My own Summary of 9/11

[Antony]

Good day all.

I've recently had a short discussion with one of the members from this board and unfortunately did not really get anywhere.

So I've decided to ask for more peer reviews of my conclusions here http://the911faq.awardspace.com/twintowers.html

I know it's not exactly well made for a web site, but I just made it clear so people could read it and follow up the references. I first posted it last summer and have had some (mostly positive) emails sent to me about it.

I started "investigating" 9/11 in about 2005, and originally thought it was very suspicious and that the government could have been responsible. However, as I did my own calculations and analysis of the videos I found that things aren't as straight forward as most would have you believe. I found that there probably was some resistance to the collapse and that it wasn't completely freefall. The energy I discovered that had been lost to the surroundings was massive, and I propose could easily explain why there was so much dust/debris being ejected.

I didn't go into error bars too much for my calculations but I think they're correct to +-15%.

Also does it matter who I am or what my motive is? I just seek the truth and hope that you find my ideas interesting.

I think 9/11 could have been funded by the CIA ($100,000 went from ISI to the lead hijacker) and that some of the Bush administration and the upper echelons of the CIA had no intention of stopping 9/11. My reasoning for this is their PNAC document,Cheney's refusal to launch F-16s to intercept Flight 77, Bush's lack of action (sitting in a classroom), and many other smaller coincidences. WTC 7's collapse is suspicious, but that might be something not directly related to 9/11 (insurance fraud, destruction of information etc).

I'll try to answer any questions people have. If you think some piece of evidence is false, then please say and I will correct the site.

[marky 54]

hi antony, thanks for shareing your information, i just want to mention the things you seemed to miss(unless you did mention them but i missed them on your site).

the first one is the flashes which are seen in video footage, as well as witnessed by some witnesses, which is a part of the event and need to be addressed if your trying to explain what happened to the towers etc.

take notice of the black building next to the wtc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y_85EiSeXg

flashes on one wtc tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM

some mention of the flashes by eyewitness testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

i could give more examples but im only pointing out the flashes being visible and witnesses by firefighters etc.

now regardless of why these flashes occure it is a point that is used to prove CD by people who firmly believe it, therefore should at least be a talking point in your information.

the other thing is calculating how much energy would be required to throw out steel beams and make them stick into the sides of buildings.

other than those i think you have mentioned everything else seen or reported at the wtc's, but if your trying to explain what happened or give information as to what happened then im afraid you need to include the two points i made for it to be a complete picture of what occured.

now i aint saying what they both are or why they both occured althought i have questioned others myself about it, only that they are not included or explained or even mentioned even though they were a part of the overall event and what leads some to think something more sinister occured.

[Antony]

Thanks for the quick reply.

In response to the flashes you mentioned, there is a limited amount of information posted of videos and screenshots shown in the "Squibs & Flashes" section. There are also references to witnesses who saw them in the "Eyewitnesses" section.

You have a good point about the energy to throw out steel beams, but I think that is a complicated problem to properly analyse. For example, the beams trajectory is made up of three components (sideways, depthways and vertical), with the vertical being mostly due to gravity. The horizontal (sideways,depthways) is due to whatever force came from the buildings semi chaotic internal structure during collapse. I think though that there is plenty of energy available for pushing out steel and concrete many hundreds of feet away from the towers. What would be interesting is if core columns were ejected far out as that would require significantly more energy than an exterior wall column. Although from the calculations I did, massive amounts of energy were lost to deformation of the structure, sound, and heat.

To properly answer your question about the energy to eject the mass would require me to either make large generalisations and approximations to the structure, OR, to use a very complicated model on a "super computer". This is similar in scope to problems such as liquid/gas flows. So if I do the former I would just be criticised and ignored for being making too many asumptions and the latter is just impossible

[marky 54]

there are quite a lot of examples of flashes, i only linked a few so you knew what i was refering to, there is certainly more evidence of flashes on video than molten metal, yet molten metal gets a mention.

all i was doing with both points was pointing out they were not even mentioned, like they never exsisted or something.

if somebody explains what happened to the towers but leaves out or does not account for all the evidence, then there are still doubts over the conclusions which were reached by omitting information rather than accounting for it or at least mentioning it if the answers are unknown so the information is all together for others to draw their own conclusions.

its the reason NIST and the commisson report failed, neither explained the whole event and information was omitted out of the commission report.

none of it matters anyway, people are more bothered about the X factor etc, i sometimes wish i'd never got the internet so i could live in everything is fine land to, rather than being concerned there is more to it than we are told, but never getting the answers that address all the evidence fairly and without lieing or omitting certain aspects of the events.

its just the way it is i suppose, good luck with your research.

[Antony]

Oh I see. Sorry Marky, I understand what you meant now.

Well I gotta agree with you. The flashes are a key part of any demolition, and for quite a large number of officials (firefighters, support crew etc) to see them is quite strange if explosives were not detonated.

There could be some other reason for the flashes related to how the building was constructed (perhaps a surge in the electrical system?), but I don't see what could cause it to look like the flashes from a demolition.

Anyway that's my personal opinion and nothing more. You're also right about people just wanting to watch the X-Factor. I've tried explaining this to my relatives and why the whole story is full of errors and inconsistencies. They aren't really interested though. I'm guessing because there's nothing anyone can do about any of the facts.

[pepik]

I see, so these are new super high tech explosives that go off after the building has already collapsed. In midair.

Great theory Marky.

[marky 54]

[Alex_V]

Well okay, here's a bash at a few of your points...

[scubadiver]

[Antony]

OK some good points. But try and remember that I was just putting forward the evidence so people can make their own conclusions also.

1. There's clearly photographs of what appears to be molten steel being pulled out of the ground. You can even see some small amounts of molten steel on a column that was broken in one particular photo. Fires also burned for a long time after the collapse. This is mentioned in the NIST report from what I remember (the fires, not necessarily the molten steel). And yes I count some photos as evidence...

2.A NORAD exercise chasing phantom jets is my interpretation of a war game. Perhaps it isn't, but then what IS a war game? Sounds exactly like one to me.

3. FEMA state that this reaction implies a temperature of over 1000 C. Again I don't recall the details well, but eutectic I think means bonded with at a molecular level. For this to happen the steel must have been liquid. Even FEMA were puzzled by this and NIST didn't explain it.

4. Yep this is what I found.

5. Again that's true. What's important to remember is that the fires moves and so by the time the firefighters get there some of the lower floors of the impact area have burnt out (there's nothing significant left to burn). This would imply a drop in temperature, or more accurately a massive increase followed by a steady decrease in localised areas. This in itself could weaken steel more than the actual heating (has anyone checked this?)


So just to summarise. The evidence I put is mostly down to what I found, and although there may be problems with my interpretation I think mostly it allows you to decide for yourself, which is what I wanted.

You want my personal opinon? The conspiracy seems to point to a very poor building design, possible corruption by the engineers (using cheaper steel), not enough fire protection, and awful usage of those cardboard firewalls which were useless against the aircraft.

You can tell the buildings were a risky design. There's no way anyone would make a similar building with tiny windows now (and therefore the structure being supported largely by the walls). To me it looks like they were built like a stack of cards, and any serious fire on that scale would have caused the same effect (note that WTC1 collapsed away from the impact zone). So leslie robertson is just covering his own ass, just like countless others did on that day. They all made excuses, and I don't buy that *. Those buildings should not have collapsed, they should never have been hit int he first place, and cheney needs putting in jail for not scrambling an F-16 when he could. Those people that died in the Pentagon , could have been saved if he had followed protocol.

Yes it annoys me that so many people died, and no-one did anything wrong at all according to the politics of the day...

[Antony]

Oh 1 more thing.

I'm not out to prove anything. I just wanted to find out as much as I could and have it peer reviewed. I appreciate all your comments greatly.

Obviously, I was trying to balance the conspiracy vs official theory, which is not easy. It's hard to be impartial. Conspiracy theorists think my site is too "official theory" and skeptics think my site is too "Conspiracy Theory".

So in the end, everyone seems to hate it!

[Alex_V]

[marky 54]

(norad<i thnk) had been simulating this scenerio 2 years prior to 9/11 and leading up to 9/11.

the excerises simulating russian jets or air movement was either just a part of many simulations running at the same time or seperate to the simulations running that invisaged a hijacked plane flying into the wtc's and pentagon.

i apologize for the link with alex jones in it, but if you think hes a conspiracy theorists and his information is bollo** then forward it to 5.00mins into the video for the CNN news report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Efes-rNnI

why do these type of attacks have drills simulating the exact same scenerio? and what are the chances ie 1/100? or more?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jInH6VS13YY

then you have the project for a new american century(PNAC).

again sorry about the so called conspiracy theorists in this video, just forward it to 1 min 52 seconds for a news report confirming it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4

(in the first clip with alex jones he gives information about drills running on that morning of 9/11, listed to his information(don't believe him), check his reports and sources before coming to a conclusion)etc.

i aint finding anything i can quickly link from youtube proving information on drills on the morning of 9/11 via media critics consider "offical", and don't have time to go hunting for things, anyhow its best if you do your own researching, ive provided information of drills and tried my best to link to clips with what most consider trustworthy news within the information.

its a waste of time linking to people or evidence shown by those who critics consider conspiracy theorists, unless it has actual mainstream media reports confirming certain information, therefore i have ignored a lot of things and a lot of information which i could of linked but know people will not check out but rather live in denial.

if anyone else has information on drills simulating the exact same scenerio on the morning of 9/11 that is reported by mainstream news or respected high ranking officals who had first hand experiance on the day etc please link it.

[marky 54]

"How was molten steel pulled out of the ground?

The picture on your site looks like a bright light with reflections at the site. The infamous picture of the cut steel could either be molten steel from some sort of cutter charge or the result of the clean-up operation. As I say, there is no conclusive evidence of molten steel - I would argue there's nothing convincing on that topic at all. Unfortunately it's an issue that is never likely to be resolved - to believe there was actual molten steel at ground zero is a leap of faith".






yes it must be a leap of faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X5F5PttzJY

now i was not there, was you? because that fireman was.
now who i am i going to believe more? a guy who just says it was'nt there and that it is a leap of faith or a fireman who describes what he saw with his own eyes whilst working there?

who would be the more credible witness?

now even if he was mistaken and it was'nt actually steel, there was certainly something extremly hot and molten going by his description of what he saw and tempretures many workers and firemen reported.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcfSt2Ot9E

[Alex_V]

[Alex_V]

[marky 54]

[Alex_V]

[quote="marky 54"][quote="Alex_V"]

[marky 54]

red hot metal being pulled out the ground, i never claimed it was molten, but i believe this is what is being refered to. scroll down a little, and yes im aware the photo above is cutting charges not molten steel.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

i can find nothing conclusive enough to link regarding molten steel testing, i just get web forum talk.

also:

start here:
http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html


its not hard to find out what is being said.

type in:

molten steel being pulled from wtc

9/11 molten steel/metal tests

proof of CD

evidence found for CD 9/11

none of those links are my personnal opinon so do not bash me if you disagree with them.

but when you are familuar with what is being claimed feel free to ask questions, ill do my best to answer or link anything i think might of intrest.

i will point out though that i support a new investigastion into 9/11 due to there being evidence we have not been told the truth. i am not a lawyer or investgator, but support the truth what ever that may be, due to the size of the event and how that effects the world today and also the lives lost in america and the rest of the world as a result, i feel it is important to know the truth if there is evidence that suggests we have not been told the whole truth or facts were overlooked.

evidence of something means exactly that, it dos'nt mean it is necessarily the case but an proper investigastion is need to conclude that with ALL the evidence included in the information, including witnesses.

[Antony]

[KP50]

NIST had this to say on molten metal in their 9/11 FAQ.

[Antony]

KP50, a somewhat strange response though. They analysed many steel samples from the towers to determine how high they had been heated (non were found to have been heated to over 600 C). So why did they bother analysing the steel at all if its condition was irrelevant?

I agree though that it's not conclusive, but most pieces of evidence aren't conclusive on their own. You should investigate, not because you can prove catagorically the truth, but because the investigation will hopefully provide some direction for further investigation.

A general crime scene would be to:

1. Gather evidence
2. Determine paths for investigating further.
3. Go to 1 and repeat.

From what I've read about most major crimes they tend to bag everything that could be suspicious and then analyse it in the lab. After that they try to investigate the leads they have until they have enough to question somebody. At some point they then try to find the culprit(s) and arrest them based on the evidence gathered.

What's really weird is that NIST think that steel reaching temperatures of ~1000 C is just a "condition" of steel prior to collapse. This condition could be the actual cause of both collapses and could point to improper construction methods or materials. If this condition occured due to fire then it could be a bit like other disasters which were caused by problems with the construction. According to FEMA there was a reaction which caused the eutectic, which then attacked the steel (corroding it like rust does). With such high temperatures involved there are many possible paths for further investigation.

Thermite is just one of those. There could have been aluminium scattered within the fire protection, or from nearby sources. This combined with hot fires/sparks could potentially start a small thermite reaction if the steel was rusting to begin with.

I don't think we will ever know what the real cause of collapse for WTC 7 was. The evidence is mostly gone. NISTs investigation is based almost entirely on modelling, so any theory is as valid as any other in my mind.

[Alex_V]

[Alex_V]

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]

Larry Silverstein says the Fire Dept made the decision to "pull" WTC7. Does anyone really believe that the Fire Dept makes decisions to destroy buildings by CD, and then pretends they fell as a result of damage and fire? Is there any evidence that demolition crews use "pull" for destroy with explosives, because the film makes clear that WTC6 was literally pulled down with wire cables?

Or is this simply troofers trying to turn anything into evidence for their theories, even if it makes no sense? Evidence, not for controlled demolition, but the dishonesty of troofers?

[marky 54]

[Alex_V]

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

do you deny like popular mechanics that the term pull it is used in the CD industry?

because i have provied some information showing it is(if you looked or listened).

and wtc 7 "looks" like a CD.

so when silverstein use's the term "pull it"

is it not easy to see why people question it and wonder if it had any greater meaning and why some are convinced he meant something else?

im not going to pretend i know what he meant by it, but i am also not going to play dumb and deny i cannot see why so many think he meant something else.