Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you explain the laws of physics violations?

You have a force that is directional -- an airplane traveling at 200-300 mph. You have a fire and explosion that could not have taken place in a uniform controlled environment.

With those two factors the odds of the building imploding upon itself without tipping in any direction is a million to one. The odds of two buildings doing it is 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. But what about 3 buildings, where the third building isn't even hit by anything more than debris?

In the entire human history there have only been 3 steel frame high rise buildings that completely imploded upon themselves due to fire. There have been many horrific fires in high rise, steel framed buildings, but only 3 imploded. All three collapsed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. We have had fires that raged for 24 hours without them collapsing, yet the two towers both collapse after little more than an hour, and building 7 collapses about 8 hours after the attack.

Any forensic investigation of this fire would look at the steel. However, in this case the forensic investigators were not given access to the steel, it was guarded by the US military and shipped to China to be recycled.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have a force that is directional -- an airplane traveling at 200-300 mph. You have a fire and explosion that could not have taken place in a uniform controlled environment.

With those two factors the odds of the building imploding upon itself without tipping in any direction is a million to one. The odds of two buildings doing it is 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. But what about 3 buildings, where the third building isn't even hit by anything more than debris?

In the entire human history there have only been 3 steel frame high rise buildings that completely imploded upon themselves due to fire. There have been many horrific fires in high rise, steel framed buildings, but only 3 imploded. All three collapsed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. We have had fires that raged for 24 hours without them collapsing, yet the two towers both collapse after little more than an hour, and building 7 collapses about 8 hours after the attack.

Any forensic investigation of this fire would look at the steel. However, in this case the forensic investigators were not given access to the steel, it was guarded by the US military and shipped to China to be recycled.

I've heard conspiracists question about the third building, and I'm not sure about that, and for that matter whether a plane actually hit the pentagon or not.

The other two building were more simple to explain. The explosion damages the fire retardant that covers the steel, which heats up and buckles under the weight. Fire protection systems were all destroyed. I'd like to study it more, because structural steel should not be bearing the compressive loads, concrete should be.

I watched both buildings go down. The collapse of each building was shocking, though predictable to me, and did not seem out of the ordinary. We would have to compare the momentum of the airplane (mass times velocity) to the building mass to determine its expected lateral movement. The explosion is a different phenomena, as was the heat produced by burning fuel. So each of the three events should be examined individually (crash, explosion, fire.)

The rising temperature within the structural posts determined the diminishing yield strength of the steel (concrete would not be so vulnerable to heat) to uphold the weight above the damaged area. The 2nd tower was hit on a lower floor, hence more weight to uphold, and that building failed in a shorter time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've heard conspiracists question about the third building, and I'm not sure about that, and for that matter whether a plane actually hit the pentagon or not.

The other two building were more simple to explain. The explosion damages the fire retardant that covers the steel, which heats up and buckles under the weight. Fire protection systems were all destroyed. I'd like to study it more, because structural steel should not be bearing the compressive loads, concrete should be.

I watched both buildings go down. The collapse of each building was shocking, though predictable to me, and did not seem out of the ordinary. We would have to compare the momentum of the airplane (mass times velocity) to the building mass to determine its expected lateral movement. The explosion is a different phenomena, as was the heat produced by burning fuel. So each of the three events should be examined individually (crash, explosion, fire.)

The rising temperature within the structural posts determined the diminishing yield strength of the steel (concrete would not be so vulnerable to heat) to uphold the weight above the damaged area. The 2nd tower was hit on a lower floor, hence more weight to uphold, and that building failed in a shorter time.

And it could have been studied at the FBI's lab which has a structure designed to recreate a 3 floor building fire. They could have reconstructed the floors hit by the plane and determined if the jet fuel fire got hot enough to melt steel. Generally this could only take place in a very well controlled fire (blue flame) with little or no smoke. But the video of the fire shows it was billowing black smoke which means it was oxygen starved and therefore not hot enough to melt steel. But for some reason the US government decided it was not a priority to them to study this fire. One wonders why we built the lab if we weren't going to use it for 9/11.

Also, if you think the jet fuel is the reason the steel collapsed, then how do you explain the fire burning at 2,000 degrees F for over a month? Do you really think jet fuel would take that long to burn?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And it could have been studied at the FBI's lab which has a structure designed to recreate a 3 floor building fire. They could have reconstructed the floors hit by the plane and determined if the jet fuel fire got hot enough to melt steel. Generally this could only take place in a very well controlled fire (blue flame) with little or no smoke. But the video of the fire shows it was billowing black smoke which means it was oxygen starved and therefore not hot enough to melt steel. But for some reason the US government decided it was not a priority to them to study this fire. One wonders why we built the lab if we weren't going to use it for 9/11.

Also, if you think the jet fuel is the reason the steel collapsed, then how do you explain the fire burning at 2,000 degrees F for over a month? Do you really think jet fuel would take that long to burn?

Black smoke is not just indicative of oxygen starvation, but also the combustion of plastics and numerous petrochemicals.

Recently I read about a bridge failure in Pittsburgh. Some PVC pipes caught on fire on the lower deck. The heat was sufficient to soften structural steel and cause serious damage. It shutdown the city.

The jet fuel provided a tremendous ignition source. The fuel tanks were filled for cross country flights, yet had traveled only a short distance. The fuel is liquid, and as soon as it is vaporized, with sufficient oxygen, it will vaporize and burn hot. The confined space within the tower probably kept much of the fuel liquid for a considerable time, constantly feeding the fire. But, of course, there were other sources of ignition within the building. Once the building collapsed, who knows how much unburnt fuel within drenched ignition sources remained. Apparently, even after collapse, there was sufficient oxygen to maintain the fire, which was not extinguished, and sufficient insulation to keep the fire extremely hot for weeks. At 2,000 degrees, aluminum also burns, which is quite nasty.

I watched a video about the engineer who designed the towers. They never imagined that failure scenario; never crossed anyone's minds. Had the sprinkler system survived, had the fuel tanks been relatively empty, or had the steel insulation remained intact, the building still had a chance to survive. Unfortunately for both buildings, once the planes crashed, the building itself became a ticking time bomb. That became a double tragedy especially for all the first responders, since none could know the buildings would soon collapse.

As the buildings collapsed, each successive floor beneath the fire damaged floors was forced to withstand the impact of dynamic loads, something never designed for. As I watched them fall, I could almost see each floor buckle in succession, like dominoes striking one another. The floors above the fire zone, especially the top floor, had the best chance of survival since those floors remained relatively intact throughout the fall, until probably the end.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Black smoke is not just indicative of oxygen starvation, but also the combustion of plastics and numerous petrochemicals.

Recently I read about a bridge failure in Pittsburgh. Some PVC pipes caught on fire on the lower deck. The heat was sufficient to soften structural steel and cause serious damage. It shutdown the city.

The jet fuel provided a tremendous ignition source. The fuel tanks were filled for cross country flights, yet had traveled only a short distance. The fuel is liquid, and as soon as it is vaporized, with sufficient oxygen, it will vaporize and burn hot. The confined space within the tower probably kept much of the fuel liquid for a considerable time, constantly feeding the fire. But, of course, there were other sources of ignition within the building. Once the building collapsed, who knows how much unburnt fuel within drenched ignition sources remained. Apparently, even after collapse, there was sufficient oxygen to maintain the fire, which was not extinguished, and sufficient insulation to keep the fire extremely hot for weeks. At 2,000 degrees, aluminum also burns, which is quite nasty.

I watched a video about the engineer who designed the towers. They never imagined that failure scenario; never crossed anyone's minds. Had the sprinkler system survived, had the fuel tanks been relatively empty, or had the steel insulation remained intact, the building still had a chance to survive. Unfortunately for both buildings, once the planes crashed, the building itself became a ticking time bomb. That became a double tragedy especially for all the first responders, since none could know the buildings would soon collapse.

As the buildings collapsed, each successive floor beneath the fire damaged floors was forced to withstand the impact of dynamic loads, something never designed for. As I watched them fall, I could almost see each floor buckle in succession, like dominoes striking one another. The floors above the fire zone, especially the top floor, had the best chance of survival since those floors remained relatively intact throughout the fall, until probably the end.

I don't know what video you watched. The twin towers were designed to withstand an airplane crash from the commercial airline of the day which was heavier and hence had greater kinetic energy than either of the two planes that hit the towers.

I am very aware of the "official line" and don't buy it for a hundred different reasons.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't know what video you watched. The twin towers were designed to withstand an airplane crash from the commercial airline of the day which was heavier and hence had greater kinetic energy than either of the two planes that hit the towers.

I am very aware of the "official line" and don't buy it for a hundred different reasons.

What do you mean official line? And what don't you buy?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've heard conspiracists question about the third building, and I'm not sure about that, and for that matter whether a plane actually hit the pentagon or not.

The other two building were more simple to explain. The explosion damages the fire retardant that covers the steel, which heats up and buckles under the weight. Fire protection systems were all destroyed. I'd like to study it more, because structural steel should not be bearing the compressive loads, concrete should be.

I watched both buildings go down. The collapse of each building was shocking, though predictable to me, and did not seem out of the ordinary. We would have to compare the momentum of the airplane (mass times velocity) to the building mass to determine its expected lateral movement. The explosion is a different phenomena, as was the heat produced by burning fuel. So each of the three events should be examined individually (crash, explosion, fire.)

The rising temperature within the structural posts determined the diminishing yield strength of the steel (concrete would not be so vulnerable to heat) to uphold the weight above the damaged area. The 2nd tower was hit on a lower floor, hence more weight to uphold, and that building failed in a shorter time.

Genetically only a small proportion would be related to Ishmael. They have taken Ishmael as their "spiritual" Father. It is the same with Jews today, they may consider Isaac to be their "spiritual" Father but many have blonde hair and blue eyes. Genetically speaking some of the closest descendants of Isaac would be in the Taliban now in Afghanistan.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Genetically only a small proportion would be related to Ishmael. They have taken Ishmael as their "spiritual" Father. It is the same with Jews today, they may consider Isaac to be their "spiritual" Father but many have blonde hair and blue eyes. Genetically speaking some of the closest descendants of Isaac would be in the Taliban now in Afghanistan.

The arab population has never experienced diaspora like the Jews endured.

Their bloodlines were much more preserved over the centuries. Your analogy to the Jews in flawed.

I am surprised you so easily dismiss Biblical prophecy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The arab population has never experienced diaspora like the Jews endured.

Their bloodlines were much more preserved over the centuries. Your analogy to the Jews in flawed.

I am surprised you so easily dismiss Biblical prophecy.

Toxic racism. It's a meme you were indoctrinated into that determines your perception of Arabs. You think you know this; but DNA and social science evidence don't support it. You reject evidence that doesn't confirm your belief because of fear. Thus, racism born of ignorance reinforces itself.

We need to abandon the racist Bible interpretations that we were taught. Otherwise, we and those we discriminate against on the basis of these toxic teaching will suffer unnecessarily.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Toxic racism. It's a meme you were indoctrinated into that determines your perception of Arabs. You think you know this; but DNA and social science evidence don't support it. You reject evidence that doesn't confirm your belief because of fear. Thus, racism born of ignorance reinforces itself.

We need to abandon the racist Bible interpretations that we were taught. Otherwise, we and those we discriminate against on the basis of these toxic teaching will suffer unnecessarily.

The only one suffering here is me, having to endure your scathing personal attacks -- ad hominems, had we a moderator -- being called regularly an ignorant racist fundamentalist hater, etc.

In any normal forum, you would have been banned long ago for flaming. But since you are friends with the MOTA, you are allowed to stay.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The only one suffering here is me, having to endure your scathing personal attacks -- ad hominems, had we a moderator -- called regularly an ignorant racist fundamentalist hater, etc.

Welcome to Alternative Views. It's a free for all here. I don't know for sure, but I think that's why UntoHim MADE me the moderator of AltVs. He somehow knew I'd be very liberal toward AltVs.

And yes it's getting pretty headed out here. It's a politic thread so what can we expect?

My problem is not that zeek is a friend (going way back to local church days - decades), but that I love both of you. And you know that's true bro Ohio, cuz we're friends too.

But the truth is, zeek's Toxic Racism post was not a ad hominem. It was a debunking, with scientific evidence, that Ishmael doesn't represent all the Arabs. And taking the post personal is not the way to take it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

In any normal forum, you would have been banned long ago for flaming.

I remember bro ZNP getting banned from the normal forum LCD. That's not going to happen here on Altvs. I'm against banning.

And for similar reasons I'd like to continue discussing group-hate. It's a very critical and important matter, that I think Jesus and Christianity has great potential and hope to address. Let's talk about "The New Man" and how it can free us from group-hate.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have a force that is directional -- an airplane traveling at 200-300 mph. You have a fire and explosion that could not have taken place in a uniform controlled environment.

With those two factors the odds of the building imploding upon itself without tipping in any direction is a million to one. The odds of two buildings doing it is 1,000,000,000,000 to 1. But what about 3 buildings, where the third building isn't even hit by anything more than debris?

In the entire human history there have only been 3 steel frame high rise buildings that completely imploded upon themselves due to fire. There have been many horrific fires in high rise, steel framed buildings, but only 3 imploded. All three collapsed on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. We have had fires that raged for 24 hours without them collapsing, yet the two towers both collapse after little more than an hour, and building 7 collapses about 8 hours after the attack.

Any forensic investigation of this fire would look at the steel. However, in this case the forensic investigators were not given access to the steel, it was guarded by the US military and shipped to China to be recycled.

Neither the directional force, nor the immediate explosions brought down either building. But they did start a process whereby the infrastructure was progressively weakened by the file, eventually leading to the collapse of the affected floors. And with the weight of the floors above now dropping downward, the lower floors began to collapse in sequence all the way to the bottom.

If there had only been the physical damage on the side of entry and no explosion to spread the destruction across the affected floors, or if the impact had immediately caused the building to collapse, then your presumption about the odds it would fall straight down might be correct.

But the infrastructure held. There was serious damage, but it could have continued to stand. Possibly.

Except for the extreme fire that then began to work on the integrity of the steel structure. No more lateral motion. An explosion that would have taken in roughly the entire floor(s) affected, not just a corner of the building.

Now it might not be controlled like an intentional demolition. But the factors are beginning to become more equal across the floors. Two planes, fully fueled, early in their flights striking into buildings. The explosions and fires would have been sufficient to spread the destruction thoroughly across the affected floors, therefore be somewhat uniform.

So are you suggesting that the U.S. govt either was in on the attacks, or knew enough to have charges set at the right places to help the buildings come down neatly when the attack finally happened?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Neither the directional force, nor the immediate explosions brought down either building. But they did start a process whereby the infrastructure was progressively weakened by the file, eventually leading to the collapse of the affected floors. And with the weight of the floors above now dropping downward, the lower floors began to collapse in sequence all the way to the bottom.

If there had only been the physical damage on the side of entry and no explosion to spread the destruction across the affected floors, or if the impact had immediately caused the building to collapse, then your presumption about the odds it would fall straight down might be correct.

But the infrastructure held. There was serious damage, but it could have continued to stand. Possibly.

Except for the extreme fire that then began to work on the integrity of the steel structure. No more lateral motion. An explosion that would have taken in roughly the entire floor(s) affected, not just a corner of the building.

Now it might not be controlled like an intentional demolition. But the factors are beginning to become more equal across the floors. Two planes, fully fueled, early in their flights striking into buildings. The explosions and fires would have been sufficient to spread the destruction thoroughly across the affected floors, therefore be somewhat uniform.

So are you suggesting that the U.S. govt either was in on the attacks, or knew enough to have charges set at the right places to help the buildings come down neatly when the attack finally happened?

Yes, there is no way to know for sure and why is that? Why was the steel whisked away under the guard of the US military without allowing forensic analysis? Why was no study done at the FBI burn facility specifically designed to handle fires of this size and analyze them?

You have given me a hypothetical possibility in which 59 different structural columns all failed and collapsed equally at precisely the same time so that the force on the next floor also collapsed at precisely the same time, etc., etc, etc.

One thing I don't understand is that we have a video of the collapse. It feel at a free fall rate. Now I might be able to understand that this is the first time in history that a steel frame structure collapsed due to fire, odds are it will probably happen eventually.

But, why is it that the 58 floors below the fire offered absolutely no resistance to the fall? Why didn't it slow it down a little?

I taught forensics, I chose the World Trade Center to study when we came to fire and engineering forensics. I figured it would be an excellent example of the very best forensic analysis of the day. Instead I learned it was the worst forensic investigation I had ever seen, not even allowing investigators to do the most basic tests, not giving them access to the most fundamental evidence, and these investigators were the first to sound the alarm that they had not been allowed to do their job. The only thing I can compare the 9/11 investigation to is the JFK investigation. Both were horrible examples of critical evidence being damaged, destroyed or disappeared.

I have several friends who are very highly placed in the federal government. I asked one about this, he referred me to the MIT explanation. This report begins with an introduction saying that the first step is to evaluate the fire at the FBI's lab, a facility that has capabilities far beyond MIT's ability, especially since they have not had access to any physical evidence. That said, they were asked to give the physics that would explain what happened. They then said that although this is highly implausible, the physics that would explain what happened if the official explanation to be believed is...." That is the "independent report" that supposedly supports the official one. They simply trust that the math will scare off most inquiries.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But, why is it that the 58 floors below the fire offered absolutely no resistance to the fall? Why didn't it slow it down a little?

Let me try to address this. The supporting pillars on each floor are designed to withstand all live (people, furniture) and dead (structure) loads on all the floors above it. Hence, going from top to bottom, the supporting structure grows in size as the loads increase. Practically, these incremental increases in load bearing capacity, may change 5 or 10 floors at a time, depending on the structural engineers.

These loads are basically static in nature, discounting a couple tons of weight from occupants coming and going. The only dynamic loads designed for would be movement from the earth and weather. Probably the worst of these in NYC would be hurricane force wind gusts, which would load one side of the base of the building and unload the other. Hence all skyscrapers must accommodate worst case wind gusts, and they can be significant on such a huge structure.

The tragedy of 9/11 presented entirely new dynamic loading. Once the structures at the crash site (perhaps a half dozen floors) buckled due to the intense heat, effectively dropping the available yield strength of the steel, dynamic loads due to gravity were introduced onto otherwise undamaged pillars beneath them.

The simple rule in dynamic loading says that the added forces of a moving load, at minimum, doubles the load. Thus a load which falls from only 1 mm, and never has opportunity to accelerate, STILL doubles the load. On top of this doubling, we must add the dynamic component of the weight falling roughly 10 feet at a time.

Think about hammering a nail into a 2 by 4. Lay a 20 oz framing hammer on a nail and nothing happens. Up it to a 16 lb sledge, and still we see only an indent in the wood fibers. Now swing away, and you get a feel for how much multiplication of load forces which existed as each successive level in the Trade Towers gave way.

Did they slow things down a little? Yes, a little, almost imperceptively.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me try to address this. The supporting pillars on each floor are designed to withstand all live (people, furniture) and dead (structure) loads on all the floors above it. Hence, going from top to bottom, the supporting structure grows in size as the loads increase. Practically, these incremental increases in load bearing capacity, may change 5 or 10 floors at a time, depending on the structural engineers.

These loads are basically static in nature, discounting a couple tons of weight from occupants coming and going. The only dynamic loads designed for would be movement from the earth and weather. Probably the worst of these in NYC would be hurricane force wind gusts, which would load one side of the base of the building and unload the other. Hence all skyscrapers must accommodate worst case wind gusts, and they can be significant on such a huge structure.

The tragedy of 9/11 presented entirely new dynamic loading. Once the structures at the crash site (perhaps a half dozen floors) buckled due to the intense heat, effectively dropping the available yield strength of the steel, dynamic loads due to gravity were introduced onto otherwise undamaged pillars beneath them.

The simple rule in dynamic loading says that the added forces of a moving load, at minimum, doubles the load. Thus a load which falls from only 1 mm, and never has opportunity to accelerate, STILL doubles the load. On top of this doubling, we must add the dynamic component of the weight falling roughly 10 feet at a time.

Think about hammering a nail into a 2 by 4. Lay a 20 oz framing hammer on a nail and nothing happens. Up it to a 16 lb sledge, and still we see only an indent in the wood fibers. Now swing away, and you get a feel for how much multiplication of load forces which existed as each successive level in the Trade Towers gave way.

Did they slow things down a little? Yes, a little, almost imperceptively.

Wow. And all 58 columns were driven in identically! Even a slight perturbance would get amplified with each floor causing it to tilt and collapse.

Is there some reason why you, and others are so willing to completely dismiss any credible investigation? Not a rhetorical question, why are people so willing to just completely ignore the fact that a reasonable investigation was never done?

1. We all know now, with 20/20 hindsight, that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack yet the very day of the attack Cheney tells his top advisors he wants this to be blamed on Iraq. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in a million to 1 in 210).

2. We all know that Cheney had a classified, top secret meeting with all the Oil executives about 8-9 months prior to the attack. A meeting that was not ever scrutinized because unlike the President of the US, the vice president is not subject to the oversight of the Senate because he is not part of the executive branch of government?! However, Cheney and others do have a report in a high level think tank in which they say that they need to transform the military to a high tech armaments but without a Pearl Harbor like event as a catalyst this transformation will take several decades. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 210 to 1 in 21).

3. Regardless of how you try to explain what happened it is completely totally hypothetical and that is because the President of the US ordered the military to come in and seize and destroy all evidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 21 to 50/50).

4. Regardless of how reasonable you might think the collapse from an airplane fire is, the fact is there have been 100 major fires in steel high rise buildings that didn't result in a collapse. Many of these fires were far more horrific and burned for many more hours without collapse. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 20:1)

5. I always thought it took a very sophisticated demolition team to bring a building like the World Trade towers to collapse in on itself. So the odds of this happening by chance, that the fire knocked off the fire retardant on all 58 columns equally, and at the same time, and that an oxygen starved fire was able to burn hot enough to cause all 58 to fail at precisely the same instant, that is truly amazing coincidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 2,000:1).

6. But it gets better because it happened a second time on the same day. Wow! (Oops, make that 2,000,000:1)

7. But it gets better because it happened a third time on the same day, and this time without even an airplane crashing into the building. Triple wow. (Oops, make that 2,000,000,000:1).

8. We also know that the alarm was first blown by those brought in to investigate the collapse. They have claimed that key tests were not done, nor did they have access to the physical evidence. (Maybe 10 billion to 1).

9. So concerned were they that they did their own private investigation. In the dust they discovered evidence of thermite which would explain a fire hot enough to burn steel, it would explain a fire burning for a month, it would explain a fire that is 2,000 degrees, and it would not be explained by airplanes. (Perhaps 1 trillion to 1).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow. And all 58 columns were driven in identically! Even a slight perturbance would get amplified with each floor causing it to tilt and collapse.

I viewed this as a well-balanced design structure falling straight down.

Is there some reason why you, and others are so willing to completely dismiss any credible investigation? Not a rhetorical question, why are people so willing to just completely ignore the fact that a reasonable investigation was never done?

I don't understand this. I'm not sure what kind of investigation you felt was needed. I watched the airplane fly into building #2, so I knew why it fell and how.

1. We all know now, with 20/20 hindsight, that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack yet the very day of the attack Cheney tells his top advisors he wants this to be blamed on Iraq. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in a million to 1 in 210).

What do you mean "inside job?"

2. We all know that Cheney had a classified, top secret meeting with all the Oil executives about 8-9 months prior to the attack. A meeting that was not ever scrutinized because unlike the President of the US, the vice president is not subject to the oversight of the Senate because he is not part of the executive branch of government?! However, Cheney and others do have a report in a high level think tank in which they say that they need to transform the military to a high tech armaments but without a Pearl Harbor like event as a catalyst this transformation will take several decades. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 210 to 1 in 21).

Most folks don't know about these top secret meetings.

3. Regardless of how you try to explain what happened it is completely totally hypothetical and that is because the President of the US ordered the military to come in and seize and destroy all evidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of this being an inside job from 1 in 21 to 50/50).

What evidence was destroyed? I thought it was hauled off to a land fill, after carefully checking for DNA.

4. Regardless of how reasonable you might think the collapse from an airplane fire is, the fact is there have been 100 major fires in steel high rise buildings that didn't result in a collapse. Many of these fires were far more horrific and burned for many more hours without collapse. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 20:1)

I know of two bridges that melted due to relatively small fires. I would think each case needs to be examined. Modern airliners with a full tank of gas landing inside of a tower is pretty rare event.

5. I always thought it took a very sophisticated demolition team to bring a building like the World Trade towers to collapse in on itself. So the odds of this happening by chance, that the fire knocked off the fire retardant on all 58 columns equally, and at the same time, and that an oxygen starved fire was able to burn hot enough to cause all 58 to fail at precisely the same instant, that is truly amazing coincidence. (Perhaps raising the odds of an inside job to 2,000:1).

With the entire weight of that tower in motion, those 58 posts all crumbled together like toothpicks.

6. But it gets better because it happened a second time on the same day. Wow! (Oops, make that 2,000,000:1)

7. But it gets better because it happened a third time on the same day, and this time without even an airplane crashing into the building. Triple wow. (Oops, make that 2,000,000,000:1).

I've heard this a couple times before, and not sure what to make of it, not knowing all the facts.

8. We also know that the alarm was first blown by those brought in to investigate the collapse. They have claimed that key tests were not done, nor did they have access to the physical evidence. (Maybe 10 billion to 1).

What alarm are you referring to? What key tests should have been done?

9. So concerned were they that they did their own private investigation. In the dust they discovered evidence of thermite which would explain a fire hot enough to burn steel, it would explain a fire burning for a month, it would explain a fire that is 2,000 degrees, and it would not be explained by airplanes. (Perhaps 1 trillion to 1).

Not aware that thermite was discovered in significant quantities.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I viewed this as a well-balanced design structure falling straight down.

I don't understand this. I'm not sure what kind of investigation you felt was needed. I watched the airplane fly into building #2, so I knew why it fell and how.

What do you mean "inside job?"

Most folks don't know about these top secret meetings.

What evidence was destroyed? I thought it was hauled off to a land fill, after carefully checking for DNA.

I know of two bridges that melted due to relatively small fires. I would think each case needs to be examined. Modern airliners with a full tank of gas landing inside of a tower is pretty rare event.

With the entire weight of that tower in motion, those 58 posts all crumbled together like toothpicks.

I've heard this a couple times before, and not sure what to make of it, not knowing all the facts.

What alarm are you referring to? What key tests should have been done?

Not aware that thermite was discovered in significant quantities.

In the back of your average FBI fire investigators trunk they have a hand held device to measure for the presence of a variety of explosives. Common, simple test that was prohibited.

In a forensic examination of this sort you want to look at the steel, particularly that which failed. When you look at it you can determine how hot it got. For example, in the dust they found (not the official examination but one done outside of that) tiny spherical balls of steel that are a tell tale sign of thermite. When the steel becomes liquid it will fly off in drops which solidify as spheres. This indicated that the steel reached 2,000 degrees F, 500 degrees higher than jet fuel burns with a perfect air fuel mixture. Another very key piece of physical evidence that wasn't even permitted to be examined. The steel from the floors that were hit would have been very important to look at to confirm the hypothesis that the fire from the jet fuel caused the failure. That steel was not looked at, instead it was locked up, investigators were not allowed to inspect it, and then it was shipped to China to be recycled (destroying the evidence). Also, I would like them to have reconstructed the three floors hit by the plane in their burn lab and then recreate the fire to see how hot they could get it and what kind of symmetry you would get. These are the standard tests everyone would expect would be done on any major fire of significance.

Yes, inside job -- are you aware that on exactly the same day and time as 9/11 there was a "drill" being run in which an airplane was hijacked from Boston and flown into the Twin Towers? What are the odds? Yes they run drills all the time, but this was the first drill where they ever ran this scenario. What are the odds it would take place the same day, the same hour?

Why is this a sinister coincidence? Because it caused confusion and hindered a rapid response to the attack.

Are you aware that the supposed flight path that the commercial airliner flown by hijackers who didn't know how to land an airplane was so complex and extreme that most professional commercial airline pilots don't think it would be possible to pull off? Why the incredible gymnastics instead of just flying directly into the Pentagon? Well they hit the one part of the pentagon that was empty due to renovations. Hard to believe that was a priority for terrorists. Again, what are the odds?

Are you aware that the the hole left in the side of the Pentagon was did not have any holes for the wings and there were no wings left on the lawn? When was the last time wings and engines vaporized in an airplane crash?

Do you realize that the four airplanes that were hijacked had approximately 30% occupancy?! Investigators wanted to compare this list to the previous tuesday, same flights, same time, but haven't. Why not? Because the FBI prohibits the release of that information?!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I viewed this as a well-balanced design structure falling straight down.

I don't understand this. I'm not sure what kind of investigation you felt was needed. I watched the airplane fly into building #2, so I knew why it fell and how.

What do you mean "inside job?"

Most folks don't know about these top secret meetings.

What evidence was destroyed? I thought it was hauled off to a land fill, after carefully checking for DNA.

I know of two bridges that melted due to relatively small fires. I would think each case needs to be examined. Modern airliners with a full tank of gas landing inside of a tower is pretty rare event.

With the entire weight of that tower in motion, those 58 posts all crumbled together like toothpicks.

I've heard this a couple times before, and not sure what to make of it, not knowing all the facts.

What alarm are you referring to? What key tests should have been done?

Not aware that thermite was discovered in significant quantities.

Thermite was discovered in the dust by professionals that were stymied by the roadblocks in the regular investigation. What was especially interesting is that the signature of this thermite indicated that it was a weaponized form that could not be manufactured by your run of the mill terrorists. They were able to find research papers out of our military labs that describe these kind of improvements to thermite (micro nodules or some other technology). Allows for the reaction to take place quicker and more explosively.

The Thermite was a red color, like that primer paint they paint on steel. Which is interesting because work was being done on the steel for a few weeks prior to 9/11.

By 2014 2,300 architects and engineers signed a petition demanding an independent investigation with subpoena power.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, there is no way to know for sure and why is that? Why was the steel whisked away under the guard of the US military without allowing forensic analysis? Why was no study done at the FBI burn facility specifically designed to handle fires of this size and analyze them?

You have repeated the factoids spread by those who want to insist on a conspiracy. Was the area maintained securely? I would hope so. Despite the relative compactness of the rubble, it was not a safe place.

And they hauled it all away.

And it went to a recycler in China.

Those points demand a conspiracy.

You cry about lack of testing of the metal. What for? the presence of iron and other elements in the steel? Residues of the fuel and other flammables that ultimately weakened the steel? For the purpose of proving that there were not explosives on every floor to just bring the whole thing down?

Do you think they didn't know what happened? Unlike an airplane that comes apart in mid-air and they don't know why so they study the debris and black box, etc., this was less subject to question.

And it would have been difficult to isolate the material from particular floors for the purpose of establishing information that was probably not expected to tell them anything they didn't know anyway.

It is the world of conspiracy theorists to presume that something not done they way they would do it to mean that there is a conspiracy to cover something up. And the presumed conspiracies are always the worst they can come up with.

It is the loony fringe. I didn't expect you to be among them.