9-11 was an inside job

[Tom Sawyer]

Besides the chimney affect does not explain the collapse.

Jimmy Jam... I don't know what happened, just addressing your post regarding the heat that the jet fuel might be able to create.

Russ baby... I've found nanothermite to be the perfect fire starter... of course they don't carry it at Walmart. 

[Tunga]

Black smoke is not indicitive of high temperture fire.

[KBCraig]

Black smoke is not indicitive of high temperture fire.

Not everything burns at the same temperature. If I have a roaring hot wood fire in the yard, it will give almost no smoke. If I add wet leaves, they will smolder and dump off a thick white smoke, while the temperature of the wood fire remains unchanged.

Just because secondary ignitions (things like furniture, carpet, curtains, paperwork, etc.) are ignited and give off thick smoke, is no evidence at all about what other temperatures may have been at play.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Appreciate the discussion on this, as a skeptic of the 911 inside job view, this camp appeared to jump to conclusion way to quick that the govt. did it; vs. US has pissed off much of the Muslim world for a long time and it is easy to believe a small group of younger guys would take retribution this far. As I study this it appears I need to keep an open mind as so much evidence has apparently been with held or destroyed. The early news accounts were all over the place. It just seems too improbable that insiders would work that well together to keep a conspiracy together of this magnitude without big disclosures eventually. Also not to disrespect Truthers but "bandwagoning" does easily occur. Testing, verification and skeptical inquiry should continue. Along with many events such as Kennedy assassination many people won't really be able to draw firm conclusions with what is left. Thanks Kat for the points brought up, I will study this work some more. Maybe I have to change my mind....

[jaqeboy]

What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?

There's about 1,500-2,000F difference (depending on composition) between "melt" and "soft as putty".

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Structural steel increases in strength as it's temperature rises to just above 400 deg. F and then starts to weaken.
Structural steel does not go below it's design strength until around 700 deg. F.

The open air burn temperature of Jet A fuel is only 549.5 °F.

If these two sources are correct there is not enough heat available in an aircraft to collapse any steel reinforced structure.

There are a couple of additional factors that keep the steel temp from becoming as elevated as the air/gases around them - the heat has to get transferred from the gasses (low density, low heat content) into the steel (high density, much higher specific heat):

1) The steel is coated with several inches of fire-resistant material (asbestos in the old days). Its purpose is to prevent the heat from getting transferred into the steel for a couple of hours, by which time it is hoped that the office materials will have been fully combusted and not available as a heat source any longer. Some DO claim that the heat-resistant coating was blown off, but we are all at a loss as to how to actually determine that.

2) The steel is a good conductor of heat, so carries any heat transferred into it away from the site into the whole structure, so the site near the hot gas is hard pressed to get anywhere near the temperature of the hot gasses since all it's heat gets conducted away instantly.
[Observations were made of the discoloration of the paint on the structural steel and they determined what temp those pieces did get to (forget which agency did the report on this) and it wasn't hot enough to substantially weaken the steel.

This is pretty old stuff and Kevin Ryan's reports, videos, etc. are probably the best source on this.

[jaqeboy]

(much deleted for brevity)

"Open air burn temperature" is what happens if you pour a puddle on a flat surface and light it. That doesn't seem to apply when a 110 story chimney is involved....

The "110 story chimney" has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted here and elsewhere, one time, I believe, with your son making that allegation. There was no chimney effect, as that is one of the known fire issues that the architects assure cannot happen with their designs (various firestop measures - won't repeat that here). There was an oxygen-starved fire(s) in WTC 1, 2 and 7 because the openings that would let oxygen in were relatively small. The smoke color indicates that.

I'd like to invite you to consider continually developing new evidence and join the current investigations, rather than re-live and re-hash arguments settled years ago.

[Jim Johnson]

I'd like to invite you to consider continually developing new evidence and join the current investigations, rather than re-live and re-hash arguments settled years ago.

No, I'm certain that people should start with an obvious problem that bothers them.
Once that problem is not sufficiently answerable, that is when they should join the current investigations.
People have to live and hash out problems for themselves. 

I believe it is good to go back and seed with simpler questions to challenge the minds of people who were not ready in years past, but maybe ready now.

You did a great job with your last two posts, giving people things to continue to think about without being over bearing or condescending.   

[PattyLee loves dogs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

I reviewed points from this (for what time I could invest) from this board and think that some of the above link objectively addresses your concerns.  Appreciate that opinions can be expressed here do not cause shunning. I will continue to study but I am skeptical and want to keep focused on reason, liberty and respect for those effected by the tragedy of 9/11. Hope that you visit this site and read w open mind. OK? 

[jaqeboy]

PattyLee, I'd like to ask you to consider this re-framing of the situation:

On September 13th, John Ashcroft (then Attorney General of the US) states his (the govt's) conspiracy theory, that 19 middle eastern terrorists, pictured on TV, hijacked and flew 4 airliners into 3 targets and a field in Pennsylvania. Their theory develops further to include that middle easterners are observed with boxcutters (observed by Barbara Olson and reported by phone from the plane - Flight 77), that American passengers wrestle with terrorists on flight 93, causing it to crash in Penna. (reported by phone from the plane). The theory develops to include various, changing explanations of how the WTC towers would collapse from the heat of the fires. Other details evolve and are incorporated into the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). This theory is repeated by the various government officials and main stream media.

The Bush administration didn't want an investigative commission, but was forced by the negative publicity generated by the Jersey Girls (Family Steering Committee). They initially appoint Henry Kissinger to be the exec. director of it, but the Jersey Girls inquire about his client list (which includes Saudis), so he bows out to be replaced by another, less well-known, insider, Phillip Zelikow. The 9/11 commission does a study which is plugged to presume the above theory is true, and to only determine how the govt failed to detect the plot. The 9/11 commission report is greivously flawed, and is seen an effort to establish the official myth (a Zelikow term). The commission omits the testimony of key eyewitnesses (Rodriquez and Minetta) and whistleblowers (Edmonds), and ignores the collapse of the 47 story WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet collapses at 5:20 PM on 9/11, eight hours after the towers were brought down. During the testimony before the commission, NORAD changes its story, so that they have testified by the end to 3 different versions, for which the commissioners even considered a criminal referral for perjury by high officials. At this point, years later, 6 of 10 of the commissioners are not now in agreement with the conclusions in the report (edited by Zelikow), nor is the legal counsel for the commission who has written a book about it.

Independent reviewers of the 9/11 Commission report, especially David Ray Griffin, rip it to bits and report out flaw after flaw with that report. In addition, reports by the ASCE, FEMA and NIST are found to be contradictory, and flawed in numerous major ways. Several suspicious things emerge from their reporting, such as several of the same key authors being involved in each report. These reports all serve to butress the (changing and developing) Official Conspiracy Theory.

Outside the government, independent folks piece together what they can from any remaining evidence: photographic, video, atmospheric and dust samples, eyewitness testimony and seismographic data. It becomes a detective story of near-epic scope, with professors, whistle-blowers, amateur and professional photo/video analyzers, lab scientists and many others piecing together bits of the real story from the outside with the scraps of evidence that remains (recall that most of the WTC building residue is carted off under high security).

Some jump in with conspiracy theories that are all over the map. Government and media agents eagerly rise to tar independent researchers with the same brush by dismissively calling them something derogatory  (a propaganda technique: name-calling), "conspiracy theorists". Many take that bait, and surprisingly, even libertarians who should know better, begin opposing independent investigation of obvious lies.

Now we're in a position, as people who are in favor of a free society, of either seeking truth (and libertarians know that much of government's actions can only be supported by lies, crafted through advanced propaganda techniques and broadcast over establishment media channels), or being mindless drones, swallowing the pablum fed to them, and joining into the establishment chorus of name-calling anyone who has the intelligence and courage to ask questions.

If there is any particular area of questioning that I can assist in steering you to answers in, I'd be willing to try to be of assistance.

[PS: the reputed phone calls were found to not be technically possible, so we start with questions at the very root of the "eyewitness" reporting that is the foundation of the OCT.]

[jaqeboy]

9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT

PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]
...

WOW stuff like this keeps coming out...

[jaqeboy]

I'd like to invite you to consider continually developing new evidence and join the current investigations, rather than re-live and re-hash arguments settled years ago.

No, I'm certain that people should start with an obvious problem that bothers them.
Once that problem is not sufficiently answerable, that is when they should join the current investigations.
People have to live and hash out problems for themselves.

OK, Jim, I guess you're right. I forget sometimes that not everyone has read all 121 pages of this thread. 

I believe it is good to go back and seed with simpler questions to challenge the minds of people who were not ready in years past, but maybe ready now.

OK, you are right again. I call this "working down in the trenches"

You did a great job with your last two posts, giving people things to continue to think about without being over bearing or condescending.   

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I try hard at that.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Jaqeboy, that's an excellent summary of where we are now. I don't "support" the OCT, except where it is supported by independent evidence (I am aware that the OCT changed several times). My point is that the OCT can only be opposed by superior facts and forensic work, not just by making wild claims (and thus strengthening the OCT). We have to be a lot MORE careful and better documented than those putting together the OCT; after all, our story has to hold together longer than one news cycle. (Unlike the stories about the U2, the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Cambodian bombing [and later US foreign aid to Pol Pot], Operation Northwood, the attack on the Liberty, Clinton's attack on the aspirin factory in the Sudan, etc. etc. etc. Government can lie and succeed, we cannot.)

Let's not forget that the OCT claims that the US government backed and armed a terrorist group which then turned on us. It further claims that the Trade Towers fell because the US government had ordered the builders to stop using asbestos to fireproof the columns above a certain floor.

The OCT also claims that the anthrax attacks were launched using weaponized anthrax from the US Army lab. The current version of the OCT is that no one knows who mailed the anthrax, only that they had access to US army bioweapons. And even conventional wisdom now agrees that we were lied into the Iraq war, and into the insane Afghan occupation. The excuses for the wars now are that somehow the US military will provide better homes and lives for the people we are bombing, not that the US has any security interest in the occupations.

Taking a bigger-picture look, even conventional wisdom admits that crashing airplanes into buildings isn't a serious terrorist technique. Real anonymous warfare would blow up dams, refineries, and other undefended targets, not lose valuable soldiers in suicide attacks. Even more serious, they could get jobs in university biology labs and make biological agents. As the US kills more and more civilians with bombs and drones, the number of potential revenge-seekers grows.

There is nothing in the OCT or current conventional wisdom to support the proposition that "government is an effective defense against terrorism". We are left with the reality that only private civil-defense efforts and forensics are likely to help against future anonymous or false-flag attacks, and the uncomfortable truth is that hardly any resources have gone into anything that might actually defend against future attacks. How many of the self-proclaimed "truthers" actually DO anything to prepare to survive NBC attacks? Maybe more than the average person, but still. Where's your gas mask? Do you have your duct tape, HEPA filter, and plastic sheeting ready (funny that Ridge was mocked for the one true thing he ever said)?

While it's fun to "bicker and argue over who killed who", even the most rabid "anti-Truther" debunking web sites agree there was and is a conspiracy to keep us in a Forever War in the Middle East:
http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm

Getting us out of the new "Crusades" (and surviving the inevitable blowback from what we've already done) is more important than figuring out exactly how Building 7 fell down. Although it would be nice to know... if it really fell down just because it was hit by a little debris and the drapes were on fire (I can't rule that out given my limited reading), we need even more civil defense resources than I thought

[Tunga]

Patty Lee,

You damn the lies yet cling to them. You arm yourself but fear your own might. What part of fuck the fucking fucker before he fucks you do you not get?

There is no fucking way in hell that the government story is true. None. The list of implausibilities and improbabilities grows longer each day.

Do you think tomorrow you might wake up to find JFK alive, the WTC complex still standing, the moon and Mars devoid of water and gas at 23 cents a gallon?

Get real or go home. 

[PattyLee loves dogs]

P.U.

Might need the gas mask sooner than I thought!

Hope we can move on to more constructive defense... Hows Coutu?

[jaqeboy]

Jaqeboy, that's an excellent summary of where we are now. I don't "support" the OCT, except where it is supported by independent evidence (I am aware that the OCT changed several times). My point is that the OCT can only be opposed by superior facts and forensic work, not just by making wild claims (and thus strengthening the OCT). We have to be a lot MORE careful and better documented than those putting together the OCT; after all, our story has to hold together longer than one news cycle.
...

Thanks. Agreed. The reason for this re-framing is that the 911 Truth movement is people are seeking the truth - they know they don't have it from official sources. The smear of calling people who are investigators "conspiracy theorists" is an attempt to neutralize them or turn people off to them, or at least to get them to ignore them. Especially to keep them from getting funded or having their questions treated seriously.

Everybody's got a pet theory of what happened - My big thrust is to see where these independent investigations go and to see what evidence does turn up and to listen to what the whistleblowers say to see if it leads to a cogent theory of the crime.

For Example, what do we do with the info in the post a few down from this where Pilots for 911 Truth turn up a data tape that says the cabin door to the plane was never opened?... How does that affect the theory of the crime, eh?

It's like a big detective story, with an 800 pound gorilla in the room creating a smokescreen and threatening to kill you if you get too close to the truth. The real detectives are the little independent researchers risking their lives and careers to analyze the little tidbits that weren't effectively walled off from them.