The Truth Behind 9/11

[Roger Smelly]

Well albert most of us nut cases have been saying for the past couple of years that WTC7 is the key to the whole thing.

 

There was a rumour that the plane that went down in a field was meant to hit that building, thus giving the reason why it went down.

 

China if you do some research like most of us conspiracy nutters have done you will read up about how the WTC's were designed to take multiple hits from aircraft without falling, it was part of design brief.

 

I guess we all have our own ideas on how it happened.

 

But what i will say is my thoughts go out to the victims of 9/11 and thier families on this sad day.

[Amnesia]

Well albert most of us nut cases have been saying for the past couple of years that WTC7 is the key to the whole thing.

 

There was a rumour that the plane that went down in a field was meant to hit that building, thus giving the reason why it went down.

 

China if you do some research like most of us conspiracy nutters have done you will read up about how the WTC's were designed to take multiple hits from aircraft without falling, it was part of design brief.

 

I guess we all have our own ideas on how it happened.

 

But what i will say is my thoughts go out to the victims of 9/11 and thier families on this sad day.

 

 

 

What really gets me about this sort of view is actually trying to understand the motivation behind your denial of the events. Some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. The people responsible, AQ and Bin Laden have posted videos on the web which celebrate their "victory" and there are >1,000 troops deployed trying to find him on the Pakistan / Afghan border right now. These are *facts* which are empirically testable - the troops are there and AQ exists. So what are you trying to say - there is no AQ? The people who died as hijackers whose names and interviews are now being posted didn't exist? The people who died on the planes didn't board them and not *one* single person hasn't raised an issue about it? Don't you think that if the US government actually participated in the destruction of the WTC that that fact would be the MOST enormous propaganda coup for AQ and they would have posted it to high heaven?

 

Conspiracy theories are good. They are usually entertaining and keep us on our toes. But this one is just stupid. These denials are some sort of mental problem with the people that believe them - almost like you are too scared to admit that something really simple had such devastating consequences. It's a total abrogation of your human intelligence to do so. Really, you are incredibly stupid and there's a lot of people looking at your posts just going w...t....f?

[Dr_Dave]

Conspiracy theories are good. They are usually entertaining and keep us on our toes. But this one is just stupid. These denials are some sort of mental problem with the people that believe them - almost like you are too scared to admit that something really simple had such devastating consequences. It's a total abrogation of your human intelligence to do so. Really, you are incredibly stupid and there's a lot of people looking at your posts just going w...t....f?

 

I can kind of understand. A lot of people live mundane lives, with very little understanding of logic or common sense, while also experiencing a feeling of alienation from the ruling classes. It seems reasonable to me that they will latch onto pretty much anything that hints of something more exciting than reality, scenarios where they get to imagine that they have somehow stumbled onto something that is going to overthrow their opressors. Ignorance of facts or technical details allows them to pave over the gaping holes in their arguments, and the righteousness of the revolutionary allows them to dismiss those who subscribe to the "official view".

 

The irony is, in this situation, it isn't even needed. All of the outlandish components of a good conspiracy theory are present and demonstrable: decades of questionable American foreign policy contributes to the formation of a shadowy organisation dedicated to their downfall. American complacency causes them to ignore obvious warning signs. Shadowy organisation plans and performs a small, tight, cheap and extremely audacious attack against the heart of America. US government seizes on this and subsequently passes draconian laws to limit personal freedoms, lies about threats to their safety, illegally invades foreign power, illegally kidnaps and holds prisoners without trial, engages in torture.

 

It's perfect. You don't even need to ignore physics, structural mechanics, eye witness reports or common sense to get behind it!

 

Dave

[Albert Tatlock]

Conspiracy theories are good. They are usually entertaining and keep us on our toes. But this one is just stupid. These denials are some sort of mental problem with the people that believe them - almost like you are too scared to admit that something really simple had such devastating consequences. It's a total abrogation of your human intelligence to do so. Really, you are incredibly stupid and there's a lot of people looking at your posts just going w...t....f?

 

I can kind of understand. A lot of people live mundane lives, with very little understanding of logic or common sense, while also experiencing a feeling of alienation from the ruling classes. It seems reasonable to me that they will latch onto pretty much anything that hints of something more exciting than reality, scenarios where they get to imagine that they have somehow stumbled onto something that is going to overthrow their opressors. Ignorance of facts or technical details allows them to pave over the gaping holes in their arguments, and the righteousness of the revolutionary allows them to dismiss those who subscribe to the "official view".

 

The irony is, in this situation, it isn't even needed. All of the outlandish components of a good conspiracy theory are present and demonstrable: decades of questionable American foreign policy contributes to the formation of a shadowy organisation dedicated to their downfall. American complacency causes them to ignore obvious warning signs. Shadowy organisation plans and performs a small, tight, cheap and extremely audacious attack against the heart of America. US government seizes on this and subsequently passes draconian laws to limit personal freedoms, lies about threats to their safety, illegally invades foreign power, illegally kidnaps and holds prisoners without trial, engages in torture.

 

It's perfect. You don't even need to ignore physics, structural mechanics, eye witness reports or common sense to get behind it!

 

Dave

On the contrary, in the case of WTC7 it is my knowledge of physics, structural mechanics and the numerous documented films of the event that generates my doubt. That doubt is based on my experience as an engineer.

 

There are thousands of building fires every year in the world. Buildings do not collapse like that in real life - it's simply a matter of physics and design. Why do you think diesel engines are made of steel - Einstein? To melt steel you need +1300 degrees C. To get to that temperature in a diesel fire you would need to pump through superheated air (like in a blast furnace) - otherwise we'd have cars exploding all the way down the M6.

 

Don't forget Watergate was once a conspiracy theory, sending troops to Iraq because there was no evidence of WMD was once a conspiracy theory, the alleged torture and rendition of prisoners by the USA was a conspiracy theory...now all facts.

 

Funny, most of what you have written was in Johan Hari's column in the Independent newspaper yesterday - pretty much word for word. Is that just coincidence or another conspiracy theory perhaps? Anyone can repeat what other people tell them, or spout someone elses opinion - it's when you think for yourself that things get really interesting.

[Slim]

There are thousands of building fires every year in the world. Buildings do not collapse like that in real life - it's simply a matter of physics and design. Why do you think diesel engines are made of steel - Einstein?

 

Thousands of buildings the same design as the WTC hit by airliners every year, einstien?

 

To melt steel you need +1300 degrees C. To get to that temperature in a diesel fire you would need to pump through superheated air (like in a blast furnace) - otherwise we'd have cars exploding all the way down the M6.

 

If you really did know your stuff, you'd know that steel loses strength as its heated, and reports show that structural steel can have half its strength at 'only' 500 degrees.

 

But why am I arguing? The tin hat brigade doesn't need facts or common sense, blind faith is enough.

[Albert Tatlock]

If you really did know your stuff, you'd know that steel loses strength as its heated, and reports show that structural steel can have half its strength at 'only' 500 degrees.

 

But why am I arguing? The tin hat brigade doesn't need facts or common sense, blind faith is enough.

So why don't the thousands of other buildings throughout the world that suffer fires collapse then?

[Chinahand]

Albert, I still assume you are mainly talking about WTC 7 and not the towers hit by the aircract, but even so you are just ignoring a $24 million research project on the collapse of WTC 7 including finite element analyses of how the failure in the columns associated with the east penthouse can create the collapse you are so sceptical of.

 

If you are an engineer you should be respecting these researchers and their conclusions. I've posted their power point presentation and their research into the metalurgy of the the columns in WTC 1, 2 AND 7.

 

If you search a bit you can get past Conspiracy Bob's ravings about free fall times and find detailed academic papers on this.

 

Plus you haven't rounded out your explaination of why WTC 7 collapsing unexpectedly/uniquely (but not impossibly, or even impropably from the research) makes this a conspiracy.

 

Where's the beef?

[Slim]

So why don't the thousands of other buildings throughout the world that suffer fires collapse then?

 

Every 110 story building hit by an airliner has collapsed, isn't that enough solid evidence for your average tin hat wearing nutter? Seems to be enough in reverse...

 

I'm not an expert on this subject, so I'm not going to argue details. But I am qualified to dismiss the improbably jumps in logic from the conspiracy nutters, simply because I'm not thick. "A plane didn't reach one building and it still collapsed" as evidence of a bomb rigged building is a good example of the kind of idiocy I'm talking about.

[Lurkah]

Heh, that's so remarkably stupid even I have been coaxed out of lurking. Indeed the temperatures involved were probably not high enough to *melt* steel but at around about 1,000 Celcius, steel's 'strength' if you like, drops to around about 10% of room temperature strength. Easily sufficient for a collapse when the concrete outer structures have, as shown, sufficiently ablate due to the blaze. This is a fact well known and accounted for in building design, which is why fire proof cladding to the support steel structure was in place. Even though, oddly enough, it's not generally assumed that one has a blast furnace lying around. <chuckle>

 

The cladding mentioned was dislodged from several floors in the violence of the impact through purely kenetic factors. The same factors that already destroyed a number of supports and left others weaked and vulnerable to the high temperature fire. When the floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns, this led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and initiating the collapse of each of the towers. We even have computer models to show us what happened.

 

Honestly, if you really *were* an engineer, then you could just as easily avail yourself of the five years worth of discussion of the events that have been ongoing in engineering journals ever since. Discussions which have important and current ramifications for the design of new high rise buildings.

 

But of course all of us real engineers are in on it too right?

[Dr_Dave]

There are thousands of building fires every year in the world. Buildings do not collapse like that in real life - it's simply a matter of physics and design. Why do you think diesel engines are made of steel - Einstein? To melt steel you need +1300 degrees C. To get to that temperature in a diesel fire you would need to pump through superheated air (like in a blast furnace) - otherwise we'd have cars exploding all the way down the M6.

 

Wow, thanks for the metalurgy lesson mate. I now consider myself up-to-speed on structural mechanics, and feel qualified to comment.

 

I'm a huge fan of the old videogame "Rampage". In this, you play a giant monkey and you climb up buildings, smashing them with your giant monkey fist and eating the occupants. After a certain amount of physical damage had been done, the building would collapse. Downwards.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting for one minute that a giant monkey caused the collapse of WTC7 - though if you put up a badly coded HTML page, then you'll probably start a popular movement. Nor am I suggesting that Rampage has anything relevant to say on this topic, but it always kind of creeps into my mind when talking about this subject. CT whackos constantly harp on about the fact that fire has never brought down steel frame buildings like WTC7 prior to 11/9/2001, but they always neglect one small, but essential fact:

 

A few hours earlier, two half a million tonne buildings had collapsed in the vicinity.

 

Do you not think this might have contributed to the fall of WTC7? Just a little? Have you read the NIST report? Do you have any idea of the extent of the damage that was done to the building? Here's a quote about the mauling it received:

 

On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.

 

(remind me, are NIST quotes allowed or are they part of the conspiracy and not admissable?)

 

Combine this with the fact that the building was on fire (fed by the pressurised diesel generator lines from the basement) and you have a building that is in trouble.

 

To be honest though, I am not an engineer, and certainly have no structural experience, so I'll have to bow to you on this one. As an engineer (I'm assuming you're a structural engineer, right?) which do you think is more likely:

 

- a building that suffered extensive physical damage, that burned for a significant amount of time, collapsed.

 

or

 

- a building was rigged to explode by the owner and a number of unnamed conspirators, who relied on the building being sufficiently damaged by the terrorist attack (that they somehow knew about) such that when they decided to destroy it, the world's onlooking media and combined structural and mechanical engineering expertise failed to realise that this wasn't a natural collapse. Oh, and that the owner also publically announced his intention to blow it up on national radio, thus ruining his well oiled scheme ("Pull it!").

 

Funny, most of what you have written was in Johan Hari's column in the Independent newspaper yesterday - pretty much word for word. Is that just coincidence or another conspiracy theory perhaps? Anyone can repeat what other people tell them, or spout someone elses opinion - it's when you think for yourself that things get really interesting.

 

Plagurising the Independent? I feel flushed with the indignity of it all! Slim, bring me my dueling gloves!

 

To defend my besmirched honour though, I will point out that I was plagurising nobody but myself, albeit in an abreviated fashion. Kudos to Johan Hari though, it seems that he/she has got the gift of common sense!

 

Dave

[The Bastard]

I'm still baffled why a so-called engineer would be confused about "diesel fire" with the WTC collapse, when the only citation of diesel involvement was in the fire that raged in the fifth floor of WTC7. Of course, aircraft don't use diesel fuel, they use kerosene-based blends that burn in a typical temperature range between 427 and 816 degrees celsius, so the core collapse of WTC1 and 2 is not surprising. The damage to WTC7 was not exclusively as a result of fire - read the account below of accessory damage to the load-bearing structures, which is clearly visible in the WTC7 footage.

 

Popular Mechanics has a feature talking about ignition temperatures and steel failures in the WTC. Unless they're all part of the massive conspiracy to use basic laws of physics to confuse the "real" story :

 

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

 

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

and the WTC7 collapse :

 

WTC 7 Collapse

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

 

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

 

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

 

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

 

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

 

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

 

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

EDIT : More WTC7 information

[Albert Tatlock]

Every 110 story building hit by an airliner has collapsed, isn't that enough solid evidence for your average tin hat wearing nutter? Seems to be enough in reverse...

But WTC7 was a 47 storey building NOT hit by an airliner. It suffered fire damage only. The point is - experience and probability shows this simply does not happen.

 

Having read the report Chinahand referenced yesterday, I remain to be convinced - either way, but currently am leaning more toward a deliberate act.

 

There is simply not enough evidence available to draw a conclusion, and I don't know where you get the idea (3000 miles away having got all of your information off the TV and in Newspapers) that there is.

[Slim]

But WTC7 was a 47 storey building NOT hit by an airliner. It suffered fire damage only. The point is - experience and probability shows this simply does not happen.

 

OK then, I'll make it obvious as you're clearly hard of thinking. Every building that's been on fire AND had two 110 story buildings collapse on it's doorstep has collapsed. That good enough?

 

Having read the report Chinahand referenced yesterday, I remain to be convinced - either way, but currently am leaning more toward a deliberate act.

 

Indeed, the deliberate attack of flying two airliners into the twin towers. Glad you've grown some sense.

 

There is simply not enough evidence available to draw a conclusion, and I don't know where you get the idea (3000 miles away having got all of your information off the TV and in Newspapers) that there is.

 

Yes, agreed. If you ignore five years of in depth and credible research by people who actually know what they're talking about.

[The Bastard]

But WTC7 was a 47 storey building NOT hit by an airliner. It suffered fire damage only

 

Incorrect. WTC7 was significantly damaged by falling debris, as you'd expect for a building in such close proximity to the disaster.

 

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

[Albert Tatlock]

I don't know how you can be so sure in your views. I'm sticking with 'undecided' and 'insignificant evidence' with regard WTC7.