911 Conspiracy?

[Testosterone boy]

Walter E. Davis, PhD

13) How was it possible for the World Trade Center’s two towers to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes. The official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no credibly scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could have melted the steel girders. This is especially true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it directly. Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building. The South Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned demolition. Based upon scientific evidences, photos and videos of the event, and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is highly unlikely that the Towers collapsed because of burning jet fuel rather than demolition.

i ask you for one experts opinion on the collapse of TWC and you give me umpteen pages of a conspiracy plot. and in the whole thing there is this one reference.

this guy with the PhD you pasted here is just someone who wrote a paper using other sources, he is not an expert on the collapsing of the buildings.

1. both buildings did not fall smoothly straight down like he stated, the top portion above the impact of tower two is clearly seen toppling over. CLEARLY SEEN.

2. he mentions the architects and engineers, he is clearly taking there comments out of context and putting spin on it. the architects and engineers did say it wasnt the actual fall but a combonation, the impact, heat and design.

3. noone to my knowledge has said the steel melted.

one last bit of info for you. someone mentioned that even if the jet fuel burned at its most efficient manner(around 1600degrees) that it would have only waekened the steel approx. 50%. another factor in weakening steel is the amount of time it is subject to by heat.

like i said, i think your are just reading material that has a very biased slant to it, read what engineers(from MIT and other respect universities are saying).

and one last thing about the fire, the south tower which was struck last fell first, guess what, they have found that the fire retardant used on the girders were about half that of the north tower.

as far as the rest of the article i will post on it and copy a link of buddy28 and my debate.

but for the last time can you please find an engineers report for me that backs up any of your points. otherwise this is useless.

Who cares who the engineers work for?

Siverstein said that bldg 7 was a pull. The collapse of bldg 7 was virtually identical to the main towers.

Bldg 7...........headquarters for the investigation into wrongdoings by Worldcom/Bush and Citicorp/Bush. Amazing.

 

[spongebob]

1) The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11 attacks before hand, including the fact that commercial jets were to be used as bombs; they also knew the approximate dates and possible targets but were called off their investigations. Western intelligence had been aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as early as 1995. The plan was known as "Project Bojinka." It was known to both the CIA and FBI and was described in court documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC).

Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but did nothing to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent. However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut short their investigations into the attacks and those involved. Agents were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized information pertaining to their investigations. Some field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.

As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt all warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning also came from came from several others sources as well. Recently (May 25, 2002), CBS revealed that President Bush had been warned in an intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial planes for a domestic attack in the US.

3) Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor the President of the United States acted according to well established emergency protocols. Acting Joint Chief of Staff General Richard B. Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane. So he went ahead with his meeting. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff?

The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m., did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense, also at the Pentagon, about the other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? After he was notified, why did he go to the war room?

Zacarias Moussaouri was arrested after his flight trainers at the Minnesota flight school, Pan Am International Flight Academy, reported highly suspicious behavior. He was greatly unqualified; he wanted to learn to fly a 747 but wasn’t interested in takeoffs or landings; he was traveling on a French passport, said he was from France, but could not speak French. When
contacted, the French said he was a suspected terrorist connected to Al-Qaeda. However, a special counter terrorism panel of the FBI and CIA reviewed the case and dismissed it.

9) Why were the FBI called off its investigation of Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Moreover, why were the FBI Agents ordered to curtail their investigation of these attacks on October 10, 2001? The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as saying, "The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we’re not trying to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be in the process of filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to go public.

im only addressing a few of theses that i can recall quickly off the top of my head.

1. this plan involved commercial airliners with explosives on board being blown up across the atlantic and he mention the CIA headquarters in langly, nothing elese, i believe it was something like 7 planes or so. it is documented, please look it up. it was not the plans of 9-11.

2. all intel reports from allies were recieved and unknown to you at the time and what the writter is not telling you is that we were at hieghtened security after each warning. the second point is that it is also documented that al-queda put out "test information" to see how we would respond. in other words they knew they were being monitored and how they were being monitored.

3. i guess donald rumsfield and others werent in on the conspiracy, or VPcheney, condeleeza rice, both at the respected offices and intended targets of jets. and guess what, i guess someone forgot to tell john p. oniel, the main point man at the FBI intensely investigating UBL, because unfortunately he went to work after recently retiring for TWC on aug the 23rd. he died on 9-11. but you probably already knew that.

4. about zacarias moussouri, they tried to get a search warrant but were denied by a federal judge, that was only a couple of weeks prior to 9-11. the case was not dropped.

5. and please explain what he refers to when he says investigations were called off. im almost sure what i think he means but i would like for you to explain it to me.

this piece is also very contradicting in alot of ways. one minute it says all agents knew of and when the attacks were going to take place then it complains about agents being called off investigations and threatened.

next time before you cut and paste please follow up on what the writer is saying. and thats my main point, i dont think you do that, you just read what they write and say, "yep that sounds like it fits".

 

[spongebob]

Who cares who the engineers work for?

Siverstein said that bldg 7 was a pull. The collapse of bldg 7 was virtually identical to the main towers.

Bldg 7...........headquarters for the investigation into wrongdoings by Worldcom/Bush and Citicorp/Bush. Amazing.

what a relieve, im glad you didnt post a 20 page essay that really has very little to do with this thread topic.

it just says he has a PhD, i doubt he is an engineer. and if you follow the conversation. you'll understand why im saying that. wazzup has repeatedly stated many experts and egineers have said it was a controlled demo. but he gets that from alex's material;.i asked him to give the actual experts. what i think alex does is take peoples comments out of context and uses them for his arguement. and wazzup has not provided me with anything.

and i am specifically talking about the twin towers.

as far as wtc7, i read he said "pull it" and then he said" we watched it fall", meaning it possibly fell on its own.

i watched the video and i noticed the very top collapsing first.

 

[buddy28]

the clips were not strong enough for 1. and intial impact from a jet airliner,

This is misinformation. The WTC was designed specifically to withstand the impact of a 707.

2. an estimated 10,000 gallons of jet fuel,

More misinformation. 1) The 10,000 gallons is how much the airliners were estimated to be carrying for their intra-continental flight right before they impacted the towers. A good part of their fuel spontaneously ignited OUTSIDE the towers as we all astonishely witnessed in a MASSIVE fire ball. Any article that claims roughly 10,000 gallons of fuel was deposited inside each tower, is flat out wrong as a considerable amount of fuel combusted outside of the towers.

3. more than 1 floor on them. it was a combination of factors that caused the collapse.

What sources say each floor was designed only to hold it's own weight plus that of its occupants? What is their source? Do they have access to the WTC structural diagrams or are they just speculating due to the inferred legitimate structural failure evidenced from the collapse?

The problem with all official WTC collapse theories is they rely on circular logic to prove the structural failure. The WTC collapsed, so a structural failure must have occurred. And since a structural failure occurred, the WTC collapsed! Eureka!!

I can't offer any alternative explanation as to what occurred because I don't know.

But there are significant pieces of evidence that contradict the official events. The first being the seismic spikes. The second being the first person accounts of multiple 'explosions' and 'bombs' (using their own words) occurring in parts of the WTC entirely removed from the impact site - in some cases 50-100 floors away. Even in the basement! Then there's the pools of molten steel in the sub basement that were created from 'carpet' and office material that allegedly jettisoned down the elevator shafts to the sub floors whereupon it caught fire and smoldered in an oxygen deprived environment creating and sustaining temperatures hot enough to liquefy steel for over a month! Uh.. ok. And we can't forget the testimony of first responding fire fighters to the 77 and 78th floor claiming no large fires existed that we're supposed to write off as 'human error' because it doesn't jive with the official explanation.

And we're not even touching on the engineered fail safes implemented in the WTC design to withstand a 707 collision with the towers - a commercial airliner that’s only slightly smaller then the 767's. Nor has anyone been granted access to the WTC plans that delineate the structural specifications of the towers so we could theoretically recreate the conditions under which the towers were subject too and confirm, with structural parameters outlined in the blueprints, whether or not the towers should have failed given the circumstances.

Those plans have been kept from the public under the guise of national security considerations even though the towers have been leveled for over a 2 years and the associated documents represent no more than the equivilant of historical artifacts.

It's all been speculation and circular logic up to this point.

 

[Testosterone boy]

I would be more interested in counter arguments to the theory that the WTC was a pull if they didn't ship the evidence to China!!!

 

[spongebob]

Like I said in my original post, WTC collapse theories (both conspiratorial and 'official') are all speculative in nature so I don't know much about it nor am I endorsing any one theory over another. My perspective is one of skepticism with the 'official' collapse theory because of contradicting evidence. So I am approaching our discussion more as a exchange of possible ideas as to what might or might not have occurred rather than trying to definitively prove one theory over another.

I know what you're referring too. The new American online edition wrote an article refuting the misinformation surrounding the 2-signal 1-bomb 'evidence' proving only one explosive. They extensively quoted Dr. Brown's findings reported during a local Oklahoma radio station interview (interview date, station and interviewer specific), in which Dr Brown said his comments were taken out of context and that information from the Omniplex seismological institute led him to believe multiple bombs exploded at Murrah building.

i knew i could count on someone to actually research the info. i respect that although you and i have disagreed on alot of issues concerning the whole 9-11 event. your points on the siesmic data of TWC is taken and im just now looking at alot of it right now. it is interesting.

here is some of the material ive referred to.
http://www.okcbombing.org/News Articles/missile_murrah.htm
about the missile.

and i believe this is the link for the two waves one bomb data interpretations.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosholzer.html

im getting sleepy but im going to do more reading on TWC collapse for right now. this is taking up alot of time like our last go around and im in the middle of a full remodel at the house.

 

[spongebob]

This is misinformation. The WTC was designed specifically to withstand the impact of a 707.

More misinformation. 1) The 10,000 gallons is how much the airliners were estimated to be carrying for their intra-continental flight right before they impacted the towers. A good part of their fuel spontaneously ignited OUTSIDE the towers as we all astonishely witnessed in a MASSIVE fire ball. Any article that claims roughly 10,000 gallons of fuel was deposited inside each tower, is flat out wrong as a considerable amount of fuel combusted outside of the towers.

What sources say each floor was designed only to hold it's own weight plus that of its occupants? What is their source? Do they have access to the WTC structural diagrams or are they just speculating due to the inferred legitimate structural failure evidenced from the collapse?

Then there's the pools of molten steel in the sub basement that were created from 'carpet' and office material that allegedly jettisoned down the elevator shafts to the sub floors whereupon it caught fire and smoldered in an oxygen deprived environment creating and sustaining temperatures hot enough to liquefy steel for over a month!

And we're not even touching on the engineered fail safes implemented in the WTC design to withstand a 707 collision with the towers - a commercial airliner that’s only slightly smaller then the 767's.

.

1. buddy im referring to a clip taking a direct hit from the jet, im sorry but they were NOT desiegned for that, yes the structure as a whole was designed for lateral movements of that force. and then the remaining clips for that floor sustained damage from heat and the pulling(deflections) of the joises and columns. i found a very interesting article that they are intensly looking into the fire retardant used when built. they are saying it was insuffecient by almost 50% or more. tower 2 had less than tower one, it fell first although was hit second.

2. tower one was almost a direct hit. it was tower two that took a side hit that created the fireball. but by taking that side hit it sustained more damage to the perimenter because it took out columns on two sides. the perimenter is where the clips are attaching the joises to the columns. as a side note it is estimated that the fuel burned for nine minutes.

3. i will find my links to the engineers that have stated one or two floors is more than enough to bring down the next. each floor had 4 inch concrete slabs of 1 acrea approx.

4. im not going to argue how the molten steel happened, the only thing i know is that the fire intensity alone is not the only factor, time is also i believe.

5. again, it could have been 140mi/hr hurricane, that is lateral movements your are referring to when the designers state it was designed for a hit from a 707. it doesnt factor in fire.

 

[spongebob]

and would someone please explain why tower two clearly is toppling over at the upper floors above impact at the time of collapse. not a controlled detonation.

 

[spongebob]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

here he explains there really is no other way for a building to come down other than collapsing in itself. especially TWC because of the enormous mass and weight, gravitational forces make it fall that way. but he's just an engineer at MIT.

 

[spongebob]

here is just some info if anybody is interested.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

 

[spongebob]

here is just some info if anybody is interested.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

plus theres a ton of links at the bottom.

 

[spongebob]

It's all been speculation and circular logic up to this point.

and the conspiracy theories arent? come on now.

 

[spongebob]

This is misinformation. The WTC was designed specifically to withstand the impact of a 707.

And we're not even touching on the engineered fail safes implemented in the WTC design to withstand a 707 collision with the towers - a commercial airliner that’s only slightly smaller then the 767's.

It's all been speculation and circular logic up to this point.

this is leslie robertson, ofcourse his comments are reflective of his sadness and expected self blame of TWC collapse. but this is the structural egineer responsible for the technical design of TWC.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/sept11_towers020912.html

i think what he is conveying is that they designed a building in a way that had never been done before using columns inside in the middle and on the outer skin to achieve extra large spaces. his comments to suggest that if the building had been built like all other skyscrapers at the time it more than likely would have survived. he is almost admitting that the design led to its failure.

 

[buddy28]

and the conspiracy theories arent? come on now.

Who said I wasn't referring to both conspiracy theorists and proponents of the 'official' explanation? Note the word 'all'.

 

[spongebob]

Who said I wasn't referring to both conspiracy theorists and proponents of the 'official' explanation? Note the word 'all'.

ok, you got me. lol.

this link i posted earlier clearly shows the south tower toppeling at the higher floors. it took the side impact. whereas tower one took the direct hit and failed inward and downward.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

 

[spongebob]

Even in the basement! Then there's the pools of molten steel in the sub basement that were created from 'carpet' and office material that allegedly jettisoned down the elevator shafts to the sub floors whereupon it caught fire and smoldered in an oxygen deprived environment creating and sustaining temperatures hot enough to liquefy steel for over a month! Uh.. ok.
.

something i just thought of regarding this. like i said the amount of heat(temp) is not the only factor, time plays a role. how long the fire was at the bottom. i can fully cook an egg at 212F in ten minutes and i can also cook that egg at 180F, it will just take longer.

 

[buddy28]

5. again, it could have been 140mi/hr hurricane, that is lateral movements your are referring to when the designers state it was designed for a hit from a 707. it doesn’t factor in fire.

Hey. No, this isn't correct. The towers were designed specifically to withstand a direct impact from a 707 commercial jet liner - not the kinetic equivalent:

"The structural engineer who designed the towers said as recently as last week that their steel columns could remain standing if they were hit by a 707.

Les Robertson, the Trade Center�s structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany. He was asked during a question-and-answer session what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks, according to Joseph Burns, a principal at the Chicago firm of Thornton-Thomasetti Engineers.

Burns, who was present, said that Robertson said of the center, 'I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-010911kamin-towers.story


Even more interesting is the New York Times report:

"After the 1993 trade center bombing, one of the engineers who worked on the towers' structural design in the 1960's even claimed that each one had been built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, then the heaviest aircraft flying...

The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40715FC395C0C718DDDA00894D9404482


Further, Aaron Swirsky, one of the 14 architects on the WTC design team,
was in disbelief the towers collapsed after being impacted by the jetliners on sept 11th:

http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx



But here is where it falls apart. The WTC architects contradict earlier statements made by Robertson and Aaron Swirsky and back peddle - in the case of Robertson - on some of their own statements:

"Engineers from the firm said eight years ago that the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire.

"Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."

Skilling's scenario proved to be remarkably prescient.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings," he told the Times.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.architect13sep13,0,4261351.story


Robertson contradicts his original statement to the New York Times here:

"He [Robertson] also designed the buildings so they would be able to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens-it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_11092001.html

From the horses mouth:

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument


It's difficult to tease it all apart and get to the bottom of it. One on hand, you've got the chief structural engineer boasting the towers could withstand
the impact from a fully fueled 707 and a architectural team member in disbelief the towers collapsed citing they had been designed for similar occurrences. Then you've got other contradicting accounts, even from the chief structural engineer himself, doing a 180 and expressing doubts about the towers ability to handle the fuel fires from a 707 collision he claimed the structure was originally designed to withstand.

To really understand it, Robertson et al would have to spill their guts in
regards to his NYT statement. What exactly did he mean by "impact"? Was he just referring to the net kinetic energy released
during the initial collision? Or by 'impact' did he also consider the ensuing
secondary fire damage too? Again, all coming back to semantics and speculation.

One would think if they took the trouble to consider the effect of a fully
fueled 707 colliding into the towers, they would have predicted the secondary
fires resulting from such an event and planned accordingly - just like in the 1945 Empire State-B-52 collision Robertson personally cited as a primary historical precedent for boosting the WTC structural integrity during pre-construction.

I guess we will never know.

At this point, I’m signing off the thread. I'd like to continue the okc stuff later, but as far as the wtc collapse theory goes, it's a crap shot. Pure conjecture that isn't going to lead us anywhere.

But it was fun while it lasted

 

[buddy28]

something i just thought of regarding this. like i said the amount of heat(temp) is not the only factor, time plays a role. how long the fire was at the bottom. i can fully cook an egg at 212F in ten minutes and i can also cook that egg at 180F, it will just take longer.

One more for the road!

I know what you're saying. But it doesn't jive considering the massive piles of steel extending to the subbasement would have essientially created the worlds biggest heat sink - the intertwined steel packed together would draw away the basement heat via conduction preventing the occurance of hot spots.

 

[Forge]

Spongebob, to hell with the towers themselves for now, lets look at events surrounding 9-11:

2) There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across the country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September 11th. Routine security measures, normally in place, which may well have been able to prevent the attacks, or reduce their impact, were suspended for one hour while the attacks were in progress, and re-instated once they were over.

3) Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor the President of the United States acted according to well established emergency protocols .... Why was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota elementary school? At 9.05, nineteen minutes after the first attack and two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in President Bush’s ear. The president did not react as if he was interested in trying to do something about the situation. He did not leave the school, convene an emergency meeting, consult with anybody, or intervene in any way, to ensure that the Air Force completed it’s job. He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the reading class.

4...There are several cases damaging to the credibility of the official accounts of 9/11. But the U.S. response to Mohamed Atta, the alleged lead hijacker, is most extraordinary. The FBI had been monitoring Atta’s movements for several months in 2000. According to PBS’ Frontlines, the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to stop Atta from entering the U.S. three times on a tourist visa in 2001, even though officials knew the visa had expired in 2000, and that Atta had violated its terms by taking flight lessons. Furthermore, Atta had already been implicated in a terrorist bombing in Israel, with the information passed on to the United States before he was first issued his tourist visa.

5) How did many of the hijackers receive clearance for training at secure U.S. military and intelligence facilities, and for what purposes? Many of the terrorist pilots received their initial training in Venice, Florida at one of two flight schools of highly questionable credibility and with approval of US intelligence. Mohamed Atta had attended International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama; Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force base in Texas; Saeed Alghamdi had been to the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.

7) At a time when the U.S. intelligence community was on alert for an imminent Al-Qaeda attack, the Bush Administration made it easier for Saudi visitors to come to the U.S. under a program called U.S. Visa Express, introduced four months before September 11th. Michael Springmann, former head of the Visa Bureau at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia said that he was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Departtment officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. His complaints to higher authorities at several agencies went unanswered. In a CBC interview, he indicated that the CIA was indeed complicit in the attacks.

16) Revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to the 9/11 attacks, point to the top levels of US business and the CIA... Only three trading days before September 11th, shares of American and United Airlines -- the companies whose planes were hijacked in the attacks on New York and Washington -- were massively "sold short" by investors. Executive CIA Director AB "Buzzy" Krongard was one of those who profited from the deal. The names of the other investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million in profit taking remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account. No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the day immediately preceding Black Tuesday. There were also unusual trades on several companies occupying the World Trade Center, including Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Merrill Lynch & Co.

17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek reported that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." Why was that same information not made available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft?

Can't you admit that all of this is extremely suspicious? The air force standdown ALONE is proof enough that the government knew and aided the attacks. The insider trading, and by a CIA director no less, is just icing on the cake.

 

[spongebob]

Hey. No, this isn't correct. The towers were designed specifically to withstand a direct impact from a 707 commercial jet liner - not the kinetic equivalent:

"The structural engineer who designed the towers said as recently as last week that their steel columns could remain standing if they were hit by a 707.

Les Robertson, the Trade Center�s structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany. He was asked during a question-and-answer session what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks, according to Joseph Burns, a principal at the Chicago firm of Thornton-Thomasetti Engineers.

Burns, who was present, said that Robertson said of the center, 'I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-010911kamin-towers.story


Even more interesting is the New York Times report:

"After the 1993 trade center bombing, one of the engineers who worked on the towers' structural design in the 1960's even claimed that each one had been built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, then the heaviest aircraft flying...

The engineer who said after the 1993 bombing that the towers could withstand a Boeing 707, Leslie Robertson, was not available for comment yesterday, a partner at his Manhattan firm said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40715FC395C0C718DDDA00894D9404482


Further, Aaron Swirsky, one of the 14 architects on the WTC design team,
was in disbelief the towers collapsed after being impacted by the jetliners on sept 11th:

http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx



But here is where it falls apart. The WTC architects contradict earlier statements made by Robertson and Aaron Swirsky and back peddle - in the case of Robertson - on some of their own statements:

"Engineers from the firm said eight years ago that the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash, because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire.

"Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."

Skilling's scenario proved to be remarkably prescient.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings," he told the Times.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.architect13sep13,0,4261351.story


Robertson contradicts his original statement to the New York Times here:

"He [Robertson] also designed the buildings so they would be able to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens-it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_11092001.html

From the horses mouth:

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument


It's difficult to tease it all apart and get to the bottom of it. One on hand, you've got the chief structural engineer boasting the towers could withstand
the impact from a fully fueled 707 and a architectural team member in disbelief the towers collapsed citing they had been designed for similar occurrences. Then you've got other contradicting accounts, even from the chief structural engineer himself, doing a 180 and expressing doubts about the towers ability to handle the fuel fires from a 707 collision he claimed the structure was originally designed to withstand.

To really understand it, Robertson et al would have to spill their guts in
regards to his NYT statement. What exactly did he mean by "impact"? Was he just referring to the net kinetic energy released
during the initial collision? Or by 'impact' did he also consider the ensuing
secondary fire damage too? Again, all coming back to semantics and speculation.

One would think if they took the trouble to consider the effect of a fully
fueled 707 colliding into the towers, they would have predicted the secondary
fires resulting from such an event and planned accordingly - just like in the 1945 Empire State-B-52 collision Robertson personally cited as a primary historical precedent for boosting the WTC structural integrity during pre-construction.

I guess we will never know.

At this point, I’m signing off the thread. I'd like to continue the okc stuff later, but as far as the wtc collapse theory goes, it's a crap shot. Pure conjecture that isn't going to lead us anywhere.

But it was fun while it lasted

excellent point and good finds, i figured there would be some statements from the build team that would be somewhat contradictory.

i think in the end they will find that the apperent insufficient insulation will be a strong factor. for some reason it was only about 50% of what code requires. the NY port authority had waivers on it i believe. the south tower which had the least amount of fire retarded collapsed first although it was hit last. there is an engineer(and many others backing him) that claims the fire retarded was a major factor. whether it was knocked off or insufficent.

im signing off for now as well, im going get back to my remodel. but i will continue on TWC collapse exclusively.

peace.

 

[spongebob]

One more for the road!

I know what you're saying. But it doesn't jive considering the massive piles of steel extending to the subbasement would have essientially created the worlds biggest heat sink - the intertwined steel packed together would draw away the basement heat via conduction preventing the occurance of hot spots.

it could jive, let me explain.

this can go either way. it sounds like you already know this, heat is transfered, from higher temperature sources to a lower temperature source. there really is no such thing as cold except absolute zero(absence of all heat, or molecular activity)

now the question is, which had the lower temperature for the heat to transfer to, the intertwined steel on the top or the subterranean beneath the structure which the subteranean columns and footing were located(hundreds of feet below).

so, did all the heat from the fire transfer downward or upward? i say downward, the temperature would have definitely been less, especially in sept.

that is just my opinion, i havent found anything supporting that.

 

[Testosterone boy]

excellent point and good finds, i figured there would be some statements from the build team that would be somewhat contradictory.

i think in the end they will find that the apperent insufficient insulation will be a strong factor. for some reason it was only about 50% of what code requires. the NY port authority had waivers on it i believe. the south tower which had the least amount of fire retarded collapsed first although it was hit last. there is an engineer(and many others backing him) that claims the fire retarded was a major factor. whether it was knocked off or insufficent.

im signing off for now as well, im going get back to my remodel. but i will continue on TWC collapse exclusively.

peace.

When you get back perhaps you can explain why the evidence was shipped to China?

 

[spongebob]

Spongebob, to hell with the towers themselves for now, lets look at events surrounding 9-11:



Can't you admit that all of this is extremely suspicious? The air force standdown ALONE is proof enough that the government knew and aided the attacks. The insider trading, and by a CIA director no less, is just icing on the cake.

ok, but one point i want to make very clear. the the guy with the PhD you posted earlier, CLEARLY stated a very misleading lie. he said "both towers fell straight down as a perfect demo would". outright false, if you look at the link i post above you will see that the south tower clearly began to topple over before falling straight down. after its intial topple it did fall straight down, thats due to the enormous size and gravity.

and yet the seismic data for both towers(tower one falling straight down, tower two toplling first and then straight down) show almost identical patterns, and this people want to say the data shows a controlled straight down demo for both towers.

flat wrong and you are believing every word he says. like i said you yourself have to checkout everything he says. i dont believe you are and so it is useless to continue this discussion with you just cut and pasting and me doing some research.

as far as the stand-down, again, all you are doing is taking his word. please review the timeline with what orders were given and when. my only response to that is i know i have read that a military jet was engaged with the fourth plane before it went down in the farmland. i know im right because that was part of the conspiracy, whether or not the jet shot it down or went down on its own. so that most likely is a lie about a complete stand-down until the whole event was over.

as far as the other points the guy makes i will only refer you to buddy28 and my debate we had over a year ago. in there i give my opinion on alot of what you have posted. and after that, if you want to discuss it further i will be happy to but i get tired of just getting pages of material thrown at me before you even check it out. i would have to check out all of his references, because it is obvious he is taking things out of context.

and yes i do believe there are alot of suspiscous events prior, during and after 9-11. as right now i can argue either way, i just chose to argue against a conspiracy because i believe it was a systematic failure due to greed, corruption and lack of intelligence community red tape. not a conspiracy, but thats how these things when put all together can appear, as a conspiracy.

as a side note, before i posted on this thread i have been reading alot of material in detail in reference to UBL, al-queda, the carlyle group, the bin laden construction company, the intel community, and goerge tennats speech at the university of georgetown. i was in the progress of piecing together something implicating dubya as a contibuting factor to 9-11.

so im not close-minded. later.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Thats cool sb, I am breathing easier now with a glimmer of hope that perhaps there is a small chance that 9/11 was not primarily internal.

Now what is realy important is thissie here. Vote ABB.........Anyone But Bush.

Thank you.


That would be so cool if the boys in blue shot down those fuckers over Pennsylvania. Yay.

 

[spongebob]

forgr, here is a link to previous discussions with buddy28. it is long and sometimes difficult to understand unless you were debating it with us at the time, there were several threads that led up to this one. i give my opinion on alot of the material. and as you can see i was outnumbered there too. lol.
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138319

 

[spongebob]

Thats cool sb, I am breathing easier now with a glimmer of hope that perhaps there is a small chance that 9/11 was not primarily internal.

Now what is realy important is thissie here. Vote ABB.........Anyone But Bush.

Thank you.


That would be so cool if the boys in blue shot down those fuckers over Pennsylvania. Yay.

there is an ol' saying that the military runs this country. if it was internally assisted that is where i would put my money, the military and intel community. anytime they feel they arent getting there fair share of the budget dollar or are being downsized they make things happen to thier advantage.
1. the military and intel community were downsized prior to 9-11. thier significance was reduced.
2. either they did a piss poor job tracking and monitoring al-queda due to thier downsizing and lack of real world intel on the ground or they did a piss poor job purposely.
3. after 9-11, the intel community has been beefed up, we homeland security, and our military is in the limelight(generals love war).

i would nover vote for kerry, he is a lying sack of shit. and although i believe bush has his flaws i want someone that will continue fucking people up that deserve it.

and yes i believe the taliban, al-queda and irag deserved it. no matter what the reason, for me the end justified the means.

 

[spongebob]

Walter E. Davis, PhD

A New Statesman report stated that "Bin Laden and his gang are just the tentacles; the head lies safely in Saudi Arabia, protected by U.S. forces." The hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

if i were bin laden(who has a high education from a saudi university) i dont think i would send illiterate, beared fanatics to the US to recieve highly skilled pilot training to perpetrate 9-11. what point is this guy trying to make?

 

[Testosterone boy]

there is an ol' saying that the military runs this country. if it was internally assisted that is where i would put my money, the military and intel community. anytime they feel they arent getting there fair share of the budget dollar or are being downsized they make things happen to thier advantage.
1. the military and intel community were downsized prior to 9-11. thier significance was reduced.
2. either they did a piss poor job tracking and monitoring al-queda due to thier downsizing and lack of real world intel on the ground or they did a piss poor job purposely.
3. after 9-11, the intel community has been beefed up, we homeland security, and our military is in the limelight(generals love war).

i would nover vote for kerry, he is a lying sack of shit. and although i believe bush has his flaws i want someone that will continue fucking people up that deserve it.

and yes i believe the taliban, al-queda and irag deserved it. no matter what the reason, for me the end justified the means.

Hmmmmm....well you would know about both the military and intel. cough...cough

 

[Wazzup?]

i ask you for one experts opinion on the collapse of TWC and you give me umpteen pages of a conspiracy plot. and in the whole thing there is this one reference.

Sorry for dissapointing you, but maybe I wasn't posting it in reply to "your" question...maybe I just might have been posting it because it's another guy's view on the issue...maybe I saw a few good cases he presented in the document and I thought that they should be posted here, since this is the "911 Conspiracy Thread"

Anyway's, I know some of them aren't real convincing and he might have been "reaching" a bit, but he does have some pretty good argument's in there... and this is not the only site that I've seen with these same "evidence/cases" presented, but I just chose this writing because he has a list of many different pieces of "evidence" all by number... and you don't have to be biased to find pieces of evidence... but when they all come together, I can see how somebody might start becoming "biased"...

 

[Wazzup?]

Spongebob, you do seem to know what your talking about and I would like to read your previous thread's on this subject... I'm not much of a researcher compared to you, but some of the evidence seem's pretty convinceing that their where some individual's in our government that where part of the 911 attack's...

 

[Testosterone boy]

there is an ol' saying that the military runs this country. if it was internally assisted that is where i would put my money, the military and intel community. anytime they feel they arent getting there fair share of the budget dollar or are being downsized they make things happen to thier advantage.
1. the military and intel community were downsized prior to 9-11. thier significance was reduced.
2. either they did a piss poor job tracking and monitoring al-queda due to thier downsizing and lack of real world intel on the ground or they did a piss poor job purposely.
3. after 9-11, the intel community has been beefed up, we homeland security, and our military is in the limelight(generals love war).

i would nover vote for kerry, he is a lying sack of shit. and although i believe bush has his flaws i want someone that will continue fucking people up that deserve it.

and yes i believe the taliban, al-queda and irag deserved it. no matter what the reason, for me the end justified the means.

Well I hope that Al-Queda and the Taliban deserved it!

Too bad the majority of our resources went into an innocent country from what I can see. Saddam is alive and over 30,000 decent folks are dead or dieing.

I know you hate the ARABS/MUSLIMS but I just can't hate someone because they are different. Shoot.....I like most Mexicans as well.

 

[spongebob]

Spongebob, you do seem to know what your talking about and I would like to read your previous thread's on this subject... I'm not much of a researcher compared to you, but some of the evidence seem's pretty convinceing that their where some individual's in our government that where part of the 911 attack's...

the link i posted above refers to the debate me and buddy had, and its a spill over from previous threads the had been started, so it is hard to follow in a way. i cant begin to tell you how much material we covered but my desk was literall stacked deep with articles. buddy28 believed in govt complicity, i believed in an intelligence failure. there is no doubt that the intel community was and still is screwed up. but to be honest there are alot of connections that someone could make for an arguement for a conspiracy, but i still dont believe in it.

our govt is run by alot of arrogant, greedy stupid people in my opinion. this also contributed to 9-11. we were in bed with alot of people, and i think thats one of the reasons so many connections can be made. but i dont believe any govt official specifically knew or contributed to the attacks, maybe unknowingly but not deliberately. and i just dont think bush had anything to do with it regardless of all the connections, its just the way i read the guy, my opinion.

some of the things i try to key in on when reading any of the material is dates, and when an article qoutes someone or another article, then i search for info relating to that specifically. and i just write shit down on timelines.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Spongebob, to hell with the towers themselves for now, lets look at events surrounding 9-11:



Can't you admit that all of this is extremely suspicious? The air force standdown ALONE is proof enough that the government knew and aided the attacks. The insider trading, and by a CIA director no less, is just icing on the cake.

This did not pick up most of your post, the most important was the part about insider traders going short on United and American a few days before 9/11.

Is there a link that shows the CIA deputy director was one of the people going short?

I find this hard to believe, surely his ass would be fried.

 

[spongebob]

Well I hope that Al-Queda and the Taliban deserved it!

Too bad the majority of our resources went into an innocent country from what I can see. Saddam is alive and over 30,000 decent folks are dead or dieing.

I know you hate the ARABS/MUSLIMS but I just can't hate someone because they are different. Shoot.....I like most Mexicans as well.

besides being linked to the first attack on TWC, the bombings in kenya and tanzenia, the khobar towers and the USS cole, al-queda desreved for one reason only, they declared a jihad on all american citizens, abroad and at home. that alone is enough to hunt them down and kill them. at that point it is either them or you and id rather be on the offensive.

the taliban deserved it because they would not turn him over, thats enough for me.

i feel bad about the innocent but we gave saddam an ultimatim and he declined, that also is enough for me. and after seeing the atricities him and his fucked up sons did, everyone should be happy. those dudes were bruttal.

im sorry it may appear that i hate arabs/muslims but i really dont hate anyone, not even my enemy, its just not in me to hate. one time i got into a fight and i felt really bad for hitting the guy even though he prevoked me.

 

[spongebob]

Hmmmmm....well you would know about both the military and intel. cough...cough

lol. i work for a chemical manufacturing company, honest.

 

[Testosterone boy]

lol. i work for a chemical manufacturing company, honest.

Yes you do.

Your cover the job well.

 

[buddy28]

excellent point and good finds, i figured there would be some statements from the build team that would be somewhat contradictory.

i think in the end they will find that the apparent insufficient insulation will be a strong factor. for some reason it was only about 50% of what code requires. the NY port authority had waivers on it i believe. the south tower which had the least amount of fire retarded collapsed first although it was hit last. there is an engineer(and many others backing him) that claims the fire retarded was a major factor. whether it was knocked off or insufficient.

im signing off for now as well, im going get back to my remodel. but i will continue on TWC collapse exclusively.

peace.

Hey man. I got sucked back in! I can't help myself

The articles are very interesting and I am glad I had a chance to share them. They do appear on the surface to support the official collapse theory. Especially, Skillings report the Baltimore Sun. But something I forgot to include last night was another excerpt from Robertsons statement submitted to the national academy of engineers in which he admits confusion as to why the towers failed:

"...When the two towers were finished, the World Trade Center stood proud, strong, and tall. Indeed, with little effort, the towers shrugged off the efforts of terrorist bombers in 1993 to bring them down. The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument


What struck me as odd about Robertsons comment was he didn't explicitly endorse the official collapse theory in a moment of clarity one would expect if he affirmed their general conclusions. Even more puzzling, was his reluctance to offer any collapse explanation at all, in favor of hinting confusion as to why the failure occurred in the first place. On the surface, this further substantiates his initial statement to the NYT and Aarons similar statement the buildings were designed to take a hit of similar intensity.

But another interesting angle we both haven't addressed is the issue of liability. If WTC structural engineers conceded the fire induced truss failure collapse theory was correct, they would be in essence admitting their own precautionary measures drafted for almost a identical eventuality were insufficient to withstand a disaster the Port Authority of New York specifically commissioned them to plan for. This might suggest negligence and therefore liability. So its possible Robertson concurs with the official explanation but is playing dumb to save his company.

But then again....

 

[buddy28]

now the question is, which had the lower temperature for the heat to transfer to, the intertwined steel on the top or the subterranean beneath the structure which the subteranean columns and footing were located(hundreds of feet below).

so, did all the heat from the fire transfer downward or upward? i say downward, the temperature would have definitely been less, especially in sept.

Diffusion doesn't work like that. Thermal diffusion - just like gaseous and liquid diffusion - operates on the principle high concentration gradients migrate to areas of lower concentration until the two gradients are equivalent. Diffusion is all relative. Air exhibiting high temperature migrates to areas of lower temperature relative to it's own temperature.

The fires and latent air temp in the subbasement were higher relative to all other surrounding temperature, therefore, their heat would have been siphoned off and sucked out into the adjacent environment - precluding the formation of hotspots significant enough to liquefy steel for months.

If heat energy localized itself regardless of surrounding temperatures, like you suggest, no one would have to pay a heating bill ever again.

 

[spongebob]

Hey man. I got sucked back in! I can't help myself

But another interesting angle we both haven't addressed is the issue of liability. If WTC structural engineers conceded the fire induced truss failure collapse theory was correct, they would be in essence admitting their own precautionary measures drafted for almost a identical eventuality were insufficient to withstand a disaster the Port Authority of New York specifically commissioned them to plan for. This might suggest negligence and therefore liability. So its possible Robertson concurs with the official explanation but is playing dumb to save his company.

But then again....

yea its too tempting not to reply.

yea i was thinking about that last night after having read your earlier post. infact silverstien or has commissioned his own team while the people that have filed a lawsuit has thier team. that is probably going to cloud this issue just too much. i am going to try and stick to the most independent sources available. may be impossible.

as far as the design team, i figured initial responses(like the one i qouted of leslie robertson) would tend to differ from recent response. my opinion is the team would go thru phases. one of self blame or self doubt thru different stages to one of unexplanability. it has to be hard on them not just from a liability point but just from the fact that they design it.

i beileve a large part of the liability case will soon shift to the fire retardant of the steel. it was by thier own admission to perhaps be insuffucient. here is an article of one view of that theory. in it, it explains the thickness of the retardant and it also states that the south tower had 50% less than the north tower, the south tower fell first although being hit second.

even the port authorities engineer recommended the retardant be upgraded, although he states in there that the thickness was not the problem, so why upgrade it. again this is going to be tied to the lawsuits, so you never know.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993354

 

[spongebob]

Diffusion doesn't work like that. Thermal diffusion - just like gaseous and liquid diffusion - operates on the principle high concentration gradients migrate to areas of lower concentration until the two gradients are equivalent. Diffusion is all relative. Air exhibiting high temperature migrates to areas of lower temperature relative to it's own temperature.

The fires and latent air temp in the subbasement were higher relative to all other surrounding temperature, therefore, their heat would have been siphoned off and sucked out into the adjacent environment - precluding the formation of hotspots significant enough to liquefy steel for months.

If heat energy localized itself regardless of surrounding temperatures, like you suggest, no one would have to pay a heating bill ever again.

im not suggesting it localizes itself. i clearly stated heat is transfered, so i am aware that nothing can keep a constant temp, without external input.

i was suggesting that the 1,000,000 tons of material that fell to the ground and was on fire for a very long period was laying on top of the subbasement. the intense and prolonged heat generated gradiated to the subbasement(where the melted steel was) instead of upward to the warmer environment. warmer verses the subbasement. just an idea, because i definitely dont know.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Here is a thought for ya'll.

Asbestos was the favored fire retardant when construction on the WTC began. Asbestos lawsuits became prevalent and usage of the material was curtailed at some point during construction.

It seems like asbestos covered the beams on the bottom half of the WTC towers but not where the jet impact/fires took place.

A possibility at least.

I am breathing easier since I am no longer convinced that the main towers were a controlled demolition.

I still think intel knew about it and decided it would be good for "business" though.

 

[Testosterone boy]

This did not pick up most of your post, the most important was the part about insider traders going short on United and American a few days before 9/11.

Is there a link that shows the CIA deputy director was one of the people going short?

I find this hard to believe, surely his ass would be fried.

Anyone have info about this allegation?

CIA deputy director going short on United or American or both....prior to 9/11?

We need to know!

 

[spongebob]

Here is a thought for ya'll.





I still think intel knew about it and decided it would be good for "business" though.

yea but there really hasnt been some kind of sound conspiracy put out by anyone. you know what i mean, somthing that just incriminates intel. i just cant believe that if the intel community or some in it would have known, that john p oniel would also have known. he probably wouldnt have took that job at TWC.

 

[Testosterone boy]

yea but there really hasnt been some kind of sound conspiracy put out by anyone. you know what i mean, somthing that just incriminates intel. i just cant believe that if the intel community or some in it would have known, that john p oniel would also have known. he probably wouldnt have took that job at TWC.

What about the allegation that the CIA deputy director went short on American or United? Or the Air Force being told to stand down on that day? Or the Bin Laden getting the red carpet with no qstionaing? Or Bush carrying on with his photo op like nothing extraordinary or unexpected had happened?

Thats just a start really.

 

[buddy28]

the intense and prolonged heat generated gradiated to the subbasement(where the melted steel was) instead of upward to the warmer environment.

Again, heat doesn't localize itself regardless of surrounding air temp which is what you're suggesting.

The outside environment would have been much colder relative to temperatures created by fires and molten steel in the subbasement. Not warmer. Fires create temps in excess of 300 400 Celius +. The outside air temp would have been around 30 Celcius max.

 

[Testosterone boy]

My biting questions and observations get ignored.

 

[spongebob]

Again, heat doesn't localize itself regardless of surrounding air temp which is what you're suggesting.

The outside environment would have been much colder relative to temperatures created by fires and molten steel in the subbasement. Not warmer. Fires create temps in excess of 300 400 Celius +. The outside air temp would have been around 30 Celcius max.

no what im suggesting is this, there was 1,000,000 tons of material stacked several stories high after the collapse. this material was on fire for a prolonged period of time. now speaking in layers, you have the above atmosphere, the 1,000,000 tons of material, the subbasement, and the subterranean layer beneath that.

im wondering(because its just a thought) if all the heat from the compacted material transfered downward instead of upward. the subterranean layer would be cooler than the atmosphere i believe. in essence, the intenstity and the length of time of the fire melted the steel in the subbasement. that is the steel in question isnt it? like i said, im probably way off.

 

[spongebob]

What about the allegation that the CIA deputy director went short on American or United? Or the Air Force being told to stand down on that day? Or the Bin Laden getting the red carpet with no qstionaing? Or Bush carrying on with his photo op like nothing extraordinary or unexpected had happened?

Thats just a start really.

i havent read anything on the CIA deputy director trading down. as far as the airforce, i thought we discussed that. and bush's photo op is getting beyond just intel.

in my post above, i meant a conspiracy theory exclusive to the intel community, havent seen one yet. although one probably could be put together.

 

[spongebob]

My biting questions and observations get ignored.

i told you in your karma basket i was checking with colleagues.

 

[spongebob]

What about the allegation that the CIA deputy director went short on American or United? Or the Air Force being told to stand down on that day? Or the Bin Laden getting the red carpet with no qstionaing? Or Bush carrying on with his photo op like nothing extraordinary or unexpected had happened?

Thats just a start really.

can you explain the deputy director thing. are you referring to james pavitt or a.b. krongard? im just now reading ,aterial on it and im not sure how someone is coming up with the CIA deputy director did some insider trading.

 

[Boss101]

Has anyone seen this video? Its another conspiracy video on Building 7, Pentagon and WTC!

40 mins long!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/painful_deceptions_excerpt.wmv

 

[Testosterone boy]

can you explain the deputy director thing. are you referring to james pavitt or a.b. krongard? im just now reading ,aterial on it and im not sure how someone is coming up with the CIA deputy director did some insider trading.

I seen that, I think, in Alex Jones material.

If it is not true then Alex should get a gag order put on him. Since there is no gag order then one wonders about authenticity.

His remarks are 1000 times more outrageous than mine and 1,000,000 times more influential. Shoot....I have got most of my info from him.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Has anyone seen this video? Its another conspiracy video on Building 7, Pentagon and WTC!

40 mins long!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/painful_deceptions_excerpt.wmv

"Windows media player can't play this because a network error occured."


Darn

 

[Testosterone boy]

Has anyone seen this video? Its another conspiracy video on Building 7, Pentagon and WTC!

40 mins long!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/painful_deceptions_excerpt.wmv

Very interesting material.

99.9% of the WTC wound up in 24 foot sections, or less, which is the carrying capacity of trucks.


Bldg 7 got demolished by a few small fires yet was one of the strongest buildings conceivable.


Apparently the F** has been enlisted to do some dirty work for the NWO but this event will catch up to all of those involved.

Very, very sloppy work.

 

[buddy28]

im wondering(because its just a thought) if all the heat from the compacted material transfered downward instead of upward. the subterranean layer would be cooler than the atmosphere i believe....like i said, im probably way off.

You are way off on this one

You're suggesting two contradictory things.

1) the temps in the subbasement remained colder than the outside, explaining why all the thermal energy was transferred into the subbasement.

2) subbasment temps liqufied some surrounding steel because that’s where all the thermal energy transferred too.



You're suggesting all or most of the heat created from fires transferred down into the subbasement because it was colder than that of the external environment. But as the temps rose in the subbasement, far before they were sufficient to melt steel - 50-100-150 degrees - the subbasement became much hotter relative to the outside environment. Therefore, the remaining thermal energy would have transferred outward into the relativily colder external environment precluding formation of temps sufficent to liquify steel in the subbasement.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Has anyone seen this video? Its another conspiracy video on Building 7, Pentagon and WTC!

40 mins long!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/painful_deceptions_excerpt.wmv

I'd like to hear some comments on this video. It is easy on the nerves, educational, and almost enjoyable. More professional and credible than the stuff by Alex Jones and the guy shows some real wit at the end.


People who make conspiracy stories with patently known false information ought to be shot though.

How can you blame someone for seeking the truth about important historcal events?

 

[spongebob]

You are way off on this one

You're suggesting two contradictory things.

1) the temps in the subbasement remained colder than the outside, explaining why all the thermal energy was transferred into the subbasement.

2) subbasment temps liqufied some surrounding steel because that’s where all the thermal energy transferred too.



You're suggesting all or most of the heat created from fires transferred down into the subbasement because it was colder than that of the external environment. But as the temps rose in the subbasement, far before they were sufficient to melt steel - 50-100-150 degrees - the subbasement became much hotter relative to the outside environment. Therefore, the remaining thermal energy would have transferred outward into the relativily colder external environment precluding formation of temps sufficent to liquify steel in the subbasement.

It's as simple as that.

no, its not that simple.

1. the 1,000,000 tons of material were several stories high. once heat transferred to the subbasement it continued downward, the earth below is colder. at some point the subbasement may have, (or maybe not if the heat continues to transfer downward)equalized with the 1,000,000tons of material. now at this point, i say the heat has two places to go from the central core of the 1,000,000tons of material. down or up, and either way its being transferred, while the fire still burns and produces more heat.

2. the thermal energy transferred thru the subbasement, it doesnt stop there, it continues to a lower temp environment.

i understand your explanation but if the material is several stories high and extremely compacted i would actually believe alot of thermal energy transferred both ways. and it may be possible that enough transferred downward to melt steel. and your not taking into account the length of time the steel was exposed or the actual thermal energy. a gallon of water boiling at 212 has nowhere near the thermal energy a swimming has boiling at 212. big difference.

 

[spongebob]

I seen that, I think, in Alex Jones material.

If it is not true then Alex should get a gag order put on him. Since there is no gag order then one wonders about authenticity.

His remarks are 1000 times more outrageous than mine and 1,000,000 times more influential. Shoot....I have got most of my info from him.

well to be honest i havent read anymore on it but i believe they are making the connection because the deputy director was the head of the investing firm that alot of the shorts went thru on that day. i think he ran that firm some 5 or 6 years ago, so i believe that is how they are making the connection.