Why were the radiation levels so high in NYC on 9/11?

[Zaroku]

If a grown man has to research and analyse data to conclude if a passport flew out of a burning hot flame and landed safely on the ground then god help us, man. Come on, lets quickly google search and/or write to the creators of Spongebob to know if he really is made out of sponge.


I forgot, this passport was like none we have ever seen before. I bet it has a map of Atlantis etched on the back.

This video is very good and breaks down WTC 7

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ovc8MgZyU

[Weltschmerz]

Too many people want simple, easily understood crystal clear answers. Which is nearly impossible when such a sudden chaotic event takes place. There will be confusion, premature false reports, quotes taken out of context, conflicting time lines and people interpreting data differently. Add to that the secrecy of government agencies and our mistrust of them. I feel its easy to create a conspiracy when you have all of that to play with.

There where 'crystal clear answers' to everything, though? Provided by the government, almost right after the events. Everything, from identifying the hijackers with photographs, to the commission and NIST reports. Why did anybody question this, though? Surely these conspiracy theorists would just have been laughed off and everybody would move on within a few months? Yet they didn't, and more and more people began questioning. Scientists too, and they came up with theories and evidence, putting their name and life on the line. Why would they do this?

Why do you think the dimensions dont add up?
The pentagon is reinforced concrete. The main body of the plane when it exploded upon impact caused a hole. The concrete withstood much of the impact. Thats what it was built for.

I dont understand how you can disregard the eye witnesses, air traffic control tracking the plane, the dna of the passengers, the plane parts recovered, the black box recovered etc.
Dont make sense to me.

Are we to trust this information? Has the government ever lied to us before? Why were we never shown footage of flight 77? There has to be footage, and the FBI confiscated it all, apparently. Why? Why not show us footage? Would lay doubts to rest, easily.

Did you mean 'science of the collapses'? Only science can explain the collapses. To understand them, you have to understand wtf the scientists are talking about.
There are scientific explanations for wtc 7.

You mean the rigged, manufactured science proposed by bought off government officials? The commission and NIST reports were completely unsatisfactory and inconsistent, this has been long established. What about the science proposed by all of the independent scientists who had no reason to put their name on the line? Scholars, scientists, government whistleblowers.

I totally agree that we would expect the pentagon to have cameras everywhere. It is strange. Yet the evidence of flight 77 is still overwhelming.

It isn't overwhelming though, far from. You tell us that nobody could have faked this, which is just speculation. There is a good reason not to believe anything surrounding 9/11, exactly because nothing decisively supports the official narrative, at all. All of the loose ends begs for doubt and suspicion, naturally. You cannot just disregard this; well you can, but it's irrational.

[Mud]

There where 'crystal clear answers' to everything, though? Provided by the government, almost right after the events. Everything, from identifying the hijackers with photographs, to the commission and NIST reports. Why did anybody question this, though? Surely these conspiracy theorists would just have been laughed off and everybody would move on within a few months? Yet they didn't, and more and more people began questioning. Scientists too, and they came up with theories and evidence, putting their name and life on the line. Why would they do this?

Not sure what you are on about. Putting their life on the line?
The investigation actually changed their account of how the towers collapsed. They came out with the wtc 7 report a long time after 911.
If they have answers too soon, its suspicious. If they dont provide answers quickly enough, they are hiding the truth. Seems like a no win situation.

Are we to trust this information? Has the government ever lied to us before? Why were we never shown footage of flight 77? There has to be footage, and the FBI confiscated it all, apparently. Why? Why not show us footage? Would lay doubts to rest, easily.

You dont have to trust the info. Im not saying you should. Im just saying i personally have no reason to believe it was all planted and faked.

You mean the rigged, manufactured science proposed by bought off government officials? The commission and NIST reports were completely unsatisfactory and inconsistent, this has been long established. What about the science proposed by all of the independent scientists who had no reason to put their name on the line? Scholars, scientists, government whistleblowers.

There are many independent scientists and professionals who have published peer reviewed papers which agree with NIST.
What evidence is there that NIST were paid off?

It isn't overwhelming though, far from. You tell us that nobody could have faked this, which is just speculation. There is a good reason not to believe anything surrounding 9/11, exactly because nothing decisively supports the official narrative, at all. All of the loose ends begs for doubt and suspicion, naturally. You cannot just disregard this; well you can, but it's irrational.

Its overwhelming in my opinion. You disagree. Fine.
I havent said once that "nobody faked this".

[Weltschmerz]

Not sure what you are on about. Putting their life on the line?
The investigation actually changed their account of how the towers collapsed. They came out with the wtc 7 report a long time after 911.
If they have answers too soon, its suspicious. If they dont provide answers quickly enough, they are hiding the truth. Seems like a no win situation.

I mean their reputation, career. Which they did, Steven Jones and Niels Harrit are defamed due to their 9/11 activity. Associating themselves with 9/11 controversy is a brave move. Same with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, former high ranking US officials and Army personnel. Some of which are believed to have subsequently died under suspicious circumstances. Not going to dig up the names unless you want me to. And what about the firefighters speaking up? Rudy Dent? Think he's doing himself a favor, making himself popular? The NIST report is full of omissions, inconsistencies and fallacies. The collapse of WTC7 at free fall speed acceleration has never been explained satisfyingly from a scientific point of view.

There are many independent scientists and professionals who have published peer reviewed papers which agree with NIST.
What evidence is there that NIST were paid off?

Paid off in the sense that the authors worked for the government and had an agenda of misrepresenting 'facts'. I'd like you to link to the many independent scientists and professionals agreeing with the NIST report? Here's my link,
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...c-reports.html

[Mud]

I mean their reputation, career. Which they did, Steven Jones and Niels Harrit are defamed due to their 9/11 activity. Associating themselves with 9/11 controversy is a brave move. Same with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, former high ranking US officials and Army personnel. Some of which are believed to have subsequently died under suspicious circumstances. Not going to dig up the names unless you want me to. And what about the firefighters speaking up? Rudy Dent? Think he's doing himself a favor, making himself popular? The NIST report is full of omissions, inconsistencies and fallacies. The collapse of WTC7 at free fall speed acceleration has never been explained satisfyingly from a scientific point of view.

They are indeed brave to speak up knowing they will be ridiculed and ostracised. They believe they are right. I have no qualms with that.

Only a fraction of scientists have spoken about their issues with wtc7.

Paid off in the sense that the authors worked for the government and had an agenda of misrepresenting 'facts'. I'd like you to link to the many independent scientists and professionals agreeing with the NIST report? Here's my link,
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...c-reports.html

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (PDF)
(JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Volume 53, Number 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001)
- Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ovic-0711.html


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 1, pp 2-6, January 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/405.pdf


- Addendum to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 3, pp. 369-370, March 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou

- Closure of "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 129, Number 7, pp. 839-840, July 2003)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou

How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory (PDF)
(Fire Safety Journal, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp. 501-533, October 2003)
- A. S. Usmani, Y. C. Chung, J. L. Torero
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf


Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 131, Number 6, pp. 654-657, June 2005)
- A. S. Usmani
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...1%3A6%28654%29

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 133, Number 3, pp. 308-319, March 2007)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...nalCode=jenmdt

- Closure of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 917-923, October 2008)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure

Media Use, Social Structure, and Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (PDF)
(Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Volume 84, Number 2, pp. 353-372, Summer 2007)
- Carl Stempel, Thomas Hargrove, Guido H. Stempel III

Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I (PDF)
(Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 62-67, February 2008)
- Ayhan Irfanoglu, Christoph M. Hoffmann
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...nalCode=jpcfev

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 2, February 2008)
- K.A. Seffen
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-7889.0000025


What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 892-906, October 2008)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf


- Closure of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 136, Number 7, pp. 934-935, July 2010)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson

9/11 Conspiracy Theories on the World Wide Web: Digital Rhetoric and Alternative Epistemology (PDF)
(The Journal of Literacy and Technology, Volume 9, Number 3, pp. 2-25, December 2008)
- Charles Soukup

Failure Analysis of the World Trade Center 5 Building (PDF)
(Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Volume 19, Number 4, pp. 261-274, November 2009)
- Kevin J. LaMalva, Jonathan R. Barnett, Donald O. Dusenberry
https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Availab...ed/LaMalva.pdf

Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs
(Applied Cognitive Psychology, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp. 749–761, September 2010)
- Viren Swami1, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Adrian Furnham
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....1583/abstract

Government secrecy and conspiracy theories
(Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 19, pp. 91-100, 2011)
- Kathryn S. Olmsted

Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 137, Number 1, pp. 82-84, January 2011)
- Jia-Liang Le, Zdenek P. Bazant
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/499.pdf

[Mud]

That was a quick search. Some i have read before. A few are better and more lucid than others.

[BigNuts]

The government confiscating all nearby footage and only releasing a grainy 3 frame video that shows nothing but a blurry nose instead of the raw footage what actually hit is a dead giveaway that a 757 hitting is complete bullshyt.

[Weltschmerz]

That was a quick search. Some i have read before. A few are better and more lucid than others.

I appreciate you providing serious sources. I'm interested in how WTC7 is justified still? The building can only drop at free fall speed when nothing supports the columns, meaning all floors have to give in simultaneously. From what I know this can only happen with planted explosives, not from weakened beams as a result of office fires. Should be building have collapsed from office fires, it wouldn't have collapsed free fall. Simple analogy.