August 26, 2007

• There will always be those that question whether or not this is conspiracy. I don't have a clue if it was or not. But I sure as hell don't believe what our gummint tells us.
• Exactly. I think that with the current administration's propensity for secret-keeping, they're just adding fuel to the conspiracy nuts' fire. Which, if I was a conspiracy theorist myself, I might believe to be a deliberate attempt to discredit anyone with legitimate questions as just another conspiracy nut.
• I was expecting something more substantial for someone who's going to question the truth. That bit about the melting of the steel pillars for example. Structural engineers have already said that the steel didn't have to melt for the towers to collapse, they just had to *soften*. Anyone can question the truth, not many can find it.
• And even by their own admission regarding the ethnicity of the terrorists, we attacked the wrong country.
• I liked the article for the Karl Rove quote alone at the end where he says, "we're an empire now – we create our own reality." Love it.
• sounds like someone just watched loose change with too much of an 'open mind'.
• the steel didn't have to melt for the towers to collapse, they just had to *soften*. True the steel only had to weaken to start a collapse, but no one has offered a reasonable explanation for the molten metal found in the subasements.
• I'm not sure what the presence or absence of molten steel in the basement would show but either way, the National Institute of Standards and Technology did offer an explanation: "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." I.e. you have fires burning in a confined space under thousands of tons of debris. It's effectively a furnace...stuff melts.
• From the same website: "Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse." And on the other side of the argument, we have how many experts?
• The idea that there's some cover-up of some aspects of what happened leading up to, on, and/or after 9/11: That seems reasonable. The idea that 9/11 was a massive plot precisely masterminded by a cabal of neocons: Not very likely.
• The NIST explanation for molten steel does not explain the fuel source. A furnace is never going to get hotter than the fuel can burn, and nothing in the buildings *should* have been able to burn hot enough long enough to melt steel. The only explanation for a fuel source that I have seen is in the Popular Mechanics book: a spontaneous thermite-like reaction between aluminum in the building and nearby oxides or possibly oxygen in the air. I do not think anyone has attempted to demonstrate that this reaction is possible. It certainly seems far out as such a reaction has never been seen in structure fires before. A fire fighter friend suggested plastics in the office could burn hot enough, but there would not be enough of them concentrated at one point and getting enough oxygen in a debris pile to melt steel. I'm not happy with any of the conspiracy explanations, but this is one of the nagging questions that the official narrative doesn't adequately answer.
• I have trouble seeing it as a nagging question. The NIST link says "reports of molten steel". Who reported it? Firefighters? Rescue workers? How did they *know* it was molten steel? I'm not sure I could tell the difference between molten steel and any other metal. It may not even have been metal. It could have been a red-hot amalgam of liquefied debris.... The strangest thing about Twin Tower demolition conspiracies is that the demolition idea itself is nonsensical. Even if there was a conspiracy, why the heck would they want to demolish the towers? Isn't having a couple of planes flying into them enough? And then there's the dicey timing. To make it work, the explosives would have to go off on the stricken top floors at the same time that the planes hit. The terrorists had to aim the planes to the *exact floors* where the explosives need to be planted. Otherwise, video evidence would show the discrepancy (i.e. explosives go off before the planes hitting, or the planes hit and then a short time after a massive explosion, or the explosives go off on the wrong floor).... The kind of evidence that would take 9/11 questions to a respectable level would be this: thirty Pentagon personnel independently testifying under oath of prior knowledge of 9/11 and deliberate orders given to ignore same.
• There are many reports of molten steel, including from some engineers and scientists. NIST dismisses whether or not there was molten steel after the collapse as irrelevant. This is like investigating a death and saying the pool of blood on the floor under the victim is irrelevant.
• So who did it? What's the story? Gimme a story that fits the facts, that isn't as full of holes as a stop sign on a redneck country road. Nobody seems to be able to do that, from what I've seen.
• I am so sick of the 9/11 conspiracy people. There are much much better ways to spend your time and energy than daydreaming about some conspiracy. There are real injustices going on that the current administration gleefully admits to. Spend your time and energy on those things instead of trying to uncover some sort of vast conspiracy.
• Gimme a story that fits the facts, that isn't as full of holes as a stop sign on a redneck country road. Nobody seems to be able to do that, from what I've seen. I totally agree.
• There are many reports of molten steel, including from some engineers and scientists. I don't see a report of someone taking a sample and verifying it as molten steel. I see a lot of rescue workers saying "its molten steel". But how do they know it's steel? I know I couldn't. Look at this from one of your links: "An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event." Note what the engineer says: "metal" not "steel". And it's red hot. Something will appear red hot at a temperature of 500 degrees to 1000 degrees F. The burn temperature of jet fuel extends up to 1800 F. Here are some metals that melt at temperatures below 1800F: Aluminum, brass, lead, magnesium, tin, zinc. They will glow red hot. Plenty of metal inside that building would melt, it would aggregate in pools, it would be molten but not necessarily steel. Note that it is an engineer who makes the distinction that's missed by the lay observers. He doesn't call it steel. He calls it "metal". It's a critical mindset: look at the evidence, report what's there, not what you think is there.
• Yeah, like getting our butts outta this mess overseas and getting rid of a buncha liars and thieves that have taken the country hostage. Oh, wait. Gotta go, American Idol is on.
• I don't see a report of someone taking a sample and verifying it as molten steel. Physicist Steven E Jones claims to have analyzed both a sample of the "formerly molten metal" which he says is mostly iron, and a dust sample. Some of his work is here, here and here. One could certainly attack the chain of custody on the samples he analyzes as well as question his motives, but those are just more reason why there should be a real investigation.
• Wait a minute, are you guys saying that unless a hole-proof explanation for these discrepancies is produced by the heretic, then you won't entertain the issue? That's beyond ignorant. It's the antithesis of scientific thinking. OK, you start by saying, here, we've identified some discrepancies in this data that invalidate the accepted hypothesis, or parts of it. Then you go about trying to find another hypothesis that can adequately explain it or invalidate the discrepancies, then test evidence, until you reach a valid conclusion. This takes time, study, peer review. You don't try to come up with a fully-formed perfect explanation right off the bat, because by the nature of the subject being studied, much of the mechanism you are trying to uncover is fucking hidden. God that's stupid. That's just people brushing it under the carpet cos they can't handle the implications. If we approached everything with the rationale that you gotta come up with a fool-proof explanation or no attention will be paid to a problem, then we'd still be banging rocks together in caves, worshiping Baal. I know one thing: 9/11 *was* a conspiracy. We are asked to accept a giant huge conspiracy theory to account for it, by the same people who lied about starting a war that killed half a million people. What else do you call the bin Laden/Al Qaeda plot if it's not a conspiracy? It may well be 100% true, but it's still a conspiracy theory. There are so many retarded parts of the official story I don't have time or patience to list them here. One or two on their own can be dismissed as noise, but not dozens of things. Obviously we are not being told the truth, but whether it amounts to something really frightening is another matter. Anyone who believes anything the Bush administration says without good hard research is criminally retarded. I highly doubt that the Bush Junta planned 9/11, for the same reasons Fisk does: they are a bunch of inept fuckheads who screw up everything. But they didn't have to be behind it. They could have let it happen in order to benefit from it, which to my mind seems likely, but ruling out any other explanation other than the official one due to doubts of their competence is obtuse. As for ignoring it in favor of other issues, that appears rather dim, too. I have a brain that can handle more than one subject at a time. If 9/11 went down in any other way than the official story suggests, it should be important to find out what the truth is. It was rather a significant event, & it is used as leverage for everything else this bunch of wackjobs want to achieve.
• Wait a minute, are you guys saying that unless a hole-proof explanation for these discrepancies is produced by the heretic, then you won't entertain the issue? Nobody's saying they won't entertain the issue. From my POV, there are curious aspects to the whole story, but nobody seems to be revealing any particularly shocking new evidence or putting the pieces together in a comprehensive new way. And until that happens, sure, I'll continue distrusting the Man's version of what happened. I'll also continue distrusting the conspiracy theorists' version EVEN MORE, because there doesn't seem to be much of a version there beyond "there are things that don't make sense in the official story." Meanwhile, I'll take an Occam's razor approach, which leads to the conclusion that Al Qaeda operatives hijacked airliners, flew them into the Pentagon and the WTC to terrorize the West, and caused the WTC towers and other buildings nearby to fall. That makes much more sense than other hypotheses at this point. Believing that does not mean I'm not open to other possibilities, or that I don't think discovering the truth is important, or that I don't think aspects of the story have been covered up by one party or another. Don't be so willing to consider others stupid for demanding solid evidence from those who question the story that seems to best fit the evidence right now. It's insulting.
• Unless I'm mistaken, the whole point of the article isn't "9/11 was a conspiracy hatched by the U.S. Government;" it's "There are some discrepancies and unanswered questions which, by being left unanswered, are inviting conspiracy theories." You don;t need a hole-proof, ironclad alternate explanation to say, "We don't have all the facts, and we ought to."
• I have a hard time shaking any of it - - for one, I was there to experience it first-hand, and for two, I work with someone whose family member was a firefighter that was one of the last people to get out of the north tower as it collapsed; his account makes it hard for me to cast the conspiracy theories aside (he believes that there *were* controlled explosions). I don't know that I want to know the full truth. And while I wouldn't go so far as to support any of the hot conspiracy theories out there, I think the whole "Bushco couldn't have pulled something like this off because they screw everything else up..." suggestion is off target. I'm not stating anything one way or the other, but I think the Bush administration doesn't have a problem with leading people to believe that they are a bunch of inept buffoons - - if you think about it, such a widespread belief could be highly beneficial. Lastly, this thread seems like it has played out once, twice, a few times before. TUM said it well, regarding the point of the linked article.
• Right, and I guess my point boils down to "there's nothing new in the article; this'll be worth additional discussion when there's real news to discuss."
• Wait a minute, are you guys saying that unless a hole-proof explanation for these discrepancies is produced by the heretic, then you won't entertain the issue? If i read you right, i think we're on the same page. Evidence trumps everything in my book. That's what's been missing and still seems to be. Probabilistic statements can be made about the likelihood of conspiracy: e.g.: *Bush is so incompetent, any conspiracy he put together would likely fall apart right out of the gate. *If there was a conspiracy, why didn't the same cabal plant some WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion? Or blow up buildings in France and Germany to get those guys on side? *The number of people required in a conspiracy is directly related to the chance of it being uncovered quickly. The number of people needed to be in cahoots in the conspiracy theories floated so far is astronomical in comparison to past conspiracies that were busted (e.g. Watergate). These statements don't prove anything but they're still relevant from a credibility perspective.
• Physicist Steven E Jones claims to have analyzed both a sample of the "formerly molten metal" which he says is mostly iron, and a dust sample. Some of his work is here, here and here. He analyzed dust and found iron particles that were previously molten. But this shouldn't be surprising. The iron in any product in modern use has been smelted and would have been molten at some point in time. I couldn't find any reference to actual tests of the molten metals from the Towers themselves. I did see this statement: (p.6 in your first link)"An analysis of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified panel" which suggests that no analysis has been done. But I'm not a materials scientist nor a structural engineer (neither is Jones for that matter) who are the real experts on the matter. So what about the experts? What do they think of Jones' ideas? "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. BYU is Jones' own university.
• He analyzed dust and found iron particles that were previously molten. But this shouldn't be surprising. The iron in any product in modern use has been smelted and would have been molten at some point in time. Steel beams can collapse into microscopic spheres? Wow!
• What i meant was how do we know those spheres came the steel beams in the WTC? If we grant that those spheres were in the dust and the dust came from the WTC, isn't it much more likely that it's dust from *other* stuff rather than the steel beams? So in the end this doesn't seem to tell us anything new. I've only got a limited science background so I might be blowing smoke here. I only ask the questions that occur to me to ask. I've got a small knowledge base. But what about Jones? What I find puzzling is why Jones hasn't consulted or discussed his findings with civil and structural engineers. It's like he's on his own little island. Why doesn't he talk with the people who know this stuff inside and out? If he's interested in scientific fact finding, collaboration is the way to get the best results. If he had done that, he would have spared himself the embarrassment of getting stuff wrong.
• If the past is any indication, all the facts will not be made public knowledge--if they ever are--until pretty much everyone who lived through this has died, lest there be litigation (never mind the general outrage). There do seem to be some troubling contradictions. What's most troubling is the way the event itself has been used by BushCo to further a self-serving, twisted political agenda.
• If the past is any indication, all the facts will not be made public knowledge--if they ever are--until pretty much everyone who lived through this has died, lest there be litigation (never mind the general outrage). I dunno. The Watergate scandal is an example where the insider, Deep Throat, remained anonymous but leaked important evidence to reporters. It was enough to torpedo a presidency and send the perps to jail. Remarkably in the end, he couldn't resist stepping out of the shadows.