9/11 Inside Job?

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Why did the WTC owner say he gave the OK to pull WTC7?

The "owner" of the WTC was Larry Silverstein, you certainly don't sound as informed as you try to look. Despite the revisionism of tin foil hat wearers, "Pull" is not a demolition term, whatsoever. What he said was, he was on the phone with the fire chief, and there was "Such loss of life, and I said maybe we should just pull it, and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".

He was referring to pulling the firefighters out of the WTC7 area, which is already documented. But let's play games:

FYI - Buildings are often demolished by pulling them down with cables. Not usually buildings as tall as WT7, but since it was already proven the building was extremely unstable the decision was made that it would be too risky for men to go into the building to set up the explosives. They used cables to pull down WTC6.

Here's the video on it:

[Rustycage]

Where was it proven that WTC7 was unstable?

So horribly damaged that it feels without resistance. pfft

[The Linguini Occurrence]

Lack of evidence, lack of logic, lack of knowledge on how the world works....

... and a deep desire to blame every tragedy on the US Government.

Has ANYONE every heard of a conspiracy theorist that doesn't hate the big, bad US Government??

Sure enough, the Texas explosion was linked by conspiracy theorists to the Boston bombings. The US Government had to be behind both! Missiles are what blew up the fertilizer plant!! Honest, I saw the evidence (an unknown guy talking it about it) on YouTube!!!!!!

Have we given the haters enough attention in this thread? I think so.

[Rustycage]

It sucks that I can't link a 2 hour film that's on netflix detailing the scientific evidence as to why these were freefall..........

Lack of evidence, lack of logic, lack of knowledge on how the world works....

... and a deep desire to blame every tragedy on the US Government.

Has ANYONE every heard of a conspiracy theorist that doesn't hate the big, bad US Government??

Sure enough, the Texas explosion was linked by conspiracy theorists to the Boston bombings. The US Government had to be behind both! Missiles are what blew up the fertilizer plant!! Honest, I saw the evidence (an unknown guy talking it about it) on YouTube!!!!!!

Have we given the haters enough attention in this thread? I think so.

Strawman arguments never work.

[ManetsBR]

Which on Netflix, Rusty?

[Rustycage]

I don't think it is 911: In Plane Site. I know it wasn't Loose Change. I cant remember the name but check out In Plane Site anyways if you haven't yet.

From the most recent one I recall they had a lot of detail with charts to measure the rate of fall speed and it was shown how there was hardly ever any resistance in all of the collapses. He used a shit ton of physic formulas to come to his conclusion. I'll post what it is when I find it.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

nano-thermite. A military grade controlled substance* not thermite. Maybe pm it to him since he overlooks things just to reply.

Heh, there isn't much difference between nano-thermite and ordinary thermite, the former is just a variation of the latter, so don't be confused when I for brevity just refer to what the loonies claimed to have found as "thermite".

Now you're a nano scientist. There is a big difference because the nano-thermite is constructed and is constructed to create a much stronger reaction. It isn't available to just anyone and has no natural reason for being there. You're uneducated on the issue.

>>>

Why did the WTC owner say he gave the OK to pull WTC7?

The "owner" of the WTC was Larry Silverstein, you certainly don't sound as informed as you try to look. Despite the revisionism of tin foil hat wearers, "Pull" is not a demolition term, whatsoever. What he said was, he was on the phone with the fire chief, and there was "Such loss of life, and I said maybe we should just pull it, and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".

He was referring to pulling the firefighters out of the WTC7 area, which is already documented. But let's play games:

1.Why would Silverstein admit to PBS television he had demolished WTC7?

2.Why would they need to decide to demolish it? Seems like a pretty easy decision, why leave a building full of explosives standing, where these explosives will clearly be found.

3.Why would the NYC fire chief be involved in this conspiracy? Even stranger, why would he be involved in the decision making of the timing of the demolition? Seems to fit more in with pulling the firefighters out theory than the whackjob demolition theory.

I don't need you to quote what he said when I already posted in his own words what he said in his own voice several pages back. Would you rather try to be busy trying to discredit me or discredit many of the other inconsistencies?

They said NOTHING about it being the firefighters. Now you're lying.

And many demolition engineers have confirmed pull to be a demolition term. You're lying once again. The term is a literal term for actually pulling it over. That building was not pulled by cranes.

I most certainly am not "lying". Only a child throws around that word easily.

He didn't specifically say "firefighters" but that was the implication. He certainly didn't say anything about "pulling" the building. The building had sustained serious structural damage, combatting the fire at that point was useless. They pulled the firefighters out, a couple hours later the building came down. Again, if it was demolished, why would he admit this to PBS?

It is absolutely not a demolition term. "Many demolition engineers" is the type of typical conspiracy theorist bullshit you all throw around. How about backing that up with some facts? There have been many who have said that term is either not used or has not been used for years, when it was used in a different context, to "pull it over". Because some random engineer might use it today, means nothing. To imply that it is somehow an official or widely used term is false (Or I could just accuse you of "lying", but I'm an adult). The vast majority do not use that term.

There are "inconsistencies" in every disaster, which is what your kind feed on to build a conspiracy narrative. These "inconsistencies" are usually either derived from first reports or first responders, or just making baseless speculation about things that aren't understood by the public, which are usually always answered but are never acknowledged by your kind. You people really aren't that different from John Edwards and psychic cold readers, it's practically an art form of deception. Take an "inconsistency", attack it your already predetermined conclusion and proceed from there.

Edited April 25, 2013 by ShadowOfTheWave

[Rustycage]

You quote me and respond as if I was lying about the incident when all you did was repeat what I said but injected something about the firefighters when that is NOT clarified. That would be lying. How did he "imply" firefighters?

Pulling IS a demolition term but it refers to literally pulling the structure over. It's used when a structure doesn't have the time to be prepped with explosives. You're complete clueless here.

Keep attacking those asking the questions instead of providing the answers. It hasn't worked so far but maybe it will work for you in the future. LOL probably not, though.

WTC did not collapse on it's own. That's the lie.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[axlrosefan1]

Steven Jones' "conspiracy" was already debunked. His entire experiment was replicated by James Millette per this scientific paper:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

And if you don't have the patience to read it. The most important part:

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

Last point I want to add, there has been ZERO studies published in respected academic journals claiming 9/11 was a conspiracy or done by a controlled experiment. When you find a peer-reviewed paper in Science, Nature or any other high-profile academic journals, that's much different than Bentham Science. Bentham Science is not a high-profile nor a respected academic source. A group of people created a fake scientific-study, submitted it to Bentham Science, and it was approved.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html

[ShadowOfTheWave]

You quote me and respond as if I was lying about the incident when all you did was repeat what I said but injected something about the firefighters when that is NOT clarified. That would be lying. How did he "imply" firefighters?

Pulling IS a demolition term but it refers to literally pulling the structure over. It's used when a structure doesn't have the time to be prepped with explosives. You're complete clueless here.

Keep attacking those asking the questions instead of providing the answers. It hasn't worked so far but maybe it will work for you in the future. LOL probably not, though.

WTC did not collapse on it's own. That's the lie.

So the NYC Fire Department is on this? What planet are you living on? Are you saying the building wasn't prepped with explosives, but the twin towers were?

He implied firefighters because:

1.He was speaking to the fucking head of the NYC Fire Department

2.He said that the building was not going to withstand its damage and there was such loss of a life, so they made the decision to pull and...

3.The fire fighters were pulled from trying to contain the WTC7 fire from the outside approximately 2 hours before the collapse.

I'm not watching any piece of shit demolition comparison. I sat through the endless stupidy of 9/11 Mysterious: Part 1 Demolitions over six years ago and have read countless other nonsense on the issue.

As for the twin towers, the buildings columns were severed by jets slamming into them, fire weakened the steel making it unable to support the upper floors, causing the top of the buildings to cascade down, crushing the floors below. That is the truth. I don't need to ask questions, the collapse times, along with the way they collapsed completely lines up with the point of impact. You can also see the bowing of the outer columns as time passes and eventually see them break on the south tower, as it slants to its point of impact. As for the north tower, the way the building sinks as its inner columns break again completely lines up with the jet's point of impact.

[Rustycage]

Refuse to look at things and then claim others are clueless about the issue? Pretty weak, tbh.

As for the twin towers, the buildings columns were severed by jets slamming into them

And that right there. THANK YOU! I've been hoping someone would try to claim that bullshit. Aluminum does NOT cut steel. You cannot cut strong metal with a weaker one. Even aluminum alloy.

Completely full of shit, dude. Sorry.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[axlrosefan1]

Rusty, you have to let it go. Ae911 and all the other truther sites have huge holes in their science/experiments. Not to mention, none of them have published peer-reviewed, scientifically recreatable papers. It's bogus.

[izzygirl]

Rusty, you're my hero, seriously.

[ManetsBR]

Same here

Ratbrain should post something too.

[magisme]

I haven't the first clue what truly happened on 9/11. I know that a bunch of people I don't trust (on both sides) say a bunch of different things. I'm gonna say none of you have a clue either. Which seems to me, at it's most basic, Rusty's point. Sure he threw out a couple guesses, but he seems to be the only one admitting he doesn't know shit. Hence the litany of questions posed.

Those of you who are saying that asking questions about the official story disrespects the victims are using the lowest rhetorical ploy possible. You're argument (although it's not really an argument because you just sort of blurt it out as if it's truth, don't you) is despicable. And it's only moderately excusable because it's clearly an emotional response rather than a reasonable one.

The government lies. The media parrots the government. Is that what happened re 9/11? I don't know. But to say only nuts would wonder is ignorant.

[izzygirl]

Ratbrain should post something too.

I second this!

I haven't the first clue what truly happened on 9/11. I know that a bunch of people I don't trust (on both sides) say a bunch of different things. I'm gonna say none of you have a clue either. Which seems to me, at it's most basic, Rusty's point. Sure he threw out a couple guesses, but he seems to be the only one admitting he doesn't know shit. Hence the litany of questions posed.

Those of you who are saying that asking questions about the official story disrespects the victims are using the lowest rhetorical ploy possible. You're argument (although it's not really an argument because you just sort of blurt it out as if it's truth, don't you) is despicable. And it's only moderately excusable because it's clearly an emotional response rather than a reasonable one.

The government lies. The media parrots the government. Is that what happened re 9/11? I don't know. But to say only nuts would wonder is ignorant.

Awesome post and exactly my thoughts.

[Rustycage]

Rusty, you have to let it go. Ae911 and all the other truther sites have huge holes in their science/experiments. Not to mention, none of them have published peer-reviewed, scientifically recreatable papers. It's bogus.

I read your first link and I have to say that it's questionable to filter the materials by using ONLY what was pulled up by the magnet and discarding the rest.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Refuse to look at things and then claim others are clueless about the issue? Pretty weak, tbh.

As for the twin towers, the buildings columns were severed by jets slamming into them

And that right there. THANK YOU! I've been hoping someone would try to claim that bullshit. Aluminum does NOT cut steel. You cannot cut strong metal with a weaker one. Even aluminum alloy.

Completely full of shit, dude. Sorry.

I am telling I have already looked at it. I have the videos of WTC7 collapsing, how the middle part bowed inward, how it fell at free fall speed, how the twin towers fell out free fall speed, the "squibs" or whatever the fuck, and have seen it all compared to other "implosions". I don't need to see anymore, unless your video contained something new?

As the aluminum steel thing:

1.The skin of the airliners were made of aluminum, not 100% of the planes. Were the titanium alloy engines made of aluminum?

2. Kinetic energy

3.Water can cut steel

4.USS Hinsdale has been brought up as an example of this happening

5.Worth noting that the planes exploded at the point of impact, which was no doubt a resulf of alot of damage to the steel.

I will admit when I am wrong, and I have to admit this is something that has not been completely refuted. It's defininately an interesting observation that I will have to research more before commenting on it again. However, there is a difference between pointing the fact out and asserting that it was shape chargers or something else.

[Rustycage]

Show me a commercial airliner that isn't aluminum alloy. They would LIKE to make the ships out of titanium but it is way too expensive. The only aircraft that's skin is not aluminum alloy are your fighters and the are made of composite, not titanium either. No airplane is assembled with anything strong enough to cut steel.

Show me aluminum cutting steel and I'll have to go kick every metallurgy instructor in the head for lying to us. I must have wasted months of my life for those lies.

Your water reference is with huge amounts of pressure, force and an abrasive. That's always the fall back response and it's a weak one.

Now you're saying the engines cut the columns? All 4 of those engines cut enough of those beams to make the building fall with hardly any resistance? North and South were designed to withstand a 707. There's not that much of a difference between the aircraft. Unfortunate coincidence, huh?

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Show me a commercial airliner that isn't aluminum alloy. They would LIKE to make the ships out of titanium but it is way too expensive. The only aircraft that's skin is not aluminum alloy are your fighters and the are made of composite, not titanium either. No airplane is assembled with anything strong enough to cut steel.

Show me aluminum cutting steel and I'll have to go kick every metallurgy instructor in the head for lying to us. I must have wasted months of my life for those lies.

Your water reference is with huge amounts of pressure, force and an abrasive. That's always the fall back response and it's a weak one.

Now you're saying the engines cut the columns? All 4 of those engines cut enough of those beams to make the building fall with hardly any resistance? North and South were designed to withstand a 707. There's not that much of a difference between the aircraft. Unfortunate coincidence, huh?

Have them been tests with aluminum slamming into steel at 600 mph?

I have already brought up the Hinsdale, not my example, but others have brought it up.

What do you mean hardly any resistance? Again, where were the tests that showed how the buildings should hold up with the entire upper portion of the buildings cascading down?

Edited April 26, 2013 by ShadowOfTheWave

[Rustycage]

The planes were around 400 mph, not 600. And yes that is measurable with ease by using real time video and how fast they traveled a known distance. You declared that the aluminum CUT the steel. You think 400mph created enough force to cut 14" steel columns?

I'll entertain that. In this video, a plane going a couple hundred miles an hour has it's wings cut twice by a wooden telephone pole.

Are we supposed to believe that at 400 mph those wings would be able to cut 14" steel columns when wood is cutting them at a couple of hundred? Never mind that it is a fact that aluminum does not cut steel and that your water example uses a shit ton of pressure and force along with an abrasive so no, "water" didn't cut the steel, water + something else + something else + something else cut steel. The speed of the water is around mach 3. The steel you're referring to being cut is stainless steel, not carbon steel.

You need tests done to prove to you that a structure beneath a collapsing structure offers resistance? Fine, go play Jenga. Let me know if you get it to fall into itself without a lean. Are you somehow suggesting that they should build towers identical to the WTC towers to duplicate the results? Why can't we rely on the laws of physics and the path of least resistance?

Not once during any of the collapses did they lean and take the path of least resistance which is typical of any natural building collapse. We are lead to believe that every reinforcement of that building on every single floor failed at the exact same time to offer no resistance and fail to force the collapse to lean. In all three collapses. Does that REALLY make sense to you? Explaining it with the pancaking excuse is what sparked the whole debate anyways.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Rustycage

[ronaldo9]

I'm pretty sure it's been proven that South Park got it right--the 9/11 conspiracy is actually a government conspiracy.

[Dazey]

It also seems like that beam is in its original position, thermite would then not be able to cut it diagonally, as seen on the picture. Thermite would cut the beam vertically since it works by gravitation .

That sounds remarkably like science there buddy.

Oh, you thought you had a smoking gun here, right? You couldn't be more wrong, though.

Watch this, from 14:14:

At 16:21 he talks exactly - I can't be more emphatic on this exactly - about the Thermite cut angles.

I'd recommend you to watch everything, though.

Dazey, did you watch the vid I showed you?

I did and it went like this:

"This beam was cut diagonally."

"Thermite was found at ground zero."

You'll note that the two statements are completely separate and at no point does he say "thermite was clearly used to make a diagonal cut in this particular beam and it was done like so".

I still contend that there's no way in hell that was cut with thermite.

Just to add a little background on me here. I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade so I work on construction sites AND chemical plants for a living. There EVERY day and have been for going on seven years now. I've been intimately involved in design construction and demolition of structures AND worked with these chemicals first hand in labs and on live plant. I know the difference between a cutting torch profile and a thermite signature and trust me when I tell you that it was not used in this instance in the example I've referred to.

A little more background here on the practicalities of such an operation. Thermite is a stoichiometric mixture of aluminium and iron oxide that when ignited burns at a very high temperature that is indeed hot enough to melt steel. Could it cut through that beam? Of course it could but that's not the point. The cut would have to start at the edge and travel diagonally downwards which means you need to have some way of directing the thermite flow.

If you're working on the assumption that it was directed in that way then that must mean that the steel beneath it was of a higher melting point than that along the line of the cut otherwise it would simply have melted anything below it. If you strapped a package of thermite (nano or otherwise) to the side of the column then what makes you think it would take a perfect 45 degree diagonal route through the beam and not just melt everything below it and leave a sticky molten puddle on the floor?

That is something I would really like to see one of you clarify because you seem to have found some magic method by which a massively energetic exothermic reaction can defy the laws of physics and gravity.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Dazey

[Guest Len B'stard]

Dazey, did you watch the vid I showed you?

You'll note that the two statements are completely separate and at no point does he say "thermite was clearly used to make a diagonal cut in this particular beam and it was done like so".

I still contend that there's no way in hell that was cut with thermite.

Just to add a little background on me here. I'm a Chemical Engineer by trade so I work on construction sites AND chemical plants for a living. There EVERY day and have been for going on seven years now. I've been intimately involved in design construction and demolition of structures AND worked with these chemicals first hand in labs and on live plant. I know the difference between a cutting torch profile and a thermite signature and trust me when I tell you that it was not used in this instance in the example I've referred to.

A little more background here on the practicalities of such an operation. Thermite is a stoichiometric mixture of aluminium and iron oxide that when ignited burns at a very high temperature that is indeed hot enough to melt steel. Could it cut through that beam? Of course it could but that's not the point. The cut would have to start at the edge and travel diagonally downwards which means you need to have some way of directing the thermite flow. If you're working on the assumption that it was directed in that way then that must mean that the steel beneath it was of a higher melting point than that along the line of the cut otherwise it would simply have melted anything below it. If you strapped a package of thermite (nano or otherwise) to the side of the column then what makes you think it would take a perfect 45 degree diagonal route through the beam and not just melt everything below it and leave a sticky molten puddle on the floor?

That is something I would really like to see one of you clarify because you seem to have found some magic method by which a massively energetic exothermic reaction can defy the laws of physics and gravity.

Funny when someone that actually knows what they're chatting about pulls these theoristses card on stuff and shows that, really, they dunno what the fuck they're on about

[wasted]

I remember when towers were hit i was sith a system safety engineer and he said oh dont worry those buikdings are designed not to collapse. I went home and saw them goung down like lyndsay Lohan. What halpened? the fire melted the core? it looked like a demolition.

Obviously not a conspiracy.