Jasper posted a link in that other thread which had a man who supposedly refuted all the findings that point to a coverup of 9/11 in the loose change video. eD got a kick out of it because I guess it was supposed to show how me and others who hold the same point of view are a bunch of nut cases. But I've taken the time to refute some of the links key point (although not all of them. not because they can't be refuted, just cause research is time-consuming and I'm not getting paid for this shit. I do this because I think people need to know whats up. One Love)
Now please, if you normally read this kind of stuff and immediately tune it out, I implore to just look at the facts that I'm laying out before you and take a look at it objectionally. The whole thing stinks like a sun-rotted corpse
Originally Posted by The Other Side states
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
On this we can agree. The "pancake theory" doesn't hold weight with something so large as the WTC falling at free-fall rates. For this point of rebutall I looked up demolitions in howstuffworks.com. Notice the similarities in descriptions.
Originally Posted by Howstuffworks.com on Demolitions
The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall
The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
Originally Posted by The Other Side
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.**
Pay special attention to what is being claimed here. All the explosions and blast that "officially" caused the collapse happened above either the 98th or 82nd floor, depending on the tower we're talking about. No explosions happened below these levels
Originally Posted by Eye-witness that was there
William had worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. They were narrow and without windows. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class "A" building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.
Here's another article from an eye-witness account
Originally Posted by Someone who was there
Then, as they reached the 70th floor, they heard an announcement: The building was secure. No one needed to evacuate.
One woman in the small group said to Elliott, "Do you want to believe them? Let's go!"
They had descended three more floors when United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into their own south tower like an arrow from a giant crossbow. It was 9:03 a.m.
Flight 175 had left Logan 15 minutes after American Flight 11. It was also bound for Los Angeles, carrying 56 passengers and nine crew.
Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell.
"In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up," he says.
In a flash of panic, people began fleeing higher into the building. Then a few men began working on the crowd, calming people down, saying that downstairs was the only way out.
As they descended, a few other survivors stumbled into the corridor. A construction painter, his white T-shirt covered in blood, was helped downstairs by others. But the stairwell was still far from jammed with evacuees.
Elliott assumed his was one of the final groups descending. They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor.
These eyewitness accounts should speak for themselves if you're putting two & two together. There were explosions happening well below the area of the planes impact areas.
Originally Posted by The Other Side
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
When people start trying to change the numbers on the very definition of something, its usually an attempt to give themselves more credibility, while hoping you don't do your homwork.
Originally Posted by A link on dictionary.com
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - Cite This Source
thermite [from Thermit, a trade name], mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide. When ignited it gives off large amounts of heat. In wartime it has been used in incendiary bombs. A method for welding using thermite (invented by Dr. Hans Goldschmidt, a German chemist) is variously called the Goldschmidt process, the thermit process, or the aluminothermic process; it is used in welding large parts, e.g., castings, shafts, pipes, and steel rails. In the process the thermite, contained in a crucible, is ignited, e.g., by a strip of burning magnesium ribbon. The aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron and forms a slag of aluminum oxide on its surface. The reaction is very exothermic; temperatures above 2,500°C (4,500°F) are often reached. Typically, the molten iron is poured into the joint to be welded, providing both heat for fusion and filler metal. Excess metal may be removed when the weld cools. Because thermite reacts with explosive violence once ignited, it cannot be heated as a mass to its kindling temperature (about 1,550°C/2,800°F); Goldschmidt was first to find a method for igniting thermite without explosion. He used a similar method to prepare various metals, e.g., chromium, manganese, and uranium, from their oxides.
See that, he's got the degrees off by 1800?C---easily the difference between weakening the steel and downright melting thru it. There was another source I came across who stated temps even higher. I forgot to save the link, but it was from a university that stated this
In this intensely exothermic reaction, iron (III) oxide is reduced to metallic iron by aluminum. The heat released is enough to raise the temperature to nearly 3000 *C! This is more than enough energy to yield molten products. Iron melts at 1535 *C.
Seems like thermite's a little better at demolition than he wants to admit
Originally Posted by What the Other Side says
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.*
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.*
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. *
This is basically saying they didn't really take a look at the steel very long because it wouldn't have told them anything about the steel before it collapsed. I find this to be a very convienent excuse. Although I didn't spend the time finding the article, I know that the steel columns that fell from the WTC's did so in sections of approx. 30ft. As a criminal investigator I wouldve been very interested in this fact but you can't go back and look at these columns anymore and why?
Two New Jersey companies were among the bidders that won the contract for removing more than 60,000 tons of Trade Center scrap. Metal Management Northeast bought 40,000 tons, and Hugo Neu Schnitzer bought 25,000 tons. Neu Schnitzer East is one of the largest scrap recyclers in the nation. President Alan Ratner of Metal Management said the company had bought 70,000 tons of scrap steel by January of 2002. 6 *
Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) appeared to be key player in the expedient removal and recycling of the steel. CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, which approved the plan. 7 * The commissioner of New York City's Department of Design and Construction and the man in charge of Ground Zero cleanup efforts was Kenneth Holden.
Within 11 days, a Demolition company with a long history of working with the DOD had already had a plan to ship the debris overseas to be melted down in India and China. 11 days!!!! How could anyone be so sure that wouldn't be needed as evidence in a criminal trial somewhere down the road? Not even to mention two other points here. One, the clean-up was overseen by Guiliani who was a former criminal prosecutor. He should know about perserving evidence. And even if he was making a bone-headed oversight. (Two)!!! The Demolition company themselves should've known because............
Originally Posted by Controlled Demolitions Inc own website states
Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate clearances and internal controls to support federal agencies involved in domestic or foreign investigations which involve the gathering of criminal evidence critical to our precepts of due process. The Loizeaux Group’s controlled, professional services and unmatched communication skills can support critical operations under tenuous circumstances.
Wonder if their precepts say you should have a plan to destroy all evidence w/in the span of eleven days??
Now Building 7 should be a smoking gun because it fell even though it wasn't hit by any plans at all. They have talked of fires that had caused it afterwards but that's not the case at all. There have been other skyscrapers around the world that had burned for days and never collapsed. What's even funnier is how they describe what sounds like a controlled-demolition but would never actually say that because they're trying to refute that a controlled demolition every happened. Just see for yourself..........
Originally Posted by The Other Side
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
But if they really wanted to know what happened to building 7 shouldn't they just ask the guy who gave the order to have it destroyed?
Case isn't closed, but it damn sure ain't what the official story would have you believe that it is. I hope some of yall start setting your alarm clocks, you're gonna have to wake up sometime.
11-20-2006 10:09 AM
looks like you put some work into this
ima pin this up for a while
11-20-2006 10:13 AM
I'll read this when I have more time because it's very interesting. Good work.
11-20-2006 03:12 PM
well done cross-referencing there.. its interesting stuff especially the physical aspects of how the towers dropped because scientifically is the easiest way to try to prove that the disaster was a cover-up..
i've seen loose change and its ok but obviously heavily biased and only represents half of the story. but i know theres been alot of other videos made about 9/11 being a cover-up, and some made on the opposite point of view. if anybody can link us all to some of these vids, maybe the most un-biased and truth-propelled, it could help to organize shit because theres so many different arguements. (if not vids then any other type of info).
all i know, and ive been agreed with by many people, is that the towers shouldn't have collapsed as easy as they did, and the lack of evidence at the pentagon is just rediculous (if the loose change kids weren't spreading lies).
11-20-2006 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by With Erika
I'll read this when I have more time because it's very interesting. Good work.
eric coming through with the effort
11-20-2006 08:44 PM
I've tried to stick mainly with eye-witness accounts in refuting the official story. No one to better explain the damage to the bottom structures of the buildings (a must in any controlled-demolition) than a person that was there at the bottom levels when the explosions actually went off.
Peace to all who recognize the efforts I've put forth in making this thread. I've gone thru the day on a hour and 1/2 of sleep after a late night of research. I do it because I feel compelled to put the truth out there and to keep it out there.
And to any who wish to try and discredit what I'm saying here, please, please, pleeeaaase bring forth any vital points to show why there was no cover-up and I'll gladly expose the lies for what they are. But lets keep in mind there is a difference between slinging mud & sarcasm, and bringin actual facts to the table. I say this mainly because I don't think the "official story" has any factual leg to stand on.
Turn that alarm clock on my people. peace
11-20-2006 08:47 PM
This still does not justify stopping the war to keep Israel safe.
11-20-2006 09:15 PM
This isn't about Israel, though we should've never went to war in Iraq.
11-22-2006 06:26 PM
how they pull that building so quick on the same day ?
had to have had the explosives in place already
11-23-2006 06:09 PM
eric you should post this up around on other forums. It's short and to the point and lets the facts make its points. Only thing i gotta say though, i find it hard to take eye witness' as 100% truth sometimes because even though they were there and had the best seats it's also a limited view point. I mean, how hard would it be for someone in a burning building to get disoriented and not know what floor they were on at the time when they make comments later on. Not saying what you have written is wrong or anything, but that's a feeling i have when reading about stuff.
12-03-2006 03:03 AM
I can understand how someone would be disoriented in a situation like that and not know exactly what was going on but I'd think you would remember if the firemen told you "there's explosions around the 60th floor". I've also heard the tapes of firemen reporting back over walkie-talkies saying that the fire was contained and almost extinguished. I'd have to dig around on the youtube to find it cuz I saw it a while back, but from all the evidence I've witnessed I think its safe to say the extent of damage caused by the actuall fire from the jets impact has been greatly exaggerated.
And also notice the statement from an eyewitness that worked in the basement. There was an explosion shortly after 8:30 that caused the walls to crack at the basement levels. The planes didn't collide with the towers till shortly after 9:00. You might be disoriented, ofcourse. But not so much that you confuse the 100th floor for being in the basement.
12-04-2006 02:54 PM
A well researched and insightful piece. Nice going, Eric
12-04-2006 03:53 PM
Nice yo NICE
I got some stuff I printed out but I cant think of where I found it at.
Kevlaar7 actually posted the link a few years ago before the site crashed
.. Damn Im going to start digging.
What Eric posted is what I been trying to tell people from the beginning, yet I am labeled as crazy!