User talk:Huysman/911 conspiracism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a continuation of discussion from Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories.

Contents 1 WTC 1 & 2 Collapses 1.1 Speed of Collapses 1.2 Academic Consensus 1.3 Quote Mining 1.4 Conservation of Momentum 1.5 Column Failure 1.6 Explosion Sounds 1.7 Historical Collapses & Comparisons 1.8 Molten Steel 1.9 Pulverized Concrete 1.10 Tower Design 1.11 How would explosives have been planted? 1.12 What kind of explosives? 1.12.1 Thermite 1.12.2 Micronukes 2 WTC 7 Collapse 2.1 Debunking the alleged evidence 2.2 Asymmetry 2.3 Alleged squibs 2.4 Damage 3 Pentagon Crash 4 Flight 93 4.1 Phone Calls 4.2 Seismology 4.3 Debris 5 Foreknowledge 5.1 Government Figures 5.1.1 Willie Brown 5.1.2 Ashcroft 5.1.3 Bush Briefing 5.2 Drills 5.3 PNAC 5.4 Alleged Insider Trading 5.5 Foreign Government Warnings 6 Hijackers 6.1 Atta 6.2 Alomari 6.3 Hanjour 6.4 Jarrah 6.5 Alshehhi 6.6 Wail & Waleed Alshehri 6.7 Majed Moqed 6.8 Nawaf Alhazmi 6.9 Salem Alhazmi 6.10 Almihdhar 6.11 Saeed Alghamdi 6.12 Alnami 7 Al Qaeda 7.1 Al Qaeda's Numerous Admissions of Responsibility for 9/11 7.2 Osama bin Laden 12/13/01 videotape 8 USAF Response 8.1 War Games 8.2 Fighter Speeds 8.3 Historical Intercepts 9 Able Danger 10 9/11 Commission

[edit] WTC 1 & 2 Collapses

[edit] Speed of Collapses

CB Brooklyn, my mention of the Towers not being freefall collapses is not a red herring, but a plea for you to stop repeating a falsehood. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

what falsehood was I repeating? CB Brooklyn 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured that it isn't right to say "near freefall" when the collapses, based on video evidence, are at least 63% slower than freefall. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic Consensus

I pointed out the universal materials specialist/engineer/seismologist/architect/demolition expert consensus against controlled demolition, and you responded that they are not speaking out because they could "lose their jobs, or worse." However, these people could become another Mark Felt, or release a paper through a 3rd party. If there really was a conspiracy they could prove it and win a huge prize like Nobel or Pulitzer, an excellent incentive. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I said a lot more than that. Re-read what I wrote. CB Brooklyn 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote Mining

When you cite a quote from NY's bravest, you cannot quote so selectively. Here are the entire quotes from which you clipped some items (I will bold terms which contradict your interpretation of the quotes): "I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down." ... "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever." -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 21:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are looking at it backwards. All the reports of explosions, bombs, and flashes must be explained. They must be explained specificially. CB Brooklyn 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that at least one quote was used inappropriately by the omission of information that would alter its meaning puts all of the quotes into question. In the case above, when the full quote is given it becomes obvious that it isn't necessary to explain it, as an alternative explanation is already given. Even setting that issue aside, you are asking for something thst you are unable to provide. You present sometimes vague, often inconsistent reports as incontrovertible evidence of controlled demolition and then reject any alternative explanation that isn't sourced in triplicate. That's hardly fair. How about you answer the following three questions for any of your quotes:

1) Where, exactly, was the individual at the time of the events they are describing?

2) What was their state of mind at that time?

3) How is this individual qualified to judge whether an "explosion" or "flash" is caused by the collapse of a building weighing some 500,000+ tons, whether it was an explosive device that was deliberately positioned and detonated, or whether it was something else entirely?

These are all appropriate and relevant questions, though they are all but impossible to answer. Controlled demolition is certainly a plausible explanation for the collapse of the towers, and I think any rational person would agree with me. Obviously you could cause any building to collapse on itself using explosive charges and gravity, though you won't see it done legitimately on a building of this size (there would be too much debris to contain, so the building would at least in part be disassembled from the top down). However, it's not the only plausible explanation. I disagree with its portrayal as such, just as I disagree with the monumental FEMA and NIST reports that dismiss all alternatives to their explanations out of hand without even mentioning just what they're dismissing. It's simply dishonest. Joel Blanchette 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation of Momentum

In response to CB Brooklyn's request for a paper that proves that the government's explanation does not violate the conservation of momentum theory, see section 3.0 of Dr. Frank R. Greening's report. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I will look at this some day. CB Brooklyn 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting indeed. It provides some good information on the theory of columns, which is apparently not often discussed. This is somewhat surprising, considering the critical importance of large vertical columns in the structural integrity of the WTC twin towers. Basically, long slender columns (like the columns forming the core of the WTC) can fail without exceeding, or even approaching their maximum axial compression (ie. straith down for a vertical column) by being deflected. Is there any information on the technical specifications of the columns forming the core of the WTC towers? Most importantly, how long were they, what was their shape, how were the ends attached, what kind of steel alloy were they made from, and what was the maximum deflection they could survive? One of the conclusions of this paper is that the impacts of the aircraft alone were more than enough to cause the eventual collapse of each tower in the manner observed, even without fires. I can't see any obvious flaw in it (the math presented isn't very complex) and the conclusions follow from the findings. A quick Google search suggests Dr. Greening's paper isn't easily refuted. As I said, it's certainly food for thought. Joel Blanchette 22:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Column Failure

The columns did not fail simultaneously. They may appear to have behaved this way because the column failure was a chain reaction. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I said they failed "(near?) simultaneously". Either way, it's a red herring, just like your freefall speed comments. You don't seem to understand that it can't be 100% perfect. They'll always be slight differences. You need to understand that. Besides, here's a structural engineer who said on the Discovery Channel that the columns did fail simultaneously. Regardless, they fell close enough to simultaneously to look like controlled demolitions. The idea of those columns failing nearly at the same time by fire is ridiculous. CB Brooklyn 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With such close timing one would not expect the WTC to behave as it did; i.e. cracking in one place first. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 03:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a red herring to counter the argument that the simultaneous collapse of any of the 3 WTC buildings' support structures proves that controlled demolition was involved? If so, then the original argument is equally meaningless. None of the buildings collapsed due to fire. Fires may have contributed, but not necessarily. I really urge anybody interested in the collapse of the WTC buildings to read up on column theory, especially as it pertains to long columns. A single major column buckling can cause a total structural collapse almost instantly. Columns don't operate in a vacuum, after all. Joel Blanchette 20:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explosion Sounds

Sounds of explosions have numerous explanations that are much more plausible than bombs. The sounds could be high-voltage electrical gear/transformers, steel bolts, immense concrete floors slamming onto each other, rivets, bodies landing on cars, etc. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. FDNY personnel said controlled demolitions were their gut instinct. Many gave specific accounts comparing them to controlled demolitions. Therefore your comment "numerous explanations that are much more plausible than bombs" is illogical. CB Brooklyn 03:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FDNY CAPTAIN: "Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

The above quote fails to demonstrate the FDNY captain likening the collapse to a controlled demolition; he never makes that connection. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

He also qualifies with "I didn't know the building was collapsing" and "still unaware that this building had collapsed." His description matches that of a transformer explosion. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER: "I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building."

"As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive"

FDNY FIREFIGHTER: "I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions"

FDNY FIREFIGHTER: "There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial Center." ... "the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building." ... "At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges"

CB Brooklyn 03:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the full quote which indicates something quite different: At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges. We had really no concept of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center at that point, and at that point many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Collapses & Comparisons

There are plenty of historical examples of steel framed buildings that have progressively collapsed (a.k.a. pancaking) not because of controlled demolition: L'Ambiance Plaza, other steel frame buildings in Los Angeles and Fairfax County, VA, and the Ronan Point building in England (1968). -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 01:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the fourth time you're ignoring my comment. Progressive collapse is NOT the only anomaly there is. CB Brooklyn 03:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I just showed that progressive collapse is not anomalous, so now we can move on to other alleged anomalies knowing this fact. It's getting late so I'll address your rebuttals tomorrow; have a good night. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The L'Ambiance collapse is so strikingly different than the twin towers that Dr. Steven Jones has included it in his paperfor comparison. Notice the stacking up of floors, and notice all the macroscopic material. L'Ambiance was not rendered into powder, did not leave pools of molten metal, there were no sounds of explosions, no squibs, and it did not progress near free-fall speeds. Also, L'Ambiance was under construction at the time.

There wasn't any molten steel at the WTC but there was molten aluminum. These buildings weren't hit by planes so they didn't have that molten aluminum. The sounds of explosions have already been explained and there were no squibs. Again, the Twin Towers collapsed at least 63% slower than freefalls which in my book is not "near" free-fall speed. L'Ambiance wasn't hit by a jet. The collapse, even though it took place during construction, shows that when such a building can't support a given load it will undergo progressive collapse. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the collapses on your linked pages Los Angeles and Fairfax County, VA are even more revealing. You have intact steel frames still standing there while some stuff fell off. These bear no resemblance to the twin towers or WTC7, and strengthen the case for controlled demolition. Thank you. TruthSeeker1234 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that historically, no other buildings have been hit by 500+ mph fuel-loaded passenger jets and had their trusses' fire-proofing blown off, much less had later load-bearing steel beams sheared off and vertical load-bearing core columns severed by jets. In WTC 7 there was a 20 story gash and the bottom floor fires raged for 6 or 7 hours and had these weakened floors supporting 40+ stories, and the steel wasn't reinforced by concrete, unlike the Madrid Windsor building. No more simplistic statements that the buildings collapsed by "fire" because there were many other factors which were historical firsts. You can't expect other buildings with different designs to perform the same as the WTC towers. Firefighters and others worried that One Meridian Plaza would do a pancake collapse. McCormick Plaza shows that steel structures can collapse because of fire alone. The partial collapse of Ronan Point is another example of a progressive collapse and had engineers worry about progressive collapse. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that was destroyed in the Oklahoma City bombing is a good example of a progressive collapse caused by means other than planned demolition. The bomb that was detonated was nowhere near big enough to destroy half the building. If it had been, other nearby structures would have been destroyed as well. Looking at the first picture on this page, you can see that the first floor is recessed, and that there are 4 concrete pillars supporting the upper floors, in addition to the enormous corner pillars. The truck carrying the bomb was near the middle of this section. When it detonated, the force of the blast lifted these upper stories slightly. Without the weight of the building to keep them in position, the blast knocked over at least one (probably two) of the columns. When the building came down, there was not enough support to hold it, and the facade collapsed downward and outward. Since it was attached to the rest of the building, it pulled a large chunk of the building forward (and down) with it. If you look at pictures of the damage, you can see that the debris fell down and forward, consistent with a collapse. If the entire building had collapsed (and it was really just luck that it didn't), it would have looked remarkably like a controlled demolition. I realize that this is a different type of building, and it made extensive use of concrete (you can see that the corner pillars and the sides of the buildind are made of large preformed slabs), but it is a good example of catastrophic damage resulting from relatively little damage (the blast itself would have destroyed part of the first and second floors, along with many windows, but it was not powerful enough to do structural damage inside the building from where it was detonated. Joel Blanchette 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molten Steel

Perhaps this is the most important link: http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/04/no-molten-steel-at-wtc-site.html. On this link there is some great info from Thomas Eagar: Having said that, I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him. I do not care to bask in such "glory". -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The famous photo of the hot slag cannot be aluminum, because it is orange-yellow hot. Aluminum is a liquid at those temperatures.

Eagar's theory of the collape was all the rage for a few years, and was adopted by FEMA and NOVA. Skeptics pointed out that if the floor assemblies broke away from the vertical columns, as Eagar has it, the core columns would be left standing. This is why NIST abandoned Eagar's theory, and came up with a completely different one. Eagar now stands completely discredtied, even among the official conspiracists.

TruthSeeker1234 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That slag (which is liquid molten metal, contrary to your implication above) is definitely a mystery, but where is it coming from? It's obviously not aluminum, since aluminum doesn't turn orange. Its color stays about the same (silvery-white) from solid until it vaporizes. As a liquid, it looks a bit like mercury. It does glow when hot, but this isn't apparent in daylight. It can't be the exterior columns, because the brilliant white glow of the thermite would be unmistakable. Besides, they were already severed in that part of the building. It would be difficult to use thermite on the core columns, because they were vertical. Thermite in action is liquid, and would tend to flow straight down due to gravity. What would have caused it to go through the beams instead of just flowing down the edges of them, doing only minor damage? Joel Blanchette 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a GIS for "molten aluminum" shows otherwise.--71.254.53.233 07:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Even with this moved to the correct section, I'm still not clear on your point. Are you saying that what appears to be molten metal coming out of the WTC towers could be aluminum, or that it could not be aluminum? I've melted aluminum before and my recollection is that it looks a lot like mercury. I think I have some fairly large aluminum heatsinks from old computers lying around somewhere at home. If I can find them, and something to melt them in (I'm thinking a small cast iron pot), I'll try to melt them down and take pictures in various lighting conditions. The results will be enlightening and useful or mildly disastrous and humorous. If you're going to have a minor disaster involving open flame and liquified metal, you might as well laugh about it. :) Joel Blanchette 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You claimed that molten aluminum "doesn't turn orange", when it very well can turn orange like any other metal at the right temperature. So you can't rule out aluminum because of the color.--71.255.17.160 07:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I further explained that it does glow orange, but that this color change is not visible in daylight conditions. It is visible in the dark. This is hardly unique. Tin and lead, frequently melted as solder, similarly remain silvery-white in bright light when melted. However, the orange slag we're discussing was observed in direct sunlight. If it was aluminum, it would have looked like a silvery-white opaque liquid, similar to mercury, tin, or lead. What is pouring out the building looks like steel, but as I said, it's a mystery. Joel Blanchette 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All metals glow at the same temperature. Its true, aluminum has a lower melting point than steel, and there is no doubt that there was molten aluminum in that fire. Essentially, if the fires at the site of the crash were hot enough to create steel that was visibly glowing-orange in a solid state in broad daylight, then there is no reason to doubt that it did the same thing to aluminum, albeit in a liquid state.--69.141.190.230 05:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulverized Concrete

Gravitational collapse is a perfectly adequate explanation of the pulverized concrete. Keep in mind that less than 1/3 of the dust was made up of concrete, and that most of the dust particles were bigger than 60 microns, with up to a 5th exceeding 300 microns in size. Hoffman's calculations involve numerous flawed assumptions. The alleged energy deficit is removed if the relative humidity of the clouds' contents was slightly above 2%. Wind, etc. also contribute to the clouds' expansion, not simply heat. Heat was added from office contents, the jet impacts, the burning fuel, etc. How much of the concrete was turned into dust, anyway? -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If the upper part of the building was acting as a battering ram pulverizing the structure below, what was pulverizing the battering ram?

Observe the many collapse photos. When the collpase is half over, most of the above material has been rendered into powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. Where is the mass needed to apply force downwards on the remaining intact structure? Where is it?

As to your first question, the battering ram was pulverizing itself, of course. Glibness aside, the third of Newton's Newton's laws of motion, the law of reciprocal actions, states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Take a car crash where a stationary car is struck head-on by a car moving at a high rate of speed. The force of the impact will be the same for both cars. Getting back to the tower, as the upper section of the tower slams into the rest of the tower below, it is in effect being hit with the same amount of force as the lower portion of the tower.

I have observed many of the collapse photos, as requested, and also watched some video footage. Here is the sequence of events of the North Tower's collapse as I see it:

1 - The tower is standing. The upper block of ~30 floors is leaning slightly toward the west, as it has since the impact of the aircraft.

2 - About 1 second before the collapse begins, the east face of the tower noticeably bulges outward directly below the damage caused by the aircraft for about 10 floors.

3 - The bulging columns buckle. At the same time, the upper block begins falling toward the west. However, it does not fall away from the tower, but rather rotates, suggesting that the core columns were still at least partly attached at this point.

4 - As the upper block continues to rotate, the tower below it begins to rapidly collapse downward. A large quantity of fine dust-like matter begins to form around the tower, apparently ejected outward from the building. Small pieces of debris are also visible, many of which appear to be windows (or pieces of window glass) blown out as their framing columns buckle.

5 - The rotation of the upper block nearly stops as it continuously impacts the tower below. The upper block also appears to be getting shorter as it is progressively pulverized from the bottom. The actual disintegration is not visible, as the point of impact is completely obscured by the cloud of dust and debris being ejected from the building.

6 - The pulverization of the upper block slows as the collapse of the lower portion of the tower accelerates.

7 - The remaining intact portion of the upper block is obscured by the cloud of smoke and debris. At the time this occurs (about 6 seconds after the collapse begins), the upper block appears to be falling at the same rate of speed as the collapse below it.

8 - The structure continues to collapse, though the eventual fate of the upper structure is unobservable due to the cloud of debris.

As to your last two questions, I'm not sure what you mean. How much more mass do you need? The upper block probably weighed about 150,000 tons, which is more than 135,000,000kg of mass. Once it broke free from its supports, this mass hurtled into the floor below it due the Earth's gravity. At this point, total collapse became inevitable, because the falling mass only increased as each floor failed. Eventually, the mass of the collapsing "intact" portion of the tower became great enough that the mass of the upper block was no longer needed to sustain the progressive collapse. Its effect on the remainder of the collapse was minimal, and what was left of it (the upper 1/3 to 1/2 of it was probably pretty much intact, though not visible in the dust cloud) was destroyed when it hit the ground. The idea that explosives pulverized the tower into dust is not very credible. It would require enormous amounts of explosives, and the debris would still have been blasted all over Manhattan. I remember watching video footage one time (years before 9/11) of a controlled-demolition gone horribly wrong (I think it was in Australia). Too much explosive force was used and chunks of concrete were blasted outward. We're talking 10 pound pieces of cement-and-rebar shrapnel going through houses several miles away. Joel Blanchette 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify your point? It's not clear what you are responding to and what you intend to show. Joel Blanchette 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, I actually edited in the wrong section. Sorry about that.--71.254.53.233 07:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tower Design

The towers were NOT designed to survive the kind of damage they experienced on 9/11: The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But they did survive. The towers stood motionless for 56 and 102 minutes. No doubt impact damage severing columns could cause a building to collapse, it just did not happen in this case. Furthermore, if it had happened in this case, collapse would have been asymmetrical.TruthSeeker1234 16:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because they didn't fall immediately does not mean they survived the impacts. If the collapse had occurred during the impact, yes, the collapse would have been asymmetrical, as the collapse would have been caused by the torque generated by the impact. At least part of the building would have toppled over. However, the buildings didn't fall over, they collapsed after the fact. Collapsing buildings tend to fall straight down, regardless of the cause of the collapse. They may have appeared to be motionless, but the upper section of each building was probably shifting imperceptibly (to our rather limited senses, at any rate). Were there any reports of groaning or creaking noises from inside the towers before the collapsed? Joel Blanchette 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. CB Brooklyn 03:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How would explosives have been planted?

This is a key issue and deals with means and opportunity. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a powerdown in the upper half of the South Tower the weekend before 9/11. There were many unusual evacuation drills in the weeks before 9/11. Bush's brother and cousin were principals in the WTC's security company. CB Brooklyn 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Bush's relatives: Securacom was replaced by EJ Electric in 1998, well before the attacks. Stratesec, not Securacom, installed the electric security layout at the WTC. Marvin Bush left his Securacom job in fiscal year 2000. That Bush's relative Wirt Walker was in charge of the company afterwards proves nothing. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Scott Forbes is the only source of the powerdown information; thousands of people would've been ticked off by this inconvenience and known and talked about it. This is a really silly story; security wouldn't have been turned off. There were definitely no powerdowns at WTC 7 and WTC 1. 36 hours is inadequate for a controlled demolition; it took 24 days for a 33-level building, and it took at least 4 months for another 30-story office building to be set up with charges. It is also very doubtful that such a power-down would be necessary for a mere cable upgrade. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What kind of explosives?

What kind of explosives would have been used? -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Read Dr Jones paper. CB Brooklyn 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thermite

If thermite were used, the accounts of the firefighters you quote must be discounted; thermite does not explode. Additionally, the amount of thermite required would be insane and it was impossible to plant the requisite amount based on the WTC chronology. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are other issues with thermite. Once ignited, thermite is basically a liquid. Lacking any other external force, a liquid will generally go straight down due to gravity. To cut a vertical beam (a column), as seems to be the implication, thermite would have to move horizontally. How would it do that? Another issue is that thermite is not fast enough to be used for a progressive collapse. Precise timing to a fraction of a second is needed to bring a building down like this in a controlled manner. Charges are used to instantly sever structural members, whereas thermite slowly burns through them. Thermite does not appear to be used in legitimate controlled demolition, and I can't imagine why it would have been used here instead of more predictable conventional explosives. Joel Blanchette 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micronukes

Has anybody actually suggested that nuclear weapons were used? If they were, I imagine it was due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. Steven Jones, an expert on nuclear fusion, does not mention them. It's difficult to make a nuclear weapon with a yield of less than 1 kiloton. That big a blast would have been obvious to anybody who could see the towers. The use of such a device would also be easily detected after the fact. There would be trace radiation, and some unusual isotopes that are only found after a nuclear detonation. I'm sure there were people at the site with Geiger counters to ensure that there was no radiation (which would have been spread all over Manhattan in the huge dust cloud caused by the collapse), and somebody must have taken samples from the site for testing. Joel Blanchette 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have provided such a good explanation of the absurdity of micronukes myself; thanks. Amazingly, some people who have no clue what they're talking about do suggest this: Peter Meyer, the people over at 911Review.org, etc. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about nukes on 911review.org, but I didn't look too hard. Based on some of the other other ideas they propose, I wouldn't be suprised if they believed that nuclear weapons were involved. For example, they show a piece of an aircraft engine in the Pentagon debris and claim that it can't be from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 turbofan engine. They include a picture of a RB211-535E4 lying in a field more or less intact (but devoid of housing) after a crash for the sake of comparison. They're grossly oversimplifying this engine, as can be seen here. What they're showing is a single rotor from the engine and a mostly destroyed piece of cowling. Joel Blanchette 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I believe the smallest-yield nuclear weapon ever produced was the M-388 Davy Crockett atomic artillery shell. It used a W54 adjustable yield single-stage fission warhead. Sources are inconsistent as to the maximum yield of the Davy Crockett. The W54 could be adjusted between 10 tons to 1 kiloton, but the M-388 did not have enough range to safely use the higher potential yields. It was a true battlefield nuke, designed for use against Soviet troop formations. It was not especially effective as an explosive devices, but as with any fission bomb, it released massive amounts of radiation. Within 500 feet of the blast, one would be exposed to over 100 sievert (10,000 rem) of radiation, which would likely result in immediate death, especially if combined with the injuries sustained by the blast itself. If something like this were used to take down the WTC, the radiation poisoning would have been unmistakable. Two- and three-stage nuclear weapons have much higher minimum yields, and their use in briging down a building like the WTC towers would not look like a controlled demolition. Honestly, if they were going to fake the destruction of large buildings using nuclear weapons, then they would have posited terrorists using nuclear weapons. In the panic and fear that would ensue the government could run roughshod over civil liberties of Americans and would be met not with hostility but with gratitude and relief. Joel Blanchette 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTC 7 Collapse

[edit] Debunking the alleged evidence

... Steven Jones raises 13 points; here are the problems with them:
1. Equally valid observation for both catastrophic failure and controlled demolition
2. WTC 7, not relevant to WTC 1 and WTC 2.
3. Same as (1).
4. Fact about unrelated circumstances.
5. Observation consistent with catastrophic failure and not controlled demolition
6. Same as (1).
7. Same as (1).
8. Same as (1).
9. Same as (5).
10. Same as (5).
11. Based on flawed assumption.
12. Objection to NIST procedure, unrelated to actual tower collapse.
13. Same as (12).

I would also point out that the paper makes the claim The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.... -- this is made as a statement of faith, without evidence, so the objectivity of the whole paper comes into question. Peter Grey 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I might look into all that... stuff.... at some future time. CB Brooklyn 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I find Dr. Jones's paper less than compelling. It makes a lot of assumptions that are presented as undisputed facts. The most glaring, as pointed out above, is that the impact damage and subsequent fires from the planes could not have caused the collapse. He should read up on column theory, particularly the way long, slender columns fail when they are deflected (ie. bent). Having read up on that, I'm surprised the towers survived as long as they did. Another (more subtle) assumption is in section 9, where he claims that the only way to explain the loss of "angular momentum" of the upper block of 30 floors when it started to lean over is explosives. The fact that this block was still attached via the core columns to the rest of the building and that the edge of the upper block fell into the building below it, thereby impeding its ability to continue falling over, is not mentioned. He also claims that this block was pulverized to dust in mid-air, which doesn't appear to be the case. It does come apart somewhat, but that can be explained by the impacts with the floors below as it moves downward. It gets more or less pulverized to dust only when it finally encounters an object that it can't displace: the Earth. By that point its kinetic energy is immense. Joel Blanchette 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asymmetry

The collapse was asymmetrical, with most of the building falling to the southeast while some of it fell to the north. The collapse happened from the bottom and the penthouse, which fell first, had a fire under it. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly cite experts who say it was asymmetrical. Also, how do you explain this? CB Brooklyn 03:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By asymmetrical I meant less symmetrical than controlled demolitions. The behavior of the building (parts falling in different directions), the absence of squibs and signs of explosives, the severe damage and fires, the firefighters' predictions of a collapse, the actual meaning of "pull," etc. point to a progressive collapse from fire and structural damage and not controlled demolition. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged squibs

WTC 7 is already falling before "squibs" appear, unlike in a controlled demolition. The so-called squibs are actually windows popping out due to air, and the smoke travels upward and not outward. Remember the inverse relationship between volume and pressure from chemistry class. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about windows has no evidence. It look more like squibs. The government provided no analysis. CB Brooklyn 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is smoke & debris puffs is evident from the fact that they appear after the collapse begins and only after lots of movement and sagging; look at the collapse frame by frame and you will see that windows are breaking as a natural result of the collapse. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damage

WTC 7 was severely damaged and there wasn't enough water to fight in the fires in that building. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that the WTC 7 fire alarm was put into test-mode at 6:47AM on 9/11? I wonder why that was.... CB Brooklyn 03:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What does that prove?--DCAnderson 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentagon Crash

The fact that AA Flight 77 N644AA, a Boeing 757, crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11 is acknowledge by more moderate 9/11 conspiracists. The physical evidence for this is abundant. There were plenty of 757 remains (fuselage, wheel rim, compressor rotor, engine, door, landing gear, lettered debris, etc.) that were photographed at the site. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Because there's much contradicting evidence concerning the Pentagon, I will not waste time debating it. CB Brooklyn 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 93

[edit] Phone Calls

[edit] Seismology

[edit] Debris

[edit] Foreknowledge

[edit] Government Figures

[edit] Willie Brown

Brown, to anyone in the plot, was obviously in no danger and so the warning was unnecessary if it was by a conspirator. Brown said it was nothing extraordinary and that's why he chose to fly anyway! There was a worldwide Sept. 7 warning about terrorist attacks overseas, that one of Brown's security people informed him about just as routine would have it. Bottom line: the person who warned Mr. Brown had no clue that 9/11 would happen. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that he, and others, were warned. CB Brooklyn 03:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is that he was not warned by a person with 9/11 foreknowledge. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashcroft

[edit] Bush Briefing

Condi Rice was telling the truth when she said that the Bush briefing was for all intents and purposes a historical memo. The briefing didn't mention using planes as missiles, was not urgent, and did not mention the Pentagon or the WTC (the WTC was not a federal building and Washington, D.C. wasn't mentioned as a target). In was in fact so as to be of little use; it mentioned possibilities e.g. "other types of attacks" without narrowing things down. With the mention of "70-full field investigations," Bush, taking it at face value, acted appropriately. The mention of a U.S.-based "support structure" is very generic and not helpful. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 18:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drills

[edit] PNAC

[edit] Alleged Insider Trading

The volume of trades was not exceptionally high [1], it was a good idea to sell AAL shares because AAL had just announced a series of bad news 41.5442824074-788605255, the most likely explanation of the unclaimed $2.5 million is not sinister because if the conspirators were in the U.S. government they could get away with it and no investor would want to have this "blood money", A.B. Buzzy Krongard left in ***1998***, and there are good reasons to doubt the CIA and put options link claim (such as why the alleged conspirators would use a bank that could be easily traced back to them), 9/11 foreknowledge is not the only explanation of UAL put options sales [2]. The claim that trading patterns prove 9/11 foreknowledge is as of yet unsubstantiated [3]. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Government Warnings

If 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government, why would we be receiving warnings from foreign countries? -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is important to keep in mind that many of the 9/11 warnings were much to vague to be actionable. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden and his 19 so-called hijackers were patsies. CB Brooklyn 03:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's great to see well-researched, thoughtful arguments. What is the rationale behind this particular statement? In keeping with your high standards, please provide explicit detail for each of these 20 individuals demonstrating that they are indeed "patsies". Joel Blanchette 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hijackers

Saudi Arabia has acknowledged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, contradicting claims that the named hijackers are alive and innocent. The 13 muscle hijackers named by the FBI pledged martyrdom in videos in March 2001, and Ahmed Alnami, Hamza Alghamdi, Saeed Alghamdi, and Wail Alshehri were filmed studying maps and flight manuals, saying that America is the enemy. There are frames from the al-Qaeda video showing Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Alhaznawi, Abdulaziz Alomari, and the rest of the 13 muscle hijackers. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you believe Saudi Arabia, huh??? CB Brooklyn 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't particularly believe Saudi Arabia. What does that have to do with the nationality of the individuals in question? Many of their families have confirmed their rabid anti-American beliefs, and claims that any of them are still alive have turned out to be cases of mistaken identity. It's not like Saudi Arabia wanted to admit the nationality of these people. Joel Blanchette 13:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atta

Atta's father accepts that Atta is dead and that he participated in the 9/11 attacks. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) The Egyptian Mohamed Atta named by the FBI would not have time to be a "former Saudi Airforce pilot," because he was predominantly in the following places in the following years (9/11 Commission, Inside 9/11: What Really Happened by Der Spiegel Magazine): 1968-1992 Egypt (Cairo)
1992-1999 Germany (Hamburg)
1999 Afghanistan (at a Kandahar al-Qaeda camp)
2000 Germany
2000 USA
2001 USA
Therefore, it is safe to say that the Mohamed Atta who attended Maxwell Air Force Base in 1998 was not the Egyptian hijacker/pilot named by the FBI. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 20:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alomari

The hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari is dead according to his family; the other Alomari is older and looks quite different, and has a different name (Abdulrahman). -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hanjour

Hani Hanjour was indeed caught on tape at Dulles Airport on 9/11, as you can tell from the picture I added to the article about him. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jarrah

Claims of two Jarrahs are Ockham's razor violations. If there's a passport of a "Ziad Jarrah" who looks like the Jarrah named by the FBI, why posit a second Jarrah like Paul Thompson (whose book The Terror Timeline I hold in high esteem but have a few qualms about) did? -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alshehhi

[edit] Wail & Waleed Alshehri

Waleed M. Alshehri and Wail Alshehri are dead and were brainwashed according to brother [Wikipedia], and the brother Salah is a very reliable source because he has firsthand knowledge. The pictures of missing Alshehris from Asir in Saudi Arabia match those from the FBI PENTTBOM report. Both men became very religious prior to fighting in Chechnya; a man named Waleed A. Alshehri is alive [Embry Riddle] and living in Casablanca, Morocco but this is not the same person as Waleed M. Alshehri. Previous reports that Alshehris were sons of Saudi diplomat have been denied [Washington Post]. The Alshehri brothers were missing 10+ months before 9/11 [Arab News]. There is also someone with the surname Alshri. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majed Moqed

Moqed was at the airport, on the flight manifest, in a martyrdom video, on security videos, and on a burnt passport at the scene of the Pentagon airstrike. The other man in a CBS photo is a different Moqed, and it must be taken into account that many Arabs have the same or similar names. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nawaf Alhazmi

[edit] Salem Alhazmi

The living Salem Alhazmi working at a petrochemical complex in Yanbou was 26 at the time he was interviewed in 2001 and Salem Alhazmi named by the FBI was 21 when 9/11 occurred. The living Alhazmi has never been to the USA [UK Telegraph], so it's obviously two different people, as the one named by the FBI had a Virginia driver's license. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almihdhar

The Khalid Almihdhar named by the FBI is dead; there's no family claiming he's alive, no Almihdar protesting his innocence, his status on FDIC was rightly called a typo [COX News], and the BBC report [UK Guardian] only mentions "suggestions that [he] may be alive" which falls far short of proof. The baldish man in several photos is probably the Almihdhar who was reported shortly after 9/11 to be alive. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saeed Alghamdi

The hijacker Saeed Alghamdi is dead; it was a case of mistaken identity and the BBC report [BBC] and reports of living hijackers are thoroughly debunked by Der Spiegel. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) There were more than 1600 Saeeds and 200 Alghamdis at Pensacola Naval Air Base, none were terrorists, and training foreign nationals is not unusual, the hijackers' Arabic names very common, and several "Saeed Alghamdis" attended that school. The hijacker Saeed Alghamdi named by the FBI was only 21 and based on the account of his life would not have had time to be a Saudi Airforce pilot, either. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alnami

The living Ahmed Alnami 10 years older than dead terrorist Alnami; 33 from Riyadh [UK Telegraph] vs. 23 from Asir [Washington Post]. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Qaeda

[edit] Al Qaeda's Numerous Admissions of Responsibility for 9/11

Besides the person who is clearly bin Laden in the 12/13/01 video, there are other al Qaeda leaders. Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9/11 numerous times. There have been 16+ explicit post-9/11 claims of responsibility for 9/11 by al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc. following his 9/16/01 "denial": -10/7/01 Osama bin Laden [4]
-10/9/01 Suleiman Abu Ghaith [5]
-10/14/01 Osama bin Laden [6]
-10/27/01 Suleiman Abu Ghaith [7]
-2/02 Osama bin Laden [8]
-4/02 Ahmed Alhaznawi and other 9/11 hijackers – these martyrdom videos contradict the claim that the hijackers are still alive, their identities were stolen, etc. [9]
-9/10/02 Osama bin Laden and others [10]
-9/02 Ayman Al Zawahiri [11]
-10/02 Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed[12]
-3/03 Osama bin Laden [13] -9/21/03 Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj [14]
-8/04 Abu Jandal [15]
-10/30/04 Osama bin Laden [16]
-9/12/05 Adam Gadahn [17] -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osama bin Laden 12/13/01 videotape

The 12/13/01 confession tape shows Osama bin Laden. [18] Case closed. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USAF Response

[edit] War Games

[edit] Fighter Speeds

It would be impractical to go at 1875+ mph because the fuel would be rapidly exhausted. Fighters' cruising speed is about 570 mph and the pilots flew at supersonic speed even though they weren't supposed to, reaching up to 900 mph. Otis AFB is 189 miles from Ground Zero, not 153. The fighters might even have had reasons not to fly in a straight path, perhaps to avoid crashing with other civilian planes. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pilots are allowed to exceed their usual speed limits when they need to intercept an aircraft that is suspected or presumed to have hostile intent. Of course, all the speed in the world is of little use if you don't know where to go. The pilots were being guided by civilian air traffic controllers, who lost track of the planes when their transponders were disabled. They also waited too long before alerting the Air Force National Guard. I don't think there was any malice involved, but rather confusion and perhaps inexperience. I mean, it's not like airliners are hijacked in American airspace very often. Joel Blanchette 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Intercepts

[edit] Able Danger

Nobody on the Able Danger team knew that Atta, etc. was in the U.S. because they were responsible for tracking terrorists at overseas locations. Once the program ended in January 2001 no new predictions or discoveries were made about the terrorists. Lt. Shaffer had no clue which terrorists were in each cell and only knew with the benefit of hindsight following 9/11. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs} 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Commission