The Truth Behind 9/11

[mojomonkey]

I heard a rumour that conspiracy theorists are a conspiracy theory.

[WilDDog]

These conspiracy theorists really, really hack me off.

 

Same here dude but you shouldn't of said that. They'll all start posting again now.

[OneArmedScissor]

Watching 9/11 Twin Towers on the BBC.

 

Eye witness reports of the fire causing the building to structurally buckle ... doors jamming, supports moving. The buildings structural officers reporting problems down to the fire officers

 

The fire officers talking about "a fire engulfing 20 floors - that's 20 acres of flame"

 

Seeing the video of smoke emerging from floor upon floor, listening to the eye witness reports talking about how the fire spread.

 

Yep ... makes me totally believe the bull about wiring the building with explosives.

 

Of course I've just been duped by the manipulated media ... the eye witness statements and accounts by survivors ... they were just brain washed.

 

These conspiracy theorists really, really hack me off.

 

Ok, first things first, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and don't really believe that anything other than a terrorist attack took place.

 

But reading your post there......I don't see how anything you have said in anyway disproves any of the conspiracy theories that have abounded about 9/11 or even makes them look suspect? In fact I would go as far as to say that your post is the type of thing that conspiracy theorists would love as it would prove how baseless what they contend is bullshit can be.

[Roger Smelly]

The only weak point to the offical story is building seven.

 

And every story is only as good as its weakest part, that being building seven.

 

9/11 is the excuse.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

 

Most people just want the truth, not made up stories.

[Slim]

The only weak point to the offical story is building seven.

And every story is only as good as its weakest part, that being building seven.

9/11 is the excuse.

 

Superly stupid. Conspiracy theorys fill a vaccum.

 

Just because something is unexplained, doesn't mean theres a conspiracy. It's just unexplained. Lots of things are unexplained, for instance the causes of many medical conditions. Are these government created?

[Roger Smelly]

Bit like a bumble bee hey slim.

 

physics say that it cannot fly but it does.

 

Something that is unknown or unexplained usually means that it has not been investigated.

 

If the steel was tested from the towers before it was shipped to china to be melted down we might have had a proper investigation.

 

Its a bit like a murder scene being cleaned before the police investigate.

 

So if someone wants a true answer to a crime is a conspiracy nut then i guess i am.

 

If you belive the hype then why did they lie about WMD ?

 

Also what about this

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_murder_of_kelly.html

[Chinahand]

Eye witness reports of the fire causing the building to structurally buckle ... doors jamming, supports moving. The buildings structural officers reporting problems down to the fire officers

 

The fire officers talking about "a fire engulfing 20 floors - that's 20 acres of flame"

 

Seeing the video of smoke emerging from floor upon floor, listening to the eye witness reports talking about how the fire spread.

 

I don't see how anything you have said in anyway disproves any of the conspiracy theories that have abounded about 9/11 or even makes them look suspect?

 

My major beef with the conspiracy is that the twin towers could not have collapsed due to the plane crash and fire ... and hence were rigged with explosives. The evidence of structural collapse and weakening in the building from the plane crash are clear and well documented by eyewitnesses and a massively detailed analysis to try to work out if there was insurance liability due to the towers being badly designed ... Warren Buffet lost something over $700 million in the insurance claim and I can inform you he spent alot of money trying to get out of it. But no survivalist Bob ignores all this and continues to sit typing uninformed crap into the internet about the building being rigged with explosives.

 

Something that is unknown or unexplained usually means that it has not been investigated.

 

If the steel was tested from the towers before it was shipped to china to be melted down we might have had a proper investigation.

 

Erm Roger please check out THIS

 

Its a series of reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology

 

Scroll down to the report on Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

 

A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.

 

0.25% of the structural steel was sampled... as an engineering sample that is huge ... the problem is the conspiracy theorists don’t update their information while Phd’s and engineers keep on researching and experimenting … the NIST reports are from 2005 … if you search the web academics will still be publishing peer reviewed stuff. 9/11 had major implications for building design and people keep researching it to improve future designs and safety.

 

Unfortunately however the myths about not testing the steel etc will remain; cos the conspiracy nuts don’t update their information … reality is different.

[Albert Tatlock]

Unfortunately however the myths about not testing the steel etc will remain; cos the conspiracy nuts don’t update their information … reality is different.

But what about

? Whilst not normally a 'conspiracy theorist', and an engineer myself, it is the collapse of this building that has me wondering most.

 

IMHO, the collapse of this building is unfeasible, and warrants much further investigation than it has been given so far. I think the answer to whether this was a conspiracy or not, might well actually be here, and not in the towers.

[Tuna Sandwich]

I thought WTC7 was damaged by the collapse of one of the big towers? The top of one came down sideways and took out the bottom of WTC7, which was already on fire and collapsed in the same way as the other towers.

 

Whether or not aviation fuel burns at a temperature high enough to melt steel, it does burn at a temerature high enough to soften it, and to allow the building to twist and turn a bit like a bi-metallic strip. Add to that a couple of hundred tonnes of aircraft, and the fact that the towers were already weakened by previous terrorist attempts in years past, and all that is required is for one floor to collapse and the rest went down like dominos.

 

I don't believe there were bombs and things as suggested, I do however believe that the US government know and (at the time) knew more than they let on, and more than we will ever find out

[Albert Tatlock]

I thought WTC7 was damaged by the collapse of one of the big towers? The top of one came down sideways and took out the bottom of WTC7, which was already on fire and collapsed in the same way as the other towers.

No it didn't. I think if people dig deep enough on WTC7 they may even find firing squad evidence - I am yet to be convinced otherwise. Have a look at WTC7.net

[Chinahand]

Albert can I just check with you on this. I assume you accept that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the obvious fact that planes crashed into them, creating a firestorm, but you feel WTC 7 is such a problem you'll keep an open mind on what happened there.

 

So the scenario is this:

 

A group of terrorists plan to attack the WTC.

 

At the same time a business man finds out about the attack ... how is not explained ... he goes ... "Oh, I own the building next door to the WTC ... I know what I'll do ... I'll rig my building with explosives. The terrorist attack on the twin towers will cause my building to suffer such damage that its sudden collapse won't cause that much comment, apart from nutters on the internet who I don't care about, and I'll make a killing from the insurance."

 

His plan works fantastically well ... the terror attacks cause fires to start in the business man's building as the services in WTC 7 which supply WTC 1 & 2 short out and malfunction. These fires ignite the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building to supply the air conditioning units etc for WTC 1 & 2 creating a fire storm.

 

Fire fighters fight this blaze for hours, until a decision is taken that the building is now so damaged, and the fire fighters so overwhelmed a decision is taken to abandon it.

 

At this point the business man orders his sinister friends to detonate the explosives, which have been miraculously unaffected by all these events and the building collapses.

 

If this scenario isn't quite right can you please tell me where I'm wrong?

 

Both sides of this debate call members of the opposite side "useful idiots" ... a term Lenin used to describe left wing intellectuals who supported the USSR and played down the campaigns of violence and terror being waged on the civillian population.

 

The Conspiracy Theorists claim people like myself are helping GWB and the neocons get away with murder. While people like me claim the conspiracy theorists are reducing complex and important political decision making to simplistic idiocy.

 

I would genuinelly love for you, or anyone else, to flesh out my scenario to make it so that I look like the useful idiot rather than the conspiracy theorists. These issues are so important that I genuinelly want to understand the truth of the matter, but at the moment I feel very confident that I'm not the idiot here and nothing I read changes that opinion.

[K.os Theory]

this is almost better than the lost thread...I believe the polar bears did it!

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert can I just check with you on this. I assume you accept that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the obvious fact that planes crashed into them, creating a firestorm, but you feel WTC 7 is such a problem you'll keep an open mind on what happened there.

 

So the scenario is this:

 

A group of terrorists plan to attack the WTC.

 

At the same time a business man finds out about the attack ... how is not explained ... he goes ... "Oh, I own the building next door to the WTC ... I know what I'll do ... I'll rig my building with explosives. The terrorist attack on the twin towers will cause my building to suffer such damage that its sudden collapse won't cause that much comment, apart from nutters on the internet who I don't care about, and I'll make a killing from the insurance."

 

His plan works fantastically well ... the terror attacks cause fires to start in the business man's building as the services in WTC 7 which supply WTC 1 & 2 short out and malfunction. These fires ignite the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building to supply the air conditioning units etc for WTC 1 & 2 creating a fire storm.

 

Fire fighters fight this blaze for hours, until a decision is taken that the building is now so damaged, and the fire fighters so overwhelmed a decision is taken to abandon it.

 

At this point the business man orders his sinister friends to detonate the explosives, which have been miraculously unaffected by all these events and the building collapses.

 

If this scenario isn't quite right can you please tell me where I'm wrong?

 

Both sides of this debate call members of the opposite side "useful idiots" ... a term Lenin used to describe left wing intellectuals who supported the USSR and played down the campaigns of violence and terror being waged on the civillian population.

 

The Conspiracy Theorists claim people like myself are helping GWB and the neocons get away with murder. While people like me claim the conspiracy theorists are reducing complex and important political decision making to simplistic idiocy.

 

I would genuinelly love for you, or anyone else, to flesh out my scenario to make it so that I look like the useful idiot rather than the conspiracy theorists. These issues are so important that I genuinelly want to understand the truth of the matter, but at the moment I feel very confident that I'm not the idiot here and nothing I read changes that opinion.

Documented film shows that there were only relatively minor fires that could not have possibly got hot enough or severe enough to cause the steel in that building to melt (vaporise the steel - since when you consider the effects of air resistance/gravity etc. and measure the collapse time - the building imploded).

 

There was no aviation fuel involved, and no part of the towers - except burning debris landed on WTC7 (other than some gouging on one corner of the building). Look at the video evidence of the collapse of WTC7 for yourself - there are plenty of reliable news services that documented it. WTC7 collapsed straight down onto its own footprint, which implies (with a high probability) the use of explosives, otherwise the building would have only partially collapsed, and/or 'fallen over'.

 

Also diesel burns at around 800 degrees Centigrade - and steel melts at well over 1300 degrees Centigrade. Steel framed buildings would be collapsing due to fire all the time if this was the case - and it simply does not happen.

 

As I say, in my own experience as an engineer, I have an open mind on WTC7 and simply remain unconvinced.

[Chinahand]

I'd check out this: a National Insititute of Standards and Technology Power Point presentation attemtping to explain the collapse of WTC 7.

 

And this:

. The most popular video of the collapse misses out the first 5 seconds or so of the collapse! The penthouse collapses and must be doing all sorts of damage inside and then about 5 or so seconds later the main collapse caught on CNN occurs.

 

As ever things are more coplicated than they seem.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'd check out this: a National Insititute of Standards and Technology Power Point presentation attemtping to explain the collapse of WTC 7.

 

And this:

. The most popular video of the collapse misses out the first 5 seconds or so of the collapse! The penthouse collapses and must be doing all sorts of damage inside and then about 5 or so seconds later the main collapse caught on CNN occurs.

 

As ever things are more coplicated than they seem.

Still 'too symettrical' and improbable to me. That video seems, if anything, to back up what I am actually saying. I will have to study the report you refer to and it will take a while.