The Truth Behind 9/11

[Crozza]

.

[VinnieK]

The collapse

 

Check out the firemans tapes and the video from the news stations all around the towers that morning. Bombs, bombs, bombs!

 

Heres one example:

 

"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion and another. I didnt know where to run."

Teresa Veliz - 47th floor worker North Tower when flight 11 hit

 

Firstly, it should hardly be a surprise that a gigantic corporate building filled with electrical equipment, power lines and the like should be riddled with minor explosions after a catastrophic event such as a jumbo jet crashing into it occurs.

 

Secondly, even were these explosions the result of demolition charges placed by sinister government agents, it would not be a case of 'explosions going off everywhere'. The destruction of skyscrapers is a methodical process, with charges being placed on supporting struts and girders of nearly every last floor. Each charge does not explode like a bomb (which dissipitates most of its energy into the surrounding area), but has to be inserted into deliberately drilled holes in the supporting structure that are then sealed with reinforced metal in order to direct the blast into the support itself. All the charges on the topmost floor are then detonated simultaneously, then the next floor, and so on, not in a random sequence 'here and there'. Also the explosions would not be of the kind described, but a dull thud as the supports rupture, followed by a shower of concrete.

 

As if that doesn't discredit your idea enough, the whole preparation of this plan would take at best weeks to accomplish by evacuating the entire trade centre for the duration of the charges being set. Doing it gradually would take a long sequence of months with invidual floors being emptied one at a time.

 

How can 200,000 tons of steel, 125,000 cubic yards of concrete, 103 elevators, 43,600 windows and a 360 ft television antenna fall 1368 ft tall so swiftly from fires burning no more than 1 hour 30 mins? The concrete was pulverised and projected outwards. 10,000 gallons of jet fuel did it? Most of the jet fuel from the South tower hit was gone with the inial impact and that tower fell first (53 mins). And the firemen said they had the fire under control.

 

Plane crashes into building, momentum of collision destroys a number of supports, weakening the rest. Fuel explodes (sorry to emphasise the point but it explodes, since you seem convinced what took place was nothing more than a conventional fire) both the heat and shockwave of this obliterate yet more structural support, leaving a shell of the original floor stucture supporting everything above it.

 

Now, since architects aren't idiots, and most civic authorities would prefer large buildings to be inclined towards collapsing in upon themselves rather than devastating the city by falling over, they have a tendency to build skyscrapers this way. Finally the damaged and overstrained supports give way, and a vast weight plummets vertically onto the building below the damaged floors. The force of the fall causes the subsequent floor to collapse, and so on and so on.

 

You want to know why the building fell so fast? It's because with every floor that collapses, the next is hit with an even greater force than the last, whilst having even less structural resistence than the last to stand up to the barrage, resulting in a 'snowballing' effect as the debris falls down onto the remaining floors, gathering speed and momentum. It's partly commonplace structural design, partly sheer good luck that the WTC fell vertical, and no means inexplicable in terms of the 'official version' of events.

 

78th floor they were on. Put that together with the people seen stood in the impact holes and lack of raging fires that you would expect to take down such buildings from all the pics and video and you dont have what you would need to take down those 2 buildings. WTC 1,2 and 7 were the first 3 high rise steel framed buildings in history to collapse due to fire!

 

Now you're just distorting what has been said. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the WTC fell due to fire. There doesn't need to be a raging fire to take down a building, although undoubtably there was fire in and around the floors that were initially damaged. A massive shockwave is enough to do it... such as... err a huge plane crashing into it and it's fuel tanks exploding. I'm loving the 'you don't have what you would need to take down those two buildings' by the way, where did you say you read Engineering?

 

Mark Louseiux told the AFP that the basements had hot spots of "literally molten steel" that were discovered more than a month after the collapse, 7 basement levels at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the towers. It was found 3, 4 and 5 weeks later when rubble was being removed. molten steel was also found at WTC7.

 

I can't imagine what could have caused that. Not ruptured gas pipes igniting or anything!.

 

By the way, what's the point in such a quote anyway, I'd be more likely to believe molten steel to be present as the result of fuel and gas igniting than bombs placed within the building itself, since they're designed to shear steel and concrete via a shockwave rather than heat.

 

If you watch the buidings fall in slow motion you can see blast points or "squibs" arising all the way down several floors below the where the tower is "collapsing".

 

Ever heard of backdraft? If there's a fire burning on a floor below the ones that are collapsing, the tendency is for the falling floor to compress the air in the one below it, which finds a natural escape through the shattered windows, pushing the fire out with it before swiftly extinguishing it. This would be visible as a flash here and there as the building collapses.

 

Weeks before 911 numerous unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both towers and WTC 7 were evacuated for "security reasons" Ben Fountain told People magazine. Also Scott Forbes worked in the ST, his company was given 3 weeks advanced notice that NY port authority would take out power in ST from the 48th floor up. The reason given was a cabling upgrade to increase the WTCs computer bandwidth.

Also on Thursday 6th bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings and it was all authorized by a company called Securicom, and who was the man in charge of that company? *drum roll* Marvin Bush! Whos contrac ended on September 11th and was replaced by John O'Neil mentioned above who died in the towers that day.

 

Nothing's ever a coincidence in conspiracy land is it? Bomb dogs would hardly have been useful even were it a government plot. I might be naive, but I don't think the CIA, NSA, or whoever the geek's bogey man of the week happens to be, left semtex lying around in tesco bags near big supporting pillars. As stated previously, if they're to destroy a supporting strut they have to be drilled into the actual material and sealed up, good and proper. Even a slight gap can cause the charge to direct its explosive power through it and send the metal used to seal it halfway across the country instead of destroying its target.

 

Poor Occam must be turning in his grave. Or at least rolling his eyes a bit.

[gillf]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...0890224991194&q

[Crozza]

.

[Jacqueline]

this what Frank A. DeMartini said in January 2001, he was the WTC Construction Manager

 

Yes. But then he would say that wouldn't he?

 

 

Crozza,

 

Turn off your computer. Have a nice warm bath and some hot chocolate. You're much too much wound up. It's not good for you or your soul.

 

Things happen. Awful shit happens. But you know what? It's bad enough just as it is without wanting to make it even worse.

 

Enjoy your chocolate.

 

x

[The Old Git]

See, the very first "fact" that I check

 

The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

 

and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/technical.html says the wingspan is 170'

 

It's also a good bit longer as well

 

I won't bother any further

[VinnieK]

Ok, explain to me why the concrete was pulversied?? Does fire have the ability to pulverise concrete? The 2nd plane to strike hit the South Tower and created this big fire ball in which most of the jet fuel exploded outside the of the tower.

 

Why are you so obsessed with this fire? The concrete from the upper floors was pulvarised because an awful lot of it fell a great distance. The concrete from the lower floors was pulvarised because it had an awful lot of concrete falling on it from a very great distance. You can scratch concrete with a shiny pebble, it's not some indestructable material, the sheer force of the collapse would have rendered a lot of it to dust.

 

That was the first tower to fall and even if the pancake theory is at all plausible its would have been impossible for that tower collapse in that way because it actually snapped off while it was collapsing.

 

Why is it impossible? Usually those claims require an explanation, and not just 'oh, it defies physics'. It is more than possible, it is probable for the tower to collapse that way, and here's why.

 

(slaps his school physics hat on) - An object only accelerates a given distance if a force is applied in the direction of the acceleration. In terms of a collision, the magnitude of that acceleration is determined by the relative masses and speeds of the two objects, as well as the elasticity of the collision (i.e. to what degree one object 'bounces off the other'.

 

Now, big plane smashes into massive building. Although the force of the collision and explosion is enough to tear some of the building's structural supports apart, the plane is not big or heavy enough to shunt the incomparibly larger mass of the building to any great degree. Further more, the plane crashes through windows, walls, and other subsiduary structures within the building, becoming embedded. In this inelastic collision the vast majority of the plane's horizontal energy is simply absorbed by the building (in the form of structural damage), meaning that it does not shift one way or the other.

 

Now there is only one force acting on the damaged and unstable building, that of gravity. On the considerable weight above the damaged sections of the building, this constitutes a massive force being placed on it, a force that points directly down. The remaining struts and columns give way, the mass falls down, exerting another downward force on the building. And so on and so on.

 

In short, it doesn't matter one jot that part of the building snapped off during it's collapse, the component of its downward force redirected to the horizontal by any collision in on itself would have been minor in comparison with the force of gravity, which, unless you're proposing that the US government have secret gravity rays, points directly down.

 

If the plane had hit lower now, near the base of the tower, it may well have fallen in a different way, thanks to the partial destruction of one side causing the centre of gravity of the entire body to lean. But it didn't, and I think you'll find, if you have any knowledge of physics at all, that a 'pancake' collapse is the most probable outcome of such a catastrophe. Even if you don't, try playing around with some big old towers made out of jenga blocks.

 

 

What happened to the steel beems that the 911 commission said didnt exist? They should have been sticking up after the so called pancake theory.

 

I remember footage of steel beams standing for ages after the collapse. It looked a little like the wall of a ruined cathedral if I remember correctly. And no, they wouldn't have been sticking up miles and miles into the sky, most would have buckled and been snapped from their holdings at each floor by the force of the collapse, since the points where beams join on to one another are necessarily the weakest point of the whole structure.

 

If the government had nothing to hide why was the debris shipped to asia to be melted down? Its a federal offence to remove evidence from a crime scene and noone was prosecuted.

 

a. Beams at least had to be taken away from the scene in the search for survivors, and to clear the site to inspect and repair gas mains, water pipes, and electrical cables that may have been damaged in the collapse.

 

b. A massive plane crashed into the building. I don't think the government agencies were acting beyond their mandate by assuming that the beams had little to tell them about what had happened.

[ans]

I don't think the government agencies were acting beyond their mandate by assuming that the beams had little to tell them about what had happened.

 

Haven't you been listening to the nutcases? It wasn't the planes that brought them down....

 

Sigh.

 

By the way, there is a term in psychology for the behaviour Crossa and Co are exhibiting in this thread. I think it's called "Confirmation bias". It's when you look really hard to find information that makes you right, and ignore any that makes you wrong.

 

Edit: Wikipedia to the rescue

 

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

[Crozza]

.

[Phildo]

Explain building 7 that wasnt hit by any aircraft and collapsed with its own footprint at half 5 that day with only a few minor fires. Silverstein got on PBS and said we ordered the firemen to "pull it" which is an industry term for demolishing a building! Later in the same docu they were getting ready to demolish the WTC complex and they said "were just about to pull building 6" and down it went!

So...um someone involved in this huge cover-up conspiracy went on telly to tell people about it? Surely that's not the best way to hide things?

[Crozza]

.

[sarahc]

I'm confused.

 

this 'building 7' - am I right in thinking it is neither of the twin towers?

If so, was it evacuated?

If it was evacuated, so what if they pulled it down?

 

Apologies if this has already been covered but the posts are so long!

[The Old Git]

It was a Boeing 767-200ER that hit the towers not a 767-400ER

 

Perhaps you need to be a bit more specific when you say "the wingspan of a Boeing 767 is"?

 

Check out 3 documents and a book for me. All menitioned by David Ray Griffin in that talk I posted earlier.

 

Sorry, I've a stack of books that I want to read and I don't have the willpower to read a book from someone who I suspect is probably biased in his views.

 

I'd rather poke holes in the rather more obvious problems with some of the conspiracy theories

[Crozza]

.

[cheesemonster2005]

I'm confused.

 

this 'building 7' - am I right in thinking it is neither of the twin towers?

If so, was it evacuated?

If it was evacuated, so what if they pulled it down?

 

Apologies if this has already been covered but the posts are so long!

 

Yes, it was neither of the twin towers (building 1 and 2). There were 7 buildings, all skyscrapers, I believe, which formed the World Trade Center. I believe all 7 buildings collapsed as they were all affected by the collapse of the two tallest towers and they also shared foundations with one another.

 

As it fell many hours later I assume that it had been evacuated like most other buildings in lower-Manhatten. It's quite clear that it fell because of the accident and wasn't deliberatly pulled but even if it was I don't see what difference it makes.