9/11--Was it an inside job?

[Archangel M]

"Massive Fire" as in hundreds/thousands of gallons of jet fuel poured/ignited within the space of a few floors were unlikely to have peen planned for either.

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[Sukerkin]

Thanks for the link, Angel - too tired to delve into it now but I've saved it for later.

As an aside, it should be noted that all tall structures designated to be at risk from aircraft impact are generally designed to deal with the anticipated fires that would result (again note that this depends on the country).

I am not saying that the fires weren't a fundamental part of the collapse, what I am saying is that the WTC was jerry-built, as are most large structures. The graft in construction has to be seen to be believed.

 

[Archangel M]

Addressing the "they were designed to take an aircraft impact":

http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html

Which they did...the impact didn't knock them over, they just didn't survive the intense fires afterwards.

The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature – up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).

 

[Makalakumu]

Which they did...the impact didn't knock them over, they just didn't survive the intense fires afterward.

Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say, "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." I noticed that wasn't in the documentary.

There's a lot we just don't know. If the fires were so pervasive and extensive, how is this possible? Imagine having the actual evidence to show the extent of the flames and the actual real effects...we don't have that. It's gone. How can you still claim that you know the fires brought the buildings down?

 

[Archangel M]

Because they fell, engineers and professionals investigating said the heat caused structural failure...and controlled demo is impossible.

 

[elder999]

Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say, "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." I noticed that wasn't in the documentary.

You guys (truthers) take this quote out of context a lot.

Really pisses me off.:angry:
Recorded audio of the actual event..
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html

"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

The plane impacted on the 80th floor. The unpopulated and unfurnished 78th floor, where Batallion Chief Orio Palmer was, was only impacted by one wingtip-and the fires he saw likely came from above.

There's a lot we just don't know. If the fires were so pervasive and extensive, how is this possible? Imagine having the actual evidence to show the extent of the flames and the actual real effects...we don't have that. It's gone. How can you still claim that you know the fires brought the buildings down?

No, there's a great deal we know. THe fires were pervasive and extensive, and you guys are only paying attention to what you want to, instead of what evidence there is.

I can claim that I know the fires brought the buildings down because I can deal with all the facts without stubbornly clinging to my created reality-unlike you and your ilk, who'd rather spit on the memory of those who died that day, like Battallion Chief Palmer.

Please stop.

 

[elder999]

double post, sorry (Really, really pissed off.)

 

[Big Don]

There are none so blind as those, that will not see

 

[Makalakumu]

Please stop...

This little tantrum is often repeated all over the internet and IRL and is merely a tool to shut people up. Sorry to inform you, but the Building What? Campaign was put together by a group of the victim's family members. Stop pretending like you and other people who agree with you are sole torchbearers for the families' honor.

Noting this, how can you continue to say that you have no intrinsic motivations causing some kind of cognitive dissonance over this issue? I'd wager that if you didn't you might acknowledge the victim's families who would really like to know what happened.

 

[Makalakumu]

Because they fell, engineers and professionals investigating said the heat caused structural failure...and controlled demo is impossible.

What about the large group of structural engineers and professionals that say it is possible? How could you possibly differentiate between those claims without over 99% evidence?

 

[elder999]

This little tantrum is often repeated all over the internet and IRL and is merely a tool to shut people up. Sorry to inform you, but the Building What? Campaign was put together by a group of the victim's family members. Stop pretending like you and other people who agree with you are sole torchbearers for the families' honor.

Well, no sir, what I'm doing is asking you to please stop lying, which is what you're doing by taking quotes out of context, twisting the science so that it fits your agenda by omitting or dismissing salient facts, and all the other tactics of the truther movement.

Truth may be malleable, but facts are incontravertible-just as they are in this instance.

Noting this, how can you continue to say that you have no intrinsic motivations causing some kind of cognitive dissonance over this issue? I'd wager that if you didn't you might acknowledge the victim's families who would really like to know what happened.

Well, since you're wrong about everything else, including what you've noted, I can continue to say that I have no cognitive dissonance over this particular issue-you do. I mean, every bit of non-evidence you've brought up has been soundly debunked, or shown to be an arch manipulation, like your out of context quote, yet you stubbornly-obtusely-hang on to the "where's the evidence?" of your own, congintively dissonant Roswell-wannabe version of reality. As for the families "who'd really like to know what happened" they've been bamboozled......led astray.....flimflammed.

Run amok.

 

[Archangel M]

Because structural engineers know bupkiss about what it means to pull off an actual clandestine operation. While I may not be "black bag" trained, I know a thing or two about operational planning. If you believe that a 3 building simultaneous demolition in co-ordination with aircraft strikes in occupied buildings is something that can be pulled off with nobody noticing outside of hollywood fantasy you need to have your prescription checked. Let alone the ability of the jets to strike EXACTLY where the demo was set to start the collapse PLUS the crash didn't disrupt the supposed demo set-up??

Please.

But of course believing in convoluted, over-complicated, impossible in the "real world" scenarios is what you conspiracy buffs are all about.

 

[Archangel M]

What about the large group of structural engineers and professionals that say it is possible? How could you possibly differentiate between those claims without over 99% evidence?

AE911Truth doesn't impress me. Most of them are "professional" artists, theologians, cold-fusion (moon landing conspiracy believing) loony professors, architects and assorted other wing-nut truthers. Plus I believe that George Bush and a number of other "Professionals" were entered into their rolls by various and sundry. I'd bet there are a few NASA physicists who are moon landing nuts as well...theres some in every crowd.

Im unimpressed.

Again:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1408537&postcount=255

 

[elder999]

What about the large group of structural engineers and professionals that say it is possible? How could you possibly differentiate between those claims without over 99% evidence?

You're missing the point..

While it's entirely possible to plot to wire the buildings for controlled demoilition, using the phone lines or other means, it would have had to have started before the 1993 bombing in order to work. The 1993 bombing, BTW, while a different group, is demonstrative of the capabilities and planning of the elements we are dealing with. Osama bin Laden's initial denial of al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 is also indicative of their operational planning and capability: it was planned and carried out by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and bin Laden did not know. To coordinate the flights with the detonation of bombs would have been superfluous: the math tells me that the planes were enough. It doesn't have to be convoluted, complex or anything but what it seems to be on the face of it, with the evidence of the senses that all are capable of seeing: the planes flew into those buildings-impact and fire set up conditions for structural failure; the buildings fell, with debris falling onto WTC 7; WTC 7 burned for hours with no firefighting, and collapsed from fire and stuctural damage.

You really don't need a forensic examination of the debris to reach this conclusion, though it would have been nice;the math should be enough for anyone-especially a science teacher, John. Who's being conginitively dissonant? :lfao:
A forensic examination probably wouldn't be enough to keep conspiranuts from coming up with some alternate scenario, anyway, and I'm surprised we're not talking about missiles, or holograms, or something equally ludicrous.

 

[Archangel M]

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

-Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, no sir, what I'm doing is asking you to please stop lying, which is what you're doing by taking quotes out of context, twisting the science so that it fits your agenda by omitting or dismissing salient facts, and all the other tactics of the truther movement.

Truth may be malleable, but facts are incontravertible-just as they are in this instance.

Before you type something, you should look in the mirror and ask maybe if you are doing the same? Perhaps, what you see is merely projection of what you are doing. If you care to think about what Palmer's testimony means, you might understand why rational people would have questions.

Well, since you're wrong about everything else, including what you've noted, I can continue to say that I have no cognitive dissonance over this particular issue-you do. I mean, every bit of non-evidence you've brought up has been soundly debunked, or shown to be an arch manipulation, like your out of context quote, yet you stubbornly-obtusely-hang on to the "where's the evidence?" of your own, congintively dissonant Roswell-wannabe version of reality. As for the families "who'd really like to know what happened" they've been bamboozled......led astray.....flimflammed.

Run amok.

If you don't think you have cognitive dissonance about an emotionally charged issue, you have cognitive dissonance.

Wrong about everything! LOL! I thought I was the King of Hyperbole!

 

[Makalakumu]

AE911Truth doesn't impress me. Most of them are "professional" artists, theologians, cold-fusion (moon landing conspiracy believing) loony professors, architects and assorted other wing-nut truthers. Plus I believe that George Bush and a number of other "Professionals" were entered into their rolls by various and sundry. I'd bet there are a few NASA physicists who are moon landing nuts as well...theres some in every crowd.

Im unimpressed.

Again:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1408537&postcount=255

If there were crazy people who supported the official story, would that discount it?

 

[Archangel M]

No. You are definitely wrong about Pamers statement. Taking a specific transmission about what one man saw in one specific spot and extrapolating that into "evidence" of some sort of conspiracy is what you truthers do.

 

[Makalakumu]

You're missing the point..

While it's entirely possible to plot to wire the buildings for controlled demoilition, using the phone lines or other means, it would have had to have started before the 1993 bombing in order to work. The 1993 bombing, BTW, while a different group, is demonstrative of the capabilities and planning of the elements we are dealing with. Osama bin Laden's initial denial of al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 is also indicative of their operational planning and capability: it was planned and carried out by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and bin Laden did not know. To coordinate the flights with the detonation of bombs would have been superfluous: the math tells me that the planes were enough. It doesn't have to be convoluted, complex or anything but what it seems to be on the face of it, with the evidence of the senses that all are capable of seeing: the planes flew into those buildings-impact and fire set up conditions for structural failure; the buildings fell, with debris falling onto WTC 7; WTC 7 burned for hours with no firefighting, and collapsed from fire and stuctural damage.

You really don't need a forensic examination of the debris to reach this conclusion, though it would have been nice;the math should be enough for anyone-especially a science teacher, John. Who's being conginitively dissonant? :lfao:
A forensic examination probably wouldn't be enough to keep conspiranuts from coming up with some alternate scenario, anyway, and I'm surprised we're not talking about missiles, or holograms, or something equally ludicrous.

If you create a computer model with the conclusion already decided upon, have you actually tested anything? Or have you merely confirmed your own bias?