Something

[jaygray]

came in the mail for me by mistake the other day. I mean, I think it was meant for the former occupant of my house. It was a DVD advocating the reopening of the 9/11 investigation. It was a glitzily-produced show making several inferences and raising questions about the events of that day.

Their webiste is reopen911.org.

Since I like to look at things that differ from my conception, my point of view, I thought, ok, I'll watch it.

While the overall thrust of the arguments were crackpot, i.e., that there's an alternate conspiracy theory surrounding the terrorist attacks, I think it's valid to say that the official investigation is incomplete. The most serious inference they make is that the twin towers could not have collapsed on their own. They brought in engineers, physicists and firefighters to point out how tough the towers were, and how no steel building has ever been brought down by fire. The temperature of the burning airline fuel, they said, could not have approached the temperature to melt steel (2500 degrees). The black smoke coming out of the buildings indicated an oxygen-starved fire; something burning hotter would have lighter smoke, or no smoke at all. They go on to point out that several fires to steel skyscrapers of bigger magnitude and that were longer lasting than the WTC fires, did not bring down the buildings.

Their strongest case concerned building 7 in the WTC. Building 7 was a 43-story steel structure. It was not hit by the planes, and as of 5 pm, had had a fire going on in it in its lower floors. But the video shows it coming down at 5:30, just like a controlled demolition. That's exactly what it looked like.

Their weakest case concerned the theory that a plane actually did not hit the Pentagon -- that the hole in the photos of the burning Pentagon wasn't big enough for a 757 to go through, and there was no apparent airplane parts (wheels, fuselage) on the ground outside the building. The problem with that is that the plane isn't rigid steel; it's aluminum, and would tend to disintegrate on impact, and more damage, including fire, would be done inside the hole that we could only see externally. The videos of the planes crashing into the WTC show this: they basically disappear after going into the towers.

Now they go on to make inferences about Cheney and Bush and Rice, how they wanted another Pearl Harbor or Tonkin Gulf-like incident in order to increase their power. My ears kind of tuned out, not because I like these people. I think the possibility however exists that there might have been some demolition (of building 7, for example), to prevent further loss of life. The question concerns all the planning that had to have gone on to put such demolition in place, and weeks of preparation. Why would they do that?

It's interesting to me how generally this event and subsequent history isn't talked about much, as if society'd sooner forget, and as if the Commission's report is the final, unimpeachable word on it. I think there is a lot more to be plumbed on the matter; whether it adds up to a new conspiracy, remains to be seen. For example, I don't think there's been an adequate explanation for why our F-16's could not or did not act that day (the DVD says it's partly because Cheney was conducting war games with NORAD and the airforce). I also don't think anyone's found the money trail that funded the terrorists.

[Jwaksman]

This crackpot stuff has been going on for more than 3 years already. I'd just as soon believe that Ted Kennedy is actually Elvis Pressley after plastic surgery than I'd believe any of that nonsense...


I have an idea of what took down the buildings... a gigantic JET flying into it, knocking out most of the steel girders before there were any fires. It's a testament to the strength of those buildings that they stood at all after those planes hit.

[jaygray]

This crackpot stuff has been going on for more than 3 years already. I'd just as soon believe that Ted Kennedy is actually Elvis Pressley after plastic surgery than I'd believe any of that nonsense...


I have an idea of what took down the buildings... a gigantic JET flying into it, knocking out most of the steel girders before there were any fires. It's a testament to the strength of those buildings that they stood at all after those planes hit.

I'm not saying I endorse the conspiracy. But already your version of events differs from the "official" version. You've often touted yourself as someone who reads things that you disagree with.

We're told in the official version that the fires melted the steel girders. You're saying that it was kinetic energy. Ok -- there were 47 core conglomerate girders, plus something like 246 external ones outside the core.

However, this does not account for what happened to building 7.

[Zat0pek]

[QUOTE=jaygray]Their weakest case concerned the theory that a plane actually did not hit the Pentagon -- that the hole in the photos of the burning Pentagon wasn't big enough for a 757 to go through, and there was no apparent airplane parts (wheels, fuselage) on the ground outside the building. The problem with that is that the plane isn't rigid steel; it's aluminum, and would tend to disintegrate on impact, and more damage, including fire, would be done inside the hole that we could only see externally. The videos of the planes crashing into the WTC show this: they basically disappear after going into the towers.
[QUOTE]

Ask one question: If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, WHERE THE HELL DID THAT FLIGHT, THE PLANE AND THE PEOPLE ON IT, GO?!?!?!

All BS. Right up there with never landing on the moon and the disapearing ship in WWII.

[TrackDaddy]

It's unnlawful to open other people's mail.

[Jwaksman]

A better question is, who ordered that movie? I suggest that you find out who it is and stay away from them :D

[CTsnapple]

[QUOTE=jaygray]Their weakest case concerned the theory that a plane actually did not hit the Pentagon -- that the hole in the photos of the burning Pentagon wasn't big enough for a 757 to go through, and there was no apparent airplane parts (wheels, fuselage) on the ground outside the building. The problem with that is that the plane isn't rigid steel; it's aluminum, and would tend to disintegrate on impact, and more damage, including fire, would be done inside the hole that we could only see externally. The videos of the planes crashing into the WTC show this: they basically disappear after going into the towers.
[QUOTE]

Ask one question: If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, WHERE THE HELL DID THAT FLIGHT, THE PLANE AND THE PEOPLE ON IT, GO?!?!?!

All BS. Right up there with never landing on the moon and the disapearing ship in WWII.

Do you dismiss the validity of any of the arguments based solely on this one? And it's off topic, but is the disappearing WWII ship the "Philadelphia Project" or something else?


Haha, I was thinking the same thing TD.

[NJ5k]

It's unnlawful to open other people's mail.

I'm guessing it had a vague address, like "To the Resident Of..." or "To Our Neighbors At..." as jaygray said he "thinks" it was for the former residents. I'm sure nobody cares though.

As for the conspiracy, I'm on Zat's side.

[jersey_guy]

Bush blew up both the WTC and the Pentagon to start a war and improve his dismal approval ratings. The hijacked plane was taken to Area 51 and all its passengers were executed. The passengers on the Pennsylvania plane realized what was going on and tried to take control, so the Air Force shot them down.

[Sebrle]

The temperature of the burning airline fuel, they said, could not have approached the temperature to melt steel (2500 degrees).

This is true, it is believed that the fire only reached 1300 to 1400 degrees, the thing to remember it is not necessary to turn the steel into a liquid, just heat it to a point to where it begins to bend and give, (metal workers rarely melt steel, they just heat it to the point where it becomes malleable), Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1200 degrees.

For example bricks made out of silly puddy couldn’t hold much at comfortable living temperature for a human, but you could build a house out of them in Antarctica.

[MoMo]

I seem to remember reading that after the core girders were knocked out or burnt by the exploding planes, and the central floor began to sag in a way that had not been anticipated, it somehow detached the peripheral girders -- like turning Lincoln logs sideways so that they no longer nestle into each other.

But that's based on an admittedly fuzzy recollection of what I read.

[jaygray]

What would I do, write "return to sender" on the flimsy, dark cardboard wrapper? In what kind of ink? Maybe I've done a service by stopping the unfiltered meme, hehe.

Doubt is a healthy thing. BS comes from all directions, some of it more obvious than others. It's a useful thing to exercise one's BS detector.

Of course, Zat, I asked the same question, regarding where the plane went if it didn't hit the pentagon. They waved their hands.

The thing is, I could go into all caps mode, and say "THAT DOESN"T EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED TO A 43-STORY BUILDING THAT WASN'T HIT BY ANY PLANE!" I'd rather say it quietly. Can you explain it? To say, that it's ALL BS is too fast. A lot of explanation has gone into why the towers collapsed, that's true. 43 stories of steel isn't exactly a plywood bungalow. By saying I have a question about it, doesn't make me susceptible at all to the larger, space cadet theorizing.

Do you, collectively, really think that the commission's report is the end of it? Assume that I'm a reasonable guy, ok? I know, risky bet, but I put this here for discussion -- to report the meme, give a little analysis, and to say that I saw things I hadn't seen before, that aren't explained.

[KenA55]

I presume the towers had spray-on fireproofing material on the structural steel; presuming also that the spray-on would have been an asbestos-containing material, unless they were constructed after such materials went out of use in the 70's. (What years did those towers go up, sixties?) That would have protected the steel from turning to spaghetti noodles in a small, cooler fire. But this one had to be hot, what with all the fuel on board, and even the best fireproofing can only buy some extra minutes under those conditions. If the planes had hit the very top, and there was no building to speak of above the point where the structure was compromised, they would have stood. But once the upper floors came down like a sledgehammer on the remaining structure, there was no way the building was going to stand. There's all kinds of excess 'safety factor' built into a structural engineer's calculations and the structural members thereby selected; but no engineer has ever been asked to design a skyscraper that needed to withstand the momentum of having another building dropped upon it from 5 or six floors above, and that's what happened.

I was on the phone with Ms. Daisy that morning as the tv reports came in, she was understandably nervous, being in our largest skyscraper, top floor. No tower had collapsed yet, and the second plane had yet to strike. I told her then, that whole tower was coming down like a house of cards the moment the top of the building fell through the fire on the rest.

Presuming asbestos fireproofing and pipe covering, as well as many other possible friable 'hot' materials, along with all of the silicates in concrete dust, plenty of NY'ers not even that close to the scene got exposure to high levels of that kind of stuff that day. Hard to say what the levels might have been. When they demo a building, either with the swinging ball or with explosives, all asbestos must be removed first- these abatement costs can run as much or more as the knockdown and cleanup itself, depending on the building. All that material must go to special high-buck hazmat landfills, and that disposal pricetag is steep.

I have no idea what set off the smaller building that went down, possibly flaming material falling from the impact above?

[decastella]

and i have to admit that i'm still VERY skeptical of what's on there -- but has anybody else actually looked at any of the videos from the dvd? the info on flight 77 and the pentagon seems to be most intriguing to me --

i'm not really sure what to think right now...

[mzungu]

i don't believe the government was in on it and i don't believe there was any cover-up of the circumstances of the crashes, except that it is possible that the pennsylvania crash story was ennobled--i don't know, because i never saw definitive proof of how exactly that occurred. regarding the government, my only blame is for not doing anything about all the warning signals prior to 9/11.

if i remember correctly, the conspiracy theory on the pentagon was that the plane hit the ground, rather than the pentagon. the 7 world trade center collapse was probably attributed to either instability in the foundation created by 2 enormous buildings falling to the ground right around it or to direct hits from the debris. if they intentionally demolished 7 wtc as dangerous, i sure as hell wish they had first informed the reporters, including my brother, who were standing right by it and almost got killed by the collapse. (there wasn't too much reporting going on--in one picture, my brother is a stretcher bearer.). my brother also did a lot of reporting on the causes of the collapse of the wtc and the flawed non-evacuation orders, and he found confusion, errors, mechanical flaws, people who subsequently died from the security offices telling people to stay in their offices, but no conspiracies and no failure to get engineers to explain why the first collapses occurred.

[New York XC]

Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 9/11 Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)

[decastella]

newyorkxc -- thanks for posting that link --

i have to believe that popular mechanics is a pretty reliable source...

thanks again

[TrackDaddy]

This is true, it is believed that the fire only reached 1300 to 1400 degrees, the thing to remember it is not necessary to turn the steel into a liquid, just heat it to a point to where it begins to bend and give, (metal workers rarely melt steel, they just heat it to the point where it becomes malleable), Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1200 degrees.

For example bricks made out of silly puddy couldn’t hold much at comfortable living temperature for a human, but you could build a house out of them in Antarctica.I dunno.

The temperature of a regular house fire can rise above 1100 degrees at the ceiling level.

I would think a jet fueled fire could at least double that.

Another thing that you didn't mention is that steel expands when heated. Depending on the length of the girder or beam, it can expand considerably at about 1000 degrees (I believe).

In this situation, before the steel "failed", it would "move" wreaking havoc on it's support system, even to the point of drastically assisting, if not causing collapse.

The expansion of steel preceding the failure of steel when heat is the culprit, has to be factored into the entire collapse equation.

Jay, I bought my current home almost 12 years ago, and the guy still gets mail here. When he does, if it interests me I, er...throw it away. ;)

[TrackDaddy]

Ask one question: If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, WHERE THE HELL DID THAT FLIGHT, THE PLANE AND THE PEOPLE ON IT, GO?!?!?!

All BS. Right up there with never landing on the moon and the disapearing ship in WWII.My wife and I spent this afternoon in Dealey Plaza.

You would be amazed how many compiracy theories still abound even in and around the Sixth Floor Museum and the grassy knoll. People every where STILL trying to figure it out.

There is also still plenty of "why did it have to happen here" talk.

[MoMo]

Regarding the Pentagon, I was watching CNN that day (as many of us were), and I very clearly remember a guy being interviewed who lived in one of the high-rise apartment buildings in Arlington within clear sight of the Pentagon. He told the CNN interviewer he heard this plane fly over much too low to be on a normal course, so he stuck his head out to see what was going on. He then said he saw the plane hit the ground -- he was absolute on this point -- and then bounce or cartwheel into the building. Part of the conspiracy theory, and I remember we had a DyeStat discussion about this, stems from the fact that the only surveillance camera that caught this DIDN'T actually see the plane, apparently because it passed through in between clicks of the shutter.

Regarding fireproofing of WTC girders -- I read that the girders and beams were indeed fireproofed, but not adequately for a super-intense fire such as the exploding jet fuel caused. So, as someone said, they bought time but couldn't offer permanent protection.

As for the Pennsylvania crash, for what it's worth, my brother-in-law saw the plane just before it went down. He was on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think, when he saw a United jet pass strangely low overhead. This was after planes had been grounded, I believe, so it pretty much had to be the same one. This was not far from the crash site. One of his employees was a volunteer fireman, and was one of the first to reach the crash. He said it was unbelievable: a 40-foot deep crater straight into the ground, making it completely clear that the plane struck at a near-vertical angle.

[New York XC]

Regarding fireproofing of WTC girders -- I read that the girders and beams were indeed fireproofed, but not adequately for a super-intense fire such as the exploding jet fuel caused. So, as someone said, they bought time but couldn't offer permanent protection.



I believe that when the planes hit the towers, the force of the impact knocked most of the fireproofing off the steel. That is part of the reason why they were able to become malable.