Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

9/11 Conspiracy


  • Please log in to reply
1324 replies to this topic

#781
Javea1

Javea1

    Member Of The Month October 2007 | Best RTS Contributor

  • Members
  • 1,681 posts
  • xfire:Javea1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin - USA (CST/GMT-06:00)
  • Interests:RTS
  • Xbox / GFWL:Javea
  • Wii:4339-2250-4654
QUOTE (Pawnator @ Jan 30 2009, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Goethe's Law: If a poster cites Zeitgeist as a credible source, he automatically loses the argument.

End of discussion!

We can drink to a good day's work, ST1d.

Finally, after all this time.


Glad to see you creating your own laws now. Quite typical.

You should join O'Reilly.

-Jav
"Gonna cook a pizza... think about the patch." -Day[9]

#782
DethFanatic

DethFanatic

    Best RTS Contributor 08!

  • GA Private
  • 3,079 posts
  • xfire:dethfanatic533
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus
  • Interests:STARCRAFT 2 BETA YEAAAAAAH<br /><br />Studying Journalism at University (First year).
  • Wii:0129147163791720
  • Gamer Army ID:1048
I have seen zeitgeist, twice.

Cute, but not really compelling imo.

#783
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (Javea1 @ Jan 30 2009, 05:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Glad to see you creating your own laws now. Quite typical.


-Jav

What do you mean, YOU PEOPLE?


#784
ST1DinOH

ST1DinOH

    Master Debater 08

  • Members
  • 7,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:toledo ohio
  • Interests:fireworks, weed,
QUOTE (Danoli3 @ Jan 30 2009, 02:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
insane shit about cell phones not working in 2001


if you honestly believe that you can't get cell service in an airplane without some super secret airline technology you need help.

see there are these things called cell towers. they are magical towers which allow cell phones to work. by some futuristic technology (handed to us by lizard people i'm sure) these magical towers enable little hand held talking boxes to work and communicate with each other. these magical talking boxes are called cell phones. if you buy one of these cell phones and you pay for access to the cell towers then the cell phones will work. apparently reptilian aliens have erected these magical cell towers all over the country and this allows cell phones to work even when you fly over top of them in magical flying metal birds called airplanes.

i know it's hard to believe that big boxes of metal can fly and you can talk to people through plastic light up boxes but this has been going on for years.

crazy huh?

this is exactly why you conspiracy theorists need to STFU. just because airlines don't want you to use cell phones on a plane doesn't mean you cannot use cell phones on a plane.

how do you not see the stupidity in saying shit like you just said above?

if i say "you can't smoke in my house" does that mean cigarettes don't exist in my apartment?

that's fucking absurd.

QUOTE (Danoli3 @ Jan 30 2009, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Please Watch:

Zeitgeist: Part 2
http://video.google....eitgeist Part 2

Or the whole Documentary:
http://video.google....683847743189197


LOL

linking zeitgeist = referencing hitler

instant respect/debate loss.

how the hell can i take you seriously when you link this stupid shit?

QUOTE (Pawnator @ Jan 30 2009, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Goethe's Law: If a poster cites Zeitgeist as a credible source, he automatically loses the argument.

End of discussion!

We can drink to a good day's work, ST1d.

Finally, after all this time.


clinks pint glass.

lol, seriously i can't believe this discussion is still going. it's the same retarded shit over and over again no matter how many times it gets beat all to shit.

9/11 debate is a cyclical redundancy.

there must be a flowchart somewhere that explains this phenomenon.

it's like once we've embarrassed one conspiratard they send out word to send another one over with the same arguments all over again.

it's like an illogical war of attrition.


#785
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
Heres a protip stid. Before flaming people for lacking credibility... try explaining why they aren't credible. You sound like a fucking moron:

QUOTE (stid)
YOUR SUCH A DUMBASS COS YOUR UNCREIDBILE OMFG HOW CAN YPU BE SO STUPID?!?!?!?!?!?!?


If you were to act like this outside the intarwebs people would tell you to go fuck yourself and you would be the one with 0 credibility.

EDIT: As for my view on the subject at hand. The evidence in no way mounts up, thats all I know.



#786
Kazzerax

Kazzerax

    FUCK!

  • Retired Staff
  • 4,859 posts
  • xfire:kazzerax
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:de_train
  • Interests:Counter-Strike, Chess, computer hardware, music, literature, film and philosophy.
  • Steam ID:kazzerax
  • Gamer Army ID:764
QUOTE (Extracheez @ Jan 31 2009, 03:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Heres a protip stid. Before flaming people for lacking credibility... try explaining why they aren't credible. You sound like a fucking moron:



If you were to act like this outside the intarwebs people would tell you to go fuck yourself and you would be the one with 0 credibility.

EDIT: As for my view on the subject at hand. The evidence in no way mounts up, thats all I know.

In real life, if someone started talking about the 9/11 conspiracy st1d would explain it to them. Do you know why? Because in real life there aren't 20 pages (my pages are 40 posts) of text explaining it already.
QUOTE
Kazzerax
MOTHERFUCKING ENTITY OF THE WORLD
A PORTION OF GLORIOUS THOUGHT
ELECTRICITY SHAPED TO REASON
FORGED THROUGH THE FIRES OF LIFE
BROUGHT TO BEAR ON CHAOS TO IMPOSE WILL UPON AN UNCARING AND INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE
TO FORGE FROM NOTHING, SOMETHING
Beautiful

#787
ST1DinOH

ST1DinOH

    Master Debater 08

  • Members
  • 7,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:toledo ohio
  • Interests:fireworks, weed,
QUOTE (Extracheez @ Jan 31 2009, 04:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
faggotry


there are 40 pages explaining this shit to the countless waves of cospiratrolls that descend upon this thread. it's over with, we've beat this garbage all to shit and back yet they keep returning with the same lame arguments.

fact: cell phones work so long as they are near towers and towers are all over the country.
fact: metal doesn't need to reach a melting point to weaken enough to fail.
fact: alex jones is a douchebag who profits off lying to people.
fact: thermite doesn't defy gravity or physics

the list is miles long, and has been explained a million times.

all we've ever asked is for these conspiratrolls to read the thread before posting the same repetitive shit over and over again. if you look, almost every page is the same shit arguments. zeitgist, the melting point of steel, and near free fall speeds. all of these have been trounced over and over again. i'm tired of it.

also i'd wager large sums of money you'd never call me a fucking moron to my face.

also who's the fucking moron here when you can't distinguish the letter I from the number 1

stoned in ohio, it's very easy, it's even written out in my sig.

QUOTE (Joby's Brother @ Jan 31 2009, 04:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In real life, if someone started talking about the 9/11 conspiracy st1d would explain it to them. Do you know why? Because in real life there aren't 20 pages (my pages are 40 posts) of text explaining it already.


^this


#788
DethFanatic

DethFanatic

    Best RTS Contributor 08!

  • GA Private
  • 3,079 posts
  • xfire:dethfanatic533
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus
  • Interests:STARCRAFT 2 BETA YEAAAAAAH<br /><br />Studying Journalism at University (First year).
  • Wii:0129147163791720
  • Gamer Army ID:1048
Well stid, please explain, clearly and concisely because i havent seen you do it yet (maybe you have but i havent been bothered with all 40 pages of tripe), with evidence, how tower 7 can just collapse like that from a fire.

#789
ST1DinOH

ST1DinOH

    Master Debater 08

  • Members
  • 7,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:toledo ohio
  • Interests:fireworks, weed,
QUOTE (DethFanatic @ Jan 31 2009, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well stid, please explain, clearly and concisely because i havent seen you do it yet (maybe you have but i havent been bothered with all 40 pages of tripe), with evidence, how tower 7 can just collapse like that from a fire.


again this is the core problem with this stupid conspiracy theory.

the question is flawed already, you assume that tower 7 is destroyed by fire alone. you aren't taking into account the damage done to it during the collapse of the two main towers of the WTC and then the fire that happened afterward. if you just start a fire in that building, and the fire suppression systems are in working order, a fire alone cannot bring the building down.

but you have massive damage done to it by the collapse of the other towers, and the fire, and the fuel storage inside adding up to the collapse.

if you go to basementdwellingconspiracy.org you won't see pictures or discussion of the damage, because this debunks the theory. but a simple search shows this damage from angles never shown on conspiracy sites.





and again...

it's st 1 d (the number one, not the letter i)

not that hard people, it's even spelled out in my sig.






#790
DethFanatic

DethFanatic

    Best RTS Contributor 08!

  • GA Private
  • 3,079 posts
  • xfire:dethfanatic533
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus
  • Interests:STARCRAFT 2 BETA YEAAAAAAH<br /><br />Studying Journalism at University (First year).
  • Wii:0129147163791720
  • Gamer Army ID:1048
Well thanks for clearing that up, whenever i have seen tower 7 before it has always been from the other side, never once have i ever seen that damage before!

Structural integrity would have already been completely fucked with that amount of damage.

The way IWANTTOBELIEVE.org put it, made me think that a completely untouched building just collapsed to the ground in freefall, -_-

#791
Danoli3

Danoli3

    MotM Sept 2006 | teh_artchiverer | PP Lifetime Achievement Award

  • GA Sergeant
  • 6,760 posts
  • xfire:Danoli3
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Interests:Natalie, Pure Pwnage, Games, Programming, Animation, Music, Movies
  • Steam ID:Danoli3
  • Xbox / GFWL:Danolium
  • Wii:1622774217920323
  • Gamer Army ID:9
  • Company:Pi
I've read all 40 Pages of this debate and what people seem to not discuss is the Jet Fuel in much detail.

The Official Story Believers all cite Jet Fuel as being the cause for the Collapse.
Many people in this thread including ST1DinOH have said that the heat from the Jet Fuel reached levels to weaken the steel by 90%.

Fact: 600° C (1,100° F) Steel loses about half its strength (50%).

Sources:

http://books.google....x...1&ct=result
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel

------------------

Here are some Chemical Facts about Jet Fuel:

Assuming that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

-------------------

How?:

QUOTE
"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

QUOTE
"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.
It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.
It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).
And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:
(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O
(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O
(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

QUOTE
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

QUOTE
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.


#792
ST1DinOH

ST1DinOH

    Master Debater 08

  • Members
  • 7,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:toledo ohio
  • Interests:fireworks, weed,
QUOTE (Danoli3 @ Jan 31 2009, 09:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
insufferable copypasta idiocy filled with bloated figures, glaring assumptions, and useless facts (such as the organic chemistry of jet fuel) in a failed attempt at adding credibility to an otherwise bat-shit insane theory from a bunch of shut in life long loosers


ok i couldn't bear to pick each point apart in order because that post was just so convoluted and filled with useless shit. i'm just going to tackle them as i see fit.

first off you assume that the planes weren't carrying a full load of jet fuel. right off the bat we are dealing with fail. if you think they only give planes enough gas to get from point A to point B then you are sadly mistaken. first of all flying east to west in this country means you are flying against a headwind the entire way. so you need to add some extra fuel for that. next you must figure in the fact that this plane is flying into one of the busiest airport in the world (LAX) so the holding pattern (sometimes an hour or more) where the plane is waiting for permission to land is always accounted for. then there is a margin of error assuming the headwind or the holding pattern are longer than expected. if a plane is flying from new york to La it is carrying a full load of fuel. despite coming in from boston i';m quite sure it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the plane takes on more fuel once on the ground in new york.

next on the hit list...the absurdity of just using jet fuel numbers. just concentrating on the amount of jet fuel or the method in which it burns cannot come close to accounting for the fires. the planes slammed into the WTC towers in excess of 600 MPH. the jet fuel was mostly consumed in a massive fireball once the wing tanks ruptured and the fuel spilled into the buildings (still traveling at 600 MPH). the fuel would have become airborne and was mostly consumed on impact in what adds up to a fuel air explosion. somehow, you tinfoily's think this isn't enough to cause problems for the towers but what you failed to account for in that massive piece of copypasta'ed shit, is the ensuing fires the jet fuel touched off. once the fireball started, it burned everything in it's path. paper, carpet, wood, people's clothes, insulation, plastics...all of it began to burn. you've also created a fire in a building high above the city below allowing unobstructed access to wind driven oxygen and a chimney effect via the ventilation systems. this sustained fire, touched off by the burning jet fuel, is what caused the collapse (coupled by the flawed design and the massive amount of damage the towers had done to them by the planes hitting them).

the big block of useless text you copied then goes on to describe the fuel burning in a pool and other such absurdities that didn't happen to give the illusion to the idiot reader/follower that this whole thing is impossible. again, this is the problem with these conspiracy theories. they concentrate on one fact, and present it in such an absurd way to manipulate you into believing their propaganda despite glaring omissions of facts and contributing factors

the fires, added to the damage along with the increasing amount of force being displaced onto the remaining sections of the supports caused the failure.

not the fires alone.

as each support failed it placed more stress onto the remaining supporting structure.

it's one thing to site steel tolerances and jet fuel burn rates, but to omit the heat placed on the steel via stress and force is just inexcusable.

where is the accountability for these key contributing factors (force, load, stress, burning contents, induction of fresh air and convection of hot air upwards throughout the building)?

it's rather convenient that you truthers only take on one factor at a time don't you think?

it's like this in every one of these shit theories.

the bottom line is you people are grasping at straws to fulfill some sick twisted fantasy of yours where a fat man named alex with a mason jar for a head is a profit who foretells of pig men, lizard people, and genetic hybridization of animals (chimeras).

bottom line is alex jones is a nut case, and anyone who believes in his bullshit should be ashamed of themselves for not researching the facts.

not one of these theories hold water in a real world application yet you interpret it as gospel.

grow the fuck up, use common sense, and stop playing make-believe with stretched facts and fairy tales of new world orders and lizard aliens.

you fuckers are worse than scientologists.

truthertologists, there, i've coined a new term.

#793
Javea1

Javea1

    Member Of The Month October 2007 | Best RTS Contributor

  • Members
  • 1,681 posts
  • xfire:Javea1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin - USA (CST/GMT-06:00)
  • Interests:RTS
  • Xbox / GFWL:Javea
  • Wii:4339-2250-4654
QUOTE (ST1DinOH @ Jan 31 2009, 04:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
again this is the core problem with this stupid conspiracy theory.

the question is flawed already, you assume that tower 7 is destroyed by fire alone. you aren't taking into account the damage done to it during the collapse of the two main towers of the WTC and then the fire that happened afterward. if you just start a fire in that building, and the fire suppression systems are in working order, a fire alone cannot bring the building down.

but you have massive damage done to it by the collapse of the other towers, and the fire, and the fuel storage inside adding up to the collapse.

if you go to basementdwellingconspiracy.org you won't see pictures or discussion of the damage, because this debunks the theory. but a simple search shows this damage from angles never shown on conspiracy sites.

and again...

it's st 1 d (the number one, not the letter i)

not that hard people, it's even spelled out in my sig.


The building would have toppled over if that was the case.. following the path of least resistance. Every core column would not have magically collapsed, all at the same time.

It would not fall straight down, directly through itself, as we saw on 9/11.

Instead, the building:

  • Fell through the path of greatest resistance
  • Accelerated at free-fall speed
  • Shows a classic "crimp" before collapse
  • Blast squibs visible immediately before initiation of collapse
  • Reports of explosions going off before initiation of collapse
  • Reports of the lobby being blown out before the collapse, with multiple dead bodies within.


The official theory just doesn't add up.

-Jav
"Gonna cook a pizza... think about the patch." -Day[9]

#794
TheShadowNinja

TheShadowNinja
  • Members
  • 5,200 posts
  • xfire:cipher5006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami, Florida, US
  • PSN:Kithlan
So, back to beating the same dead horse, are we?
Was wondering how this debate popped up to the top again.


TheShadowNinja
Crap IT Security

#795
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Javea1 @ Jan 31 2009, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The building would have toppled over if that was the case.. following the path of least resistance. Every core column would not have magically collapsed, all at the same time.

It would not fall straight down, directly through itself, as we saw on 9/11.

-Jav

oh really? that's crazy because people have almost perfectly represented the crashes into the buildings in advanced physics simulators, and you know what they did? they fell exactly how they fell in real life.

The planes hitting it damaged the structural integrity of the building at the core. The fires pushed it over the edge. Try chucking a marble at a jenga tower with all the middle blocks removed, and it will fall mostly straight down.

Also, if you can get wood to melt steel (what they've done in forge's and metalworking places for literally centuries) you can get an amalgam of jet fuel (burns hot), paper (flammable), various insulation foams and building materials like drywall (flammable), and carpet (flammable) to get the steel to at least weaken.

http://eagar.mit.edu...supplement1.pdf

and then look up the popular mechanics response to either zeitgeist or loose change (forget which one it was), but you will either want to slap yourself in the face, or you will look like a retard sheep.
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#796
ST1DinOH

ST1DinOH

    Master Debater 08

  • Members
  • 7,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:toledo ohio
  • Interests:fireworks, weed,
QUOTE (Javea1 @ Jan 31 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The building would have toppled over if that was the case.. following the path of least resistance. Every core column would not have magically collapsed, all at the same time.

It would not fall straight down, directly through itself, as we saw on 9/11.

Instead, the building:

  • Fell through the path of greatest resistance
  • Accelerated at free-fall speed
  • Shows a classic "crimp" before collapse
  • Blast squibs visible immediately before initiation of collapse
  • Reports of explosions going off before initiation of collapse
  • Reports of the lobby being blown out before the collapse, with multiple dead bodies within.


The official theory just doesn't add up.

-Jav


sigh...see, this is exactly what i'm talking about with cyclical redundancies...

each time one little misconstrued fact gets proven wrong, along comes another, with another.

hopefully last time here...

the building collapsed the way it did because of the buildings design. it wasn't a standard steel cage structure, it relied heavily on the downward load carrying capacity of the steel skirting design. the facade carried a tremendous amount of load and this load was supported by the matrix of zig zag trusses.

the impact destroyed much of the zig zag trusses and vertical supports (in the facade) in and around the impact zones.

this places great stress on the remaining structure.

once the fires began to burn this heated up the impact zone and caused more of the remaining zig zag trusses to flex and pull away from the facade.

as each truss fails the load from the undamaged area above the impact zone places an ever increasing amount of load and stress on the remaining supports.

as each support fails, more stress and load are placed on the few remaining.

until you reach a point where the facade cannot contain the load any longer, the skin fails, allowing the large undamaged areas above to come crashing through the impact zone and into the floors below.

with no vertical support remaining (because the facade and hat trusses were now a broken system) the building unzipped and fell straight down unimpeded by anything below it. the structure essentially fell straight down into itself because at the point in which the collapse began the skin and hat trusses were virtually non existent. all of their supporting capabilities were now compromised and all that remained were falling floors and a collapsing vertical support system.

the remaining floors "pancaked" because they were still semi functional as a (horizontal) system but with zero vertical system strength the entire system fails.

the system was comprised of three key elements.

the foundation
the skin and hat trusses providing vertical support (carried by the foundation)
the zig zag trusses providing horizontal support (carried by the vertical supports)

once the middle supporting element is removed you are left with a bunch of suspended horizontal systems that will be free to fall down.

just think of it like a tripod, once you remove one leg the fucking thing is useless.

this theory is supported by the amount of time that elapses between impact and collapse in the two different towers and how this time changes relative to the impact zones distance from the top.

if you notice the tower hit last, is hit lower, and survives less time than the tower hit first and higher up.

the reason is obvious to anyone who's used legos, the more weight above the more support you will need. because the second tower was struck lower it had more weight above bearing down on the impact zone. more weight means more load/force placed on the remaining supports thus causing a more rapid failure mechanism.

oh

BTW i love how we jumped from a discussion of building 7 to a discussion of the two main towers...but hey i can play your game...

anyway, back to explaining elementary physics and engineering...

so yeah...the "squibs"

guess what happens when entire skyscraper floor come flying downward under their own weight...it pushes air, lots of air, downward and outward.

when pressurized air finds an escape in a burning building by blowing out glass windows i guess the easily fooled would consider that to be "explosions" even though you don't cut steel with squibs...

also if they were "squibs" then where the hell is the miles and miles of cable needed to run the juice to the blast charges that would have been running up and down the stairs to the control box somewhere?

i've done firework shows for a good 10 years and even shooting a small show using only 30-40 cues you need hundreds of feet of wires to send the current to the e-matches (and that's only a few hundred feet away, sky scrapers are much taller). the only possible way to wire the WTC with that much explosives and bring it down in a controlled manner would be to run miles and miles of highly visible cable EVERYWHERE throughout the building. this includes removing the interior walls to expose the supporting columns in order to get at the structure. everyone would have seen it, and there would have been reports of this all over the place. show me one witness report of a shit ton of highly visible wires running up and down the stairs and i'll believe you. or hey, while you're at it, find me a few people who recall going to work in the morning finding huge holes all over the place in all the exterior walls exposing the steel support structure....and the ceiling tiles...yep you gotta get them outta the way also.

yeah this is sounding plausible...

"explosions" could have been anything from steam, to gas used in generators, to elevators falling down the shafts and crashing below.

there's a million things that sound like explosions to frightened scared shitless people running for their lives from two of the tallest buildings in NYC on fire and starting to collapse (while people are jumping to their death in the streets all around you).

so i'm sure in the panic of it all a few anomalies in the reports show up but you have an overwhelming number of people who saw planes hit the buildings, didn't hear big explosions, didn't see little lizard aliens planting explosives...

come on man this is just too easy to understand without having to make these wild leaps of cultist faith.

all of this has been covered before in this thread, everything you have said, will say, or haven't even made up yet will be debunked despite the number of DVD's alex sells.

it's a joke.

and so are people who believe this stupid conspiracy theory.






#797
Javea1

Javea1

    Member Of The Month October 2007 | Best RTS Contributor

  • Members
  • 1,681 posts
  • xfire:Javea1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin - USA (CST/GMT-06:00)
  • Interests:RTS
  • Xbox / GFWL:Javea
  • Wii:4339-2250-4654
QUOTE (ST1DinOH @ Jan 31 2009, 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
so yeah...the "squibs"

guess what happens when entire skyscraper floor come flying downward under their own weight...it pushes air, lots of air, downward and outward.

when pressurized air finds an escape in a burning building by blowing out glass windows i guess the easily fooled would consider that to be "explosions" even though you don't cut steel with squibs...


The squibs in WTC7 were going off before the collapse of the building even began. Therefore, it cannot be that the pressurized air was being "blown out" due to the floors above it collapsing. Explain to me exactly how this "pressurized air" is being blown out before the collapse even began?

QUOTE (ST1DinOH @ Jan 31 2009, 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
also if they were "squibs" then where the hell is the miles and miles of cable needed to run the juice to the blast charges that would have been running up and down the stairs to the control box somewhere?


Who ever said there were cables being used? Ever heard of wireless detonation cords?

"The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example of a high-tech blast initiation system that eliminates the need for detonation cord. The HiEx website describes its operation:
The radio system's signal is digitally encoded(addressed). The latest microprocessor and message encoding/validation technology has been combined to provide a safe, reliable, accurate and compact remote blast initiation device."

And I suppose the floors symmetrically pancaking made the building cut it's own core columns too? Looks to me like shape charges were used.

-Jav
"Gonna cook a pizza... think about the patch." -Day[9]

#798
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Javea1 @ Jan 31 2009, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The squibs in WTC7 were going off before the collapse of the building even began. Therefore, it cannot be that the pressurized air was being "blown out" due to the floors above it collapsing. Explain to me exactly how this "pressurized air" is being blown out before the collapse even began?



Who ever said there were cables being used? Ever heard of wireless detonation cords?

"The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example of a high-tech blast initiation system that eliminates the need for detonation cord. The HiEx website describes its operation:
The radio system's signal is digitally encoded(addressed). The latest microprocessor and message encoding/validation technology has been combined to provide a safe, reliable, accurate and compact remote blast initiation device."

And I suppose the floors symmetrically pancaking made the building cut it's own core columns too? Looks to me like shape charges were used.

-Jav

or you can just ignore my post. Here's a question for you. Why would they blow up a building already on fire, and already hit by a plane?

SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#799
ST1DinOH

ST1DinOH

    Master Debater 08

  • Members
  • 7,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:toledo ohio
  • Interests:fireworks, weed,
QUOTE (Javea1 @ Jan 31 2009, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The squibs in WTC7 were going off before the collapse of the building even began. Therefore, it cannot be that the pressurized air was being "blown out" due to the floors above it collapsing. Explain to me exactly how this "pressurized air" is being blown out before the collapse even began?



Who ever said there were cables being used? Ever heard of wireless detonation cords?

"The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example of a high-tech blast initiation system that eliminates the need for detonation cord. The HiEx website describes its operation:
The radio system's signal is digitally encoded(addressed). The latest microprocessor and message encoding/validation technology has been combined to provide a safe, reliable, accurate and compact remote blast initiation device."

And I suppose the floors symmetrically pancaking made the building cut it's own core columns too? Looks to me like shape charges were used.

-Jav


see now you are mixing up the two crackpot theories.

the squibs and explosions were supposedly on the two main towers, but now that we are on the same page and talking about WTC 7 i've got a great question for you...

what happens to thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in a big drum when it catches fire.

yep...boom

and as far as "wireless" detonation equipment goes it's not truly "wireless".

there are wires going from the control box to the "squibs". in "wireless" systems it just eliminates the need for wires from the squib site to the main firing panel.

the smaller boxes take on the task of receiving the code to fire the e-matches in the "squibs".

our systems are wireless, but they have wires coming from the drop boxes to the fireworks.

either way, the big problem still remains...how the fuck do you plant thousands of explosive charges in and around the building without drawing attention to yourself? we are talking weeks of work by a good 50 or 60 people cutting holes in the walls to expose the steel support columns, cutting holes in the floor or ceiling to mount charges to the horizontal supports...

it's not going to happen, you are dreaming and just making shit up as you fail along.


#800
Danoli3

Danoli3

    MotM Sept 2006 | teh_artchiverer | PP Lifetime Achievement Award

  • GA Sergeant
  • 6,760 posts
  • xfire:Danoli3
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Interests:Natalie, Pure Pwnage, Games, Programming, Animation, Music, Movies
  • Steam ID:Danoli3
  • Xbox / GFWL:Danolium
  • Wii:1622774217920323
  • Gamer Army ID:9
  • Company:Pi
QUOTE (ST1DinOH @ Feb 1 2009, 07:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ok i couldn't bear to pick each point apart in order because that post was just so convoluted and filled with useless shit. i'm just going to tackle them as i see fit.

first off you assume that the planes weren't carrying a full load of jet fuel. right off the bat we are dealing with fail. if you think they only give planes enough gas to get from point A to point B then you are sadly mistaken. first of all flying east to west in this country means you are flying against a headwind the entire way. so you need to add some extra fuel for that. next you must figure in the fact that this plane is flying into one of the busiest airport in the world (LAX) so the holding pattern (sometimes an hour or more) where the plane is waiting for permission to land is always accounted for. then there is a margin of error assuming the headwind or the holding pattern are longer than expected. if a plane is flying from new york to La it is carrying a full load of fuel. despite coming in from boston i';m quite sure it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the plane takes on more fuel once on the ground in new york.

next on the hit list...the absurdity of just using jet fuel numbers. just concentrating on the amount of jet fuel or the method in which it burns cannot come close to accounting for the fires. the planes slammed into the WTC towers in excess of 600 MPH. the jet fuel was mostly consumed in a massive fireball once the wing tanks ruptured and the fuel spilled into the buildings (still traveling at 600 MPH). the fuel would have become airborne and was mostly consumed on impact in what adds up to a fuel air explosion. somehow, you tinfoily's think this isn't enough to cause problems for the towers but what you failed to account for in that massive piece of copypasta'ed shit, is the ensuing fires the jet fuel touched off. once the fireball started, it burned everything in it's path. paper, carpet, wood, people's clothes, insulation, plastics...all of it began to burn. you've also created a fire in a building high above the city below allowing unobstructed access to wind driven oxygen and a chimney effect via the ventilation systems. this sustained fire, touched off by the burning jet fuel, is what caused the collapse (coupled by the flawed design and the massive amount of damage the towers had done to them by the planes hitting them).

the big block of useless text you copied then goes on to describe the fuel burning in a pool and other such absurdities that didn't happen to give the illusion to the idiot reader/follower that this whole thing is impossible. again, this is the problem with these conspiracy theories. they concentrate on one fact, and present it in such an absurd way to manipulate you into believing their propaganda despite glaring omissions of facts and contributing factors

the fires, added to the damage along with the increasing amount of force being displaced onto the remaining sections of the supports caused the failure.

not the fires alone.

as each support failed it placed more stress onto the remaining supporting structure.

it's one thing to site steel tolerances and jet fuel burn rates, but to omit the heat placed on the steel via stress and force is just inexcusable.

where is the accountability for these key contributing factors (force, load, stress, burning contents, induction of fresh air and convection of hot air upwards throughout the building)?

it's rather convenient that you truthers only take on one factor at a time don't you think?

it's like this in every one of these shit theories.

the bottom line is you people are grasping at straws to fulfill some sick twisted fantasy of yours where a fat man named alex with a mason jar for a head is a profit who foretells of pig men, lizard people, and genetic hybridization of animals (chimeras).

bottom line is alex jones is a nut case, and anyone who believes in his bullshit should be ashamed of themselves for not researching the facts.

not one of these theories hold water in a real world application yet you interpret it as gospel.

grow the fuck up, use common sense, and stop playing make-believe with stretched facts and fairy tales of new world orders and lizard aliens.

you fuckers are worse than scientologists.

truthertologists, there, i've coined a new term.


Firstly I'd just like to address the aggression of your replies. To me it seems unrelated to the topic and completely unnecessary to relate those in support of the "9/11 conspiracy theories" to scientologists. The minute someone uses profanity to accentuate a point, I tend to lose interest in the credibility of their arguments. To me it shows a sense of frustration and panic in what could easily be a conversation between people with opposing views. Is it so vital for you to verbally abuse those who do not immediately (or may never) agree with your point of view?

I was posting factual information in my last post which I relate to the 9/11 incident as evidential support for my theory. I did not once insult or use any means of verbal abuse to ram my ideas down the throats of readers. I am able to understand that people can and will form their own point of views by doing their own research and I do not intend to force my beliefs onto other people.

I never said that burning plastics, rugs and paper couldn't have caused the steel to weaken.

I said using official data presented from the official report that Jet Fuel was not the cause of the steel to weaken.
(Which is the official theory I might add)

QUOTE
first off you assume that the planes weren't carrying a full load of jet fuel.


I don't assume ...
"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Source:
http://www.fema.gov/...fema403_ch2.pdf

QUOTE
right off the bat we are dealing with fail. if you think they only give planes enough gas to get from point A to point B then you are sadly mistaken...

So you're saying that your government can't do a proper analysis?

Your argument disputes the official report done by your government.

QUOTE
next on the hit list...the absurdity of just using jet fuel numbers. just concentrating on the amount of jet fuel or the method in which it burns cannot come close to accounting for the fires. the planes slammed into the WTC towers in excess of 600 MPH. the jet fuel was mostly consumed in a massive fireball once the wing tanks ruptured and the fuel spilled into the buildings (still traveling at 600 MPH). the fuel would have become airborne and was mostly consumed on impact in what adds up to a fuel air explosion.


I agree and so does your government. This is where the 3500 gallon figure comes from.. I was not assuming it.

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
http://www.fema.gov/...fema403_ch2.pdf


QUOTE
somehow, you tinfoily's think this isn't enough to cause problems for the towers but what you failed to account for in that massive piece of copypasta'ed shit, is the ensuing fires the jet fuel touched off. once the fireball started, it burned everything in it's path. paper, carpet, wood, people's clothes, insulation, plastics...all of it began to burn. you've also created a fire in a building high above the city below allowing unobstructed access to wind driven oxygen and a chimney effect via the ventilation systems. this sustained fire, touched off by the burning jet fuel, is what caused the collapse (coupled by the flawed design and the massive amount of damage the towers had done to them by the planes hitting them).


So you agree. Jet Fuel did not cause the steel to Melt or weaken. Your saying that secondary fires caused from the Jet Fuel Explosion are the root cause of the heat that weakend the steel.

So you are against the Governments Official Theory that it was soley Jet Fuel that caused the steel to Melt / Weaken due to the heat of the Jet Fuel.

I have posted a Chemical Analysis detailing the factors given by the US government to dispute the idea that it was jet fuel that melted/weakened the steel.

You accused me of assuming the information I posted, when in actual fact it was the US government who released the information I used to formulate that post.

--------------------------

QUOTE (ST1DinOH @ Feb 1 2009, 12:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
either way, the big problem still remains...how the fuck do you plant thousands of explosive charges in and around the building without drawing attention to yourself? we are talking weeks of work by a good 50 or 60 people cutting holes in the walls to expose the steel support columns, cutting holes in the floor or ceiling to mount charges to the horizontal supports...

it's not going to happen, you are dreaming and just making shit up as you fail along.



That is why on the weekend on 9/8/2001 and 9/9/2001 it is announced, that floors up from the 40th floor are being equipped with new cables and no “normal employee” had access to the working area there

QUOTE
Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.



I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott's experience.



GENERAL BACKGROUND



GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?

SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.



GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?



SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor ... in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.



THE WEEKEND OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND 9TH



GW: You've previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a "power down" condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?



SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.



GW: When did it end?



SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.



GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?



SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...



GW: You've previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?



SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.



GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?



SF: I have no knowledge about this and can't comment ...



GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?



SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.



GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?



SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.



GW: You also stated there were many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?



SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.



GW: Did these folks look "middle eastern"?



SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don't recall registering that the
guys were of one racial group or another.



GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous "work" in the tower?



SF: No.



THE MORNING OF 9/11



GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and -- according to what you have said previously -- you were "convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work". Why did you think that?



SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.



THE 9/11 COMMISSION



GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)



SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.



GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?



SF: No



GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?



SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why us authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.


Source:
http://georgewashing...ott-forbes.html





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users