9/11 Film "loose Change"

[BeaverStyle 1]

I imagined your avatar speaking this post to the local news camera... and then it made sense.

Hey, don't bring lil sis' into this... she's getting whistle tips installed on her 'ride' today and hopes the transition goes well for her '92 geo.

[coesillian 0]

Surely. The only reason that I quote from RK is because I feel the same way he does regarding immigration, and democrats.The Popular Mechanics article basically debunks most of the conspiracy theories. It's an easy read, not too long. I'll post some quotes.The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.Widespread DamageCLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film."Melted" SteelCLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.""Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." As for the other links, one goes through Loose Change, step by step, addressing the inconsistencies.The other link, NIST's fact sheet, addresses some questions that PM didn't specifically address. Like I said, easy reads, not too long.

But they did find melted steel at least in WTC 7, and this one had no jet fuel burning in it, and was evacuated and callapsed in manner that ressembles a demolition. I remember from loose change and from the news a long time ago that building in Madrid that had a huge frire over several floors for way longer than 12 hours. It was a steel structure and it never collapsed. Granted no one hit it with a plane but WTC 7 had no reason to fall. Same argument goes for the other WTC. THey burnt for a very short time and the tower that was hit second with a less direct hit fell first. They hardly had time to burn at all. Also the time for the collapse was like 10 seconds, which is like chopping the building at ground level and watching it fall at free fall speed. IF the levels that were hit failled, we would of witnessed a sandwich effect of each floor falling on the one below it and it would of been a slower collapse.These are the points that stand out the most to me and I can't just waive off as bogus conspiracies. I'm not running around looking for crazy consiracies to ***** about but my mind is stuck on this. It's obvious to me that at least WTC 7 was demolished. WTF that's freaking rediculous, why did that happen, who puts the bombs, where are the answers, why does the 9/11 report ignor the reasons. If they're hidding WTC 7 then they're probably hidding something else. And why not just reeleae a real video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, WHY NOT for christ sake.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

But they did find melted steel at least in WTC 7, and this one had no jet fuel burning in it, and was evacuated and callapsed in manner that ressembles a demolition. I remember from loose change and from the news a long time ago that building in Madrid that had a huge frire over several floors for way longer than 12 hours. It was a steel structure and it never collapsed. Granted no one hit it with a plane but WTC 7 had no reason to fall. Same argument goes for the other WTC. THey burnt for a very short time and the tower that was hit second with a less direct hit fell first. They hardly had time to burn at all. Also the time for the collapse was like 10 seconds, which is like chopping the building at ground level and watching it fall at free fall speed. IF the levels that were hit failled, we would of witnessed a sandwich effect of each floor falling on the one below it and it would of been a slower collapse.These are the points that stand out the most to me and I can't just waive off as bogus conspiracies. I'm not running around looking for crazy consiracies to ***** about but my mind is stuck on this. It's obvious to me that at least WTC 7 was demolished. WTF that's freaking rediculous, why did that happen, who puts the bombs, where are the answers, why does the 9/11 report ignor the reasons. If they're hidding WTC 7 then they're probably hidding something else. And why not just reeleae a real video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, WHY NOT for christ sake.

Are the mods asleep? We already have like a 20 page thread, that's the most annoying thread in the history of time, about this subject. LOCK IT UP.

[dna4ever 2]

Are the mods asleep? We already have like a 20 page thread, that's the most annoying thread in the history of time, about this subject. LOCK IT UP.