BYU professor has theory about 9/11 attacks - news video

[morkinva]

From the NIST Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster:

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.

OOPS! This is a report years in the making, and the bolded part is in direct contradiction to what FEMA's WTC Steel Data Collection report found:

WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study

and from FEMA's Limited Metallurgical Examination:

Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labelled Sample 1 and sample 2, respectively. A mettallurgical examination was conducted.

C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7) Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.

and from An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7:

section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001

So the steel from wtc7 also falls into the memory hole. Oh well, just more paranoia I guess. :laugh:

 

[rahvin]

Yes it is your Paranoia. You are a conspricy nut. You have no credibility and NO technical training that would give you the education background to even evaluate the information presented in the technical documents. You don't understand structural design, you don't understand metalurgical analysis and you sure as hell don't have a background in forensic engineering. What you are is a parrot of paranoid and delusional conspiracy theories that you yourself don't understand.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
I too was amazed at their falling nearly vertically.

Here are a few questions that make the use of explosives puzzling to me. Every building that I have witnessed being razed through demolition I was able to hear the timed explosions. You would think that one of the many recordings or witnesses would have heard such explosions. Of course, I NOW expect "witnesses" to suddenly come forward and claim to have heard such explosions.

Thanks for the post.

Where was this third World Trade Tower located? The one that fell without ever being hit by a plane?

Was there not also an indvidual who was dug out from the rubble not long after the collapse who claims to have been near the top of one of the towers when it collapsed. He says that he would fall a short distance, pause very briefly, then fall again. Is there any way that the metal frame kept the floors falling vertically? I'm not a structural engineer so I have no idea what is and is not possible.

What kind of material could the terrorists have brought in in such quantities and how would they have physically attached them to the support beams inside the walls. Had they been "planted" outside the walls someone would have noticed them. In the stairwells the firemen would have noticed them on the lower floors which were not smoke fillled.

There are 9/11 videos in which many people (journalists, firemen included) who were inside or near the WTC swore they heard explosions.
William Rodriguez and a dozen of his colleagues working in the basement of the WTC swear they heard explosions in the basement before the first plane hit. At another basement level others say that a huge machine was destroyed by an explosion there, long before the towers collapsed. On both floors people were injured. Their testimonies were censored by the brainwashing corporate media, the same media that lied about JFK, RFK, MLK, the gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi WMDs, and so much more.
If you want to hear Rodriguez interviewed uncensored:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/270605sept11show.mp3
He also talks about what happened during the month before 9/11 in the WTC. Do you know? This is the most important interview since 9/11.
By the way, the guy is a hero: he went back to the WTC three times to save lives; the corporate media recognized him as a hero at the time. Now he is persona non grata.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Yes it is your Paranoia. You are a conspricy nut. You have no credibility and NO technical training that would give you the education background to even evaluate the information presented in the technical documents. You don't understand structural design, you don't understand metalurgical analysis and you sure as hell don't have a background in forensic engineering. What you are is a parrot of paranoid and delusional conspiracy theories that you yourself don't understand.

You have a problem with reality. Either the FEMA report or the NIST report is lying. That is a fact. That reminds me of JFK: the Warren report was later contradicted by the Senate report. Would you accuse someone stating that fact of being paranoid? Do you accuse people who believe the Warren report is a fraud of being paranoid?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
You have a problem with reality. Either the FEMA report or the NIST report is lying. That is a fact. That reminds me of JFK: the Warren report was later contradicted by the Senate report. Would you accuse someone stating that fact of being paranoid? Do you accuse people who believe the Warren report is a fraud of being paranoid?

The difference between someone with paranoid delusoins and someone with a brain is that the person with a brain recognizes that those statements in the reports could be interpreted multiple ways, and that people make mistakes. I do not expect documents to be error free, but you see an obvious error (either in the way it's written or in facts) and call it a lie. That is paranoia. Seek clinical help.

 

[morkinva]

Can angry penguins seek help?

 

[rahvin]

Happy Gilmore? Now you are seeing angry penguins.

 

[morkinva]

Here check out The North Tower's Dust Cloud by Hoffman, another guy to be entered into the penguin nut file - but you probably won't bother to read it anyway

Conclusion

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.

 

[rahvin]

Lots and lots of very unprovable assumptions, but that doesn't matter right? As long as it supports your point of view the flying spagetti monster exists and you live on in your happy little conspiracy world.

 

[eilute]

The buildings fell straight down because that's the direction of gravity. I highly doubt that the building is rigid enough to tip over like a domino.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
You have a problem with reality. Either the FEMA report or the NIST report is lying. That is a fact. That reminds me of JFK: the Warren report was later contradicted by the Senate report. Would you accuse someone stating that fact of being paranoid? Do you accuse people who believe the Warren report is a fraud of being paranoid?

The difference between someone with paranoid delusoins and someone with a brain is that the person with a brain recognizes that those statements in the reports could be interpreted multiple ways, and that people make mistakes. I do not expect documents to be error free, but you see an obvious error (either in the way it's written or in facts) and call it a lie. That is paranoia. Seek clinical help.

Were you there on 9/11? No. Me neither. Did you listen to those who were in the towers who saw and heard bombs? I did. You did not. Why? Are you affraid? What would happen to your world view, your Weltanschauung, if it turned out you were naive to believe the most corrupt, cynical and violent US administration in a long time? Everything you believe would be broken to pieces and you would have to start from 0, like a child. Do you belive the Warren report, or do you believe Jim Garrison? Why don't you take the time to listen to William Rodriguez, and others like him who sued Bush and his crazy administration? You accused us of being paranoid, while this administration lied to go to war...and the media were complicit. They both lied to colonize a country and kill many of its people. Destroying the WTC is a lesser crime in comparison. And accusing some members of this administration, and some members of the secret services, of commiting a lesser crime than lying to invade a country, in order to justify avenging the dead of 9/11 by launching a world war on terrorism that would lead to lies to invade Iraq...would lead us to be accused of paranoia? How ironic! What a symptom of the corrupt and illogical times we are living!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Were you there on 9/11? No. Me neither. Did you listen to those who were in the towers who saw and heard bombs? I did. You did not. Why? Are you affraid? What would happen to your world view, your Weltanschauung, if it turned out you were naive to believe the most corrupt, cynical and violent US administration in a long time? Everything you believe would be broken to pieces and you would have to start from 0, like a child. Do you belive the Warren report, or do you believe Jim Garrison? Why don't you take the time to listen to William Rodriguez, and others like him who sued Bush and his crazy administration? You accused us of being paranoid, while this administration lied to go to war...and the media were complicit. They both lied to colonize a country and kill many of its people. Destroying the WTC is a lesser crime in comparison. And accusing some members of this administration, and some members of the secret services, of commiting a lesser crime than lying to invade a country, in order to justify avenging the dead of 9/11 by launching a world war on terrorism that would lead to lies to invade Iraq...would lead us to be accused of paranoia? How ironic! What a symptom of the corrupt and illogical times we are living!

I guess this is what you call the buckshot debate. You know where you throw out 300 random and incoherent thoughts in one paragraph that has almost no meaning, little logical semblance and absolutely no point. Good job, you've successfully made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[deepred98]

uh what difference does it make if there were or weren't more explosives planted by Al Queda?

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Were you there on 9/11? No. Me neither. Did you listen to those who were in the towers who saw and heard bombs? I did. You did not. Why? Are you affraid? What would happen to your world view, your Weltanschauung, if it turned out you were naive to believe the most corrupt, cynical and violent US administration in a long time? Everything you believe would be broken to pieces and you would have to start from 0, like a child. Do you belive the Warren report, or do you believe Jim Garrison? Why don't you take the time to listen to William Rodriguez, and others like him who sued Bush and his crazy administration? You accused us of being paranoid, while this administration lied to go to war...and the media were complicit. They both lied to colonize a country and kill many of its people. Destroying the WTC is a lesser crime in comparison. And accusing some members of this administration, and some members of the secret services, of commiting a lesser crime than lying to invade a country, in order to justify avenging the dead of 9/11 by launching a world war on terrorism that would lead to lies to invade Iraq...would lead us to be accused of paranoia? How ironic! What a symptom of the corrupt and illogical times we are living!

I guess this is what you call the buckshot debate. You know where you throw out 300 random and incoherent thoughts in one paragraph that has almost no meaning, little logical semblance and absolutely no point. Good job, you've successfully made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It is just that your IQ is inferior to mine...and you are so closed into your corrupt Bushist Weltanschauung that you cannot be reached by logic. I cornered you logically but you refused to answer. That was your only way not to admit that I logically destroyed the feeble foundation of your hysterical use of the word "paranoia".

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: deepred98
uh what difference does it make if there were or weren't more explosives planted by Al Queda?

First: Al Qaeda does not exist! It was the name the CIA gave to its database that recorded the names of the islamist fighters it funded in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet friendly regime. Al Qaeda means "the base".
Second: the explosives were planted by friends of Bush. Listen to William Rodriguez's interview if you want to know what happened for one month before 9/11, just after the WTC was bought by Silverstein. Did you know the role of one of Bush's brothers in the security of the WTC? Did you know that his company's contract ended on 9/10?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
It is just that your IQ is inferior to mine...and you are so closed into your corrupt Bushist Weltanschauung that you cannot be reached by logic. I cornered you logically but you refused to answer. That was your only way not to admit that I logically destroyed the feeble foundation of your hysterical use of the word "paranoia".

Lol, you are a riot. Such angst, such idiocy, the funniset part is you probably believe what you just wrote, but that's what happens when you spend so much time in the world you created for yourself.

 

[morkinva]

The penguin believes everything his government tells him. Beware penguin, you are especially subject to catching bird flu.

 

[Lurknomore]

Originally posted by: eilute
The buildings fell straight down because that's the direction of gravity. I highly doubt that the building is rigid enough to tip over like a domino.

The sheer mass of the structure above the impacts zone- one huge slab of inertia.
No way the towers would have "tipped" over, intertia prevents this.

All this "dust cloud" talk- maybe it should be sent to highly technical forum for debate.

I still believe that ONCE the towers started crumbling, explosives were set off to insure that it would come straight down. I've no proof, but there's no proof that they weren't planted there already.
Besides, who would want to try and repair 2 badly damaged building anyways? With no hope of tenants coming back.
Easier to pull them, collect insurance and start over again.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: deepred98
uh what difference does it make if there were or weren't more explosives planted by Al Queda?

Completely missed the point havn't you?

The explosives being there suggests that someone else other than Al-Qaeda wanted to destroy the towers, hence the theory that the U.S government had an involvement in it.

 

[Lurknomore]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: deepred98
uh what difference does it make if there were or weren't more explosives planted by Al Queda?

Completely missed the point havn't you?

The explosives being there suggests that someone else other than Al-Qaeda wanted to destroy the towers, hence the theory that the U.S government had an involvement in it.

I think you missed the point.:disgust:

More likely, they were put there to insure that if they did start to collapse, then they'd fall straight down- exactly like a demolition. Easier cleanup, no demolition, no destruction over a multi-block radius- unlike what you'd love to believe about the US, you extremist.:disgust:

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: morkinva
The penguin believes everything his government tells him. Beware penguin, you are especially subject to catching bird flu.

The end is nigh right? Jesus has told me that more than once on the bus.

 

[raildogg]

These fools get proven wrong every time, but they never learn.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Lurknomore

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: deepred98
uh what difference does it make if there were or weren't more explosives planted by Al Queda?

Completely missed the point havn't you?

The explosives being there suggests that someone else other than Al-Qaeda wanted to destroy the towers, hence the theory that the U.S government had an involvement in it.

I think you missed the point.:disgust:

More likely, they were put there to insure that if they did start to collapse, then they'd fall straight down- exactly like a demolition. Easier cleanup, no demolition, no destruction over a multi-block radius- unlike what you'd love to believe about the US, you extremist.:disgust:

Hello CIA!
With time, testimonies, videos, and more and more engineers proving that bombs destroyed not only WTC7, but also 1&2, a new tactic of those who did 9/11 (and those trying to protect the powers that be from a revolution), started by Silverstein (WTC7? They decided to "pull it"), is to admit the existence of the bombs...but for very good motives...of course! What a joke! Silverstein bought the WTC during the summer of 2001, and one of Bush's brothers was on the board of the company which was in charge of the security of the WTC until 9/10. They planted the explosives during the summer of 2001 (very unusual number of evacuation exercises with security totally disabled for very long hours, granting them free access everywhere and time to plant the explosives). Noone would believe it was a coincidence, especially with the lies to start the war in Iraq very present in everyone's mind.

 

[9748904947]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

- Joseph Goebbels

All I have to say is that even today, there are people who believe the holocaust never took place.

Humanity is capable of such beauty, and such horror.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Hello CIA!
With time, testimonies, videos, and more and more engineers proving that bombs destroyed not only WTC7, but also 1&2, a new tactic of those who did 9/11 (and those trying to protect the powers that be from a revolution), started by Silverstein (WTC7? They decided to "pull it"), is to admit the existence of the bombs...but for very good motives...of course! What a joke! Silverstein bought the WTC during the summer of 2001, and one of Bush's brothers was on the board of the company which was in charge of the security of the WTC until 9/10. They planted the explosives during the summer of 2001 (very unusual number of evacuation exercises with security totally disabled for very long hours, granting them free access everywhere and time to plant the explosives). Noone would believe it was a coincidence, especially with the lies to start the war in Iraq very present in everyone's mind.

It's been shown more than once that the pull it statement was in refernece to pulling the firefighters from the building. Silverstein never bought the world trade center complex, they negotiated lease maagement rights from the port authority of new york who owned the buildings. The argument that because someone is on a board of directors suddenly has complete control of a company is rediculous, shows complete lack of understanding of corporate governance and is exactly the same tactic used to say the Jews control the US. There were no explosives, the buildings failure mode is well documented in not only the FEMA report but the ASCE investigation. But you're also the dumbass that tried to make the argument that a bunch of firefighters know more about the failure of a skyscrapper than Professional Engineers. Your a tool with paranoid delusions that has a predefined answer looking for all the idiotic "evidence" he can to support his delusion.