WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ah -- well when you put it like that, I see exactly what you mean Mick -- no reason to analyse the WTC 7 steel at all.

Ha ha. Silly old FEMA and their recommendations about the weird steel that NIST lost.

NIST did not lose it. It's still at the WPI (the Worcester Polytechnic Institute) , where they continue to study the mechanisms of the phenomenon, as recommended by FEMA.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If one is making a tool from steel, you first have to remove anneal the metal. You do that by heating it up and softening it. Then you will often work it hard, then you will harden it by heating and plunging it into liquid, but then while hard, it is brittle, so you then have to temper it by heating it to a different color and quenching it.

I can easily the fire annealing the steel and making it softer.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmmm . . . eutectic mixture . . . I would love to see a metallurgy expert Post on this one . . .
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
If one is making a tool from steel, you first have to remove anneal the metal. You do that by heating it up and softening it. Then you will often work it hard, then you will harden it by heating and plunging it into liquid, but then while hard, it is brittle, so you then have to temper it by heating it to a different color and quenching it.

I can easily the fire annealing the steel and making it softer.

it has been specifically tried and it has been shown to have weakened the steel 40 to 90 percent at temperatures that could have easily been reached in the fires. Couple that with the structural impact damage and the building design and you have.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Impressive . . . Mick . . . can you debunk this man's experiment . . .?
Enjoy:
There are quite a few errors.


1:36 - "they mentioned the mysterious eutectic mixture that attacked the steel"




Basically this guy doesn't know what a eutectic is. It's not surprising because unless you've done a degree course where physical chemistry has been taught then you are not going to know.


A eutectic point is simply the point of solidification of a (single phase) liquid to a two phase solid at a specific composition and temperature in the binary phase diagram. (Obviously eutectics occur with more than two phases but this is the simplest). Yes this point is lower than the melting point of any other composition on the phase equilibrium diagram, but there is nothing mysterious about eutectics or eutectoids nor the Fe-S-O point at around 940°C. This has been studied.


He talks about the eutectic mixture attacking the steel, well this is not correct. The eutectic is by definition solid, therefore it can't attack anything. The eutectic is a by-product of the high temperature diffusion of Oxygen and Sulphur into the steel. He may mean a liquid of eutectic composition.


Let's assume that the temperature of the steel was at a constant 1000°C for the duration. Grain boundary melting or liquation will not occur at that temperature, however, if a species diffuses into the steel's surface then there is the possibility of reducing the melting point of the material sufficiently to allow localised melting to occur.


Sulphidation usually follows a parabolic rate law. x2=2k't2 where x is scale thickness, k' is parabolic rate constant and t is time.


k' is experimentally determined by taking weight measurements of a sample exposed to a diffusing species at a certain partial pressure over time. As the species diffuses into the sample the sample gains weight. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...pt=sci_arttext


It takes hours/days for this to occur.


When I was looking at oxidisation of engineering ceramics (SiAlON and SiC) I had a furnace at 1200 and 1400°C for 6 months during final year at university. Solid State Diffusion takes a long time. Even an atom such as Carbon, which is highly mobile in Iron, will still take hours to diffuse into the steel at high concentration levels at temps @ 950°C during carburisation (case hardening) and times are 2-36 hours generally depending upon case depth.


So as the time progresses the composition of the steel changes as Sulphur diffuses preferentially at the grain boundary. The grain boundary is still solid until the correct eutectic composition is reached. When it's reached the grain boundary will melt. When this liquid solidifies as the temperature decreases it forms the eutectic microstructure of one phase in the othe,r namely fine lamaella of FeS and FeO. That is how we know that the temperature was so high.


In reference to the eutectic attacking the steel what he really means is the formation of an iron oxide/sulphur slag which is liquid and not a eutectic. It might be of the composition of at which a eutectic forms, which is indeterminable since the liquid was impossible to study, but it's not a eutectic.




3 minutes in he mentions the Harrit et al paper and then goes on to say that thermate (thermite with Sulphur) is a contributing cause to intergranular melting. This is incorrect because solid state diffusion rates are time, temperature and concentration dependent. A thermite reaction is over too quickly to be able to cause the depth of diffusion of Sulphur into the surface of the steel that was seen.


Harrit's paper shows no significant Sulphur in any of the samples yet he seems to equate this paper's "findings" of thermite with thermate.


We also know that thermite could not be the cause because we would also see significant quantities of Aluminium in the phases present because Aluminium will dissolve in this this high temperature slag and then precipitate upon cooling thus forming Al phases. This was not observed.


At @ 6:00 he conducts his experiment but he has no way of determining what temperatures where reached. This should have been done with a number of thermocouples placed against the steel. For high temperatures of @ 1000°C then a Platinum and Platinum/Rhodium thermocouple should be used with a multimeter and calibrated beforehand.


All we know is that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminium alloy 2024 which has a liquidus at 638°C (and a solidus at 502°C)


7.28 - he states that none of the materials caused intergranular melting. He must have super power vision to tell that by eye!! You have to do some metallography to determine the effect - clearly not done. He has no idea what effect his experiment had on the steel because he hasn't examined it. Just looking isn't enough.


7.35 - he states that no sulphidation occurred. How can he determine this?? He hasn't examined the steel metallurgically so how does he know that diffusion of Sulphur hasn't occurred? The steel beam has certainly oxidised.


He then just drivels for a bit with the usual unsupported nonsense.


At 9.16 he states that the collapse of WTC 7 from a new phenomenon called thermal expansion (due to an office fire) - which is just laughable. Thermal expansion of metals has been known for some time - infact clock makers knew about it due to errors in time keeping during summer when the pendulum's length would increase.


I'll give him credit though. He did get off his bum and actually try to do something, unfortunately it wasn't performed very well and there is no point in doing the experiment if


a) You don't perform the experiment for long enough.


b) You don't know what temperature was reached (although I expect @ 1000°C wouldn't have been difficult with the materials burned).


c) The is no metallurgical analysis of the steel afterwards. - If that had been performed then he may well have seen evidence of Sulphidation.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Enjoy:
There are quite a few errors.


1:36 - "they mentioned the mysterious eutectic mixture that attacked the steel"




Basically this guy doesn't know what a eutectic is. It's not surprising because unless you've done a degree course where physical chemistry has been taught then you are not going to know.


A eutectic point is simply the point of solidification of a (single phase) liquid to a two phase solid at a specific composition and temperature in the binary phase diagram. (Obviously eutectics occur with more than two phases but this is the simplest). Yes this point is lower than the melting point of any other composition on the phase equilibrium diagram, but there is nothing mysterious about eutectics or eutectoids nor the Fe-S-O point at around 940°C. This has been studied.


He talks about the eutectic mixture attacking the steel, well this is not correct. The eutectic is by definition solid, therefore it can't attack anything. The eutectic is a by-product of the high temperature diffusion of Oxygen and Sulphur into the steel. He may mean a liquid of eutectic composition.


Let's assume that the temperature of the steel was at a constant 1000°C for the duration. Grain boundary melting or liquation will not occur at that temperature, however, if a species diffuses into the steel's surface then there is the possibility of reducing the melting point of the material sufficiently to allow localised melting to occur.


Sulphidation usually follows a parabolic rate law. x2=2k't2 where x is scale thickness, k' is parabolic rate constant and t is time.


k' is experimentally determined by taking weight measurements of a sample exposed to a diffusing species at a certain partial pressure over time. As the species diffuses into the sample the sample gains weight. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...pt=sci_arttext


It takes hours/days for this to occur.


When I was looking at oxidisation of engineering ceramics (SiAlON and SiC) I had a furnace at 1200 and 1400°C for 6 months during final year at university. Solid State Diffusion takes a long time. Even an atom such as Carbon, which is highly mobile in Iron, will still take hours to diffuse into the steel at high concentration levels at temps @ 950°C during carburisation (case hardening) and times are 2-36 hours generally depending upon case depth.


So as the time progresses the composition of the steel changes as Sulphur diffuses preferentially at the grain boundary. The grain boundary is still solid until the correct eutectic composition is reached. When it's reached the grain boundary will melt. When this liquid solidifies as the temperature decreases it forms the eutectic microstructure of one phase in the othe,r namely fine lamaella of FeS and FeO. That is how we know that the temperature was so high.


In reference to the eutectic attacking the steel what he really means is the formation of an iron oxide/sulphur slag which is liquid and not a eutectic. It might be of the composition of at which a eutectic forms, which is indeterminable since the liquid was impossible to study, but it's not a eutectic.




3 minutes in he mentions the Harrit et al paper and then goes on to say that thermate (thermite with Sulphur) is a contributing cause to intergranular melting. This is incorrect because solid state diffusion rates are time, temperature and concentration dependent. A thermite reaction is over too quickly to be able to cause the depth of diffusion of Sulphur into the surface of the steel that was seen.


Harrit's paper shows no significant Sulphur in any of the samples yet he seems to equate this paper's "findings" of thermite with thermate.


We also know that thermite could not be the cause because we would also see significant quantities of Aluminium in the phases present because Aluminium will dissolve in this this high temperature slag and then precipitate upon cooling thus forming Al phases. This was not observed.


At @ 6:00 he conducts his experiment but he has no way of determining what temperatures where reached. This should have been done with a number of thermocouples placed against the steel. For high temperatures of @ 1000°C then a Platinum and Platinum/Rhodium thermocouple should be used with a multimeter and calibrated beforehand.


All we know is that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminium alloy 2024 which has a liquidus at 638°C (and a solidus at 502°C)


7.28 - he states that none of the materials caused intergranular melting. He must have super power vision to tell that by eye!! You have to do some metallography to determine the effect - clearly not done. He has no idea what effect his experiment had on the steel because he hasn't examined it. Just looking isn't enough.


7.35 - he states that no sulphidation occurred. How can he determine this?? He hasn't examined the steel metallurgically so how does he know that diffusion of Sulphur hasn't occurred? The steel beam has certainly oxidised.


He then just drivels for a bit with the usual unsupported nonsense.


At 9.16 he states that the collapse of WTC 7 from a new phenomenon called thermal expansion (due to an office fire) - which is just laughable. Thermal expansion of metals has been known for some time - infact clock makers knew about it due to errors in time keeping during summer when the pendulum's length would increase.


I'll give him credit though. He did get off his bum and actually try to do something, unfortunately it wasn't performed very well and there is no point in doing the experiment if


a) You don't perform the experiment for long enough.


b) You don't know what temperature was reached (although I expect @ 1000°C wouldn't have been difficult with the materials burned).


c) The is no metallurgical analysis of the steel afterwards. - If that had been performed then he may well have seen evidence of Sulphidation.
So why don't we get MythBusters to do this one . . .? LoL!!!;)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Oh no ya don't! This puppy's on you! I'm already committed to convincing them to do one of your bloody experiments! Fight your own damned battles my friend! :) :) :)
Seems this one requires days and days of temperatures in excess of what is available except in an environment of a blast furnace . . . maybe in subterranean coal fire, etc . . . don't know if it could be duplicated except in a very small demonstration possibly in a kiln/pottery oven . . .

One problem we don't know the minimum temperature required . . .

Me thinks yours is rather sexy . . . I can see them fighting for a chance in the simulator . . . standing around a hot kiln is rather different, hot and dirty work . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
NIST did not lose it. It's still at the WPI (the Worcester Polytechnic Institute), where they continue to study the mechanisms of the phenomenon, as recommended by FEMA.
"The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity" - Exactly.
 

hiper

Active Member
NIST did not lose it. It's still at the WPI (the Worcester Polytechnic Institute)
, where they continue to study the mechanisms of the phenomenon

I am sure they are.
Look Mick you saying everything has already been debunked...and that the case is solid
is just not credible because if that were true then we would have been driven in a corner
and finished on page 5 of this thread. It has been the other way around.

It's not like fully loaded planes slamming into them both at full speed on the same day was something that was just waiting to happen at the drop of a hat. A single plane hitting by accident would be extraordinarily unlikely.

"I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is
like the mosquito netting on your screen door... this intense grid.. and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting
it really does nothing to the screen netting."
Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management
January 25, 2001

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY

WTC 1 was hit at the top yet the explanation of the top piece causing the main body's unaffected
core structure to totally fail and exactly like it's twin brother is simply not credible.

Add the WTC 7 collapse and you like the official explanation do not have a solid base for the explanation of events.

My guess is that no insurance company is gonna let their Baby Boeing scream in on the deck
over the desert at 500 knots with a rookie at the stick to prove someone's pet CT.

Make that your pet official conspiracy theory.
Yet this absurd scenario is exactly what the US government wants people to believe.

Hani Hanjour the rookie ignoring the white house and making a 270 degree downward spiral
dropping 7000 feet to crash into the 1st floor of the pentagon at 530 mph.
And again we have to accept this on good faith because they won't release any good video evidence.

Very solid.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Is true, but it wouldn't be in good shape. That "out-of-shapeness" became a crucial factor when three acres of office was set fire to by twelve tons of kerosine spread through several floors.

WTC 1 was hit at the top, yet the explanation of the top piece causing the main body's unaffected core structure to totally fail, and exactly like its twin brother, is simply not credible.
I agree. But they didn't fall "exactly alike" at all. WTC2's outer shell failed first, and in a much shorter time than it took for WTC1's inner core to fail.

Add the WTC 7 collapse and you, like the official explanation, do not have a solid base for the explanation of events.
You should get out more.

Hani Hanjour the rookie ignoring the white house
That was someone else's mission?

and making a 270 degree downward spiral dropping 7000 feet to crash into the 1st floor of the pentagon at 530 mph.
You should try it on a simulator. I used to fly a Spitfire upside down underneath a bridge thirty years ago. I died many times, but I also went through.

The plane can do up to 700 mph in a straight line at sea level if you don't move the controls. So 530 mph is easily doable. The plane ran pretty straight for the last mile in.

And again we have to accept this on good faith because they won't release any good video evidence.
There isn't any better evidence than this possible, under the circumstances.

[video=youtube_share;YVDdjLQkUV8]http://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8[/video]
 

hiper

Active Member
You guys do not have a solid case regarding the events of 9/11... far from it.
You are as baffled as we are.
 

geeksquad100

New Member
a 40 story high-rise engulfed in flames. http://news.sky.com/story/1073560/chechen-leader-skyscraper-fire-gods-will

DID NOT COLLAPSE One of the first posts was a wikipedia explaining the WTC 7 collapse that the fire in WTC 7 was "raging" which brought it down. complete hogwash THIS IS WHAT A RAGING INFERNO LOOKS LIKE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...4043/Inferno-engulfs-Shanghai-skyscraper.html
http://on.aol.com/video/huge-fire-rips-through-dubai-skyscraper-517542906
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ngulfs-42-storey-tower-block-in-Istanbul.html
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp...craper-the-federation-tower_news#.UXZke_ed600
The last one said that the fire raged for 4 hours ripping through building material and thermal insulation helicopters had to come in and dump water on it.

NONE OF THESE RAGING INFERNOS even caused the slightest chance of ANY OF THOSE SKYSCRAPERS FROM FALLING! YET the WTC 7 building which was renovated as an ultra-secure command and control center and housed the CIA, FBI, etc before the renovation collapsed by a measly couple of office fires. pa pa pa please........

in 2001 we didnt have that many examples of office fires or video of them but now we do thanks to the camera phone :)! And the model of the WTC 7 collapse is a joke I cant believe someone would actually post that for a defense of the official government conspiracy theory. Can any rational, logical thinking person really look at that model side by side of the ACTUAL collapse of WTC 7 and say that they match up? I mean really even in the least bit? lol

And how do they get that model what is the formula that they used to cause that collapse in the model? Ohhh they wont tell us because "NATIONAL SECURITY" lol. wink wink nudge nudge
 

jomper

Inactive Member
"The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity and, in unprecedented and unrepeatable circumstances, can cause it to collapse completely in a matter of seconds in a remarkably symmetrical manner rather reminiscent of a controlled demolition. Improbable as it sounds, this unique effect has been confirmed by an independently unverifiable computer animation." - Exactly.
Exactly.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
You guys do not have a solid case regarding the events of 9/11... far from it.
You are as baffled as we are.

Obviously not true if one reads and comprehends what we've written here but then CT'ers have a proven record of ignoring the obvious. In my opinion the WTC CT case has devolved into nothing more than the CT'ers having the "satisfaction" of having the last word.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.

Of course it has also been shown that the collapse was not really symmetrical and the word "reminiscent" is of itself an equivocation but.....

Postulate what you will, it is obvious to most that no matter the CT protestations, for better or worse no meaningful investigative agency is going to pursue this particular matter further. It's over, except in the mind of the CT. I might suggest you'd have more success finding another theory to champion.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Oh no ya don't! This puppy's on you! I'm already committed to convincing them to do one of your bloody experiments! Fight your own damned battles my friend! :) :) :)
I will make a prediction . . . If they (mythBusters) take the 911 flight simulations seriously at all. . . .MythBusters will not go through with it. . . Why? . . the political ramifications if they find evidence contrary to the Official Story. . . even a small chance of that possibility will scare any network official completely away from the project . . .
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
What you have done for a whole thread and what you are now doing again is name calling nothing more..

The government says what you see in the picture is caused by a jet and fire...

Gee! Now saying that you ignore the obvious is characterized as "name calling?" Ad homonym much?

What I "see" is supported by engineering data and solid science. What CT'ers contend is speculation supported by conjecture and mistrust.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
I will make a prediction . . . If they (mythBusters) take the 911 flight simulations seriously at all. . . .MythBusters will not go through with it. . . Why? . . the political ramifications if they find evidence contrary to the Official Story. . . even a small chance of that possibility will scare any network official completely away from the project . . .

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they'll think it has no merit.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they'll think it has no merit.
That is always a possibility or maybe just a good excuse not to engage . . . :)

I really hope I am wrong . . . I would love to see them engage . . .
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
That is always a possibility or maybe just a good excuse not to engage . . . :)

Interesting how this goes to perspective and predisposition; yours and mine. Let's assume MythBusters decide not to do this experiment. You'll see it as political and defensive, I'll see it as considered pointless because it will be inconclusive. Remember how, when I said "simulator" you wanted to use a real 767 or a Lear? This, to me, demonstrates that the standard CT response to any "proof" is also defensive, something like "Yeah you did THAT but you didn't do THIS..." As I've said before, this can go on forever without changing any opinions.

This is why I contend that after a certain point "facts" become less important than perspective and that in order to have any hope of changing an opinion one must change the perfectly human predisposition to interpret facts in a way that most supports one's own viewpoint. The only way I can see to accomplish this is, when logic has apparently failed, to ask "Why do you feel this way?"
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Interesting how this goes to perspective and predisposition; yours and mine. Let's assume MythBusters decide not to do this experiment. You'll see it as political and defensive, I'll see it as considered pointless because it will be inconclusive. Remember how, when I said "simulator" you wanted to use a real 767 or a Lear? This, to me, demonstrates that the standard CT response to any "proof" is also defensive, something like "Yeah you did THAT but you didn't do THIS..." As I've said before, this can go on forever without changing any opinions.

This is why I contend that after a certain point "facts" become less important than perspective and that in order to have any hope of changing an opinion one must change the perfectly human predisposition to interpret facts in a way that most supports one's own viewpoint. The only way I can see to accomplish this is, when logic has apparently failed, to ask "Why do you feel this way?"
As I added later . . . I hope they do engage and feel it is worth while . . . as far as disposition and difficulty to convince people with strongly held positions . . . try it with a bunch of academics . . . they throw up as many options to resist changing their position as any Truther . . .
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
As I added later . . . I hope they do engage and feel it is worth while . . . as far as disposition and difficulty to convince people with strongly held positions . . . try it with a bunch of academics . . . they throw up as many options to resist changing their position as any Truther . . .

True, but those discussions are essentially recognized by the participants as largely theoretical exercises. These go beyond that.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
True, but those discussions are essentially recognized by the participants as largely theoretical exercises. These go beyond that.
I might add the events were unprecedented . . . in scientific terms once is usually not considered adequate proof your theories are correct and many feel added demonstrations are prudent to remove those nagging concerns . . .
 

hiper

Active Member
As I've said before, this can go on forever without changing any opinions.

The point is F4Jock that people questioning the government explanation are also questioning that same government's role as the lead investigator in this case.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The point is F4Jock that people questioning the government explanation are also questioning that same government's role as the lead investigator in this case.
Sort of like the researcher who declared he perfected cold fusion and what if then was the only agency to judge if he was correct. . .
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
The point is F4Jock that people questioning the government explanation are also questioning that same government's role as the lead investigator in this case.

Two questions: 1) Who else should have taken the lead? 9/11 was an attack on the country, arguably an act of war. Governments are tasked to respond to said acts. QED they had the duty to investigate the means, mechanism and motives.

2) The implication here is that the government stood to profit by killing several thousand of its citizens and blaming the Taliban thus instigating a war. I earlier pointed out that the result of 9/11 was an attack on the Taliban and the overthrow of the Afghan government. Iraq came years later and for different reasons. Right or wrong, the attack on Iraq had little or nothing directly to do with 9/11. Unless you contend that the entire sequence of events including said attack was planned from the beginning, a linkage I haven't yet heard, what was the motive for going into Afghanistan?
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
I might add the events were unprecedented . . . in scientific terms once is usually not considered adequate proof your theories are correct and many feel added demonstrations are prudent to remove those nagging concerns . . .

The same argument an be used to state: "
Which of the two is more consistent with well known facts? Do Middle Eastern terrorists hijack airplanes? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists target civilians? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists deliberately cause mass casualties? Check. There's absolutely nothing in the standard picture of 9-11 that conflicts with these facts. Number of previous cases where U.S. government operatives have hijacked airliners? None known. Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of innocent people? None known (apart from artillery or bombing in war). Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of its own citizens? None known. So one conspiracy theory has a host of historical precedents, and the other has none at all."​
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Two questions: 1) Who else should have taken the lead? 9/11 was an attack on the country, arguably an act of war. Governments are tasked to respond to said acts. QED they had the duty to investigate the means, mechanism and motives.

2) The implication here is that the government stood to profit by killing several thousand of its citizens and blaming the Taliban thus instigating a war. I earlier pointed out that the result of 9/11 was an attack on the Taliban and the overthrow of the Afghan government. Iraq came years later and for different reasons. Right or wrong, the attack on Iraq had little or nothing directly to do with 9/11. Unless you contend that the entire sequence of events including said attack was planned from the beginning, a linkage I haven't yet heard, what was the motive for going into Afghanistan?
1) There are several non-governmental agencies that could have taken the lead on the scientific investigation. . . a matter of budget really. . .
2) This is basically personal opinion. . . I think the Iraq war was desired by the Administration and 911 created an atmosphere which allowed such involvement without significant public opposition. . . it is not illogical for me to see the connection between the two . . . after years of futile violence I see no or little benefit derived from the Iraq or Afghan wars. . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The same argument an be used to state: "
Which of the two is more consistent with well known facts? Do Middle Eastern terrorists hijack airplanes? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists target civilians? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists deliberately cause mass casualties? Check. There's absolutely nothing in the standard picture of 9-11 that conflicts with these facts. Number of previous cases where U.S. government operatives have hijacked airliners? None known. Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of innocent people? None known (apart from artillery or bombing in war). Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of its own citizens? None known. So one conspiracy theory has a host of historical precedents, and the other has none at all."​
Hmmm . . . I was really trying to focus on the scientific investigation. . . but since you have alluded to the political entanglements . . . terrorism is not denied as an element in the 911 events. . . and whether the US government has or has not engaged in terrorism for political advantage is highly questionable. . . one might want to look at Cuba, Chile, Central America in general and whether they have toyed with terror on their own citizens I might point to Operation Nothwoods . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
1) There are several non-governmental agencies that could have taken the lead on the scientific investigation. . . a matter of budget really. . .
2) This is basically personal opinion. . . I think the Iraq war was desired by the Administration and 911 created an atmosphere which allowed such involvement without significant public opposition. . . it is not illogical for me to see the connection between the two . . . after years of futile violence I see no or little benefit derived from the Iraq or Afghan wars. . . .

1) Could have doesn't mean should have. Hell, why didn't we ask Canada or maybe Zimbabwe to investigate? Because that duty and responsibility wasn't theirs. One of the duties and responsibilities of ANY government is to protect its citizens and defend its territory and institutions. It's not only a stretch to say that responsibility should be delegated to others but it's illogical to condemn the government for doing one of the things it exists to do.

2) If you look at it dispassionately just about every mass disaster could be construed to be a government plot. Take Boston. Substitute a few words, change the motivation and one could suggest many "logical" reasons that the present administration was behind this event and stood to "profit" from it.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Hmmm . . . I was really trying to focus on the scientific investigation. . . but since you have alluded to the political entanglements . . . terrorism is not denied as an element in the 911 events. . . and whether the US government has or has not engaged in terrorism for political advantage is highly questionable. . . one might want to look at Cuba, Chile, Central America in general and whether they have toyed with terror on their own citizens I might point to Operation Nothwoods . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

But the application of all of the above is tangential at best and, in the case of Northwoods, it never happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Leifer Bent Steel In Building Fires Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
jomper WTC 7 (Building 7) General Discussion 0
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2

Related Articles

Top