Yahoo News: Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize

[billbuckhead]

Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize

By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jimmy Walter has spent more than $3 million promoting a conspiracy theory the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were "an inside job" and he is offering more cash to anyone who proves him wrong.


The millionaire activist is so convinced of a government cover-up he is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the World Trade Center buildings crashed the way the government says.

"Of course, we expect no winners," Walter, 57, heir to an $11 million fortune from his father's home building business, said in a telephone interview from California on Wednesday.

He said a panel of expert engineers would judge submissions from the students.

Next month, he also launches a nationwide contest seeking alternative theories from college and high school students about why New York's World Trade Center collapsed. The contest offers $10,000 to the best alternative theory, with 100 runner-up awards of $1,000. Winners will be chosen next June.

----------------------snip_____________________

<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20041215/us_nm/life_conspiracy_dc&printer=1>

[wicket]

1. Hoo boy

This could get interesting.

[genius]

17. Good for Jimmy. And he won't lose a penny. Explosives brought it down.

There is no way that the planes brought down the WTC. Ask any competent engineer, including UL (which certified the steel against the nonsensense the stooges for Bush claim brought down the towers).

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. Right. Those fuel-heavy planes traveling at max speed had...

...nothing to do with the structural damage and subsequent collapse of the WTC Towers. And those incredible explosions that we all thought we saw were actually Hollywood special effects creations!

By the way, I'm Santa Claus...don't forget the milk and cookies this year like you did last Christmas.

[TroglodyteScholar]

92. Right.....

...and let's just ignore the fact that the vast majority of the jet fuel combusted upon impact. Remember those giant fireballs as the planes hit? That was the fuel BURNING UP in an INSTANT. Ignite a can of gasoline and see how long the remains burn.

Also, I'm VERY certain that those 3rd-rate half-trained pilots were able to maneuver jumbo jets at top speed into those buildings. The flight schools teach target practice on the first day, right?

Anyone who believes the official version of events is an idiot. I'm not saying I believe each and every conspiracy theory, but a good many of them are MUCH more believable than what the Bushies fed us in the days and months following the attacks.

[pdurod1]

133. here, here GA Voter

your point 1: how much jp4 fuel, (mass of fuel,) mass of the plane is on one of these vehicles? let's quantify this. Then isolate and extrapolate the kinetic and potential energy of just this part of the the system. leave the buildings out for now...

[Endangered Specie]

37. Care to explain how anyone could plant explosives in a packed

building without anyone noticing?

As for competent engineers... I would reference the ASCE, and the couple of professors Ive talked to about this.

[BattyDem]

43. It's very difficult ...

but it helps when your brother provides the security for the building.

9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

Security, secrecy and a Bush brother



One edit: I don't know if it was explosives or not, but it's details like these that make me shine my tin foil hat. :tinfoilhat:

[zann725]

49. Sure, they controlled Security. They could come in during Night Shift

under the pretense of building repairs. Shut down elevators, or areas of the building to 'do their work.' Doesn't seem far-fetched at all.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

54. Elevator renovation was ongoing

at the time of the collapse.
http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/pdf/0103-002.pdf

All 100 or so elevators were juxtaposed within the central core. Access to the elevator shafts= access to the core columns.

[zann725]

59. Also, IF 9/11 was an 'inside job'...we must remember that Bernie Kerik

had an apartment with a view overlooking Ground Zero. I was listening to a Washington Post reporter yesterday saying that this Kerik thing is much larger than it seems...that he felt certain that something much larger might come from it. With that in mind, I was thinking...if it WAS an 'inside job,' Kerik certainly seems of the 'character' to help carry it out...and then supervise the aftermath from his apartment overlooking it all.

[northzax]

127. hate to dispell a good conspiracy theory

but Kerik didn't get his little battery park lovenest until the spring of 02.

[zann725]

131. Are we sure about that? Or was that what was 'reported?'

n/t

[northzax]

132. unless he somehow convinced the firefighters and rescue workers

who stayed in the apartment during the rocovery phase of the WTC clean-up to pretend they stayed there, and somehow convinced the owners of the building he has the apartment in to lie for him (unlikely, given the increadible financial losses 9/11 placed on them what's their incentive to lie?)

Too many people would have to know about this conspiracy, it's completely illogical.

[zann725]

163. "Clean up" began far earlier than March 2002.

Seems they needed the apt. before then. And you say Kerik had no access to it before March 2002? I'd like to see the time-line on that lease.

Besides, he looks like Gordon Liddy to me.

[Sterling]

139. I don't think he was involved.

Yes he is a douche but not a vital part of the plot IMHO.

[zann725]

164. In the weeks before 9/11 they'd have to have 'cooperation' from police

...particularly during the power outage the weekend before, when security cameras were down, and 'unknowns' were wandering in and out. Surely the police fielded calls about that. Particularly since one of those buildings also had CIA offices too...right?

[Sterling]

168. I think the WTC had their own security.

I am not saying there could not have been some active assistance from local authorities in covering up certain facts but I still doubt that they were directly involved in the sense that they had the entire picture of what was going to happen or in the aftermath what did happen.

I could be wrong too. I would assume however that the work done to prep air the buildings was done under the color of some sort of authority and may not have raised any suspicion.

These are all interesting questions. For example was John O'Neil a good guy or a bad guy? Regardless I appreciate the fact that people are considering different angles on this as you never know which bits of info will lead us to the truth.

[BattyDem]

72. And bomb-sniffing dogs were removed on September 6th

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

Also, there were reports that the power was out on September 9th and 10th, which means no security cameras. I don't know how true it is because I'm not familiar with the sources and I can't verify them, but if you'd like to read the info anyway, here are a couple of links:

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down

Power Down Condition at the WTC on the Weekend Preceding 9/11


edited: fixed link

[zann725]

87. Very interesting. Did Kerik took the apt. before OR after 9/11?

Of course they're implying it was 'after' 9/11. But I wonder...

[Old and In the Way]

90. Here's something that I posted in the 9/11 forum that's interesting.

I got this special US News and World Report last Christmas. The Magazine was called "Secrets of the Master Builders". The last article, whose title is noted above was quite interesting. It's been sitting in the bathroom and I finally got around to reading this article today.

Anyway, there were 2 interesting paragraphs I thought I'd share.

"The tools of the destructor's trade range from standard dynamite, used to shatter concrete, to linear shaped charges that concentrate the force of the blast. Shaped charges use a high explosive called RDX, slicing through steel with millions of pounds pf pressure per square inch. In 2001 project, for example, a New York gas storage tank built with 5 million pounds of steel took a mere 80 pounds of shaped charges to come down.

And this unrelated paragraph in the same story:

"The Murrah building was but a prelude to the greater disaster on Sept. 11, 2001. Like most Americans, the Loizeaux's {my note: family business is Controlled Demolition International} were transfixed by the televised destruction shortly after the first jet struck the World Trade Center. But they knew then what few Americans realized, or dared to contemplate. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark. "I was familiar with the buildings structure, and with all that jet fuel and the massive amount of combustibles, a catastrophic failure was inevitable."

[tinrobot]

134. Why did they need the planes?

If they managed to pack the buldings full of explosives, then why did they need the planes? Why complicate matters?

...and why did the planes hit EXACTLY at the spots where the buildings failed? Must have been superb pilots to be able count floors and hit the exact floors where the "explosives" were rigged as they sped into the buildings at 500mph.

Does not add up...

[Sterling]

143. Because a controlled demo as the cover story would not set PNAC

in motion. Plus the buildings did not fail at exactly the point of impact. I don't think that is even part of the official story.

[Griffy]

46. I am Mech engineer.. and those planes coulda done the damage..

and collapsed the building;.. sorry, the key is the blast stripped away fireproofing insulation... the heat then weakened the bolts.. the towers were built in a 2 tube box style with the spans secure the tubes and taking transvers loads, when bolts failed the floors fell like pancakes astarted the cascade.. there is a whole documentary where they go over the rubble. I can easily believe bush had notice and turned a blind eye to engage his foriegn agenda... but it is highly likly the fire on dozens of floors caused a cascade failure. I was stil in engineering school at the time and me and many other talked about this, including ppl from the fire protection engineers (only a few schools have UMD has 1). Proving it wasntsomething is hard... but odds are good it was the fire.

[Sterling]

53. Dude you are going to to be so rich...

I hope you are going to enter the contest.

[w4rma]

61. $100K for you then. Write it up and send it in. (nt)

[Griffy]

82. No point, PROVING it wasn't explosives is impossible .. but it wasnt.. nt

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

83. show an example of an "even" collapse WITHOUT placed charge detonations

Example please,
just one will do--
any example of a Las Vegas style demolition happening from a fire.
--or from any other hap hazard cause such as lightening or earthquakes--
just one example would really help your argument
---plus you might win the contest-

[Snivi Yllom]

96. it was not even, clearly the top of one tower tilted before it fell

Also, tell me how else a building that big is supposed to fall. It has nowhere to go but down. Straight down.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

[Sterling]

108. It was even, it fell in it's own footprint.

The "tilt" was not to the degree that it effected where the debree fell. Most controlled demos do "tilt" but they all fall in the footprint of the building.

[Snivi Yllom]

114. of course it did not affect how the building fell

the entire mass of the building went down. There was no upward or outward dynamic force moving the building.

And there was no controlled deomolition.

[Swamp Rat]

121. "And there was no controlled deomolition." - prove it.

Prove it and you win $100,000.00 dollars. :)

[Sterling]

122. No that's too hard.

You actually have to make an attempt to make sense to win the money.

[Snivi Yllom]

149. it's been well proven already, I watched it live with my own eyes

that guy has no intention of ever paying off $100,000

[Swamp Rat]

153. Are you going to try and prove it?

After all, you saw it with your own eyes. That $100,000.00 dollars should be easy for you to get.

What I find interesting is, I know of other people that were in the building who say they heard demolition charges go off. Can you prove them wrong? Since I wasn't there, I can only go by what you and others say.

NOTHING has been proven Snivi Yllom. You and nobody else has given conclusing evidence thus far, but I'm all ears.

[Snivi Yllom]

156. wait, people heard 'demolition charges' go off, and they got out?

If the building was destroyed by demolition charges, how did these people hear the charges and survive to tell about it?

Guess what, they did not hear demolition explosives, they may have heard something, but they were not explosives.

[Swamp Rat]

157. Let me re-frame your leading question:

"Wait, people that were in the building heard the demolition charges after they got out?" - Yes, they did. :)

"Guess what, they did not hear demolition explosives, they may have heard something, but they were not explosives." - Guess what, they did hear demolition explosives and you are wrong. You cannot prove that you are right. I guess you will not win $100,000.00 dollars. :D

[Snivi Yllom]

159. Let me explain this nonsense

How did the people who heard 'demolition explosives' go off get out of the building before the building fell on them? The towers fell in approximately 10 seconds.

Easy

They did not hear explosives.

[Swamp Rat]

167. Seems as though this topic upsets you, as I have read your other posts.

This is not nonsense. This is a discussion.

People ran out of the building because it was on fire, THEN explosions were heard.

Easy.

I guess you will not win $100,000.00 since you can not disprove this.

Have a nice day. :)

[Snivi Yllom]

169. show me evidence

Show me evidence of one person who heard explosions just before the building fell. The explosives were somehow detonated in the locations of raging fires an hour after a jumbo jet crashed into it? Why don't you prove it? Oh wait a minute, I forgot, your theories require no proof because they are so absurd there is no way to prove them. They just are.

And yes it upsets me very much that jackoffs like the $100,000 man continue to spread fertilizer on this conspiracy crap. I am very close to some victim families, and one in particular lost a son who was a senior facilities manager at the WTC. The blatant lie that there were explosives planted in the WTC would directly implicate this man as there is no way anything like that could have been perpetrated without his knowledge.

It's character defamation and slander. Those who choose to take part in the defamation and slander are the lowest of the low.

[Swamp Rat]

171. Leaps of logic and accusations.

I thought you were the one with the evidence to disprove the "demolition theory?" The burden is yours alone as I have no interest in proving anything.

"Show me evidence of one person who heard explosions just before the building fell. The explosives were somehow detonated in the locations of raging fires an hour after a jumbo jet crashed into it? Why don't you prove it?" - You are the one who knows important people - provide their names and information, then you win $100k. Why would you turn down such an offer if you are so sure of yourself?

"Oh wait a minute, I forgot, your theories require no proof because they are so absurd there is no way to prove them. They just are." - Why resort to such nasty rhetoric? These are NOT my theories, as I already told you, yet you have continued your general rant against me since I have been responding to your posts. This is not debate and I am not your 'wailing-wall'.

"And yes it upsets me very much that jackoffs like the $100,000 man continue to spread fertilizer on this conspiracy crap." - Will you apologise to he and others on this board if you are wrong? In addition, don't assume you are the only one here with loved ones lost in the towers.

"The blatant lie that there were explosives planted in the WTC would directly implicate this man as there is no way anything like that could have been perpetrated without his knowledge." - You have proved nothing. There is no blatant lie, just your opinion.

"It's character defamation and slander. Those who choose to take part in the defamation and slander are the lowest of the low." - Absurd and hypocritical. How about the slander against the man in which you rail?

I understand your passion and anger, but I am no longer interested in this type of discourse in this particular matter. So long. :hi:

[colorado_ufo]

172. Several national magazines

with issues published directly after the disaster, had articles which included statements by firefighters and others, who were inside the buildings, that heard what they definitely considered to be explosions.

I no longer have my copies of these magazines, but they were in the category of U.S. News, Time, etc. (I subscribe to a number of them.)

[Snivi Yllom]

173. they heard large noises

The quotes of these firemen were taken out of context. The sound they heard was the sound of sections fo floor deck beginning to collapse. The sound of a 8' x 20' section fo composite decking falling makes a bit of noise. The other 'evidence' of explosives is non-existent and usually relies on mis-identified images the tower falling as evidence of explosives.

one of the lamely assigned bits of 'evidence' of explosives were a bunch of firemen discussing what it was like when the tower floors began pancaking on each other as they fell, creating thunderous claps of thunder as each floor was progressively knocked down. They said it "was AS IF they had detonators" not "they had detonators".

[Sterling]

123. You have are sticking with that one?

I figured you had given up that line when you never bothered to state your opinion on the necessity of controlled Demo experts given the revelation that large buildings fall in their own footprint on their own.

[Griffy]

126. yes.. and the coaxial tube design help it fall straight..

since the bolts that hold each floor up and rigidize the structure failed due to heat (melted remains found during investigations). These floors dropped or to the floors below, shearing those bolts due to the massive load. This led to the cascade of the floors, held in momentarily by the outer structure. Which then had no rigidity and collapsed inward. Now.. could that same result be from demolitions, sure its possible... but highly unlikely!

[Sterling]

144. Source plz.

Not attacking I am just interested in seeing whee you get those points.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. 100% proof will be hard to come by

but you can certainly make a persausive arguement that the steel heated and failed.

[merwin]

4. The company that certified the steel in the WTC said

that there is no way that the steel could have heated up to the point where it would crumple like that. Something like 10 times the amount of heat would have had to be generated for that to happen.

[TexasChick]

7. I never believed Chimp's administration's story about that either. I'm no

expert at physics and such, but I always found it very hard to believe that a single plane can make a 110 story building collapse like that. Maybe it would collapse partially by not like that.

[Endangered Specie]

35. Heating alone is NOT what called the collapse...

the heat caused the floor trusses to weaken (something they are known to do), and they sagged and eventually fully or partially failed. This proceeded as the fire went on, now what happens when a floor fails is the VERTICAL SUPPORT columns lose their horizontal bracing.

In engineering, buckling occurs whenever the load on a vertical column exceeds its critical limit, that limit is determined, amongst other things by how long the beam is without bracing, aamof, the critical limit is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the length.

Also combine this with the fact that several columns had been knocked out, and the ones nearest to those would have to support more load than before

Even further, the fire would have weakened the steel such that the critical buckling load it could withstand decreases even more

- In building collapse, its not usually just 1 but several factors that work in unison.

[Overseas]

40. Go claim your prize !! n/t

[NecessaryOnslaught]

50. Amazing

You're claiming that asymmetrical failure of some of the horizontal support, IE the trusses, somehow cause symmetrical vertical failure of the every single core column? And turned the the building (minus the steel) and a majority of its contents into micron sized particles? by what mechanism? Also what proof do you have that any core columns were knocked out with the initial hit? And please explain the collapse of building 7.

[clem_c_rock]

55. Ha - They never can explain building 7

A friend of mine saw a documentary where they tried to say they brought the building down w/ controlled demolition because they knew it was doomed.

Then you watch documentaries on controlled demolitions and you find it takes about a month to plant the explosives.

Guess that blows that theory.

[Sterling]

62. Yes WTF was silverstien talking about

When he said they had to "Pull it"? One thing we do know is that he made a ton off of the attacks.

[zann725]

88. They had control of Security of the building. They had the time.

And with the above-listed 'power' shut-downs in the building the weekend before, and the large amount of "engineers" in the building wandering around the weekend before (with NO security cameras monitoring)...gave them the perfect chance to finalize what they started.

The way those buildings collapsed looks like the footage of every professionally demolished building I've ever seen.

[Sterling]

94. Yes even my father who is an engineer said it "looked" like a controlled

demo. It's funny he says that still but rules our foul play mostly because he likes Bush I think.

[TexasChick]

5. For something this big and people being afraid to talk for fearing for

their lives, he at least needs to raise that $100,000 to at least a $1,000,000. IMHO.

[merwin]

32. But they're asking people to prove that it DID collapse as * said

[TexasChick]

41. Oh, sorry, merwin. I misunderstood. My bad! n/t

[nolabels]

10. One could do a fine experiment for a couple hundred bucks

That whole effing story is bunk. It is virtually impossible to melt or even fatigue structural steel with most any unaltered hydrocarbon type fuel at atmospheric pressures.

[clem_c_rock]

13. They were the 1st steel framed buildings to colapse from fire

This is as far as I've researched.

Can anyone send me a link do disprove this?

Thanks,


Clem C

[Just Me]

19. No.

No one will.

Are you LIHOP or MIHOP?

[Zero Gravitas]

85. here you are

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

[Sterling]

109. Only one in the report is a steel frame building.

But the report is interesting and should be discussed further by anyone serious about this subject.

[MrUnderhill]

15. Ummm.

And jetfues was the ONLY thing in those buildings that could burn?

I seem to remember large amounts of smoke/fire visible LONG after all of the fuel would have been consumed.

Also, temperature is largely controlled by the amount of oxygen the flame can get. The same fuel can burn at quite a large range of temperatures depending on oxygen supply.

[daleo]

23. I think that is why he stated "hydrocarbons"

I have heard paper, office supplies, furniture, carpets, etc. were the other fuel sources. As we know, paper's combustion point if 411F. I am not sure about the other things mentioned, but since they are made of wood or hydrocarbon byproducts (plastics, lacquers, etc.) you would expect that they wouldn't burn any hotter than jet fuel.

The large amounts of smoke would seem to argue for lower rather than higher combustion temperatures, as this is a sign of incomplete combustion. It is hard to say how well oxygenated such a fire would be. I think most of the buildings windows were sealed (this wouldn't apply to the plane crash floors, of course), and the smoke would probably inhibit combustion as well.

I am not really that keen on the whole "planted bombs" theory, but the combustion issue is a curious one when you think about it.

[ilovenicepeople]

42. Seems to me that a large portion of the jet fuel was consumed

in the large explosions we saw on the outside of the buildings.I'm still wondering why the steel beams underneath the twin towers were still hotter than ignited jetfuel days after 911?

[northzax]

128. that is simple to explain, actually

compression of matter create heat. vaporization of concrete create heat. millions of tons of stuff falling a thousand feet create heat when they hit the ground. simply physics.

but you cannot prove a conspiracy theory wrong, that's the best part about them. Can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? sure, I think that's been done. but you'll never convince the skeptics, much like I can lecture a fundy all day about evolution, and he's still going to be a creationist. it's a matter of faith. evidence has never gotten in the way of either faith or consipiracy theory.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. The steel was immediatley overstressed from the plane impacts

Remember, the exterior walls were immediately short several columns at each impact point, so each remaining adjacent column was immediatley thrown into double and triple their design loads in supporting vertical loads.
Add to this fact that the lateral bracing was also catastrophically removed from these remaining columns (and interior ones) by the destruction of the floor slabs.
So not only were these columns (both interior and exterior) loaded up above their design, but their slenderness ratio increased and vulnerability to buckling also greatly increased.
Add the heat of the fires and any sudden wind (and there was wind that day) and you have columns which were ultimately and inevitably pushed to failure.
The fact is the heat of the fires (however small one might think they were) only needed to fatigue these columns ever so slightly to push them into buckling.

[merwin]

33. And both buildings would fall perfectly straight down in that scenario?

If all the stress is on ONE side of the building, wouldn't it make sense that the building NOT fall straight down.

[Zynx]

47. The WTC was *designed* to pancake if columns failed

Fairly good reason for this, considering the casualties that would result if it fell sideways.

Given how the WTC was constructed, it cannot fall like a tree. It was a series of slabs, one above the other. The amount of force you would need to get this thing to fall in any manner other than down on itself is incredible.

The huge slab floor has a lot of inertia that means it is going to go straight down.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

51. Pure conjecture

any source for this nonsensical argument? Was WTC 7 designed this way too?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

78. The earth was designed this way- gravity works straight down

the path of least resistance, the shortest line between 2 points (and all that)

[zann725]

89. It at least had the same 'demolition team' setting its explosives

n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

101. there was no other way for the towers to fall other than straight down

Just about any modern structure would fall the same way. There is simply to much mass involved and not enough force for buildings to fall other than straight down.

[Sterling]

104. WRONG.

Maybe we should just do away with the entire controlled demo industry since it is completely irrelevant because all buildings fall on their own footprint without the help of their efforts.

[Snivi Yllom]

112. not wrong

100% correct. The towers collapsed mainly under their own weight. When the first few floors collapsed, the combined weight and momentum of that mass falling was more than enough to very quickly pancake the remaining floors below even before the wreckage from the floors above collapsed.

I have personally discussed this with one of the pre-eminent structural engineers in the world and he agrees with this 100%.

[Sterling]

119. Yes and it tore away all the structural support columns

Sure. The destruction was complete. A couple of floors collapsing may cause subsequent floors to collapse but would not under and circumstances have turned the support columns into powder.

Get real.

[vincent_vega_lives]

138. Prove it. (n/t)

[Sterling]

179. What is the temperature that steel melts at?

That is a great place to start trying to prove it. I think it could be proved but Bush had the building materials shipped off to China before an investigation could be done. Kinda like how he has refused to let a real 9-11 investigation happen. I wonder why?

[vincent_vega_lives]

184. Great place?

That has to be the worst question ever!

1. "Steel" is a rather broad term, which steel? I assume you mean the structual steel used in the WTC right...because there are many steel alloys that have different melting points. For starters...high carbon steel melts at around 2500F, stainless steel melts at 2550F, medium carbon steel melts at 2600F, and low carbon steel melts at 2700F aprox.

2. Melting is not nor ever was the issue though. It is a pointless question. The relevant question is a little more complicated. the real question is what is the temperature that that certain steel components of the WTC towers needed to reach to loose their ability to support the load they were under. That temp is impossible to know without knowing how much load that particular peice of steel was under. Greater the load, lower the temp.

[Snivi Yllom]

151. Hey einstein

There were no concrete support columns.

The support columns were steel, not concrete. They only concrete in the WTC was the 4" of topping poured over the steel floor decking. Concrete is very string in compression but has almost zero strength in tension. All of those floors tumbling and being twisted and contorted coming down...it's really quite obvious why the concrete topping was pulverized.

I recommend taking a structural concrete 101 course and you will learn the properties of concrete instead of relying on nutjob conspiracy kooks for your information.

Read this:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

FACT SHEET

Leading Hypotheses for the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) World Trade Center (WTC) investigation team has formulated the chronological sequence of major events leading to the eventual collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers as a result of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The leading collapse hypothesis for each tower is based on evaluations of the building’s innovative structural system; the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fire; the post-impact condition of the fireproofing; the quality and properties of the structural steel used in construction; and the relative roles in the collapse scenario played by the perimeter and core columns, and the composite floor system (including connections).

The two collapse hypotheses are consistent with all evidence currently held by NIST, including photographs and videos, eyewitness accounts, and emergency communications records. However, the hypotheses released today still may be revised for the investigation team’s final report, scheduled for release as a draft document for public comment in December 2004 or January 2005.

The leading collapse hypothesis for each tower is as follows:

WTC 1

Aircraft impact damaged the perimeter columns, mainly on the north face, resulting in redistribution of column loads, mostly to the adjacent perimeter columns and to a lesser extent, the core columns.
After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the building, damaging floor framing, core columns and fireproofing. Loads on the damaged columns were redistributed to other intact core and perimeter columns mostly via the floor systems and to a lesser extent, via the hat truss (the steel structure that supported the antenna atop the towers and was connected to the core and perimeter columns).
The subsequent fires, influenced by the impact-damaged condition of the fireproofing:

Softened and buckled the core columns and caused them to shorten, resulting in a downward displacement of the core relative to the perimeter. This led to the floors (1) pulling the perimeter columns inward, and (2) transferring vertical loads to the perimeter columns; and
Softened the perimeter columns on the south face and also caused perimeter column loads to increase significantly due to restrained thermal expansion.

Due to the combined effects of heating on the core and perimeter columns, the south perimeter wall bowed inward and highly stressed sections buckled.
The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the bowed south perimeter columns buckled. The instability rapidly progressed horizontally across the entire south face and then across the adjacent east and west faces.
The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
WTC 2

Aircraft impact damaged the perimeter columns, mainly on the south face, resulting in redistribution of column loads, mostly to the adjacent perimeter columns and to a lesser extent, the core columns.
After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the building, damaging floor framing, core columns and fireproofing. Loads on the damaged columns were redistributed to other intact core and perimeter columns mostly via the floor systems and to a lesser extent, via the hat truss.
The subsequent fires, influenced by the impact-damaged condition of the fireproofing:

Caused significant sagging of the floors on the east side that induced the floors to pull the perimeter columns inward on the east face;
Softened and buckled the core columns on the east side and caused them to shorten, which transferred significant additional load to the perimeter columns on the east face primarily through the floor system and to a lesser extent, the hat truss; and
Softened some of the perimeter columns that were exposed to high temperatures toward the northern half of the east face.
Due to the additional loads on the perimeter columns on the east face and the inward pulling of those columns, the east perimeter wall bowed inward and highly stressed sections buckled.
The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as both the east perimeter columns and the impact-damaged south perimeter columns buckled. The instability rapidly progressed horizontally across both faces and across the north face.
The change in potential energy due to the downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.

[Sterling]

178. I never said they were not steel.

You really need better reading comprehension skills if you are going to engage in this kind of discussion.

[Snivi Yllom]

98. It should fall straight down, it could not have fallen any other way

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

[Sterling]

106. Did you actually read what you posted.

The guy is saying what happened on 9-11 flies in the face of reason as well as years of industry experience. It seems like he is making the exact opposite argument that you think he is whether you or he realize it or not.

In other words he says it defies accepted industry knowledge, but like you he thinks nothing of that fact and uses the flawed reasoning to assume that all these years structural engineers and demo specialist have been wrong. It is only because the idea of controlled demo IS NOT CONSIDERED that he allows himself to revert to saying the world is flat.

To think all these years we have been paying these experts for nothing since large buildings always collapse in their own footprint. Who knew?

[Snivi Yllom]

113. What happened on 9-11 had never happened before

Two jumbo jets were intentionally flown into the tallest buildings in the world causing unprecedented damage.

Industry knowledge is pretty secure in the fact that the aircraft, their impacts, subsequent damage and fire, were what brought the towers down. Not some halfbaked ridiculous conspiracy theory.

[Sterling]

118. Actually many experts have come out and raised questions about the subject

You seem to to be coming into this discussion without any of the relevant facts. In fact this thread is about a challenge to such experts to prove their theory. It's worth 100k, you should give it a shot, you seem to have it all worked out.

[Snivi Yllom]

150. "without the facts"

not that's funny coming from you LOL

[Snivi Yllom]

161. read this

you only need to heat it to 300F to cause distortions

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT.

This means to compare your engineering expertise and his is like comparing a sling shot to a hydrogen bomb.

NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?

Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.



"You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature."

As a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.

NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?

Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.

[Just Me]

3. Well. I'm not so sure the "contestants" are MORAL enough,...

,...to actually BUY into TRUTH or PRO-DEMOCRACY or anything along those lines.

BUT,...ya' never know.

[420inTN]

6. Amazing Randi? n/t

[MrUnderhill]

8. I could have saved Jimmy his $3Million

By just upping the dosage on his medication.

[genius]

18. Bush has some swamp land to sell you.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Hey... that reminds me - where's seventhson?

;):o:D

[ReadTomPaine]

26. You may already know...

... But he was tomestoned around election-time.

RTP

[Cooley Hurd]

30. Yep... the big "unmasking..."

:)

[Cronus Protagonist]

36. He finally came out

Although inadvertently, I think. :)

[CrispyQ]

11. Someone posted this link yesterday. Interesting reading . . .

I don't know how reliable Rense is, but I enjoy visiting his site.

http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm

snip...

Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.

American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.

These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

[Just Me]

20. Rense is more reliable than the psy-optic crap spewing from,...

,...that infamous corporate box,...the television.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Yes, let us all pause for a moment...

...and enjoy Rense's continued efforts to get holocaust denier Ernst Zundel released from jail in Canada. Oh, how cute! You can send the stupid Nazi a Christmas card!

http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/ernst.htm

Thanks, Rense! And thanks for letting me know that Jews blew up the WTC. I feel so informed now.

[PsychoDad]

77. Where does Rense make the Jew/WTC connection?

I would like to see your source. Perhaps a link?

As for Zundel, I don't see where Rense's desire to support the man's right to voice his opinion, no matter how wrong it may be , as anti-semetic.

Zundel was arrested for "revisionist history" and "anti-semitism", "Thought crime" plain and simple.

How long before those who voice other unpopular opinions, weither true or false, are arrested?

Standing up for Zundil's right to voice his opinion, no matter how wrong you think it is, is still a stand to your right to continue to voice yours.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

158. Zundel

>As for Zundel, I don't see where Rense's desire to support the man's
>right to voice his opinion, no matter how wrong it may be , as
>anti-semetic.

The holocaust is established fact. To deny its existence is inherently anti-semitic, anti-truth, anti-human. And let us not forget that it wasn't only Jews who were killed in the holocaust, though Zundel seems to be primarily concerned with them.

>Zundel was arrested for "revisionist history" and "anti-semitism",
>"Thought crime" plain and simple.

From the oft-quoted article:
>I would like to see your source. Perhaps a link?

I was being sarcastic. It fits with his completely irrational view of world events, though.

>How long before those who voice other unpopular opinions, weither true
>or false, are arrested?

Perhaps you are aware of the German laws governing this sort of behavior.

>Standing up for Zundil's right to voice his opinion, no matter how
>wrong you think it is, is still a stand to your right to continue to
>voice yours.

Oh, he's got every right to voice his opinion, as long as he doesn't overstay his visa or attempt to incite violence. Unfortunately, he did both.

And if you're going to spend your time sticking up for people who've been jailed for expressing their opinions, I can think of about a thousand better people on which you could spend your time. For instance, people who are attempting to tell the truth.

By the way, did you send him a Christmas card?

[musette_sf]

12. Woo-Hoo!

I could've told him on the evening of 9/11/01 that BushCo was in this up to their asses.

And yes, I have seen the PBS special about the "scientific" proof that the buildings' collapse was completely due to the planes. Have also read "City In The Sky", which overall was a very good read, but also purports the same theory is fact.

Personally I believe the cops and firefighters who said they heard, and felt, percussive explosions, that they assumed were bombs.

In memory of
Juan Cisneros
2/16/77 - 9/11/01

[Politicub]

66. On 9/12/01

The consortium of newspapers released their nine Florida recount scenarios. Six of the nine scenarios indicated the Gore won Florida.

No one paid attention to this news because of 9/11.

[Sterling]

69. I think that was a smaller benifit of the overall plan

that would fall into the "lets get this operation going before we are exposed" catagory. They needed to start theAfghan war in time for 2002 and Iraq was planned for 2003. I think those were the most important motivations but I am sure they considered that they needed to start the great diversion before their past crimes got more scrutiny.

[musette_sf]

81. Feelin' MIHOPpy yet?

Or at least LIHOPpy?

In memory of
Juan Cisneros
2/16/77 - 9/11/01

[zann725]

91. OMG! I didn't realize the 'timing.'

n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

100. Hey smart guy

How did any cops or firemen manage to hear the 'explosives' go off within the building and manage to get out of the building which collapsed in 30 seconds?

Another internet myth.....

[Mike Niendorff]

14. 100% distraction.

With all the serious questions surrounding the events of 9/11/01, this "controlled demolition" nonsense is what he chooses to focus his efforts on? My god, what a waste of an opportunity.


MDN

[musette_sf]

16. Controlled demolition

would be part of BushCo's complicity. Marvin Bush owned the company that did WTC security. Which part of this is "nonsense"?

[Endangered Specie]

38. id like to see him prove how you plan and implement setting

numerous explosive devices inside a building without anyone noticing..

What is involved in planning a buildings demolition?
-3 weeks of preperation
-Many MANY explosives, with wires of all sorts
-destroying alot of the cosmetic covering to get to the load bearing elements.
-Massive safety concerns

and you think no one would notice that.

Its absurd, really.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

39. WTC remodeling...

...went on from 1993 (especially after the WTC bombing that year) until the day the WTC collapsed. The steel girders were coated with a type of spray on insulation/fireproofing which would hide such planted objects. The big money question is for how long was this planned? The opportunity to plant such explosives was there for nearly 8 years, hidden by the remodeling going on. Something to think about.

[Zynx]

48. So how do the airplanes factor into this paranoia?

Seriously, take off the tinfoil and get a grip.

[Sterling]

110. That's easy.

The planes were the cover story. A way to launch eternal war on countries with oil.

[Igel]

120. You're right.

Clinton obviously started planning this back when he was prez, suspecting that Gore wouldn't win on this own merits, or against the Rovian gang--and wanted to make it impossible for the repub to govern. Must have planned for Hillary to take the 2004 spot, but he was outwitted ... by *.
/sarcasm

[Sterling]

124. You act as though the neo cons are powerless when not in office.

That's pretty fucking naive son.

It's really hard to say what Clinton really stood for. If he a tool of the power elite or not is very much a hot topic of debate. However I don't see him as a player in this drama, at least not directly.

But by all means cast red herrings as you see fit.

[Snivi Yllom]

115. it's more than absurd

it's insane

[Sterling]

117. It has already been shown that it could have been done easily..

Beyond that it has been shown that the people most suspected in fact had access to the building to do it.

It is beyond ignorant in the face of these facts that you could believe the official story.

[Snivi Yllom]

162. it has never been shown to be easy to accomplish

[m0nkeyneck]

22. hmmm...

i’m thinking the conspiracy theory gives the bush admin waaaaay 2 much credit.

[ally_sc]

24. you know when you think about it

it makes perfect sense that it was an inside job. do you really believe if the government had info on the attack before hand they would have acted on it...ie the memo being on condi's desk. the whole incident was cold and calculating. the unfortuante part is that all the survivors and victims families will never get any money from this facade. it is going to be the biggest cover up exposed in this century..yeah for jimmy

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. They DID act on it....

...they ALLOWED it to happen so that they could gain public support for what began as a pursuit of the "terrorists" they told us were responsible for the 911 attacks.

What nobody wanted to examine closely was the fact that not a single alleged hijacker was an Afghan or an Iraqi. Additionally, the FBI never found any paper or electronic trail leading from the alleged hijackers back to Osama and/or Al Qaeda.

And thanks to a very compliant Congress, those actions later mushroomed into what they wanted all along...an invasion of the Middle East. Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" on the website for the Plan for the New American Century (PNAC), and let me know what you think when you come to the comment that the American people would have to have "another Pearl Harbor" to get then to fully support PNAC' plans for the global domination of certain natural resources like oil.

In summary, look around at all of the other hotspots in the world today...please note how many of those hotspots are centered around OPEC countries. Look how many of the OPEC countries we already control.

[clem_c_rock]

27. NO PAPER TRAIL - HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE ARABS DID IT

I mean come on - the evidence:

-ridiculous coincidences that never happen anywhere on earth except in gvmt official accounts (ie indestructable passports, black boxes that vaporize, 3 steel buildings that fall perfectly as only seen in controlled demolitions-when there aren't any accounts of steel framed buildings falling down from fires)

911 commision changing testimonies, 911 changing timelines.

only 5 slides of "something" hitting the pentagon.

If someone stole $100 bucks from the average American, there would be 10 times more questioning going on.

[northzax]

129. hmm, mind if I ask a question?

one: can you list a single time a completed steel framed building has fallen over, instead of straight down? one? ever?

Who planted the explosives (I know, Marvin Bush) but given the fact that he's an aged businessman, who actually did it? there are a finite number of demolition experts in the world capable of levelling a complex the size of the WTC, who did it? are they dead? what story was told to them to get them to kill 3,000 americans?

Who exactly hijacked and flew the airplanes into the WTC and the pentagon? Someone obviously did (I guess it's technically possible for three planes to randomly hit buildings in two cities within ten minutes of each other, but...) seriously, who flew them? skilled pilots willing to die for the Bush Administration? People have aruged that the terrorists couldn't have learned to fly well enough to hit the buildings, fine, but then who did and was willing to die? Or were they radio controlled?

or maybe the terrorists actually did hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings. and the gubmint knew in advance and put into place, in two weeks, a plan to demolish the buildings. Inside of two weeks, the Bushies found several dozen highly skilled explosives engineers, convinced them to wire, working in the dark of night, not one, not two, but three skyscrapers to implode roughly simultaneously without leaving any evidence behind. Luckily for the bushies, all three planes did, in fact, hit the buildings, allowing them to implode them on command, starting at within two floors of where the airplanes hit. you'd have to expect the airplanes to hit anywhere within roughly 30 floors, so you'd need 15 different detonation systems in each building, to ensure you blew the right floor up (imagine if you guessed wrong, and the plane hit on the 70th floor, when you'd planned on the 55th, what a mess!) And, of course, you get your solicitor general, one of your old friends, the guy who stole the election for you legally, to agree to the death of his wife. Finally, instead of planning for your guy to look all heroic and in charge, since he knew it was coming and all, you fly him around the country like a scared toddler, while a potential rival (Guiliani) gets lla the glory. I gotta admit, that does sound like a good plan, huh?

black boxes aren't nearly as indestructible as people think, it's not that uncommon for them to be destorying in airline crashes. Anything thrown from the building stood a chance of surviving intact (save anything living, of course) the black boxes were buried under millions of tonds of debris, they didn't stand a chance.

explosions (the planes hitting the buildings certainly were that) are funny things. it is not uncommon for things close to the explosion to be undamaged, while things farther away are destoyed. Shock waves are not perfect destruction devices. TWA 800 exploded ina fireball (after the navy's missile hit it, of course) and there was still paper recorsd found from that plane. Hell, they found paper from the fucking Challenger, and that CERTAINLY blew up. or did it? They found partial notebooks from the Columbia, and that exploded 100 miles up. think about that for a second.

[bling bling]

130. The passport thing is kind of eerie. I remember hearing

about it but I don't remember the source. If it's true that one of the terrorists passports was "found" in the rubble, that alone is enough to generate suspicion.

[Sterling]

142. It was an attempt to identify the "terraists"

People immediately grew suspicious and like the put options and the Anthrax that was pretty much the end of it. It was no longer discussed in the MSM.

[reprobate]

93. And consider the fact that EVERYTHING they've done....

....in the rest of the world, war on terraism, war in afghanistan, war in iraq, etc, etc, required the "new american pearl harbor" to have happened before it all could be done.

Without 9/11 bush would have been laughed out of office in the next week or so. Remember that his popularity was down the tubes at the time.

[MrSlayer]

28. Good, I hope this gets a lot of play.

They've gotten away with this for far too long already.

[Endangered Specie]

34. Ive heard similiar offers by creationists to prove evolution...

you know they are never going to award it, thats part of the ploy.

[Old and In the Way]

44. One thing I'm wondering about.

I've read that the buildings were approaching end of life, does anyone know if that's true? Certainly, as the buildings got older, the owner would be faced with massive repair or deconstruction cost. Anyone know how that would have been financed? I would assume that the building owner would be liable for the entire cost. Given the building purchase cost, the limited life, and the decontruction costs....I'd think it would have been nearly impossible to sell or find anyone willing to finance the buyer.

Yet that's exactly what occurred a few months before 9/11. Very interesting...

[BlueDog2u]

45. I've read that also

I believe it to be true. And it is *highly* relevant to LIHOP. Any way you look at this story, a whole lot of extremely powerful people -- the people, really, who secretly control our world, democracy be damned, had everything to benefit from this. Was demolition involved? I'm not sure. I can see both sides of the argument. Did the BuschCo know what was going down, did they guide and help coordinate it, using assets posing as jihadists and jihadists who were unwitting assets -- absolutely.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

52. someone posted a story here along those lines

it was an account by a photographer who was taking shots of the towers for some reason.

while in the building he somehow was mistakenly allowed to sit in on meeting with people who were working rennovation issues with the building.

the long and short of it is that the towers would be too expensive to repair in order to fix whatever problem would make them unusable in the near future. so it would have been more cost effective to have the towers destroyed and collect then insurance than to try and repair the problem.

*that is a really shaky account of i remember. hopefully someone has the story bookmarked or something.

[Sterling]

57. I think it had to do with asbestos.

Possible structural damage from the first attack ten years before.

Sometimes I wonder if that attack was not an attempt to set an early form of the PNAC agenda in motion. Coupled with trap GHW got us into in Somalia I wonder if they tried to manipulate Clinton into the post cold war NWO agenda that later became PNAC.

[Sterling]

56. Asbestos and other banned materials o plenty.

The cost of a legit demo not in the pretense of a national emergency would have cost billions with no way to put the bill on the tax payers.

[neweurope]

58. I'm no engineer and hardly understand the arguments - BUT

"I hope this will get a lot of play" - NO, it won't. I read it in a German online magazine ten or 14 days ago. I don't think you'll be hearing much of it.

I can hardly follow the arguments concerning the physics of what happened. But I do know one thing:

Nothing that is happening in the US right now makes any sense. UNLESS one supposes this was an insider job.

Then all the pieces fall together.

[Sterling]

64. You are dead on there.

It really does explain the unexplainable. Like why we are officially NOT looking for Osama who is suposedly in Pak but we have invaded Iraq and are preparing to invade Iran?

MIHOP+PNAC is the only logical explanation.

[neweurope]

73. Please help my out! What does

MIHOP and LIHOP stand for? And GOP, since I'm asking?

It also explained why they had PATRIOT I which is lengthy and complicated all ready in the drawer to pull out when everybody was in shock. Don't know abou the US - but in Germany it takes four times as long for a town council to decide upon a new roof for the fire station or make up regulations for the local swimming pool.

[Old and In the Way]

74. MIHOP - Make it happen on purpose LIHOP - Let it happen on pourpose

GOP is an old name for the Republican Party - the Grand Old Party

Patriot Act was rammed through right after the Anthrax attacks.... which was right after Cheney told the Democrats not to push for a 9/11 investigation.

[neweurope]

75. Thank you :) and thanks for the info about "Patriot"

That they chose a name for something that takes away civil rights which reads p.a.t.r.i.o.t. irks me a lot by the way

[Old and In the Way]

79. It's their Orwellian way of describing things.

Whatever they name something, you can take it to the bank that the intent is precisely the opposite.

[pauliedangerously]

125. MIHOP and LIHOP

"Made It Happen On Purpose"
"Let It Happen On Purpose"

Two schools of thought regarding the 9/11 charade.

[MADem]

166. Invade Iran? Now that's a crazy idea

Why invite war with CHINA??? Guess who Iran's BEST customer is--yeah, CHINA.

Far easier to foment trouble in Saudi Arabia, and then, using the many bases we built and staffed in Saudi, just go in and take over. For their own good, of course. To protect the oil for the benefit of the world. Purely temporary, of COURSE. Must preserve our long frindship with the House of Saud (lock them all up, more like).

It's very easy to isolate the population centers in SA, and very easy to secure the isolated, modern, well-repaired and well-designed oil infrastructure. They've got EVERYTHING, and it is all top-shelf. And, they have the BEST oil in the world-light, sweet crude that requires very little refining...fabulous stuff.

I don't buy the conspiracies about the WTC, though. I personally don't think the rightwingnuts are all that smart. They know how to strongarm, to bully and to cheat, but that sort of plot requires finesse, and they don't have that talent. IMHO....

[geek tragedy]

60. Like convincing a fundie that God doesn't exist.

Nutbag CT'ers like this guy will accept no logical explanation.

[Sterling]

63. And douchebags who waste their time...

attacking people rather than present a reasonable arguement only help the CT seem more credible.

[Sterling]

65. Do you believe in god?

Just asking.

[Sterling]

95. I guess not which is fine...

I think we are talking apples and oranges but in lew of your effort to insult anyone who believes in god it would have been interesting to know what your personal views on the subject are.

To me accepting the official story is a matter of faith. It takes intelect and scrutiny to understand the official story is flawed.

[TexanDem]

67. Here's a link to a very interesting video concerning this...

In Plane Sight - (about an hour - but worth it!)

also

Alex Jones: World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein (about 30 minutes)

These videos don't have all the answers by a long shot, but they definitely ask some interesting questions.

[Sterling]

68. Try this

http://shadowgov.info/video_wtc7.html

I am not so sure about the in plane site video. i have heard a lot of bad stuff about it. Alex Jones can be good when he is not chasing satan worshipers.

I think he touches on a lot fo great facts but seems to twist them into something not quite on the mark.

[TexanDem]

70. Thanks -- will watch it...

Actually I suckered into buying the In Plane Sight DVD. But then I'm really gullible about conspiracy theories!

That's the first I've heard of Jones. He seemed radically sane to me!! I'll have to do some follow-up on him! Thanks for the warning! :)

[Sterling]

71. Don't get me wrong I respect anyone willing to seek the truth.

I just disagree with how he interprets the facts. Decide for yourself.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

86. in plane sight link--fixed

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

clicked on the orig and it didn't come up
maybe it's just my computer but just in case...

[jsquared]

76. There may have been "galvanic corrosion" in the building similar to the

condition that was destroying the Statue of Liberty before its major renovation. (This is when weakeness is created by two different metals are in contact and is increased by marine environments.) Apparently, the building's insurance rates increased tremendously before the collapse. (I read this at Voice of the White House at tbr.org) Maybe between the NY city authorities and the White House, they decided to cover this structural flaw up so as not to create massive lawsuits (a major Bush irritant), as well as to not to deflect from the terrorism/declare war storyline.

[Old and In the Way]

80. I am surprised the Reinsurance companies that split the actual liabilites

on such a huge underwriting aren't more aggressive on looking into this....or have they been paid off by the government? I'm sure that they would be attacked in the media if they started questioning the official 9/11 story, though...

[plasticsundance]

84. Here's a good book on the topic ...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865715408/ref=ase_themusicsource5447-20/102-2308825-3733702?v=glance&s=books

It's pretty scathing in its indictment of the Bush Administration as it relates to involvement in 911. I've only read excerpts, but I've listened to Mike Ruppert (the author) discussing the topic of the book, and he makes a very compelling argument.

Incidentally, for those thinking that bombs could not be planted by CIA operatives inside the WTC, should ask how it was accomplished in the underground garage of the WTC in 1993 by terrorists. Maybe I'm too cynical, but perhaps it was a dry run. Otherwise, the jury is still out for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

[Snivi Yllom]

97. Jimmy Walter is a major asshole

There were no explosives. He must get his jollies off with his site trying to lie about what happened.

If he wanted to do something worthy with his $ he should have donated it to the victim families of 9/11.

[plasticsundance]

99. So let's see ...

Snivi Yllom,

You put the discussion to rest based on the following evidence:

1. According to you, Jimmy Walter's is a "major asshole". That clears everything up. I was wondering when we'd get to that relevant detail. Out of curiosity, is "major asshole" a variance of "major league asshole" or is it completely different? How do both of those rate to, let's say, "asshole"?

* Note: Before presenting a theory or requesting evidence or proof of one, please consider whether one falls under the above descriptors.

2. "He must get his jollies off with his site trying to lie about what happened."

Why, of course, he must, because you've offered so much evidence to attempt proving it. I wouldn't think you'd involve yourself in assassinating and besmirching someone's character without providing evidence or proof.

3. "If he wanted to do something worthy with his $ he should have donated it to the victim families of 9/11."

Ah ... self righteousness raises it contemptuous and unfair indignant head. Case closed.

[Snivi Yllom]

102. ok, prove he's not an asshole

It's about the same as proving the towers were not demolished by explosives. Futile and pointless.

[Sterling]

107. I think we are proving some one is an asshole just not Jimmy.

He may well be an asshole but it has little bearing on this matter. You are a very bad debater.

[vincent_vega_lives]

137. No actually he has a good point.

It only takes one instance to prove someone an asshole, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove someone is NOT an asshole, as it is impossible to know everything someone has said an done.

[Sterling]

140. It does not take one instance to prove someone is an asshole.

In fact being an asshole is a matter of opinion. So the point is rather stupid period. I am sorry I gave it enough credit to respond to it in the first place.

IMHO everyone can be an asshole at times.

[vincent_vega_lives]

185. everyone can be an asshole at times.

IMHO as well...I'll drink to that! :toast:

[Sterling]

103. In a way he is donating his money to the victims families.

He is investing in finding the truth of how their loved ones were murdered.m That's a pretty great thing to do considering how dangerous that could be.

[Snivi Yllom]

111. the truth

is Islamist fundamentalists hijacked airliners and flew them into the WTC.

[Sterling]

116. Many people disagree with that.

And so far seem to be much more capable of supporting their point of view.

[Snivi Yllom]

160. many paranoid people believe that

they also believe black helicopters are coming for them with aliens from the planet Rektar. And they require not a shred of proof to believe it as fact, just like the MIHOP kooks.

[Sterling]

177. No, that is just absurd.

You are not capable of making a decent argument so you resort to name calling. That is pretty childish but I welcome these kinds of posts on these threads as they re enforce the case for conspiracy.

It makes it a lot easier for an objective person to see which argument has validity when one side is pissing all over themselves instead of making a decent argument.

When you resort to straw man arguments and name calling you have already lost. Thanks for playing.

[seemslikeadream]

105. Design flaw in the WTC towers involving galvanic corrosion ?

...

Out of the blue, a new source came forward with information that in 1989 there was a plan being designed and priced to put up scaffolding, take the WTC towers down and rebuild them. The reason stated was not only asbestos related, but also because of a considerable design flaw in the WTC towers involving galvanic corrosion resulting from direct contact of dissimilar metals. In this instance, the heavy exterior aluminum panels were reportedly directly connected to the steel superstructure of the WTC towers. The price in 1989 was reportedly $5.6 billion to do this demolition and rebuilding to correct what would be a serious design flaw.

If that is the case, there would have been rapid and very damaging corrosion to the steel superstructure due to a process that is called galvanic corrosion. The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired for that same reason where the copper exterior had over time come into contact with the iron skeleton structure inside that makes the shape of the monument, so the process can occur in structures standing in air.

Evidently someone did not want to spend $5.6 billion (1989 dollars) to tear the WTC towers down and rebuild them properly, without the asbestos and without the defect that would rapidly deteriorate the superstructure of the building.

more
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/121704Schwarz/121704schwarz.html

[tinrobot]

135. Not an engineering cospiracy, a political one.

I'm totally convinced the planes took down the buildings. No conspiracy from the point of impact to the collapse.

How those 19 men got on those planes, however, is wide open for debate. If there is a conspiracy, that's where you'll find it.

[Sterling]

145. You may be right.

IMHO the collapse is worth looking into as well. A variety of political motivations of the players in the drama lead me to suspect a full collapse was planned in advance of 9-11. That and the fact I watched it with my oe=wn eyes and it looked like a controlled demo.

[Snivi Yllom]

152. where is the proof? Explosive residue, control wiring, video of explosions

None of that exists. No evidence of explosions. Period.

[Sterling]

176. It's probably in Fresh Kills or China.

Look up the company who took care of the clean up. It's a very important part of this story.

You raised a very good question. I hope you take the time to honestly consider the answers you are about to find.

[vincent_vega_lives]

136. A lot of the same crap...

that has been argued endlessly on the Terrorism forum.

Typical CT'er. :rolleyes: Such an childish claim...

"The millionaire activist is so convinced of a government cover-up he is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the World Trade Center buildings crashed the way the government says."

He knows it CAN't be proven. They only way to prove a theory is to recreate it exactly.

You can prove elements of a theory however. You could certainly prove that explosives were not used. He should offer a reward for that!

[RuleofLaw]

141. Baloney

Experts proves all kinds of theories in court every day.

An people get send to the death chamber, based upon that prove. What you are saying is that its impossible to prove who started a fire in a house unless you recreate it. :crazy:

[Sterling]

147. Yes that is very flawed logic.

nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

148. Actually...they don't

Like I said. you can prove elements of a complex theory, like the WTC collapse, that make it more or less plausable. But you could never prove

that the government's theory was correct as the evidence was largely destroyed in the event.

Also, Like I said. It would be a lot easier to prove that explosives were or were not involved.

BTW, you can certainly find evidence of what caused a house fire, but it would be IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE it, without exactly recreating the event.

[Sterling]

146. Write him and ask him to change the rules.

Maybe you could prove it was not explosives anyway? It would probably help you with whatever your agenda here is.

[plasticsundance]

155. What??

vincent_vega_lives,

One can too most certainly gather and obtain enough evidence that would prove and reconstruct, without "exactly recreating," the cause of a house fire. It's done all the time. It's such a precise science that they even have the burn rate of every possible chemical that would be in the house.

I guess, following what you've posited, the Big Bang Theory is in more trouble than I originally thought, let alone what you posted goes against the basic precepts and tenants of science.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary:

empirical - 1a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


vincent_vega_lives, consider your position, and informs us as to how practical you think it is.

:think:

Notice, without giving any substantial reasons, how adamant and certain those who ridicule Jimmy Walter are, as opposed to the alleged CT's, which in this case appear to be the skeptics willing to admit the jury is still out regarding the matter.

[vincent_vega_lives]

165. The point is

There has been plenty evidence collected

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf#search='wtc%20steel%20collection'

and experements conducted,

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P5ReconstructionofFires.pdf

analysis done

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

None of which can be called proof, nor will it ever.

You can prove elements of the collapse, however.

Or do you disagree?

[Sterling]

175. I don't see it that way.

It's a building collapse, not evolution. It should be very easy to prove what happened. I think that is why so many people are still asking questions.

[vincent_vega_lives]

181. I agree it is not evolution

but I dissagree that it should be very easy to PROVE what happened. the collapse and fire were very destructive in regards to the evidence, hence all the simulations, analysis, investigations.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Even if there were explosives planted in the building...it would still be next to impossible to PROVE that they were the cause of the collapse and not the structural damage caused by the aircraft or the fire.

[doctor klahn]

154. What I Saw 9-11

I was on my rooftop 9-11, about 20 blocks away...I didnt see the first plane hit, rather, it flying over my blgd awoke me...I was upstairs when the second hit the bldg.

At that point, you could see the hole burning in the tower at the corner of the bldg on the left side (I was looking on facing south btw). Anyway, at this point in time I was so horrified I hadnt even contemplated this possibility that the towers would fall.

What I do remember for sure though, was watching that fire at the point of impact slowly move across the length of the building over the next 30-45 minutes (est. of course). When it was about half way, I distinctly remember the moment when I realized the Tower would fall eventually, as I imagined that the fire would burn across, allowing the top of the bldg to "detach" and fall. I imagined it would topple over the side (obviously Im not a physicist, engineer etc) and was petrified for anyone being nearby when that top piece fell over. A short while later, the tower fell, and to me it seemed like slow motion, maybe because of the pure shock that all this was occuring in front of me. Anyway, the top of the bldg tipped over to the left, and the tower came down.

Im making no assertions one way or the other here, as I am not an expert, just recounting what I saw...the fire burned across the building starting from the impact site, then, the top tipping to the left and tower collapsing...

[plasticsundance]

170. Actually ...

vincent_vega_lives,

Can you please respond point by point to what I've posted. It'll make it so much easier for us to follow what the point actually is that's being made by the other person.

Never mind that, I'll pick up the slack. You go ahead and run around the field with the goal post all you want. Let see what you now posit. You wrote the following:

"None of which can be called proof, nor will it ever.

Got ourselves in a bit of a conundrum, have we? You cite fema as constituting proof, because I sense no skepticism in your argument that would have you regarding it as mere evidence, sense, as I said before, you seem quite adamant in your position pertaining to Jimmy Walter.

However, we have you on record, writing:

"The only way to prove a theory is to recreate it exactly."

You realize you're being contradictory, so you then must justify it by assuming you speak for fema. You explain that fema, along with all the other sites you posted as to providing evidence, does not necessarily constitute as proof. I'm being very generous with you here, because you, as of yet, have not distinguished the difference between evidence and proof.

However, you also realize that you still haven't wiggled out of the the web you've weaved, because you still have to acknowledge that proving an accepted theory like the Big Bang might prove just a tad bit difficult using your benchmark and criteria of "exactly recreating" to prove a theory. Or is it a mere hypothesis? Or only proving ... something?

Never mind, since you're holding your opponent to a different standard, or more plainly put, having the benefit of a double standard for yourself, or even more plainly put, having your cake and eating it, too, you do some further tweaking:

You can prove elements of the collapse, however.

What elements? Have you correlated the data? What about a second and third blind tests from peer-reviewed fellow mates? What about data/information that questions the findings? What vested interests might a government agency like fema have in the process towards the truth, especially being a government agency tool of the Bush Administration? Who said what, why, where, when, and what the hell is that agency's/person's agenda, including how much arm twisting went on to reach the conclusion? You do realize the political aspect in science? If you don't, talk to * about global warming.

Thus far, in response to the original post regarding Jimmy Walter's offer, we've had the following:

1. A bunch of counter explanations to dispute Walter's claims about 911/WTC, but all these counter explanations just so happen do not correspond to the other one. It's like taking pot shots without the burden of proof. That's just one of the prime benefits of having your cake and eating it, too.

2. Name calling of Jimmy Walter's, followed by the worn out oversimplified and unsupported by facts sound bite information. It's called the, "yes I'm right because I am insulted as well as insulting and just because I say I'm right and insulting," argument.

3. Anecdotal information, including the epiphany that fire does, yes, indeed move. Maybe someone can supply us with the wind conditions that day.

4. Then, there's you, which oddly enough, seemed to be falling more into the Jimmy Walter camp, except for the lapse of desperately grasping upon another's authority. Or is it an agenda?

Finally, you write:

Or do you disagree?

I simply do not know. However, I do not think that this topic has been explored, or presented in such a way as to make an informed decision.

If it's any consolation to you, you're in good company with the Big Bang Theorists' when it comes to having your cake and eating it, too.

[vincent_vega_lives]

186. Eating my cake

Almost missed this...as you didn't reply to my post.

1. Proof and evidence may be one and the same, but not neccessarily. Evidence can support a theory, or prove a threory...then it becomes proof. It is much easier to prove a theory wrong than it is to prove theory correct.

2. The big bang is hardly a universaly accepted theory, widely accepted may be a better word. Einstein’s TOR has never been proven, nor has it been disproved. It remains a theory...hence the name. There is an awfully wide gap between anaccepted theory and a proven one.

3. It can be proven as to how long it took the building to fully collapse. It can be proven whether explosives were or were not used in its distruction. those are elements of the collapse.

4. Honestly not sure what the point of your post is. But I stand by my claim that Jimmy Walter's "reward" is a fools challenge, as you would need to prove every single aspect and all the evidence of the FEMA scenario correct.

5. A more legitimate offer would be to offer $100,000 to anyone who could prove FEMA's collapse scenario wrong. It would only require a single piece of evidence that was contrary to the "accepted" theory.

BTW it has been attempted to best recreate the WTC fires in the attempt to prove or disprove evidence of collapse:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm#fire

[Sterling]

174. Hi Dr.

We had a similar view that morning. I can't see how the fire burnt the support columns, that;'s my problem with the theory.

On a side note I have heard of a man name Dr. Kahn who was there that day helping people. Are you the same guy? If so you are a very brave person. I commend your efforts.

[plasticsundance]

180. However ...

Sterling,

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think proponents of the theory are stating that it was the high build up of temperature from the top-down of the building that stressed the steel columns to the point of melt down, thus collapsing the building. I believe some jets use an injected mixture of methanol and water to boost take-off power. Methanol can burn without being seen, or at least easily seen. However, methanol is also extinguished by water rather easily. In addition, proponents of the theory look at the temp for burn rate on items in the jets and buildings as causing the collapse.

I am far from an expert, and hopefully the more engineer adept will add comment, but I believe it comes down to the temperature and the impact it would have on the steel columns.

Actually, one could draw information from the links posted by vincent_vega_lives, and then dispute them on the merits. I believe this is what Walter is asking.

[vincent_vega_lives]

187. No melt down was required

Only weakening the steel enough that it could no longer support it's loads. Higher the load, lower the temp needed.

[doctor klahn]

183. Sterling

I am not Dr. Kahn...

Actually, my screen name is from the film "Kentucky Fried Movie"

[vincent_vega_lives]

182. Interesting

World Trade Center Fire Experiment Images
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

Gallery of Recovered World Trade Center Steel at NIST
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover