9/11 Official Story: True or False?

[El Barto]

Thinking 4 planes could get hijacked simultaneously and used as missiles was a fantasy before 9/11.  You need perspective to our mindsets pre 9/11 to understand this.

Airplanes being used as weapons go way back.  The Israelis were damn sure hip to it.  Ralph Nader suggested this very scenario back in [I believe] the late 70s.  American defense agencies were certainly aware of the possibility since they were conducting training exercises for it THAT VERY WEEK.  

Please see bolded.

Personally, I think this is a rather poorly done example of sensationalism.  However, it does address numerous studies and contingency plans for what that administration insists was unpredictable.  Honestly, I don't see much point in debating the attacks here, but this is something that really annoys me.  Things becoming accepted as fact in this country due solely to repetition. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aaf6NuKRHE

[ReaPsTA]

I bet you guys have watched Zeitgeist movies, whether they are absurd theories or not, but in case you haven't, just give your 10 minutes for this video and think again. Of course, there is no reason to believe in this video, and as there is no reason to believe this video, there is no reason to believe the government either. It's up to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyyRXfROhrc

Sure, I'll bite, let's go:

 - I like how the beginning takes the first WTC crash and turns it into a scene from a Michael Bay movie.

 - Even the music tries too hard.

 - The building collapsed to dust because the weight of everything was so extreme.  Not a physicist, but that just seems to make sense.

 - How is people calling it an explosion evidence?  Of course it would sound like an explosion if it collapsed.

 - The next part of the video is a very common and (to me) strange conspiracy theorist argument.  They say if the government runs a scenario about something, it means they're planning to do it to us.  But this isn't exactly true.  The government has a lot of money, time, and manpower.  They develop scenarios for literally any possible situation.  I'm sure we have an official protocol should a genuine UFO enter our atmosphere.  War with Great Britain?  We know what to do.  War with Canada?  Well... we are trying to cut the budget.  So it would be more surprising if they didn't run a test on planes hitting the WTC than if they didn't.

The only argument you can make about this is that to some degree the government went into 'cover its own ass' mode after wards because they so epically didn't see this coming.  Maybe it's not a reasonable expectation, I don't know anything about intelligence.  But simply being perceived as unable to stop the attack with advance evidence, however minuscule, would be devastating in terms of public confidence.

 - I'm going to beat the next person in the face who says any of the hijackers are still alive.  It's like they forgot multiple people can have the same name.

 - The wire transfer thing is a bit weird, but I have a hard time believing it because the details are so scant.

 - The Bin Laden segment is a rush of out of context facts edited together so the mind creates its own context suggested by the film for the facts to exist in.  No thanks.

 - This whole NORAD thing makes no sense.  The chain of facts has so many details cut out.  It's like the short-selling of stocks on airline companies before 9/11 by evil Jewish bankers.  By itself, it implies that men in black trench coats told them what was going down so they could make money.  But a slight bit of investigation reveals the airline industry was already in terrible shape and that business-wise it was the right move.  I guess NORAD was conducting a training exercise with Dick Cheney in command the day of 9/11 and there were false radar blips confusing things and the jets were doing things other than being able to scramble and shoot down terrorists.  But that's the conclusion they want you to draw.  They didn't give me enough facts to believe it was inevitable.

And weren't the towers brought down by explosives? What's the point of this whole thing if the planes weren't really hijacked anyway? I'm sure there's some reason, but bleh.  Must not be defeated.

 - What I wish happened:

Douchey interviewer: "Why are you and the Vice president insisting on appearing together in front of the 9/11 commission?"
Bush "Because some of those questions are really hard, and I want Dick to hold my hand real tight during the scary parts."

The Bush administration is secretive about everything.  This isn't special.  The only conspiracy theory possibly at play here is, again, what El Barto said.  The government wanted to cover its own ass so the 9/11 commission didn't probe too deeply.  They might have smelled something was up and uncovered some foul nuggets of information.  The result of this would have a distasteful effect on the American psyche.

 - The part at 8:06 is actually interesting because its weird.  But aside from the standard conspiracy theory logic (dubious claims, low resolution photos, conclusions created by editing), there's no effort to explain physics and chemistry to people who don't understand it, because rather than having a point based on facts, presenting more facts distracts from their conclusions, and thus the facts are removed.

PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE:  What's the actual explanation for the whole molten steel thing?

BTW: Jet fuel might not be able to melt steel, but it can structurally weaken it.  From there, I'd presume all kinds of crazy things can happen in a building that huge.

Someone will inevitably say or think "ReaPsTA just dismisses the arguments he doesn't like."  This isn't an unfair thought, but I can explain why.  The form of every argument in the video is exactly the same.  When I knew the relevant facts omitted from the video, the argument fell apart.  In the segments I don't understand well, it's obvious the same omission of facts is occurring.  Because these arguments aren't even logically self-contained because they don't address the myriad of counter-arguments out there, why give them any credibility?

[AcidLameLTE]

The thing about the temperature of jet fuel weakening the structure is correct.

Steel melts at 1525° C, jet fuel burns at 825° C and steel loses 50% of it's strength at 648° C.

[orcus116]

PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE:  What's the actual explanation for the whole molten steel thing?

BTW: Jet fuel might not be able to melt steel, but it can structurally weaken it.  From there, I'd presume all kinds of crazy things can happen in a building that huge.

Yes. Buildings like that are structurally delicate and are designed to fall and collapse exactly how it did. If one beam/girder/joint breaks, granted it's not a vital joint or whatever, the loads are designed to be transferred to other members without too much of a problem but it's not going to hold for long. If you've got several critical members failing all at once you can imagine the chain reaction of loads being redistributed all over the place to joints and other members that weren't designed to support that kind of load.

And the steel thing is as simple as "if you heat up a piece of metal long enough it'll get softer and lose a lot of it's strength". So if that steel is supporting a load once it's strength is lowered it, obviously, can't support that load anymore thus causing a failure. It's that simple and I dunno why these theorists hop on to one or two websites, think they have a complete understanding of how steel and heat transfer works and write out batshit insane ideas. It's actual physics and science. You can't fuck with those proven ideas. We spent half of a Reinforced Concrete class laughing at all these stupid ideas one time.

[ReaPsTA]

But why was the molten steel there?  (Assuming it actually was.)  Would the pressure of the collapse or the fires or something heat the steel more than the jet fuel?

[GuineaPig]

But you don't need to melt the steel to cause it to collapse.  All you need to do is to reduce it to the point that it cannot support the weight above it.  The jet fuel, plus the burning of whatever combustible material the fuel came in contact with, would be more than enough to make the supporting of 30 stories untenable.

[emindead]

I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.

I find it extremely unlikely that a kid who grew up poor, with average looks, average talent, average brains, and no connections at all would be be happily married to a woman with the looks of a model, would have gotten to go to law school free of charge and be happily working at one of the top law firms in the country, would have performed lead vocals onstage with one of my favorite bands from my childhood, and would be running the largest website in the world for DT fans.  And yet, unlikely as it all may have seemed, here we are...

You terrorist you!

[orcus116]

But why was the molten steel there?  (Assuming it actually was.)  Would the pressure of the collapse or the fires or something heat the steel more than the jet fuel?

That I can't answer but it's such a small detail that it shouldn't matter. Just imagine the amount of energy that is transfered from a building collapsing, especially one of that size. Some is transfered to heat energy.

Also think about the amount of other things that were on fire. Everyone talks about jet fuel but, uh, that building was full of all kinds of other flammable materials. Sure the fuel started the fire but it'd be ridiculous to think other things didn't catch fire as well.

[El Barto]

But why was the molten steel there?  (Assuming it actually was.)  Would the pressure of the collapse or the fires or something heat the steel more than the jet fuel?

I once posited that a combination of jet A-1, industrial carpeting, Masonite and liquid paper would create a fire hot enough.  In other words, who the fuck knows?

[ehra]

I found this after a bit of searching:

https://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.

Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"
-----------
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE

And there's more further on.

[ReaPsTA]

So science > conspiracy theorism once again.  Thank you.

[Progmetty]

I only read the poll options and the opening post, none of which is my belief but the second one comes as close as possible.
I never had the slightest doubt that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the planning and the execution of that attack, mainly because I'm so close to the culture that spawned those dumbasses to know that's not how they think and also because I don't believe these dimwits have it in them to fly a pee stream into a toilet, the part I'm in doubt about is whether they took the credit to enhance their image as the fighters of the American/Zionist oppression (which they did) or were they told to take credit for this to end the questions (as in the Al-Qaeda-has-always-been-the-CIA's-lap-dog theory).
Now as to why; justification of strong military presence and operations in the middle east and gradually eliminating any source of threat to Israel, nothing has ever been about anything but that for the U.S for a long ass time, not a very bad cause but making the way there sucked.
And to the topic starter: I don't like talking about this cause I don't like being labeled a conspiracy theorist -especially as I never h any before- and also because it's hurtful to Americans to keep reopening this subject, let the good people rest believing what they wanna believe, nothing positive nor negative will come from changing their minds, in short; this would only make people dislike you.

[Super Dude]

A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot.  I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy.

I mean, there is no other way to approach those questions...because anyone who believes that stuff is a lunatic.  Guinea Pig said it best:

AwakeFromOctavarium, there are literally second-by-second refutations of Zeitgeist.

Also, I think that anyone that believes for a second anything promoted by Zeitgeist, they revoke any rights to label themselves as a "skeptic."  Swallowing any bullshit you see is the exact opposite of skeptical thinking.

Anyone who believes these Alex Jones and Loose Change videos is just as susceptible to propaganda and sensationalism as those who they accuse of allegedly being susceptible to what they believe is government propaganda.  The only difference is the people who believe Obama wants to create an American Empire probably don't know anything about what's actually going on in the world of government and politics today because they don't follow the issues until some fire-eating politician tells them that the government is lying to them.

[ack44]

and people wonder why I like GWB??? LOL

lol

[El Barto]

A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot.  I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy.

I mean, there is no other way to approach those questions...because anyone who believes that stuff is a lunatic.  Guinea Pig said it best:

No, there are actually some very sane and very intelligent people who question the official explanation. 

[ehra]

Yeah. Asking why there was molten steel in the wreckage seemed like a good enough question to me.

[soundgarden]

I am a structural & mechanical engineer for buildings specifically here in NYC.  At the time hearing and reading reports on the collapse, I found myself raising my eyebrows quite a few times. 

For one thing (and I never saw the structural framing of the WTC buildings, but I am going off discussions here) is that I find the "pancaking" of the floors to be a bit unbelievable.  The steel joists themselves may have lost their bearing capacities in the heat at those floors, but the several floors below should have been able to bear the extra load of the floors falling, at least for some time.  1

Additionally, in the wreckage at the ground floor, there were only melted or cut beams.  Steel will always deform plastically prior to failing.  If the upper floors fell on the lower floors, many many many beams should have been found with a curvature (there were very little bolts used, all the rivets used in the connects were designed so as when loaded together, they can take a sheer load stronger than the fracture point of the beam).

Lastly, all the nature of the collapse of the three buildings looked eerily similar to that of a controlled demolition. I wouldn't make a fuss about this if it was just one building, but to have three collapse in a fashion seemingly designed to makes me rethink it.

There are other things of course, but yea.  I know Al Queda orchestrated this whole thing, but the reports do give me some concerns.

[yeshaberto]

i always thought DT was at the root of it...how else do you explain their album cover released the day of.  and octavarium?  clearly 9 minus 1

[Adami]

i always thought DT was at the root of it...how else do you explain their album cover released the day of.  and octavarium?  clearly 9 minus 1

So one would say DT is the Root of All Evil?

[soundgarden]

/thread

[GuineaPig]

Additionally, in the wreckage at the ground floor, there were only melted or cut beams.  Steel will always deform plastically prior to failing.  If the upper floors fell on the lower floors, many many many beams should have been found with a curvature (there were very little bolts used, all the rivets used in the connects were designed so as when loaded together, they can take a sheer load stronger than the fracture point of the beam).

Firefighters.  People were trapped under the wreckage, so...

[YtseBitsySpider]

The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years. 

like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?

[Vivace]

I caution with the side of Occam's Razor on this one. That is the most plausible solution is usually the correct one, and the most plausible report I can think of is pretty obvious: 19 Saudi's hijacked 4 planes in a very systematic fashion and crashed them into the WTC the Pentagon and one was wrestled to the ground with dire consequences. The fact that we have eyewitness accounts from "inside the plane" through cell phones that say the planes are being hijacked pretty much refutes ANY claim that the planes were drones. Also the fact that the plane that hit the Pentagon would have to someone disappear along with 300 other people, records changed and everything that goes with hidding that an actual plane ever existed puts it into the realm of the virtually impossible thus it was a plane that hit the Pentagon and not a missile. The fact that we did not respond quick enough was further cemented by Katrina where it was certainly proven that we simply have no plan for "most" emergencies and I think we can easily put 9/11 into that category. Easy answer we simply didn't know "how" to react and that we were stunned it was even happening to begin with. the fact that we demolished our own buildings means that you have to employ engineers to place the explosives, do so under cover of no one knowing this action is taking place, doing it systematically so that each building comes down in exactly the right moment of time and to cover all traces that explosives were even used given any form of investigation that took place. Again, this is in the realm of the virtually impossible.

This is in my opinion what happened. 19 Saudi's came in the United States and were here for quite some time. We eventually decided to tag them and follow them. Intelligence was gathered but it never reached anyone who either 1) knew what do with it or 2) gave a damn or 3) quite possibly had some hidden agenda to actually find a way to misplace them. I can see number 3 as possible but again, information like this is most likely in triplicate. Why oh why would you have only one persion write up a report. If two FBI agents are working on the same case don't they BOTH write a report? So if we are to assume that more than one agent was on this case then we can assume there is more than one report. So did we find a way to remove ALL reports? I doubt it. I have a feeling that the intelligence was "ignored" for some really really stupid reason that seemed like a good idea at the time. Long story short. We fucked up and we fucked up grand. I firmly believe 9/11 could have been prevented but I think our egos got in the way. I don't think that will happen again.

[AcidLameLTE]

9/11 conspiracies always remind me of this video by The Onion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0

[Vivace]

9/11 conspiracies always remind me of this video by The Onion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0

This is why I LOVE the Onion. "How would you feel if you were underground in some buncker sleeping on rocks planning something really special for two months only to have someone take the credit away from you?"

Genius!!

[Perpetual Change]

The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years. 

like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?

Hey! That's a really good point.

[El Barto]

The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years. 

like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?

Hey! That's a really good point.

Except that there's not much secret left about that.  And even if there were a conspiracy, we're talking about a handful of people required to pull off an assassination.  Thousands of people would have had to be involved in orchestrating a false flag on the scale of 911.

[Vivace]

The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years.  

like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?

Hey! That's a really good point.

Oh come on, that's incredibly easy to hide. Dead men tell no tales and all this took was a fraternity of men and one scapegoat. To pull off 9/11 you 1000's of people. Cannot compare.

edit: lol! I should read the whole page before commenting it seems.