9-11 was an inside job

[Tom Sawyer]

You're right that the center did appear to go first... of course that is also how a controlled demolition is done. But the timing of the center to the symmetrical failure of all the perimeter was remarkable, if it happened by chance.

[Jim Johnson]

No building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building.  It isn't possible.  It can't happen.

As I recall, WTC 7 didn't fall symmetrically. The center collapsed, and pulled the rest down with it.

However, if you want to say it fell symmetrically, I'll only point out that it was during a fire that had been burning for hours. Apparently it is possible, and can happen. QED

I got a winch if it'll help pull your head out of your ass.

[KBCraig]

No building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building.  It isn't possible.  It can't happen.

As I recall, WTC 7 didn't fall symmetrically. The center collapsed, and pulled the rest down with it.

However, if you want to say it fell symmetrically, I'll only point out that it was during a fire that had been burning for hours. Apparently it is possible, and can happen. QED

I got a winch if it'll help pull your head out of your ass.

I'd prefer to get into a wench's ass.

[KBCraig]

9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out (2012)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065

I'm trying to watch this, to give it and your opinion a fair shake. Hulu and/or my internet connect is/are not cooperating, though.

I'll get back to the thread whenever I'm able to actually watch the video. Unless Jim keeps taunting me with notions of wenches and their asses, of course.

[Russell Kanning]

I have to agree that building seven is obvious.
What did you think of the infobabe that predicted the collapse and used the governments later wording to describe it?

[KBCraig]

Okay, I managed to watch the full video.

I would find myself getting irritated, then I would pause the video, clear my mind, and ask, "But what if they're right?" The problem was, I couldn't imagine any scenario in which Gage actually is right, even doing my best to be open-minded and give him a fair chance.

I'm only talking about factually correct, not whether the government could or would engage in such a massive scheme and coverup. I have no doubt that there are people evil enough at all levels of government to do this, if they could. (Remember, I work for the fuckers; I see the evil on a daily basis.)

After watching it, I could only conclude that the video was another set of strawman arguments, based on carefully cherry-picked snippets of video and factoids, then swatted down by people presented as "experts", whose education and qualifications don't actually qualify them as such.

I can't ignore that Richard Gage purports to be an experienced architect in "fire-proofed steel framed buildings", yet has never personally designed anything bigger than a school auditorium. Apply the same scrutiny to Gage's experience as you do to the government's official story, and it's obvious he's a fraud. He "worked on the papers for X building" actually means he was the flunky who applied for the building permits.

The entire video was a classic magic act: showing you one thing, while telling you something else and convincing you to believe the words rather than your own eyes. Watch it with the sound muted, and see if your eyes tell you what Gage claims is happening. It's not: the man is a liar (okay, I'll admit the possibility that he's a psychopath who believes he's telling he truth). In different segments, they will make totally opposite claims using the same data or videos or theories.

For me, the most desperate moment was when they turned to the mental health professionals in the end, implying that anyone who doesn't accept AE911's version of events, just must believe the government version because they're traumatized and damaged and can't deal with the reality of what happened.

It was a "You can't handle the truth!" moment, but the funny part is that one of the lady shrinks they presented could have been describing the truthers instead. When I get time I'll go back and transcribe her words, but the irony was thick.

Okay, that's my review of the video. Here's my take on the science, physics, and facts:

That entire board of "experts" could not recreate what they claim happened. No one could. Controlled Demolition, Inc. is not bashful: they brag openly about what they can do, and they hold the world records for tallest and biggest demolitions. The tallest building ever brought down through CD was slightly over half as tall as 7WTC, and just over a third the total square footage.

Controlled demolition requires months of study, preparation work, and removal of as many variables as possible. It's never been attempted on any large building with all office furnishings intact; it requires major demolition beforehand, with just a skeleton remaining. The idea that even Building 7 was prepped for demolition ahead of time while in use as a fully occupied office building, much less buildings 1 and 2, is simply implausible.

Tom, you can't doubt that the towers were imploded, yet think 7 may have been. How? To what end? And again, *how*, after being heavily damaged by the collapse of building 1, and uncontrolled fires burning for 8 hours?

The government lacks the competence to deliver food and water to the Jersey shore after a major storm. It defies belief that they could pull off such a major operation undetected, so perfectly, with so many variables introduced. If you secretly wire buildings with explosives to blow them up, then blow them up. Flying a plane into them guarantees destroying your plans for explosions.

I'll close with one thing: Richard Gage's presentation has improved, but his science has not. This is still his basic argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw

Or possibly...

[Russell Kanning]

You do realize that you work for one of the most evil divisions of one of the most evil organizations on the face of the earth.
They and you know who they are .... killed people in those buildings and they are killing and torturing people every day. And you are not doing everything in your power to stop it.
When you are an old man or when you face God, whichever comes first, don't regret what you have done for a living.

[Jim Johnson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw

Simple physics demonstrated simply... I have no problem believing what is real.

Controlled demolition requires months of study, preparation work, and removal of as many variables as possible. It's never been attempted on any large building with all office furnishings intact; it requires major demolition beforehand, with just a skeleton remaining. The idea that even Building 7 was prepped for demolition ahead of time while in use as a fully occupied office building, much less buildings 1 and 2, is simply implausible.

If buildings fall down like the towers did, no one would need demolition experts.

[Tom Sawyer]

Well KB if you're going to do such a thorough job of analysis of the documentary... well I feel somewhat unprepared... how dare you make me feel insecure like that!

Just from my experience of the dynamics of the real world I've experienced...
I can't see how the total, symmetrical failure of a building can happen as seen. Never happened before... and if the building did fail like that, it would seem that there would be considerable effort to analyze, study and rewrite building codes to prevent such failures in the future.

Johnson's right, why does it take such an effort to demolition a building.... making it fall down into it's on footprint. We watched some YouTube videos of demolitions gone wrong... ie buildings falling sideways, even rolling over.

I don't know how building 7 failed, but fires in random areas seems like it would lead to a much less tidy and complete failure of a structure.

[KBCraig]

"I don't know how it could have happened, so the government must have done it through controlled demolition" is not a valid argument. But, it's the only thing Gage even attempts to offer.

[Jim Johnson]

"I don't know how it could have happened, so the government must have done it through controlled demolition" is not a valid argument. But, it's the only thing Gage even attempts to offer.

Wow, you didn't watch the same video I did.  They are not asking for an indictment.  They're only asking for a new investigation of the facts. 

The governmental cover up is more than obvious, so I suppose some people would see it as an indictment of the government

[KBCraig]

Would the most honest and in-depth examination possible satisfy you, if it reached exactly the same conclusion?

[Jim Johnson]

Would the most honest and in-depth examination possible satisfy you, if it reached exactly the same conclusion?

The most honest and in-depth examination possible would not reach the same conclusion, so your question is not answerable.

[WithoutAPaddle]

Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

By forum contributor "spooked911", posted to the Democratic Underground:


I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block.

Note, this fencing is easily bendable, has no significant rigidity, and was not reinforced in any way.  The fencing was bent into an outer square and an inner rectangle (the core):



Then I damaged the "columns" by cutting them with wire cutters:





Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure.

Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds.  I don't think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the "safety factor" was not particularly high.



Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene:





Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would support extra weight.  It still did:



The structure held up fine after the fire died:



After the fire was hot, the "columns" were not hot at all:




In a second experiment, I used the same wire fence and block set up, but increased the amount of "airplane damage", added in newspaper all around the inside of the structure, and soaked everything thoroughly with kerosene.  In this expt, the fire was more intense and lasted significantly longer, but... the structure held up just fine.  (Sorry no pictures of this one).

What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire.

And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse.

If kerosene/jet fuel/hydrocarbon fires can indeed cause steel structures to collapse, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment-- right?

[Tom Sawyer]

"I don't know how it could have happened, so the government must have done it through controlled demolition" is not a valid argument. But, it's the only thing Gage even attempts to offer.

Perhaps you are right and this man is lying, or foolish. I'd like to ignore that aspect. I'm not even going to claim that it was a controlled demolition. I just don't see that the total dramatic failure of all the load supports at virtually the same moment is possible. It would tip or partially fail... that thing drops like a curtain.

Again I could be wrong, but I would imagine that there would be considerable effort to rewrite the codes for these types of structures.

As a final aside, along the same lines as your disbelief of this guys credibility... The mainstream position seemed to be presented by Popular Mechanics... who I find also to be a suspect source of unbiased opinion... they are obviously a PR arm for the government... they present the glossiest  versions of the latest Defense Department weapons systems.

In their "report" of what the NIST reported, they provide no real evidence other than NIST said so.
How does NIST know which elements failed? And their description of a "progressive" failure is kind of generous... ie. a matter of moments from the center collapse till the complete, symmetrical failure of the perimeter structure.