9-11 Evidence Unanswered

OkhamsRazor · #1 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 07:37 PM

Alright folks... here we go. All the evidence that's fit to print supporting indications of a cover-up surrounding the events of 9-11.

I expect anyone commenting on the evidence provided to have listened to, read entirely, or watched all the way through the evidence provided. Not doing so automatically disqualifies you from this debate. Your posts, no matter how loud, indignant, persistent or inflammatory will not be responded to if your intent is to shoot the messenger. Ignorance will not be tolerated or rewarded on this thread. Any refutation MUST be accompanied by links, facts, and verifiable sources. Absent those, if you simply wish to state your gut reaction or intuitive sense of human nature, there are plenty of threads on this topic for you to do so. This is to be a civil discourse with NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. This is an effort to establish a mature informative debate... please treat it as such.

By responding to this thread you are agreeing to play by the rules as stated above.

My purpose here is not to preach to the choir. It is do introduce compelling evidence to those in doubt that they otherwise wouldn't bother to take a look at.

On a personal note... I was in the same place you are now several years ago. There was no way anyone was going to convince me that the government had any direct involvement in these events. Unfortunately, for me... I have a background in physics and engineering (among many other areas), I subscribe to the scientific method... and as such, I was compelled to take an objective look at the evidence. I had much anticipated that I would be able to blow gaping holes in these theories with a peashooter... that has not turned out to be the case. Also on a personal note, I have promised rdnor that I would not use information stemming from Alex Jones or any of his followers... which is actually the easiest part of this. Lots of folks much smarter than I have been involved with this effort and they deserve the respect that their education and position affords them.

Lastly, I am not advocating belief in a government conspiracy, I am advocating that you exercise due diligence and look at all the evidence (and there are hours of evidence to go through) and make an informed judgement, and maybe, just maybe you will have some questions at the end.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now then... where do I begin... I guess with rdnor's assertion that the steel in the twin towers was superheated causing structural failure, ala the Discovery Channel and NOVA and supported by the NIST report submitted to the 9-11 Commission.

Quote:

Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation

Quote:

The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

Quote:

The truss theory, endorsed by FEMA in its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, lets us imagine the floors falling on one another in a chain reaction, gathering momentum. It offered a way around the obvious problem with the column failure theory, another variant of pancake theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure. The heavily promoted truss theory is based on the assumption that the floors were only undergirded by trusses, since any beams under the floors could not have been heated enough to fail. The assumptions cannot be verified because of the unavailability of detailed engineering drawings of the buildings. They are questionable for several reasons. The anonymous Guardian author provides calculations to support the following:

FEMA's building description leaves 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for in each tower, given that the towers were known to each use 96,000 tons of steel.
A truss-only-based floor construction system would leave the floors too weak to transfer loads between the core and perimeter walls.

Since the failure of a few trusses on a floor wouldn't automatically lead to a whole floor falling and starting the pancake syndrome, some fine tuning in the theory was needed. Dr. Thomas Eagar provided us with the zipper theory to explain how the failure of one truss could cause adjacent ones to fail. A horizontal domino effect of unzipping would precede the vertical one of pancaking.

From Sagging Trusses to Leveled Building
The unverified assumptions of the truss theory listed above are the least of its problems. It pretends that a few truss failures would automatically lead to the entire steel building crushing itself. What would be the likely chain of events following a floor failure envisioned by the truss theory?

Let's accept Dr. Eagar's zipper scenario (despite the clear evidence that fires did not cover a whole floor in either tower) and imagine that all the trusses of a floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor. But let's imagine that the lower floor suddenly gave up the ghost, and the two floors fell onto the next, and that failed, and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing.

Truss theory proponents hold that the core and perimeter wall lacked structural integrity without mutual bracing provided by the floor diaphragms. That may have been true in the event of a 140 mph wind, but not on a calm day. Note that the core had abundant cross-bracing, and would have been perfectly capable of standing in a hurricane by itself. And even if one imagines the outer wall buckling without that support, it does not begin to explain how it shattered into thousands of pieces, many of the column sections ripped from the spandrel plates at the welds, and how it shattered so quickly that no part of the wall remained standing above the falling dust cloud.

OkhamsRazor · #2 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 07:37 PM

I would like to add that steel is an excellent conductor of heat. It has the annoying property of wicking heat away from it's source, as anyone can tell you who has had to heat and bend large sections of steel. It's very difficult to raise the temperature of the steel without adequate heat.

Quote:

How the Towers' Fires Affected the Structural Steel
As an exercise let's set aside all of the evidence about the actual severity of the Twin Towers' fires, and imagine that the fires were incredibly intense and widespread. Let's imagine that the jets were full tankers and spilled 80,000 gallons of fuel into each tower. Let's imagine that there was a strong wind giving the fires plenty of air. Let's imagine that the the fires engulfed over 10 floors in each tower, saturating the capacity of the steel buildings to draw away the heat. Let's imagine the fires burned intensely for hours, completely gutting several stories of each tower. Would that cause them to collapse? Not according to people who have studied steel structures subjected to such stresses. The following passage is from Appendix A of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900Âº C (1,500-1,700Âº F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600Âº C (1,100Âº F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

This graph represents strength as a function of temperature, which is expressed in degrees Celsius (C).
At temperatures above 800Âº C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. 1 Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.
If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse remains localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. But it will not crumble into pieces.

Additional information

Unbiased, independent structural study not related to 9-11

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch...html#structure
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...e/trusses.html

Video:
MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King: what most likely happened (Approx. 8 minutes)

911 - Various Clips (approx 15 minutes

Okay folks... this is the first installment. There is much much much more to come. As you digest this info I'll be working on the next section. I've invested a considerable amount of time and effort into reviewing, searching and pulling all of this together, and I am willing to commit to many more hours to provide accurate and credible information. In addition, I am putting my reputation, my own credibility and any respect I may have earned on this site on the line. This fact is not at all lost on me. SO I would appreciate a modicum of respect in this exercise...

Thanx, Okham

Porter · #3 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 08:26 PM

Well there you have...Razor solved the riddle.

What are your qualifications? If I may ask. You say you have a background in physics and engineering but don't elaborate. Do you have a degree? If so from what college, or university.

I can read a few books and chant all day that I have a background in Computational Biology because I read a few books by Dan Gusfield but that certainly doesn't mean I am an expert on the field.

So how about you shed some light on your qualifications...it kind of credits your thoughts. Don't you agree?

I have heard more theories on 9.11 that my head could explode. Fact of the matter it would be too hard of a coverup to hide. Too many people had to of been involved.

For fun, may i ask who it is you beleive is behind the attacks?

Oh and do not forget your qualifications on engineering and physics.

Thank you

OkhamsRazor · #4 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porter

Well there you have...Razor solved the riddle.

What are your qualifications? If I may ask. You say you have a background in physics and engineering but don't elaborate. Do you have a degree? If so from what college, or university.

I can read a few books and chant all day that I have a background in Computational Biology because I read a few books by Dan Gusfield but that certainly doesn't mean I am an expert on the field.

So how about you shed some light on your qualifications...it kind of credits your thoughts. Don't you agree?

I have heard more theories on 9.11 that my head could explode. Fact of the matter it would be too hard of a coverup to hide. Too many people had to of been involved.

For fun, may i ask who it is you beleive is behind the attacks?

Oh and do not forget your qualifications on engineering and physics.

Thank you

I don't as a rule go into personal information here. I've been on the web since the days of Archie's and gofers. I have learned that unless I know you well, most can't be trusted to be responsible with such information. But that is beside the point and I don't appreciate the attempt to sidetrack this issue. Once again you have not adhered to the guidelines of the thread, as you did not on another. Have a little respect new guy. You can start all the threads you want, there is not limit on space here. The entire reason I posted the guidelines is because of people like you.

What IS important is the qualifications of the folks that are bringing forth the evidence. Take a look at those. Furthermore, you did not look at the evidence provided by the links nor did you check into their qualifications. So in short... piss off, your posts on this thread will be ignored.

Thank you.

BTW... there have been a number of cover-ups in the past that have taken decades to unravel, that have also involved large numbers of participants. So no, it's not that unreasonable. Also, you seem to completely underestimate the effect that power, money and threat of life family and career can have on people. It really doesn't take much to shut people up that are with you to begin with. Add to that the ability of the government to comartmetalize things... hell, as a matter of regular business one part of the government rarely knows what the another is up to, or why.

Porter · #5 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

I don't as a rule go into personal information here. I've been on the web since the days of Archie's and gofers. I have learned that unless I know you well, most can't be trusted to be responsible with such information. But that is beside the point and I don't appreciate the attempt to sidetrack this issue. .

WHOA!! Hold on a second pal. It is not beside the point, nor is a sidetrack. Your credentials is very much important being you are trying to convince people of your theory. You don't walk into a job interview without a resume do you and tell them to take your word for it?

Credentials are everything when you are trying to prove a piont, otherwise everything you say (post) is bunk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

Once again you have not adhered to the guidelines of the thread, as you did not on another. Have a little respect new guy. You can start all the threads you want, there is not limit on space here. The entire reason I posted the guidelines is because of people like you. .

YOU have not adhered to the rules of debate when presenting an argument that involves facts. One can not say they have a background in X,Y and Z and claim they use the scientific method without saying where their background is from.

Certainly you wouldnt take the word of a man who has a GED when he talks about the artificial heart would you? I would hope you took the word of a man like Jarvis who obviously has CREDENTIALS.

So do you have a degree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

What IS important is the qualifications of the folks that are bringing forth the evidence. Take a look at those. Furthermore, you did not look at the evidence provided by the links nor did you check into their qualifications. So in short... piss off, your posts on this thread will be ignored. .

Wrong, if one does not have a strong background in the field, one can not decifer truth from fiction. Otherwise you are appealing to authority. Physics and engineering is not childsplay where it is common sense to follow, so how can you say with 100% certainty that what they say is true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

BTW... there have been a number of cover-ups in the past that have taken decades to unravel, that have also involved large numbers of participants. So no, it's not that unreasonable. .

Ones as big as 9.11? Please enlighten me - what where they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

Also, you seem to completely underestimate the effect that power, money and threat of life family and career can have on people. It really doesn't take much to shut people up that are with you to begin with. Add to that the ability of the government to comartmetalize things... hell, as a matter of regular business one part of the government rarely knows what the another is up to, or why.

So plese tell me who exactly is being made to keep silent?

And you do know that if the Bush admin was behind the attacks (a riduculous notion) that the CIA would of had to of been involved...which means Tenet would of known the plot. And since Tenet and Clinton are best pals he would know.....now are you telling me that Clinton (Hillary or Bill) knows of this murdering of 3000 innocent American civilians by George Bush and dont say anything? LOL

Oh and why we are at can you tell me the reason the Bush admin would commit such an act?

Sam · #6 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 09:55 PM

Before I respond to the thread on 9/11 I would like to address the issue of personal credentials and release of personal information. This forum has teachers, physicians, engineers, economists, nurses,students, self educated intellectuals, construction workers, business owners, teenagers, senior citizens. Their knowledge base and intellectualism becomes apparent when they communicate. I have an advanced degree but could never hold my own on economics or engineering. This forum is the gathering of minds and people with all different abilities and talents evaluating and discussing political issues.

I agree that just reading someones opinion does not mean it is a fact , but when you spend time on a forum you begin to know the ones that link to sources, who research and are critical thinkers. In a sense by conversing you begin to see their values, their intellect and their energy and ideas. You are less likely to have someone misrepresent themself because we are just discussing issues not trying to meet people for money, connections, romance etc. It is simply exchanges of ideas and information and I like hearing all sides even those I disagree with. To come on and demand credentials is off base. Get to know the forum and you will begin to see each persons values and abilities. If you just want a credentialed lecture go to a university class. This is about discussion and ideas and learning how to debate.

Almost all on this forum I like to hear from. okham for example researches every detail and is dedicated with incredible work ethic. Cordelier,Chief,GOP guy,Eli, rob johnson, and many others seem to have a niche in specific areas. i always like to hear Georges comments and humor. Robster is full of youth and others have had life experiences that add to the discussion.

I would encourage the new posters to take time and read the forum befroe jumping in and labeling. Now sorry but I had to resopond to this post above. i like the 9/11 thread and will addrss that in the next post.

Porter · #7 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Before I respond to the thread on 9/11 I would like to address the issue of personal credentials and release of personal information. This forum has teachers, physicians, engineers, economists, nurses,students, self educated intellectuals, construction workers, business owners, teenagers, senior citizens. Their knowledge base and intellectualism becomes apparent when they communicate. I have an advanced degree but could never hold my own on economics or engineering. This forum is the gathering of minds and people with all different abilities and talents evaluating and discussing political issues. .

While we are at it...i am an astronaut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I agree that just reading someones opinion does not mean it is a fact , but when you spend time on a forum you begin to know the ones that link to sources, who research and are critical thinkers. In a sense by conversing you begin to see their values, their intellect and their energy and ideas. You are less likely to have someone misrepresent themself because we are just discussing issues not trying to meet people for money, connections, romance etc. It is simply exchanges of ideas and information and I like hearing all sides even those I disagree with..

I disagree with that....i feel, even on a small level, we are all posting our beleifs to sway others (in some way or another). Conspiracy freaks want to let the world know they have found the truth (no matter how deranged it is) and others want to show how misguided those theorists are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

To come on and demand credentials is off base. Get to know the forum and you will begin to see each persons values and abilities. If you just want a credentialed lecture go to a university class. This is about discussion and ideas and learning how to debate..

I agree to an extent. When you are sharing beleifs on religion, philosophy or any general topic then credentials arent needed because it is purely subjective....however when one is talking of physics and engineering and passing it off as fact, well then their credentials should come into question.

OkhamsRazor · #8 (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 11:24 PM

This is getting tedious... Look, It's not my theory. I didn't do the science. I am just trying to get folks out of there habit of dismissing things out of hand.

I haven't bought into all of this stuff either.... WHAT I"M SAYING IS... I FIND THE RESULTS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS FAR MORE COMPELLING THAN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS, the data from both sides fits the opposing theory better at this time. There is always new data to consider. I don't just stop when I think I have things figured out... like some... I keep digging until the answers are solid. There is NOTHING solid about either version, but I find more holes in the official version.

Again, this is not my theory, but there are question that MUST be answered.

gixaholic · #9 (**permalink**) 06-12-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

This is getting tedious... Look, It's not my theory. I didn't do the science. I am just trying to get folks out of there habit of dismissing things out of hand.

I haven't bought into all of this stuff either.... WHAT I"M SAYING IS... I FIND THE RESULTS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS FAR MORE COMPELLING THAN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS, the data from both sides fits the opposing theory better at this time. There is always new data to consider. I don't just stop when I think I have things figured out... like some... I keep digging until the answers are solid. There is NOTHING solid about either version, but I find more holes in the official version.

Again, this is not my theory, but there are question that MUST be answered.

it's funny because you beleive it likeit is your own theory. fraud

OkhamsRazor · #10 (**permalink**) 06-12-2006, 11:29 AM

SO back to the topic... lets take a look at how the towers fell. We've already seen that there is a large discrepancy to how tower 7 fell as if in a near vacuum., The next bit if evidence I'll be showing showing how, due to the speed of collapse, the laws of inertia and conservation of momentum are violated.

Note: The bottom 80 odd stories of the twin towers were completely undamaged by fire or impact. Their structural integrity ( which is considerable) was completely intact. And yet there was no part of the buolding that wasn't pulverized into a fine dust. Also keep in mind that the structure is substantially stronger at the base than anything above the 80th floor.

Quote:

Twin Towers' Rate of Fall Strongly Suggests Demolition
The towers collapsed completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

In a vacuum a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?

Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.

You don't need to be a Nobel Luareate or an MIT professor to understand this. Most highschool physics students can grasp this simple concept.