Take this for what it's worth. I have heard other rumblings along these lines out there, but this is the first time I've seen in in semi-mainstream media. Link added by request
theres a video of this... we have already had a lot of discussion on this matter and it ended up in people banned because of it lol. Have you got a link to this article?
Yea i would really like to have the link to that google video if anyone still has it. This has to be one of the most interesting coverups i have ever come across considering that alot of the evidence is right there and yet no one wants to investigate it.
One person got banned because he thought "discussion" meant: "inundating the forums with copy-and-paste text from consipracy sites while ignoring counter-arguments and ranting at and insulting all those who dare to challenge your opinion". If people can discuss this rationally and politely, the mods have no problem with this, regardless of what opinion you hold. All points raised in the quote in the first post, by the way, have been challenged with factual evidence or at least equally plausible alternative explanations. But I leave you with this psychological consideration: when an event occurs that lies outside one's established beliefs of what can happen, one tries to cram it into one's framework of beliefs rather than to adjust the beliefs (there are sound psychological reasons for this --not just stupidity or obstinacy or something). The more outrageous the event, the more extreme the "reframing" that needs to take place. I think that is what we are seeing here. Just my penny's worth.
I have the video on my computer, might upload it later - unelss someone finds it on google. I saw a documentary on this recently, and the programme showed theories from both sides, tbh either could be true. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik it has been proven that masses amount of fuel exploding combined with the extreme heat will have weakened the steel structure, rather than melted. If the melting point of steel is 2700F, the structure would have been weakened after tons of fuel had been burned at 2000F? With this combined with the explosion, the building would not withstand it, also there were already structual problems with the WTC - which was actually demonstrated in another documentary, nothing to do with 9/11. Which leads me to believe that the building did collapse because of the impact. When one of the towers fell, part of the top tilted somewhat, I would've thought if there was a controlled explosion, the building would have collapsed perfectly perpendicular to the ground, rather than tilting? But I could be wrong. I really don't know who to beleive, but I would rather think the terrorist theory is correct, if it leaked that the us government actually planned this, would there be another civil war? Or a full blown world war? Hopefully not.
During my first year at university, I came back from class and my roommate was watching the news. We watched the story covering the first plane collision, and then the second, and then the collapse of the towers. In the live footage, you could see people jumping out of the trapped buildings to their deaths after they realized an escape attempt would be futile. When you think about the sheer momentum, you can imagine that a jet liner and all of its momentum could initially inflict massive damage to a structure, even a supported skyscraper. A jet liner full of highly reactive fuel would be enough to collapse a floor. Once one floor collapses, the chain reaction cannot be stopped, as the massive momentum from the above floor motions could overcome structural supports that have already been weakened. I took the bus home later that weekend and saw the thick smoke still rising from ground zero. I visited a few friends that weekend as well, as spoke with one friend who shook a finger out of her hair on the 11th. This event disrupted everyone's lives, especially those of personal connection to NYC. I went to HS everyday for four years taking the subway to the underground WTC pavillion frequently. To describe the sheer number of people who move through the transportation hub there, let alone the thousands that belong in the area isn't easy as I've only seen similar crowds (in terms of the density of people) at the entrances of sold-out professional sports stadiums. The economic disruption to the city/state/country alone should be enough to quench any fanatic conspiracy theories. Aside from that, there is no civilized democratic country which would inflict such a tragedy on its own population in order to bring about desired administration changes. The buildings were designed to withstand collisions from small propeller planes, not jumbo-sized jets packed with volatile fuel. The kinetics/physics behind the atrocities also serve to dismiss any conspiracy theory that the collapses were doctored. I also believe that this thread should be closed since it WILL lead to problems as a lot of people have very strong feelings about 911. I don't care if I risk banishment, I will not censor myself if anyone strongly supports a conspiracy theory since it implies that they believe my government authorized the murder of thousands of people just to gain support for the administration. It is easy to throw out "discoveries" and "facts" and "results derived from professional studies". Show me a reference and I guarantee it can be torn apart by either myself or any of my peers in various engineering departments. EDIT: It may pay to think about an aluminum can. When we were younger, we stood on cans and then flicked them. Even a small flick caused enough instability for our weight to crush the cans. A human leg is capable of sustaining a good several hundered lbs of weight. Attack the leg from the side, and the instability coupled with the weight can cause sever breakage. Take a steel beam. Add a strong lateral force and add other forces such as intense heat and explosive pressures. You'll then have a horrific domino collapsing effect.
Well all the linked article has is this list of unsubstantiated allegations and inferences. Which is always the problem with conspiracy theories, they demand impossible levels of proof of the existing story and then attempt to stick in muddled allegations about it, throw in a mass of largely irrelevant facts that come to hand and claim this is proof of something or other. Then link all of these half-baked bits into a some kind of pudding of a story that links it to everything else they've been banging about for years. The "distinguished experts and scholars" seem to be a bunch of washed-up politicians and whatnot that do the rounds with this stuff. at best this is a waste of time, if you were personally connected to the victims you might find it offensive.
People will continue to believe what they want to believe. No one will be convinced one way or another by any of this. My personal feeling is that all of these "theories" are invented by people with either too much time on their hands and furtile imaginations or by people who have an axe to grind with the Bush administration.
I find all there conspriacy theroies interesting, My own beleif on this tragic day was a group of unscropulous (SP) people hi-jacked a number of planes an inflict as much damage as possible and that happened, i saw the news reports, as they happend (like so many others) and i can fully beleive what the American Government have told the world. there are so many conspriacies about everything major in the world since people realised they could make alot of money selling books, TV programmes, Films on these conspriacies. Just a couple of ponits i would like to make from my own opnion The designer for the WTC was building the Petronas towers in Malaysia when this happened, the owner of Petronas was deeply worried about this happening to his towers and forced the designer to make a public speach on the construction of the WTC. in that he showed all the origional structual calcualtions he made when designing the WTC and said that he took into account a small plane hitting the side of the buildings as it had of happened before but there is no way you can accound for something as large as a 747 hitting to builing at about 300mph + and i beleive him as the forces involved are great when your talking about all that Mass, Weight and speed. I could be worng but cant you fly under the blanket of radar?? like fighter pilots do? when the first steam powered trains were being designed one blew up, debris was forun up to 2 miles from the explosion, back then there pressues and explosiveness was alot less of the plane hitting to ground and possibly exploding, or the plane was making sharp manouvers over and above its design threshold and broke up in flight due to the passengers trying to take over the plane from the treeorists.
Actually, you wouldn't even have to do that. Unlike military radars, civillian air traffic control radars do not actually "paint" the aircraft with a pulse and then read the return. Rather they send out a coded signal and the transponder on the aircraft replies with a signal which appears on the screen. Turn off the transponder and the aircraft becomes invisible on ATC radar, except at relatively short range. I agree that most of the points made in the article are dubious at best, however I thought it interesting that Y! news would pick it up, and in the business section at that. I don't know what happened that day, I think that the "standard" story is probably mostly correct, but there are enough inconsistecies that I think the topic is worthy of discussion.
/me puts metallurgist hat on. Melting point is irrelevant, heat a steel bar to bright red heat and it's easy to bend. Watch a blacksmith. A more significant point - this was not a terrorist plot to bring downthe two towers. The plan was surely the grand gesture of crashing the airliners into the towers; that they both then totally collapsed must have been beyond any possible expectations. No buildings expert would have forecast that. But **** happens. So what do the planners expect? A few hundred dead, lots of publicity. A lot of bluster, Bush loses face abroad and popularity with the American people because he doesn't do enough, whatever. However, taking the line it was planned and executed by the home team - ensuring a major atrocity with some carefully placed explosives. What was achieved? A messy invasion of Afghanistan, pure revenge, no profit from it, still dragging on. Iraq's still years down the road, too many variables to have that as a goal. The hawks get more money, more say. Legislation gets through that might otherwise be watered down or thrown out. Bush gets re-elected. It doesn't seem quite enough to justify the risk. Scores of people would need to know, somebody's going to leak some concrete facts. I can believe some military mind would dream up the scenario, I just can't believe everybody involved in its execution would keep their mouths shut.
This is pretty interesting, and I could well be convinced either way. But the question you have to ask yourself is: Do you trust the current US administration enough to believe they WOULDN'T try to orchestrate something like this.....?
Wow. I would highly suggest that anyone who is actually interested in this topic dig up the thread started by robbins1941 (or whatever his name was) before we removed him (note: he was removed not for disagreeing, but for spamming. Repeatedly. Then opening a new thread on the same topic when the first one was closed due to excessive spamming). If you ignore his posts (recommended), which were simply cut/pasting from various tin-foil-hat sites, we actually discussed the chemical and physical properties that would have resulted in the destruction, including torque, flash expansion, tempering, superheating/cooling, etc. I believe Nexxo, cpemma, specofdust, and I got pretty deep into the physics and chemistry of the entire situation, as well as a psychological analysis of why people cling to the desperate theory that the idea was fabricated (similar to holocaust denial). And I'd be willing to bet that between those of us on this board who participated in that discussion, we have more degree hours by twofold toward the relevant sciences than these 'experts' that those papers quote.
I thought that the heat to melt the steel was due to all the stuff in the tower burning, like furniture and all that rather than the fuel.
The flash of the explosion would cause significant initial surface warping and remove the spray on asbestos; the internal fire from furniture etc would indeed be sufficient to warp the steel. As for WTC 7, there was an emergency generator with tons of diesel fuel. That stuff gets kinda toasty The World Trade Center was a Hollow Tube with an inner tube providing support; in the second tower (first to fall), the core, and the adjoining outer tube corner, were significantly damaged by the explosion, and had a very concentrated fire. What happened next? As you might imagine, that point gave out. The World Trade Center's towers were not conventional steel structures; they were a new design, dependent on the relatively weak connection provided by the floors. It is quite reasonable for a fire to cause significant enough disruption of their physical strenth to result in collapse. The North Tower, the first hit, was dependant on the outer tube to hold up the structure due to the nature of the first impact-which more than likely knocked out virtually all of the core support columns. If you note the collapse, you'll notice the TV antannae drops slightly before the rest of the structure; this is highly suggestive of failure of the remaining core columns and the floor joist pieces. During the collapse, you could actually see humongous spikes of the outer tower jutting into the air before they fell over when too much of the lower structures were taken out. This is also compliant with internal structural failure. All this conspiracy stuff is completely rediculous to be quite honest.
Your concerns are valid and shared by myself, Stuey83. Rest assured that the mods will be keeping a very close eye on this thread to make sure that people discuss this rationally, and with the appropriate measure of respect and consideration for any possible readers who may have had friends or family killed in this tragedy.
personally... everyone is going to have mixed feelings and personal opinions about this topic. There have been theories and there is the story as we got it from the news. There will always be people who will not trust the facts and question what should have happened by text book specs and science. In terms of the heat issue with the steel many of the posters here have already noted that were were several factors this particular theory did not even take into about but merely threw out rough facts that have only minor things to do with this situation and they only apply if certain actions were to happen. Whats to say that these "theories" arent merely theorys in themselves in that someone is just trying to play you. For all we know half this information could be comming from somewhere that the US might actually be deployed to.. just like dissention. Cause the people to loose trust in your government and you have done your job if you are the enemy. Im sure the US has people in war torn areas that are promoting the US or cause dissention from their government... Roto has it right by me... just another attempt to raise emotions and cause trouble and simply put a waste of time. If you wanna quit your job or school and devote your life to proving your theory correct... then do it but im going to go enjoy my life and take it for what it is.
Here's a link to the pentagon video: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php I agree that most of the article is a stretch. Now if they could prove that the government knew about the attacks before they happened, I might be able to believe that. I believe that the US government knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened. Without Pearl Harbor being attacked, America might not have ever entered the war; at least until it was too late. Just like FDR, the Bush administration needed to start a fire under the American people to gain support for a war no matter how atrocious it was. I'm not saying that I believe this is what happened, I just think that it is possible. commence berating me.....now
i think they say stuff about the melting point of steel... because they find molten steel underground 2 weeks later.... but thats only what i can remeber from watching the video a few months back so i could be wrong
I actually dont find that you need to argue about the world trade centers collasping, because it could of easilly have been done by detonation as floor collapsing and there is evidence for both (more so on the collapsing, and i pretty much believe thats what happened) but people never really talk about the pentagon. I'll include these pics before i talk about it Exit "Blow out" hole. after collapse (sorry, cant find a picture of it pre-collapse) Now as you can see, there are no wings, anywhere to be seen. If such a large plane would of crashed into that building, its wings would be left on the outside of the wall. Not only this but, where exactly is the plane? and how exactly did the plane crash through so many reinforced (remember, this was the only part of the pentagon that was reinforced) walls? Leaving only a tiny blow out hole?
