I have yet to complete either of these videos, but I have watched significant portions of each. I’ll do my best to finish them.
Thus far I can complement the creators on their propaganda film. Honestly with the collection of supposed “intellectuals” on this message board I would expect people not to fall for something like this so easy.
You mean after buying the WTC the owner took out a huge insurance policy specifically for terrorism? WOW! It totally means something fishy. It’s not like it was ever a target for terrorism before 9-11, right?
You mean investors were expecting airline stocks to perform poorly in September of 2001? WOW! It totally means something fishy. It’s not like the country was in the midst of an economic down turn, the market in general was tumbling or that nearly all the airlines were on a sharp decline and headed toward significant hardships or bankruptcy before 9-11, right?
Anyone else awake and watching TV on 9-11 other than me? Do you remember all the other terrorist attacks that witnesses were reporting? There were reports of truck bombs and attacks at the white house and the capitol building too. These people getting interviewed during the catastrophe saying they saw a small plane or they saw a propeller plane or they saw a cargo plane or they saw an all white plane with a blue circle are about as reliable as those that saw the truck bomb in DC or any of the other soon to be discovered as false “witness” reports from the morning.
Seriously. I would expect some of you to come around saying “Oh, the Nazi party had some pretty good ideas” or “Oh, the Nazi party wasn’t all that bad” after watching:
Triumph of the Will
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9076835539195533187&q=Triumph+of+the+Will
Seems like you’ll fall for anything, so you might as well fall for a master work of propaganda film making while you’re at it.
I’m starting to believe this forum is undeserving of it’s reputation for being a place for “higher” thought and debate.
Other high rise buildings caught on fire and never fell down.
“The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day.
The WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.”
“Oh, but I heard explosions and “saw” puffs of smoke, that means controlled demo”
NO
“Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.”
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
Which means, yes they fell fast. And yes they fell as fast as they should have.
But “Science” says steal melts at a higher temp than jet fuel burns. The WTC steal couldn’t have melted!
“ The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
When bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.”
All quotations are information from: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
