Bush admits explosives were used in 9/11

[Nedak]

 

ah alright, didn't know what you were talking about there.

 

 

Actually, no.

How so? Scientists are saying that it would have been impossible for them to fall at that rate.

 

 

 

 

This is also supported by the NIST report (as I already quoted in #112):

 

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

 

Well I guess that answered that question for me.

 

 

 

 

 

An official NIST report is not yet available:

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf

 

Though the WTC7 collapse is still kind of strange to me, you have provided, in my eyes, enough sufficient evidence to support the official claim. Now, I can only assume that two planes hit the world trade centers and caused their collapse.

 

There are of course other questions about the Pentagon and the possibility that they were government planes that hit the towers, but for now I believe that terrorists did in fact hit the twin towers with planes.

[Achilles]

The collapses were caused mainly due to structural damage coming from the plane crashes.

I'm still waiting for a reputable source that supports this.

 

<snip>

Note how the paths of the planes lead basically directly through the cores' structures, causing at least two faces to be cut through from the plane's bodies, just like they simply went through the outer steel columns as well.

I think it helps a great deal to recall that these incidents took place in 3 dimensions.

 

Top-down is great for showing where the plane hit on the x and y axis, but I think it tends to make people forget that there's a z axis as well (meaning that engines impacted on different floors, wings tore through parts of multiple floors rather than snapping through all the columns of just one, etc). For example:

 

Notice how there's only damage on one of the building's four sides?

 

Where things get tricky is the internal damage.

 

I suspect that Ray wants us to believe (possibly because he believes himself) that the damage from the impacts were spread throughout the entirety of the impact floors. The planes hit, wiped out all the external columns on that side, snapped all the core columns, huge chunks o' plane passing through the opposite side, etc.

 

However, even NIST (again, using them as source to give "you guys" the benefit of the doubt) concedes that this isn't the case:

 

Keep in mind that only the parts of the plane that are intact in the first image are going to be able to take out any core columns (unless you want to argue that steel and almunium shards are capable of taking out steel beams), so please don't interpret the "cloud" in the 2nd image as "the area where all the beams have been destroyed".

 

If this is NIST's best guess (and it is a guess), then I have a difficult time accepting that your best guess is going to be better informed.

 

As a result we have effectively lost like 40% of the core structure (at least)

40% of the core on which floors and what is your source?

 

and 20% of the hull structure.

20% of the shell on which floors and what is your source?

 

It is known that the core took the main stress of the stories above, but let's assume both, core and hull provided the same level of stability to the buildings structure, and we have like 30% of the supportive structure removed. That means the mass of all the stories above the crash zone is now carried by only 70% of the structure in a best case scenario.

What is your source please? This sounds very much like numbers that you have made up.

 

It was in the case that we assume that it is not trying to deceive the American public.

That's fine, however I'm not sure why I (or we) should assume this. Bush dragged his feet for how long before he would approve an investigation? Not inspiring a lot of confidence there.

 

Please read what Ray posted before responding to mine.

I always do.

 

Ray stated that a source you provided included the details that the building fell in 17 seconds. I was also saying that I believed that that would be wrong and that it did not fall in 17 seconds. Lots of video (including conspiracy theorist video) have supported that it did in fact fall in 10 seconds.

I think you're misinterpreting what Ray said. I haven't presented a source that argues for 17 seconds. I presented a source for a different argument which Ray then read and noticed that they argued for 17 seconds, but that doesn't mean that I ever presented that source for that purpose.

 

According to the 9/11 Commission Report the floor "Pancaked" each other. They also explained this on The History Channel a while back, which I got a glimpse of. The problem is, if this pancake theory was true there should be a portion of the core column left.

I am very much aware of that. I'm also very much aware that this hypothesis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

I don't think someone would make the effort to bomb the WTC after he managed to fly two planes into it, what practically rendered them useless already.

 

On the other hand, I also doubt that someone would make the effort to fly two planes into it after he successfully managed to bomb wire the WTC to let it collapse.

Gee, unless someone wanted to blow up the building and then blame it on something like a terrorist attack. Maybe said someone would be relying on the scientific illiteracy and all-around apathy of the general public as a means to avoid scrutiny.

 

I have yet to see solid scientific reasons refuting Bazant, btw.

You need "scientific evidence" to see that two things don't match.

 

Okay.

 

The first step in the scientific method is obseravation. Have a look at the document and see how it illustrates the upper floors remaining intact and collapsing last. Then look at the video and noting how the upper floors collapse first. If the paper argues that the upper floors remaining intact is what drives the collapse, but the video evidence shows that this isn't possible because the upper floors collapse first, then the "hypothesis" (which isn't actually a hypothesis because it's not based on observation) fails. Is that scientific enough?

 

A non-engineer saying 'It doesn't follow the model' doesn't tell me where or why and does not hold the same credibility.

Further testing of my hypothesis is indeed indicating that Jae does not actually read my posts before responding to them. Fascinating.

 

Well I guess that answered that question for me.

Core struture, not actual complete floors. Ray and I went round and round about this a few pages ago.

 

but for now I believe that terrorists did in fact hit the twin towers with planes.

This was in question?

[Nedak]

That's fine, however I'm not sure why I (or we) should assume this. Bush dragged his feet for how long before he would approve an investigation? Not inspiring a lot of confidence there.

 

Interesting point.

 

 

 

I think you're misinterpreting what Ray said. I haven't presented a source that argues for 17 seconds. I presented a source for a different argument which Ray then read and noticed that they argued for 17 seconds, but that doesn't mean that I ever presented that source for that purpose.

 

Ah, I see.

 

I am very much aware of that. I'm also very much aware that this hypothesis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

The hypothesis that there should be a core column left standing?

 

 

This was in question?

I mean as in controlled demolition. And yes it could have been in question. Loose Change questioned it.

 

My conclusion for my belief is that I simply don't know. It's the same for me and global warming. I can't tell which side is telling the truth and which side has an agenda. If it turns out that the government is responsible for September 11th then I will help rise against the people responsible. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions here and there and continue to examine the arguments.

[Achilles]

The hypothesis that there should be a core column left standing?

The hypothesis that localized damage will initiate a synchronous pancake collapse in not one, but two steel frame tube structures that were overdesigned to withstand multiple impacts from comparable planes.

 

I mean as in controlled demolition. And yes it could have been in question. Loose Change questioned it.

Loose Change questioned that airplanes were flown into the WTC towers? I'm not aware of anyone questioning that.

 

My conclusion for my belief is that I simply don't know. It's the same for me and global warming. I can't tell which side is telling the truth and which side has an agenda. If it turns out that the government is responsible for September 11th then I will help rise against the people responsible. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions here and there and continue to examine the arguments.

Seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion.

[Nedak]

Loose Change questioned that airplanes were flown into the WTC towers? I'm not aware of anyone questioning that.

 

No I mean, that they were flown into my terrorists. I think at one point the suggested a military plane.

[jonathan7]

I do not think I will change anyone's mind however another BBC documentary was done on 9/11 this time by the Conspiracy Files team; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm I think you can watch the whole episode there.

 

Basic conclusions;

 

There was a Conspiracy to cover up evidence AFTER 9/11 not before, the programme pointed to a systemic failure of leadership, poor acting on intelligence and a cover up going all the way to the White House, in trying to suppress evidence the at the government could have done more to stop the attacks.

 

However continually all the conspiracy theories were debunked. The programme, as far as is possible represents my opinion on events.

 

I do not think that 9/11 was preplanned by the American government, however I do believe that JFK's assassination was; so those looking for a conspiracy theory I would advise going there

 

My 2 cents.

[Achilles]

There was a Conspiracy to cover up evidence AFTER 9/11 not before, the programme pointed to a systemic failure of leadership, poor acting on intelligence and a cover up going all the way to the White House, in trying to suppress evidence the at the government could have done more to stop the attacks.

How would they cover up evidence beforehand? Does one rule out the other?

 

However continually all the conspiracy theories were debunked. The programme, as far as is possible represents my opinion on events.

Because they said they were debunked or...?

 

I do not think that 9/11 was preplanned by the American government, however I do believe that JFK's assassination was; so those looking for a conspiracy theory I would advise going there

Nice. So basically no one is questioning this because it doesn't add up? They're only doing it because they lack something better to do?

 

My 2 cents.

Indeed.

[Totenkopf]

My 2 cents.

 

Indeed

 

Why so snarky, ach? That kind of attitude cuts both ways, as you've taken pains to point out elsewhere.

[TheExile]

Nah... I don't know to much bout this subject, were they using termite? Cauze they found molten steel...

[Darth InSidious]

I see you're going for the succinct answer today.

 

Plenty of words have been wasted debunking this rubbish - I'm just going to abuse my doctorate.

 

Seriously, though, at the moment I don't have the time - or, in fact, the inclination - to go through and knock out each of the film's claims...

[jonathan7]

How would they cover up evidence beforehand? Does one rule out the other?

 

Let me rephrase, there was no evidence of a plot beforehand.

 

That said, given the US military has spend more than a million a day since the birth of Christ (or 0AD if your Achilles ) and failed to intercept any of the planes is rather shocking. There are reasons for that; confusion etc, but it's still something jobs should be lost over.

 

Because they said they were debunked or...

 

No, the film debunked them, but I think those who want to believe the conspiracy theories will.

 

Nice. So basically no one is questioning this because it doesn't add up? They're only doing it because they lack something better to do?

 

Certain aspects don't add up; but nothing in this thread - I am surprised your on the conspiracy side of the thread here.

 

Indeed.

 

I do not think I will change anyone's mind

 

The BBC, has no reason to get it's facts wrong - infact, all the independent, non-American qualified to comment individual's I've ever heard don't think the twin towers were destroyed by anything but two planes flying into them. The one strange event is building 7.

 

You can take it or leave it, I'm out of this topic, people are free to believe what they want to believe

[Astor]

people are free to believe what they want to believe

 

Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?

[jonathan7]

Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?

 

What ever is the truth is the truth, and people will continue to try and establish what is the truth, or to bring others round to their way of thinking. It is entirely ones own decision, to participate or not...

[Ray Jones]

How so? Scientists are saying that it would have been impossible for them to fall at that rate.

No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock.

 

As of now we (A) do know that the total collapse time (including the inner core) probably was some seconds longer and also that debris and parts came down along the buildings' fronts (logically at free fall speed), (B) thus have proof that at least big portions of a building of that type can come down in those approximately ten seconds, © have proof of two planes flying into the buildings causing massive damage to their structure.

 

But (D) we have an apparent lack of proof that we *have* to use explosives to bring a building down like the WTC.

[Nedak]

No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock.

 

That's not what I have heard.

 

I have heard that it would have been impossible for the building to fall that fast. That it would have needed to be "controlled" if it were to fall that fast.

[Achilles]

Well, yes. But that's delving into things like physics, of which my grasp is rudimentary at best.

Seriously, though, at the moment I don't have the time - or, in fact, the inclination - to go through and knock out each of the film's claims...

 

Let me rephrase, there was no evidence of a plot beforehand.

Says who based on what evidence?

 

As I like to point out, it is impossible to prove a negative, yet this source of yours claims to have done precisely that. This alone makes me question the degree of critical thinking that your source applied to their "investigation".

 

That said, given the US military has spend more than a million a day since the birth of Christ (or 0AD if your Achilles ) and failed to intercept any of the planes is rather shocking. There are reasons for that; confusion etc, but it's still something jobs should be lost over.

Not once, but 4 times. For something that is considered routine.

 

No, the film debunked them, but I think those who want to believe the conspiracy theories will.

Debunked them how? Without actually seeing the video I can't comment, but I will say that I will be very disappointed if it's another "expert" saying that the such and such hypothesis is debunked just because they say so. Also keep in mind, that if there is a valid counter-argument, then it actually hasn't been "debunked"

 

Certain aspects don't add up; but nothing in this thread - I am surprised your on the conspiracy side of the thread here.

Because I have a reputation of not being skeptical of claims that don't make sense and critical of bad arguments that are used to support them?

 

The BBC, has no reason to get it's facts wrong - infact, all the independent, non-American qualified to comment individual's I've ever heard don't think the twin towers were destroyed by anything but two planes flying into them. The one strange event is building 7.

That's fine, but I'd like to know what they're basing their arguments on.

 

I also think that it's important to point out that there's a whole lot of room for bias in your selection process, my friend

 

No, no. Scientists say that 10 seconds for 413 metres is almost the time of free fall from the same height. Some (not necessarily scientists) like to proclaim that this would be impossible for any collapse of any building without the involvement of explosives, which is, of course, poppycock.

Why?

 

As of now we (A) do know that the total collapse time (including the inner core) probably was some seconds longer and also that debris and parts came down along the buildings' fronts (logically at free fall speed),

That's fine.

 

(B) thus have proof that at least big portions of a building of that type can come down in those approximately ten seconds,

Glad that's settled. The question of why/how still hasn't been touched though.

 

© have proof of two planes flying into the buildings causing massive damage to their structure.

You've yet to produce any evidence for this.

 

But (D) we have an apparent lack of proof that we *have* to use explosives to bring a building down like the WTC.

Non-issue because that's a separate discussion. Not A does not equal B. The claim is that the impact of the planes was sufficient to cause the towers to collapse. This claim is either valid or it is not.

[Totenkopf]

Even if in the end someone can prove that demolitions were used to bring down the towers, it won't prove that any US administration was involved. America has been an open book for awhile and has many enemies in this world. If there is a coverup, it might be one to hide incompetence/being caught off gaurd and not malevolence.

[EnderWiggin]

Agreed. If that's the case then, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing theories and beliefs regarding 9/11?

 

If we all agree to disagree there's no reason for debate at all.

 

Uber cop out, my friend.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

^^^^

 

Best EW post ever.

[Totenkopf]

If we all agree to disagree there's no reason for debate at all.

 

Uber cop out, my friend.

 

_EW_

 

Sure, why not continue to bang your head against the wall. Feels good, don't it. Seriously, though, at some point a debate becomes pointless if neither side is willing to move from their own position due to lack of sufficient evidence on the other side. I think telling someone to agree to disagree is just a more polite way of saying you've got your head up you *** pal and I'm sick of talking to you about this (fill in the blank) topic.

[Astor]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a debate, I love a good debate as much as anyone, but when we go round and round in circles, it begins to look like an excercise in futility.

 

Just my two cents, anyway.

[Achilles]

Hmmm, well since I've made a point to address each of everyone else's arguments...

[Darth InSidious]

 

Sorry - that was about "Zeitgeist".

[Achilles]

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

[Ray Jones]

I have heard that it would have been impossible for the building to fall that fast. That it would have needed to be "controlled" if it were to fall that fast.

Well, that is what it is: you heard it. But we hear a lot of things, don't we?

 

I think we all agree that you can bring down a building at "near free fall speed" using explosives. It is also pretty sure that the buildings came down in 10, 11, or maybe 15 seconds. It doesn't really matter, since every time frame means almost free fall.

 

From there on we can only guess. The physical aspect makes both scenarios possible (for me at least ).

 

While demolition is almost impossible to be disproven, the ultimate evidence that the WTC was demolished would be to prove that the towers could not come down that fast on their own.

 

But until then it's up to you.