Official 9/11 foiler thread

$1:

Anything you or I type here is going to reference something else as both of us werent there when it happened. Guess you dont want the truth,all the official reports are there,if you choose to ignore them then you are like most foilers Ive "chatted" with,eventually it will come down to "the Joos did it" happens allmost all the time.

This entire debate is about blaming the "officials" of commiting this crime then how can I believe any stupid reports they put out. The truth is always in independent investigations and most independent investigations pointed figures at Bush so once again, we have to explore the event, one thing at a time. I don't care whether Jews did it or you did it, I am trying to have a debate so I get a better understanding of the situation, I don't want to believe CTs on either side, thats why I am debating.

$1:

You say there were explosives yet offer no proof,I post facts that prove you wrong and you still ignore it. Typical CT

Did you even bother watching the video I posted? First you said that fire caused the explosives noise that the fire men heard, then I asked the fire crack pattern in the noise that is usually heard before a demolition takes place. Then you said, it might have been transformers, then I asked you 3 simple questions. And you answered with someone elses article, you see how you are slowly loosing credibility. I really want a debate so step up to the plate with some answers of your own and common sense or we can stop now.

These guys did it:

$1:

Abbas...

Stop with "the steel did not melt" bullshit.

I have worked with steel for most of my life.

How do you think I bend steel bar, well I HEAT IT until it's plasticising point, then it bends easily. It will even bend under it's own weight.

Well, tell me what temperature does your "equipment" have to be for steel to melt. Then tell me what type of equipment burns it to a melting point and then tell me whether this "equipment" produces a controlled fire or not?

$1:

The heat required to BEND steel is a lot lower than the heat required to MELT steel.

Hence any structure that relies on steel for exoskeleton support will collapse if the steel is heated to it's plasticising point.

Digits please, what is the "melting" point of steel then?

$1:

The load bearing steel members having give way throws their load onto the members below, hence cascade collapse

Well, it seems that more then gravity was at work when the building was falling because it fell in 9 seconds... do you understand that if steal did melt, it did not melt on all floors. So it must have caused some obsticles in the fall but nope. The building fell straight down like every floor underneather had already been wiped out. So explain to me whether it was gravity that brought it down because it obviously wasnt or was it something else?

$1:

The explanation leaves out details on grades of steel, load bearing angles, stress points, etc as I am trying to keep this simple.

Well, simple doesn't do much for me. I need some details so I can verify your answers. According to the builder of TT, the building was build to take such impacts like 9/11. So all these buildings can go through hours and hours of tourcher, yet they still stand. But, twin towers just fell.

$1:

Oh.... an explosion is rapidly expanding air, whether caused by an explosive material, or, whether caused by the rapid compression and hence the rapid expansion of air, such as in a building collapse.

Once again, explosions took place before the collapse, not after or not while it was falling. Rapid expansion of air does not cause explosions because then demolitions would not be able to bring down a building into its basement.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

These guys did it:

Haha, whats up bart. I am hoping that you will have some intellegent arguments to add to our debate but remember, I don't want to turn this into what he said, she said. Its about personal knowledge and using common sense and witness statments to argue points. Right now the argument is whether there were explosives in the building or not.

No Right now the argument is the degree of crazy you are.

I see you will ignore the facts no matter what they are,typical CT.
I never said fire caused the explosions,said they MAY have caused them,dont twist my words.

This whole debate comes down to facts and how credible they are,I'm posting the most unbiased ones you will find,even on the links I gave to Tricks they have warnings about how some of the sites they reference are extremely right wing,Im no Bush lover or hater,I have no agenda other then to debunk bullshit. You on the other hand have an agenda and its blatently obvious to most.

Yup,you better watch that first video and see the pack of lies you have been fed. You want more details yet wont read the ones I posted because it was from the govt? Most of my facts are from everywhere,unless you think their all "in on it" Is that the case abbas?

OPP OPP:

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!

All the reports are HERE

There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.

I found this:

$1:

2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds 
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.

Could you sumarise this for me Ziggy?

There was no controlled demolition,hows that?

$1:

Yup,you better watch that first video and see the pack of lies you have been fed. You want more details yet wont read the ones I posted because it was from the govt? Most of my facts are from everywhere,unless you think their all "in on it" Is that the case abbas?

OK, instead of reading your "reports" I can go watch 15 mins of CNN clips and I will get the same information. Be creative and think, don't just read other peoples theories and make up your mind.

$1:

Yup,you better watch that first video and see the pack of lies you have been fed. You want more details yet wont read the ones I posted because it was from the govt? Most of my facts are from everywhere,unless you think their all "in on it" Is that the case abbas?

OK, instead of reading your "reports" I can go watch 15 mins of CNN clips and I will get the same information. Be creative and think, don't just read other peoples theories and make up your mind.

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!

All the reports are HERE

There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.

I found this:

$1:

2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds 
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.

Could you sumarise this for me Ziggy?

There was no controlled demolition,hows that?

No, seriously.. could you sumarise what the.. what was he? A scientist of some sort i presume, wrote and the calculations he used to describe the fall of the towers.
The minimum he spoke of.. is that free fall or.. ?

If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.

We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.

And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.

Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.

$1:

Yup,you better watch that first video and see the pack of lies you have been fed. You want more details yet wont read the ones I posted because it was from the govt? Most of my facts are from everywhere,unless you think their all "in on it" Is that the case abbas?

OK, instead of reading your "reports" I can go watch 15 mins of CNN clips and I will get the same information. Be creative and think, don't just read other peoples theories and make up your mind.

OPP OPP:

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!

All the reports are HERE

There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.

I found this:

$1:

2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds 
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.

Could you sumarise this for me Ziggy?

There was no controlled demolition,hows that?

No, seriously.. could you sumarise what the.. what was he? A scientist of some sort i presume, wrote and the calculations he used to describe the fall of the towers.
The minimum he spoke of.. is that free fall or.. ?

was just reading up a bit more on it.

$1:

If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.

We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.

And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.

Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.

source

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

ziggy ziggy:

OPP OPP:

Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!

All the reports are HERE

There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.

I found this:

$1:

2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds 
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.

Could you sumarise this for me Ziggy?

There was no controlled demolition,hows that?

No, seriously.. could you sumarise what the.. what was he? A scientist of some sort i presume, wrote and the calculations he used to describe the fall of the towers.
The minimum he spoke of.. is that free fall or.. ?

was just reading up a bit more on it.

$1:

If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck. We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.

We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.

And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 12.5 seconds.

Where people have quantified the collapse time they thought should have arisen, it’s not always helpful to the conspiracy case. D.P. Grimmer, for instance, believes the towers demonstrably fell in around 10 seconds, and has this to say about the time it should have taken in one scenario (if 30% of the gravitational energy of the collapse was lost in pulverising the concrete):

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

So Grimmer thinks a 12 second time might be more reasonable, in the case he describes? Yet we (and others) suggest a collapse time of 15 seconds or more is more accurate, significantly longer still.

source

Ziggy... I've seen the tapes.. Not once did it take 15 seconds for the towers to hit ground zero. 12,5 second.. Even that is stretching it don't you think?