9-11 was an inside job

[jaqeboy]

As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.

You may have to go to JFK to the hangar where the materials are to view all the evidence, but I'll bet it's guarded by FBI. Good luck getting in 

The claim is made by numerous individuals and groups that this was a demolition, and I want to see the proof of that.

Again, good luck getting in at JFK!

Saying "there isn't evidence" isn't proof of that.

Obviously, no one is saying there isn't evidence. This poster listed evidence that he knew of, some publicly available, some not. Much video, audio and seismological evidence is available to the public.

It's proof that people are making a lot of claims based on nothing.

Nothing other than the evidence that is available to them. As mentioned, many want a re-investigation to pull together the evidence and have it examined by professionals.

Physics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impact

Obviously, Physics and engineering don't "say" anything, but physical science should be used in the analysis of the evidence. As far as I know, and I'm no expert on this, no one is saying that WTC 1 & 2 fell due to impact of the airplanes, but due to the weakening caused by the combination of the structural breakage caused by the collision and by the ensuing fires. See FEMA and NIST reports, though they only weakly claim this.

For example, the FEMA report concludes that, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." [emphasis added - this is what most seem to want!]

Then, I don't believe anyone is claiming that WTC7 fell "due to the impact" (of an airliner!)

, or due to demolition.  Either is an option.

Thanks for that clarification.

I've seen no evidence to indicate the latter. [demolition theory]

Joe

Most of us won't get to see the evidence, other than the video evidence that is already all over the net. As I read it, your beef is with people who make exaggerated claims of knowledge. If you can identify those people, let's all get together, have a few beers and jointly vilify them (and then move on...please?). Hopefully, this can be taken as positive suggestion - but criticism for criticism sake grates and doesn't advance the dialog. Repetition that something has not been proven to you doesn't improve the message, and besides, I don't really think you're claiming that someone has an obligation to convince you, are you?

I may have missed the first few dozen pages of this thread and someone may have made some claims that have truly rankled you. I hope you can learn to move on from your ranklement if you are interested in this issue and its impact on our world, so that the real evidence can be reviewed as it is discovered by researchers like Michael Berger. It's unfortunate that you missed the opportunity to hear him and talk to him over lunch or dinner - he was very accessible and the New-Hampshire contingent (at the Cambridge showing) got a special audience with him.

If your interest continues, presentations of new findings continue online at 911Truth.org or 911blogger.com, and of course, at many other sites. Local events/presentations are held around New England and can (probably) be found at NE911Truth.org. Closest at hand to you is MerrimackValley911Truth.org. Upcoming events of interest include this weekend's Alternative Media Film Festival in Cambridge held by Boston Sons of Liberty (see separate thread), May 18th's appearance of William Rodriquez (Maint. Man at WTC towers) at Franklin Pierce College in Rindge and some TBA video showing at next MV911Truth meetup.

Enjoy!

[MaineShark]

Physics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impact

Obviously, Physics and engineering don't "say" anything, but physical science should be used in the analysis of the evidence. As far as I know, and I'm no expert on this, no one is saying that WTC 1 & 2 fell due to impact of the airplanes, but due to the weakening caused by the combination of the structural breakage caused by the collision and by the ensuing fires. See FEMA and NIST reports, though they only weakly claim this.

Figure of speech.  I meant "impact" in terms of everything ensuing as a result of that, not just the physical impact.

Most of us won't get to see the evidence, other than the video evidence that is already all over the net. As I read it, your beef is with people who make exaggerated claims of knowledge. If you can identify those people, let's all get together, have a few beers and jointly vilify them (and then move on...please?).

My beef is with people who exaggerate their knowledge, as well as those who make false claims for personal gain (or just to muddy the waters for the heck of it).  People claiming that there is no way the "obvious" (crashes, structural damage, fires, etc.) could have caused the buildings to fall are among them.  It doesn't take complex engineering to demonstrate that these causes would be sufficient to collapse the buildings.

If someone wants to claim that it would be possinle for demolitions to be used to collapse the buildings, that's fine.  But when he goes on to claim (as many/most do) that the crashes of the airplanes and the direct results of those crashes couldn't have done it, he's crossing the line into disinformation.

Hopefully, this can be taken as positive suggestion - but criticism for criticism sake grates and doesn't advance the dialog. Repetition that something has not been proven to you doesn't improve the message, and besides, I don't really think you're claiming that someone has an obligation to convince you, are you?

No one is obligated to do anything towards me, except for refraining from initiating force against me.  But if someone wants me to take him seriously, he has to back up his claims, and refrain from making false ones.

I may have missed the first few dozen pages of this thread and someone may have made some claims that have truly rankled you. I hope you can learn to move on from your ranklement if you are interested in this issue and its impact on our world, so that the real evidence can be reviewed as it is discovered by researchers like Michael Berger. It's unfortunate that you missed the opportunity to hear him and talk to him over lunch or dinner - he was very accessible and the New-Hampshire contingent (at the Cambridge showing) got a special audience with him.

Well, let me ask you this: does he claim that the buildings could not have fallen as a result of the aircraft crashing into them and the ensuing fires?

Joe

[jaqeboy]

Well, let me ask you this: does he [Michael Berger] claim that the buildings could not have fallen as a result of the aircraft crashing into them and the ensuing fires?

Joe

You'll probably have to catch him on his next tour around, if there is one, to ask him detailed questions, though I know you could write him via improbablecollapse.com or 911truth.org. I do have his cell number, if you want that (let's cover that offline, tho) - he is very accessible. Per the title of the film, I can say pretty surely that he thinks it's "Improbable." From the quote in the post below, it appears the author of the FEMA report feels at least a bit puzzeled, if not the same way.

[KBCraig]

News flash: gasoline melts concrete and steel!

[error]

News flash: gasoline melts concrete and steel!

What? That was clearly a controlled demolition! See how neat and clean the cuts were? And there's no trace of a tanker truck anyway. Plus, it was done while nobody was actually around to see it.

[mvpel]

What most people are basing their conclusions on are videos, though there are so many interesting ones still coming out of the woodwork, esp. the one showing the molten metal flowing out of the side of one of the towers (shown in Improbable Collapse). I have to say that one was a stunner to me.

The reaction of steam and iron is exothermic at 400 degrees.  The gypsum in wallboard and aluminum react in a violently exothermic reaction under the right conditions.  The plane contained dozens of oxygen generators which burn rather spectacularly when ignited.

The molten metal could have been a pool of aluminum from the airplane and other sources within the building, collected in the visibly sagging floors, heated by reaction with gypsum wallboard or other chemical sources of heat.

[mvpel]

"It was massive," said Rodriguez, a 53-year-old sanitation supervisor at the East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant. "It looked like a big slab of plastic because it was melted."

But it was no big slab of plastic. The overpass was a critical component of one of the Bay Area's busiest highway interchanges, the MacArthur Maze. The network of connector ramps merges the East Bay's three major highways: Interstates 80, 580 and 880.

Maybe five years from now Rodriguez will be quoted to in a book trying to prove that the overpass was actually a big slab of plastic.

The driver escaped just before the overhead ramp collapsed -- the fire had melted its steel undergirders. When the smoke cleared around daybreak Sunday, one ramp was draped like a comforter over the lower connector.

...No sign of the truck remained by daybreak. A Caltrans worker held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart to describe how big the tanker was by then.

Engineers estimate Sunday?s flames reached close to 3,000 degrees. Here?s a breakdown of heat?s effects.

Molten lava: 3,140?
Iron melts: 2,797?
Steel melts: 2,750?
Gold melts: 1,947?
Silver melts: 1,763?
Steel loses half its rigidity: 1,000?
Lead melts: 622?
Water boils: 212?

Source: "Comparisons" by the Diagram Group and Chronicle research

And that's just gasoline burning freely on a freeway overpass, instead of inside a big chimney.





Rosie O'Donnell on 9/11: "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."

Does that mean this is the second time?

[jaqeboy]

New site of interest: http://www.911truthgroups.org/

From the site:

This is a multi-portal gateway for groups of people who are advocating a complete, open and honest investigation of the events surrounding September 11, 2001.   This is the "Community Center"  portal and it contains information and resources common to all 9/11 Truth Advocates.

Before you dismiss this as being nothing more than a ?Conspiracy Theory?, please review this partial List of Prominent People who challenge the 9/11 Commission findings and who champion a new, full and impartial investigation into the events preceding, during and since September 11, 2001.

And to get a better idea of how many world citizens are actively working together to reveal the Truth surrounding 9/11 please review the

    * US Directory of 9/11 Truth Communities
    * International Directory of 9/11 Truth Websites

In general our goal is to provide teamwork tools to help local 9/11 Advocates in the same region areas to find each other, get organized and effective as quickly as possible.

[jaqeboy]

William Rodriguez, the "last man out" of the WTC North Tower is coming to New-Hampshire to speak at Franklin Pierce College on May 18th upcoming.

Details are on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth website: http://merrimackvalley911truth.org. Carpooling information can be found there, as well as invitation cards you can print out yourself for handing out at other meetings.

I'll start a separate thread for this for details and carpooling chatter.

The Student Scholars for 911 Truth are organizing the event: http://sst911.org - good going guys!

[error]

And that's just gasoline burning freely on a freeway overpass, instead of inside a big chimney.





Rosie O'Donnell on 9/11: "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."

Does that mean this is the second time?

Bay Area Roadway Collapse Was Actually Cyclist Terrorism, Sources Say



My secure phone has been buzzing with disturbing tips undermining the official story about the Sunday morning inferno that brought down a key Bay Area highway connection ramp near the Bay Bridge. In fact, the official story is a lie, something THREAT LEVEL wanted to break open on its own, but an intrepid blogger has already leaked some of the key info at 429Truth.com, where tough questions like "Did Arnold Know?" and "Were incendiary devices planted in the retaining walls?" are already being asked.

There is, however, disturbing misinformation at that site.  The destruction of the bridge is, in truth, clearly the work of rogue cyclists intent on destabilizing the Homeland and the Middle East by reducing demand for oil.  Just two days earlier, the San Francisco Chronicle gossip reporters got wind that a coalition of rogue cyclists known as Critical Mass was going to riot in the streets AGAIN.  Once the cyclists got wind their plan was foiled, they pretended to hold a peaceful parade, but were actually traveling around the city in a giant pack filling their little plastic water bottles with gasoline siphoned from cars using old bicycle tire tubes cut in half.

And Sunday morning, a horde of them stuck their Lycra shorts in the top of those bottles, sneaked onto the highway and used their cyclist Molotov cocktails to firebomb a gasoline truck, and then disappeared onto local roads. The goal?  To topple Saudi Arabia and install a puppet cyclist dictator who would jack up oil prices until all of us would be stuck riding Huffy mountain bikes to the mall for the rest of our lifetimes. That's what my sources tell me.

Unless of course global warming was at fault.

Posted by Ryan Singel 8:35:40 PM in Threats

[Insurgent]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/010507ludicrousfreeway.htm

(I don't normally recommend articles published on PrisonPlanet.com but this one hits the nail on the head. I knew that it would be just a matter of hours before 9/11 debunkers gleefully announced that the bridge collapse "proves" the buildings fell because of fire)


Debunkers Use Ludicrous Freeway Comparison To Attack 9/11 Truth
Desperation evident as thin rebars impacted by gasoline firestorm compared to twin tower's thick steel beams and concrete core

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Debunkers have again betrayed their desperation by citing the partial collapse of a freeway bridge in San Francisco to claim that the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 has been discredited. In reality, the comparison is ludicrous and wildly inaccurate.

Nationally syndicated radio host Neil Boortz and other Neo-Con talking heads immediately seized on the bridge collapse in unison as part of a coordinated attack on the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Even mainstream science and technology websites jumped on the bandwagon, "When the I-580 overpass buckled, it brought back memories of the World Trade Center," reported Wired News.

Such bold assertions were notably absent when the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid was gutted by intense fires for 28 hours but did not collapse in February 2005.

The frenzy was particularly evident at Fark.com, with posters reveling in the notion that the freeway accident had made "WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did." Farkers, who judging from the website spend most of their time discussing hookers, obese lesbians and lauding a "semi-hot female coach getting it on with an underage female student," attacked 9/11 truthers for their lack of scientific credentials.

So in response to the numerous naysayers desperately clamoring for anything to stop the wild runaway popularity and growing credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement, we talked to a physicist and a steel welding expert about the freeway collapse and why it is completely outlandish to compare it with the fall of Building 7 and the towers.

Professor Steven Jones, a Ph.D. physicist and cold fusion expert, joined Alex Jones on the air yesterday to talk about the monumental differences between the two collapses.

Jones said that the notion that steel supporting columns completely melted from fire is impossible and that what actually happened was that thin supporting bolts were warped, resulting in the collapse of the bridge section. In comparison, the south tower of the World Trade Center imploded at almost free fall speed, proving that even if the "truss failure" theory was accurate, the building would not have collapsed in 10 seconds with no resistance and would not have aerosolized, turning concrete support pillars into dust.

If the building had pancaked, the collapse would have taken around 40 seconds according to recent studies undertaken by Steven Jones' colleagues, almost four times longer than what was witnessed. In addition, the "pancake" collapse of the freeway did not even manage to collapse the section of road below it, whereas the collapse of the south tower pulverized over 10 floors a second.

The freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt and took the brunt of a gigantic gasoline explosion with open air fires shooting 200 feet in the air. In comparison, the twin towers were impacted by aluminum planes filled with significantly less flammable kerosene and suffered limited fires that were oxygen-starved and almost out before the collapses occurred.

Building 7 was not hit by anything save a small amount of debris from the towers and suffered limited fires across just eight floors. In addition, explosions were being reported by occupants within WTC 7 before the towers had even collapsed.

The columns supporting the freeway were not pulverized into dust as in the case of the towers, but are clearly still standing as can be seen in all the photographs.

Halfway through the discussion with Steven Jones, a steel welding expert joined the conversation to express his incredulity at the fact that Fox News was comparing the collapse of the highway with the World Trade Center buildings.

"You can't even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members," said the steel expert.

"The logical deduction is that the rebar steel was exposed horizontally, that whole bridge surface and it was exposed intention, not like the fires that were lapping up fire-proofed 5 inch thick plate columns in the World Trade Center - these little bars had no heat sink and after two hours with all that weight on them they fell."

Debunkers have also failed to acknowledge the fact that freeways in the San Francisco area have already been weakened by multiple earthquakes and regularly collapse entirely of their own accord by accident.

Highway sections across the country have collapsed with no fire damage whatsoever being involved, including a case in Oklahoma in 2002 when a 500-foot section of an Interstate-40 bridge collapsed after barge collided with a bridge support.

The website Stop The Lie also compiled an excellent analysis debunking claims that the freeway collapse in any way mirrors what happened at the World Trade Center and that article is reproduced below.

*********

I can already hear defenders of the official account screaming "See, fire can cause a steel structure to collapse-the bridge collapsed!"

Comparing the circumstances surrounding the fire and subsequent partial collapse of this bridge to the circumstances surrounding the fires and subsequent complete collapse of the towers and WTC 7 is flawed from end to end. This fact should be obvious to most people; but let's point out a few things just in case they weren't already noticed.

1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.

2. Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.

3. You'll notice that despite the intense fires ability to weaken the truss and connectors that there is NO mention of molten metal in the debris. Also, unlike the debris of the towers and WTC 7, it's not likely we're going to hear anything about thermate (specifically used to destroy steel columns) in the bridge debris.

4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.

5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)

So to quickly recap:

White-hot 200 foot flames acting on a single truss (and no ability to redistribute the load once weakened.)

No molten metal and certainly no thermate found
No column failure
No evaporation / pulverization of concrete
No "pancake collapse"

-Ending with a paragraph from The 1-hour Guide to 9/11.

For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.

[jaqeboy]

This is probably old hat to readers of this list, but has anyone seen this site?:

250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

Lot's o' links to just the Mainstream Media articles on each issue.

[MaineShark]

Professor Steven Jones, a Ph.D. physicist and cold fusion expert...

Um, that's really all you need to know that he's a loon.

I'll go through the thing point-by-point if you guys like...

Joe

[mvpel]

Jones said that the notion that steel supporting columns completely melted from fire is impossible and that what actually happened was that thin supporting bolts were warped, resulting in the collapse of the bridge section.

Who said anything about the steel supporting columns "completely melting" either in the WTC or in the bridge?

The WTC had an acre's worth of concrete per floor supported by steel trusses attached to the perimeter columns.  If the warping and weakening of the bridge trusses in a serious fire is enough to detach its supporting means, then why is that not sufficient to detach the supporting means of a given acre-sized concrete floor of the WTC tower?  There's clear photographic evidence that this is exactly what happened, floors can be seen draping down onto floors below them through the narrow windows.

And "controlled" demolition, yeah right:

In addition, the "pancake" collapse of the freeway did not even manage to collapse the section of road below it, whereas the collapse of the south tower pulverized over 10 floors a second.

If only the top floor of the WTC had collapsed onto the floor below it, and that's all, then the WTC would still be standing today.  Likewise, if twenty overpasses had all dropped onto the lower overpass at once, it wouldn't still be standing.  Has Jones never heard of "momentum?"

Building 7 was not hit by anything save a small amount of debris from the towers and suffered limited fires across just eight floors.

A "small" amount of debris?  Are they witholding evidence and photographs?

Oblique view of WTC7 involvement in WTC1 collapse.

WTC southwest corner damage:


The collapse of WTC-1 generated a 0.6 magnitude earthquake, and sent thousands of tons of steel flying through the air, and nobody has any photos of the side facing the site of the collapse, and the buildings were only 300 feet apart, and they're definitively claiming a "small amount of debris?"

Limited fires?

In addition, explosions were being reported by occupants within WTC 7 before the towers had even collapsed.

Video of electrical transformers exploding.

The freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt

Wrong again. I've driven on those freeway sections many times, and they're made of concrete, not asphalt.

Debunkers have also failed to acknowledge the fact that freeways in the San Francisco area have already been weakened by multiple earthquakes and regularly collapse entirely of their own accord by accident.

Okay, now "regularly collapse???"  I lived there for five years and I think if a freeway section had collapsed of its own accord, I would have heard about it.

So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.

That's why it fell in a matter of minutes, instead of hours.  At least they've made the conceptual leap that fire can weaken steel to the point where there is structural failure.

"You can't even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members," said the steel expert.

The steel was only five inches thick near the bottom of the structure, where it had to withstand the most force, it tapered down to perhaps 2" thick near the middle of the building, down to perhaps as little as a quarter inch thick near the top.

This technique of tapered columns is common in all steel structures, as there's no point in using five inches of steel where you only need two, it's just a waste of money.

So what was this so-called and self-proclaimed "steel expert's" name?  They don't say.

However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.

"Neatly folded?" "A few stories?"  Give me a f---ing break.

There were "gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures" spread out over 62 minutes and 104 minutes, respectively, saving the lives of thousands and thousands of people.

The WTC complex sub-basement "bathtub" was about seven stories deep.







Think about it.

[error]

Give up. Truth is irrelevant to "truthers."