but a lot of people say the buildings looked like they were being demolished, the orderly manner in which they fell. Secondary and tertiary explosions were also reported in the lobby of the towers right before they collapsed, as if bombs were planted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "buildings collapsed because of a fire" story is highly unlikely. Might I bring to your attention that if the buildings collapsed because of a fire they will be the first skyscrapers in modern history to do so?
There is always a first, and these were pretty unique buildings in a unique situation.
I fear I'm straying into the zone of opinion, but a lot of people say the buildings looked like they were being demolished, the orderly manner in which they fell.
Buildings that heavy are unlikely to fall in any other way. It actually would have been stranger if they would have fallen slowly sideways.
Secondary and tertiary explosions were also reported in the lobby of the towers right before they collapsed, as if bombs were planted.
I would imagine masonry and steel responding to failure and stress could account for exploding sounds.

 

None of these points really nag at me, they all have logical explanations.

 

I can see how frustrating it is for conspiracy theorists to have their whole cloth snapped thread by thread. When you look at 9/11 as a tapestry of coincidences that all happened in order to bring about the complete destruction of the towers, it does seem a little unreal. I realize it's 1:1 now but what would you have said the odds were *before it happened* to have all this fall into place the way it did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "buildings collapsed because of a fire" story is highly unlikely. Might I bring to your attention that if the buildings collapsed because of a fire they will be the first skyscrapers in modern history to do so?

 

isn't aircraft fule specifically chosen 'cos it burns really hot?

 

i.e. this was the first skyscraper in modern history to have to attempt to tolerate such heat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The projectile in the video is moving far too fast to be a post-crash plane. Also, where is the dirt? They said that flight 77 bounced on the lawn. This video shows a small UFO (in the purly scientific sence) moving perfectly paralell to the ground, very quickly, kicking up no dirt, and leaving no dirt trail in the lawn.

Also, don't you think it's odd that the pentagon refuses to release the footage from the hotel and gas station?

isn't aircraft fule specifically chosen 'cos it burns really hot?

 

i.e. this was the first skyscraper in modern history to have to attempt to tolerate such heat?

Jet fuel's still not hot enough to melt steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jet fuel's still not hot enough to melt steel.

 

are you sure?

 

I've made thin steel (eg, butter-knife thickness) easily pliable and glowing cherry-red using a barbeque and a hair-dryer, whilst merely putting a butter-knife into a BBQ isn't sufficient to even make it glow.

 

maybe something like secondary fule (in the fire sence -- ie the jet fule set fire to something else that burned hotter), insulation of the heat, or convection currents sucking fresh air up the tower acted as an air-pump raised the heat to the point where the steel was malable (melting isn't neccesary).

 

plus, as cap'n said, it wasn't merely immolated -- it was whalloped by a rather large plane and then set ablaze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "buildings collapsed because of a fire" story is highly unlikely.

 

Surely you aren't talking about WTC1 and WTC2. I don't know how you could possibly overlook all the evidence that they collapsed from a fire. But since you obviously are choosing to overlook the evidence, I might as well point you to it. It's all right here:

 

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf

 

Might I bring to your attention that if the buildings collapsed because of a fire they will be the first skyscrapers in modern history to do so?

 

WTC1 and WTC2 were also the first skyscrapers to be hit by jumbo jets with enough fuel to make a transatlantic flight. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE!

 

Let's look at the unusal circumstances surrounding WTC7:

 

- It was showered by debris from two of the largest skyscrapers in the world collapsing

- FDNY was in shambles. They simply were not equipped to deal with the event. Many of them were trapped inside WTC1 and WTC2 when they collapsed

- Oh, did I mention FDNY didn't have enough water to fight the fire

 

A number of oil fires were burning inside WTC7 for a long period of time. Ordinarily the fire department would have no trouble getting these fires out, but they were dealing with an unprecedented event. WTC7 had also been expanded in such a way that the addition spliced into beams in the existing structure for support, making it more prone to collapse if the structure were weakened (by, say, an oil fire)

 

I fear I'm straying into the zone of opinion, but a lot of people say the buildings looked like they were being demolished

 

1. Argument to popularity. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it right

 

2. These people are idiots. If they think WTC1 and WTC2 looked like controlled demolitions they have no idea what a controlled demolition looks like. WTC1 and WTC2 both collapsed from the top down, "zippering" open and showering debris on everything surrounding them below.

 

Controlled demolitions typically weaken supports in many floors at once in order to cause a controlled implosion. However, the entire building is brought down.

 

the orderly manner in which they fell.

 

The only building this can be suggested for is WTC7. WTC7's collapse was not consistent with a controlled demolition either. In a controlled explosion charges are detonated over a period of a few seconds at most, and the building begins collapsing immediately after the initial explosions.

 

WTC7 did not collapse this way. A full 36 seconds elapsed from the initial signs of structural failure until the structure actually gave way. The mechanical penthouses began to sink into the roof... 30 seconds later the east penthouse disappears completely (the east side of the building is where the structural failure is assumed to have occured). 5 seconds later, the west penthouse disappears. Then approximately 1 to 2 seconds later, the entire building collapses. How is THAT consistent with a controlled demolition?

 

My source for all the information regarding WTC7 is the FEMA report. It's quite thorough and answered all of my questions:

 

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf

 

Secondary and tertiary explosions were also reported in the lobby of the towers right before they collapsed, as if bombs were planted.

 

"were reported"! What an awesome source! This is an evidence based discussion. Unsubstantiated anecdotes are expressly forbidden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jet fuel's still not hot enough to melt steel.

 

A panel of government experts disagrees:

 

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf

 

It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained

about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records

show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the

buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed

jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid

pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings

caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.

Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11

into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175

into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east,

and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the

fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when

the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally

based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.

The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty

associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between

1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it

is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the

aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or

detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not

the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs,

being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether

the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures

internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.

The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse

level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the

elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed

by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the

remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on

the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be

consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could

spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and

did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes

that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that

would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was

available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been

transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed

in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire

floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact

floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several

of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself.

A limited amount of physical evidence about the fires is available in the form of videos and still

photographs of the buildings and the smoke plume generated soon after the initial attack. Estimates of the

buoyant energy in the plume were obtained by plotting the rise of the smoke plume, which is governed by

buoyancy in the vertical direction and by the wind in the horizontal direction. Using the Computational

Fluid Dynamics (CFD) fire model, Fire Dynamics Simulator Ver. 1 (FDS1), fire scientists at the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Rehm, et al. 2002) were able to mathematically approximate

the size of fires required to produce such a smoke plume. As input to this model, an estimate of the openings

available to provide ventilation for the fires was obtained from an examination of photographs taken of the

damaged tower. Meteorological data on wind velocity and atmospheric temperatures were provided by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on reports from the Aircraft

Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). The information used weather monitoring

instruments onboard three aircraft that departed from LaGuardia and Newark airports between 7:15 a.m.

and 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001. The wind speed at heights equal to the upper stories of the towers

was in the range of 10–20 mph. The outside temperatures over the height of the building were 20–21 °C

(68–70 °F).

The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr,

around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed

out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented

energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from

each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The

modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus

or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in

these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the

aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100

°C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.

The viability of a 3–5 trillion Btu/hr (1–1.15 GW) fire depends on the fuel and air supply. The surface

area of office contents needed to support such a fire ranges from about 30,000–50,000 square feet, depending

on the composition and final arrangement of the contents and the fuel loading present. Given the typical

occupied area of a floor as approximately 30,000 square feet, it can be seen that simultaneous fire involvement

of an area equal to 1–2 entire floors can produce such a fire. Fuel loads are typically described in terms of the

equivalent weight of wood. Fuel loads in office-type occupancies typically range from about 4–12 psf, with

the mean slightly less than 8 psf (Culver 1977). File rooms, libraries, and similar concentrations of paper

materials have significantly higher concentrations of fuel. At the burning rate necessary to yield these fires, a

fuel load of about 5 psf would be required to provide sufficient fuel to maintain the fire at full force for an

hour, and twice that quantity to maintain it for 2 hours. The air needed to support combustion would be on

the order of 600,000–1,000,000 cubic feet per minute.

Air supply to support the fires was primarily provided by openings in the exterior walls that were

created by the aircraft impacts and fireballs, as well as by additional window breakage from the ensuing heat

of the fires. Table 2.1 lists the estimated exterior wall openings used in these calculations. Although the table

shows the openings on a floor-by-floor basis, several of the openings, particularly in the area of impact,

actually spanned several floors (see Figure 2-17).

Sometimes, interior shafts in burning high-rise buildings also deliver significant quantities of air to a

fire, through a phenomenon known as “stack effect,” which is created when differences between the ambient

exterior air temperatures and the air temperatures inside the building result in differential air pressures,

drawing air up through the shafts to the fire area. Because outside and inside temperatures appear to have

been virtually the same on September 11, this stack effect was not expected to be strong in this case.

Based on photographic evidence, the fire burned as a distributed collection of large but separate fires

with significant temperature variations from space to space, depending on the type and arrangement of

combustible material present and the available air for combustion in each particular space. Consequently, the

temperature and related incident heat flux to the structural elements varied with both time and location.

This information is not currently available, but could be modeled with advanced CFD fire models.

Damage caused by the aircraft impacts is believed to have disrupted the sprinkler and fire standpipe

systems, preventing effective operation of either the manual or automatic suppression systems. Even if these

systems had not been compromised by the impacts, they would likely have been ineffective. It is believed

that the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have

quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement.

Further, the initial spread of fires was so extensive as to make occupant use of small hose streams ineffective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTC1 and WTC2 were also the first skyscrapers to be hit by jumbo jets with enough fuel to make a transatlantic flight. WHAT AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE!

 

They weren't 747's(jumbo's) as i recall a fuelled jumbo would have been massive enough to go right through the damned building and make it collapse due to an instant loss of structural integrity rather than secondary fire damage.

 

EDIT: just looked it up, it was a pair of 767's a 222 series and a 223-ER series. both similar in size enough so it doesn't make a difference. they are substantially smaller then a jumbo.

 

Still the biggest planes to hit any buildings though. and depite the jumbo error, bascules comment is still valid in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, don't you think it's odd that the pentagon refuses to release the footage from the hotel and gas station?
This has bothered me most about the Pentagon event. With all the controversy, if the tapes show a plane hitting the Pentagon just release them!

 

But it's been so long that if they release them now, anyone who believes in a coverup would think they were doctored anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that the events preceding the collapses of WTC1 and 2 could be substantially explained away, but tied together with the incredibly ridiculous Pentagon story, it screams conspiracy. Did you know that the official explanation for why there was barely any debris and no sign of bodies at the crash site of the Pentagon was that the entire plane, bodies and all, vapourised? Also, the tape in which Osama Bin Laden allegedly admits to the crime did not even have Bin Laden in it. The person there was someone who looked a little bit like Bin Laden, but had a different skin tone, hair type, and handedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That loose change video I tell ya.

 

For a strictly defense perspective not releasing the videos would be a good idea. You don't want the wrong hands to get a hold of it and figure out structural weakness to the Pentagon so that they can do it again but this time even more efficiently.

 

From a perspective of the families you don't want to see your relatives corpses whole or in peices sprawled out all national television.

 

There are just certian things the general public doesn't need to know, it may not be for the reason I stated but those to me would be plenty enough.

 

As for alot of the witness accounts, I wouldn't trust them. There has been studies done in the roswell case about the memory of witnesses.

 

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/jun/m16-017.shtml

 

-- Errors in perception are probably more frequent than most people

realize. Perception is often influenced by expectation. We have

probably all noticed this phenomenon on a micro scale when trying

to proofread something. Similar to a form of computer

enhancement, the brain tends to automatically comp nsate for

missing letters or words which are supposed to be there. In other

words, it tends to automatically "fill in the blanks." --

 

I am going to look into the metallurgical aspect of this case and I will come back. I have this article about this jones guy, seems off though.

 

funny the site is littered with conspiracy crap.

 

http://www.watchermagazine.com/?p=4760

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a strictly defense perspective not releasing the videos would be a good idea. You don't want the wrong hands to get a hold of it and figure out structural weakness to the Pentagon so that they can do it again but this time even more efficiently.
If you're talking about the security tapes confiscated from the gas station and the hotel that would show that side of the Pentagon all day long, I don't see what there would be to exploit.

From a perspective of the families you don't want to see your relatives corpses whole or in peices sprawled out all national television.

Has there been any report from either the FBI or the military about what those surveillance tapes contain? Does it describe corpses sprawled out? Has there ever been a comment about what is seen on those tapes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are the ones from the Pentagon cameras. The gas station and hotel cameras wouldn't be trained on the security gate, they would have had a more wide angle view of the side of the Pentagon.

 

This link did give me a better cut on the tapes than I've seen before. Scale is tough to determine and I couldn't see wings or a tail but you can definitely see the outline coming in from the side really low to the ground before impact.

 

I can't find the link I saw with a map of where the gas station and hotel are situated but I remember thinking that video footage from those angles and distance away would show a really clear view. I'll continue the search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been any report from either the FBI or the military about what those surveillance tapes contain? Does it describe corpses sprawled out? Has there ever been a comment about what is seen on those tapes?

 

No, but if there were, might be good reason not to make mention of, or release.

 

The point is that not all held video tapes are for the purpose of covering up a conspiracy, whether or not MY example was perfect. Well probably far from perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, even if they confiscated the tapes and shipped off all the debris as not to shock the people, what's the point in releasing a flagrant lie as an official statement?

 

Please review the evidence here before screaming conspiracy over the Pentagon:

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

A lot of people seem to be taken in by those "This is the only piece of evidence" arguments. Look, this is the only piece of evidence we have that we ever went to the moon:

 

6Breccia.gif

 

Well, that settles it. The moon landing was a hoax.

 

I don't know if there's a term to describe that type of argument. I'm going to go for "baldface lie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK i'll take the bait.:)

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911/norad.htm

 

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the

Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as

Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the

9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

 

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there

was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got

down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice

President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned

and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand.

Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

 

What were those orders?????

 

Why didn't the 9/11 commission pursue this???

 

Now that I have shot all you backslappers down in flames again time to close this thread as is the norm!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I have shot all you backslappers down in flames again time to close this thread as is the norm!;)
You continue to undermine what little credibility you have with the rest of the membership. This is a verbal warning to knock it off with the personal attacks.

 

The OP was VERY clear about the nature of this thread. Please stick with the format and try to provide evidence-based arguments only. It would help if your remarks didn't show forgone conclusions, assumptions and fallacious logic as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to undermine what little credibility you have with the rest of the membership. This is a verbal warning to knock it off with the personal attacks.

 

The OP was VERY clear about the nature of this thread. Please stick with the format and try to provide evidence-based arguments only. It would help if your remarks didn't show forgone conclusions' date=' assumptions and fallacious logic as well.[/quote']

Hey how about chilling out Phi For Nobody.Your constant beligerance,bias and belittlement of my fine self is getting beyond a joke.:mad:

 

So knock off the personal attacks yourself crybaby.

 

Hypocrites such as yourself shouldn't be even allowed to post let alone moderate.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.