9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Well, which other naturally collapsing buildings have fallen sideways? Does the design of the WTC buildings suggest that their designers might have intended them to fall directly down, or topple over to hit Manhattan like a giant domino? The physical evidence supports a normal collapse, not demolition. Why else do pieces falling off the tower - those breaking away from it at any stage, I might add, as can be seen in the videos - always fall faster than the tower itself? Surely these pieces are in literal free-fall.

I would not expect all three to be so perfect (as near to) I would have expected the building to absorb most of the impact as some floors collapsed and end up with this...

as in madrid. If you put WTC7 in a video of demoliton it would not look out of place...the evidence of pervious similar/type problems...empire state building and the previous fire suggest's that it shouldn't have collapsed....

[Don't quote me on this] I heard ages ago that the WTC building's did not meet criteria for health and safety throughout the buildings and i'm wondering what the cost would have been to take down the WTC and rebuild it opposed to just re-building it........as some financiers would value saving billions of dollars over a few 1,000 lives it can't be ruled out the callousness of some people, And still my eyes do not see what i'm supposed to see I see demolition at work especially WTC 7

 

[MacGyver1968]

Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

It wasn't a B-52 bomber...it was a B-25 Mitchell...a propeller aircraft, that is much, much smaller than a 767. It was also travelling at a much slower speed and was carrying much less fuel.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[shaman_]

So what caused the fire in WTC 7.........?

I don't know. The building was damaged by the falling debris. There were generators that contained diesel fuel. A gas main could have caught fire, electrical equipment.. There are a few possibilities.

Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

The 767 wieghs ten times more at take off, flies twice the speed and carries ten times the fuel.

The damage caused by the B-52 doesn't compare.

In 1975 WTC 1 suffered a major fire and did not collapse.....!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html

Again, not even close to 9/11. From that link -

"Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries."

Here is some comparison's to other major fires in similar structures
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
Also claims that the jet fuel would have burnt itself out after 10 mins....no its still not a clean cut issue

Planes didn't fly into any of those buildings, which were all smaller than the WTC.

Lets look at the Madrid Windsor Towers. The results of this fire actually support the official explanation, not the conspiracy. The steel in that building collapsed due to the fire! The building only stayed up because the building was framed with concrete.

10,000 gallons of jet fuel will do some damage even if it did burn out in a matter of minutes.

 

[snake river rufus]

So why did you reply to my post. Before you reply go and watch the Documentary.

I do not need to watch a documentary or any show that flies in the face of the laws of physics and established facts. It would be a waste of my time.

 

[snake river rufus]

Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

In 1975 WTC 1 suffered a major fire and did not collapse.....!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html

The planes did not disintegrate on impact, you can clearly see the aft section (tail) sticking out of the builbings watching news footage from any of the networks present. The Empire state building was structurally different- so no true comparison. The B-25 is much smaller and lighter than todays jetliners- so again, no true comparison.
The 1975 fire did not include tons of aircraft and aviation fuel, so again- no true comparision.

 

[snake river rufus]

I would not expect all three to be so perfect (as near to) I would have expected the building to absorb most of the impact as some floors collapsed and end up with this...

as in madrid. If you put WTC7 in a video of demoliton it would not look out of place...the evidence of pervious similar/type problems...empire state building and the previous fire suggest's that it shouldn't have collapsed....

Your expectations are based on what? Formal traing? Practical training? What experience do you have to make expectations?

 

[snake river rufus]

[Don't quote me on this] I heard ages ago that the WTC building's did not meet criteria for health and safety throughout the buildings and i'm wondering what the cost would have been to take down the WTC and rebuild it opposed to just re-building it........as some financiers would value saving billions of dollars over a few 1,000 lives it can't be ruled out the callousness of some people, And still my eyes do not see what i'm supposed to see I see demolition at work especially WTC 7

The safety issue was related to asbestos, which was removed years ago. Ironically the thing that was removed from the studs and trusses years ago might have kept those buildings standing.
The rest of your post is idle speculation.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Your expectations are based on what? Formal traing? Practical training? What experience do you have to make expectations?

on other buildings in near similar situations that have had worse fires...

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

The safety issue was related to asbestos, which was removed years ago. Ironically the thing that was removed from the studs and trusses years ago might have kept those buildings standing.

Thought there was lack of sprinklers, proper fire escapes ang a whole heap of other things...

The rest of your post is idle speculation.

Entirely

 

[snake river rufus]

on other buildings in near similar situations that have had worse fires...

Umm, there are no other buildings in similar situations. So again I have to ask "what are you basing your conjecture on?"

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I don't know. The building was damaged by the falling debris. There were generators that contained diesel fuel. A gas main could have caught fire, electrical equipment.. There are a few possibilities.

But none known..

The 767 wieghs ten times more at take off, flies twice the speed and carries ten times the fuel.

And the building was smaller...

FROM LINK...In response to this question one reader wrote:
"I would submit that none of the other buildings were hit by a heavy aircraft moving at 500 miles per hour, which sheared off many beams, support structures, etc. The shock to the tower must have been tremendous! Isn't this obvious?"
It may be "obvious" that a heavy plane hitting a skyscraper would deliver a "tremendous" shock, but it doesn't follow that the building must therefore collapse. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber, but it was still standing last time I saw it. "Ah yes, but it was the impact plus the fires!" Well, when the B-25 hit the Empire State Building "its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames", as we read at Empire State Building Withstood Airplane Impact.

Lets look at the Madrid Windsor Towers. The results of this fire actually support the official explanation, not the conspiracy. The steel in that building collapsed due to the fire! The building only stayed up because the building was framed with concrete.

10,000 gallons of jet fuel will do some damage even if it did burn out in a matter of minutes.

Yes, but the floors on the madrid towers collapsed and did not cause the collapse of the tower..

 

[snake river rufus]

Thought there was lack of sprinklers, proper fire escapes ang a whole heap of other things...

No there was not a "Heap of other things". Please get your facts straight.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, but the floors on the madrid towers collapsed and did not cause the collapse of the tower..

Smaller tower. And the fire protection wasn't sheared off by a plane hitting it.

 

[shaman_]

But none known..

We don't know for sure no. But there are likely mundane reasons and no evidence for any suspicious ones.

And the building was smaller...

8 floors smaller. WTC - 417m, Empire state building - 381m. Not that much of a difference. Not like the difference between the planes in question.

Yes, but the floors on the madrid towers collapsed and did not cause the collapse of the tower..

WTC did not have the concrete support that the Madrid towers did, and again no 767 was involved.

 

[snake river rufus]

While it may not be appearant to some posters that different design and construction of buildings does make a difference. As does the mass added to the near top of a building.
All fires and buildings are not the same.

 

[James911]

I do not need to watch a documentary or any show that flies in the face of the laws of physics and established facts. It would be a waste of my time.

So How will you build your own judjment if you don't look at the 911 events from different angles? Or maybe you like to live in your cocoland.

 

[James911]

Yeah. James, it was aluminum, not steel.

You keep talking on and on about aluminum to disproof that steel melted.

Can you explain how this WTC steel beam bent?

Listen to one of the 911 investigator said about hight temperature that day which reached more than 2000 degree C:
Shourly at 2000 degree C steel will melt.

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl examines steel from the World Trade Center. [Source: University of California, Berkeley]An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11.

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/7/2001]

 

[John99]

So How will you build your own judjment if you don't look at the 911 events from different angles? Or maybe you like to live in your cocoland.

I remember that aCCENT. your with the nazi's.

 

[Stryder]

Can you explain how this WTC steel beam bent?

Simply yes. It was connect to another beam that collapsed with the force of many other floors on top, which would bend the steel beam back like the hinge on a door.

This is proven if you look very closely at the I-Beam, you'll notice that it's actually Stretched not just bent.

Listen to one of the 911 investigator said about hight temperature that day which reached more than 2000 degree C:
Shourly at 2000 degree C steel will melt. ... etc.

Extreme temperatures are highly likely if the fire is enclosed and fed correctly. One thing that is mentioned by the conspiracy buff's is the use of certain explosives (Thermite) to take the building down, however this is actually completely inaccurate.

The higher floors of the buildings architecture comprised a lot of having aluminium in it's structure. The reason for this was to lessen the overall building weight so it could be built higher. This of course generated a problem when a fire was introduced.

Aluminium doesn't just melt at a low temperature, it's also claimed to be highly combustible. This is also proven since it's actually a component of what makes up Thermite, all it would of required in this particular scenario was a high temperature fire and Steel I-beams that would of flaked off Iron Oxide (rust) and you have an explosive mix. Technically those buildings were a Firetrap/Hazard that should of been closed down along time ago which probably weren't because of their "Monument" status.

Btw Thermite is used in Welding (It's actually the a main material for the makeup of welding rods), I know that steel can easily be cut with a welding Rod if heat is right. So if aluminium melted onto the joints of the I-Beams and then superheated as the beam was brought up to temperature it would explain the collapse and melting of joints.

 

[snake river rufus]

So How will you build your own judjment if you don't look at the 911 events from different angles? Or maybe you like to live in your cocoland.

I have looked at it from different angles, ruled out the nutty ones pretty quickly. cocoland seems to be your address, unless you can come up with any evidence?