9/11 revisited

[ThERat]

Yesterday I stumbled upon some webpages and links regarding these events. Watching those videos, it's certainly pretty intruiging.
Here in Singapore we never hear of any discussions since it's restricted environment. However, are these theories discussed in Europe and USA?

I still thought that the pancake theory about the Twin Tower collapse was valid, but after watching these videos... Check out the links
be warned, first video is 40 min, second 1.42 hours

http://youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

 

[h4ppy]

Before I waste two and a half hours and miss The Apprentice, is this some of taht conspiracy stuff? (I can beleive it on that one building but not on the towers themselves)

 

[North King]

Thing is, the World Trade Center had most of its structural support on the outer parts of the building, which were quite clearly punched through. Combined with that the impact blew off the insulation on the steel on the building, and the fires being hot enough to melt steel, and the columns failed relatively near the same time. That meant that the top third came down with all its weight, and the building began to fall.

 

[ThERat]

Thing is, the World Trade Center had most of its structural support on the outer parts of the building, which were quite clearly punched through. Combined with that the impact blew off the insulation on the steel on the building, and the fires being hot enough to melt steel, and the columns failed relatively near the same time. That meant that the top third came down with all its weight, and the building began to fall.

this sounds exactly like the official version. However, from the video I understand that

1. the support for the Twin Towers came from 47 steel beams in the center of the building.
2. the temperature wasn't high enough to melt the steel beams
3. the pancake theory can not explain the free fall collapse
4. the 47 steel beams could not have collapsed like this, at least they should have still stuck out
5. why did the building next to it collapse the same way (a 47-storey building with fires at only 2 floors)

whatever it was, the official version does not convince me at all. The civil engineers in this forum could maybe enlighten me. It's the scientific explanations that are intruiging.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Who is putting forth these documentaries and what are their claims and credentials?

 

[ThERat]

Who is putting forth these documentaries and what are their claims and credentials?

while I agree that the 2nd video makes a lot of statements which need to be questioned as well, the 1st video has mainly original footage and talks given by people who's identity and background is clearly stated.

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

2. the temperature wasn't high enough to melt the steel beams

I remember reading the impact of the jets slaming into the towers knocked the fireproofing off of the steel beams. As for the temperatures there are alot of jet fuel in the jets and other fuel in the towers (wood, furniture, paper, ect). It could easily get high enought to weaken the steel beams.

 

[Red Stranger]

These are claims that can not be proven. In order to see if this can happen, 9/11 would need to happen again. It may need to happen several times before we can duplicate the results. But this won't be allowed to happen in the US. Not under a Republican president. Not under a Democrat president.

 

[North King]

this sounds exactly like the official version. However, from the video I understand that

1. the support for the Twin Towers came from 47 steel beams in the center of the building.
2. the temperature wasn't high enough to melt the steel beams
3. the pancake theory can not explain the free fall collapse
4. the 47 steel beams could not have collapsed like this, at least they should have still stuck out
5. why did the building next to it collapse the same way (a 47-storey building with fires at only 2 floors)

whatever it was, the official version does not convince me at all. The civil engineers in this forum could maybe enlighten me. It's the scientific explanations that are intruiging.

1. "Rather than a typical frame building curtained in stone or glass, it was in essence a giant steel lattice, acting almost like a bearing wall structure: that is, it was held up mostly by the closely spaced exterior columns, which, together with their cross members, formed a right-square, or Vierendeel-type truss." ~Robert Stern's New York 1960.

2. As mentioned before, the impact blew off the fireproofing. Specifically, steel in buildings is generally coated with, IIRC, zinc, which enamels it all around. This, however, is not actually structurally integrated as part of the metal, and the impact from the airplanes was actually sufficient enough to blow off the zinc coating.

3. Why not? It is a chain reaction effect. As one floor collapses on another, the floor beneath loses integrity as the weight is suddenly jarring it, while the ones on top are jarred by every impact in turn. Steel beams are not designed to have thousands of tons of metal falling against them.

4. The steel beams were not continuous structures, there are many of them. Therefore, they broke up, and landed in the scattered mess at "Ground Zero" as shown in all those pictures.

5. My guess is impact from debries off of the World Trade Center--notice how they threw off tonnes of material as they went down--and even more so seismic tremors, as 100 story buildings smashing into the ground is probably going to do some damage to the topsoil.

Furthermore, if it was all engineered, then why did they bother to blow up a puny office building that wasn't even part of the main complex as well? It's like saying "Well, since we blew up the Empire State Building, might as well blow up the rest of the buildings around it, too. Nah, actually, we'll just blow up one". Since I don't think that it would make much of an impact (pardon the pun), I doubt that the collapse of the 47 story building was anything other than a sideeffect of the main collapses.

 

[Urederra]

I am also very busy and i have other things to watch other than a 2:30 hours video, but one thing is for sure. The towers collapsed

What you have to ask is how it happened, not whether it happened.

 

[Irish Caesar]

5. why did the building next to it collapse the same way (a 47-storey building with fires at only 2 floors)

I'm not sure what the official conclusion is on this building (WTC-7?), but I heard that the owner decided it was structurally unsound enough that it should have been demolished for safety's sake either way. Whether that is what happened or not, I'm not sure.

 

[Padma]

Oh crap. Are we going to discuss these stupid conspiracy theories again? Search for the threads we've already had on this subject. They've all been debunked many times over....

 

[cgannon64]

3. the pancake theory can not explain the free fall collapse

The buildings were friggin designed to fall like that!

Also, I know nothing about structural engineering, but maybe this is simple enough to come to anyone: Isn't it possible that the steel beams were bent, rather than melted? Because actually melting the structure of a building sounds like a pretty radical, and damn near impossible, way to bring down a building. EDIT: This theory is actually stupid, since North King hit it on the head:

Thing is, the World Trade Center had most of its structural support on the outer parts of the building, which were quite clearly punched through.

Besides being why they fell, this is also why the World Trade Center was so ugly. And why, if you ever went in it, the windows were only a foot wide. Cuz all of the sides were support beams...

 

[Elrohir]

It was an airplane, not a cruise missile or a controlled demolition or whatever the latest wacked out theory is. This has been discussed to death many times; leave the poor horse alone already.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Steel doesn´t have to melt to lose its stability. When the temperature exceeds a certain point the crystal structure will change to a more softer configuration (As far as I remember from my courses it´s aroud 700°C, depends on the alloy additives). If you remember, smiths don´t melt the steel to form it, they heat it until it reaches the softer configuration and then they bend it.

 

[Azash]

According to the sadder viewpoints I've witnessed, anybody discussing 9/11 will refer to it as a declaration of war by Eurasia. Anyone else is a non-patriot.

 

[JohnRM]

As far as I am concerned, there were enough questions raised to warrant further investigation. While I respect the viewpoints of the many of you whom dismiss the conspiracy theories, entirely, there is none among you with any credibility to do so. You, like many of the conspiracy advocates, are simply repeating the same "facts" that were handed to you by the government and the media, not reporting actual data that you have discovered or obtained from an independent source.


What concerns me, are the facts that are not in dispute.


Collapse, Fire
1. No building, prior to 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire.
2. An errant B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building. It did not collapse.
3. Many other buildings have burned far more floors for as many as twenty-four hours, without collapsing, whilst these three buildings all did so in less than one hour with less than a dozen floors affected.
4. Multiple eye-witness accounts reporting secondary explosions, some of which we reported to have come from not from the impact area, but from floors much lower.
5. Massive otherwise unexplained damages in the lobbies of the WTC prior to the collapses, which cannot have come from fireballs down the elevator shafts due to them being hermatically sealed to prevent that exact occurance.
6. The collapse of WTC-7, rather than any of the other six buildings which were all closer to the Twin Towers. Even though WTC-5 was covered with debris from WTC-2, suffered heavy damage to its upper floors, was ravaged by fire from top to bottom, and then buried in debris from the collapse, it had to be demolished when it all was said and done. WTC-4 was ravaged by fire and falling debris, yet there was still an entire wing of the building left standing when all was said and done. WTC-3, which again, was ravaged by falling debris, with little evidence of fire, was heavily damaged, yet the steel frame of the building prevented its collapse. It had to be demolished, when all was said and done. WTC-6, with evidence of severe fire, heavy debris damage from the Twin Tower, and two gigantic holes in the roof extending straight to ground floor, did not collapse. Four buildings, right next to the Twin Towers, no collapse like we saw with WTC-7, which was twice the distance from the Twin Towers as the other buildings, which did not collapse (WTC-4 not entirely).


Other Unusual Events
1. Puts placed on various airline stocks in the days prior to the 9/11 attacks, which were in some cases five times the average volume.
2. The hasty removal and destruction of important evidence at the scene, specifically the transportation of the primary steel support structure to India, and other East Asian destinations.
3. The very quick connection to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, IIRC, no more than three hours after the attacks.
4. The fact that many of the hijackers that were supposed to have been on the flights, were later found to have been alive, in other countries.
5. Not a single jet fighter was to be seen in the skies above the Northeast, even hours after the WTC was hit. Not even after the Pentagon was hit. Not ever. Where were they?



Until someone adequately explains these things, excuse me if I put forth a giant "WTH?"

 

[Irish Caesar]

5. Not a single jet fighter was to be seen in the skies above the Northeast, even hours after the WTC was hit. Not even after the Pentagon was hit. Not ever. Where were they?

I also found that to be a surprise.

Another strange thing was that for most of the day, reports were that a fourth jetliner had been hijacked but was still in the sky. Later, it was mentioned that the first plane to hit WTC1 was in fact the missing jetliner. Before, reports were that it was a smaller plane.

Not enough to make me buy into a conspiracy theory, as I haven't looked into the situation, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Collapse, Fire
1. No building, prior to 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire.
2. An errant B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building. It did not collapse.
3. Many other buildings have burned far more floors for as many as twenty-four hours, without collapsing, whilst these three buildings all did so in less than one hour with less than a dozen floors affected.
4. Multiple eye-witness accounts reporting secondary explosions, some of?"

I'll dispute that.

It was a B-25 that accidently flew into the Empire State Building. Not a B-52. Or was that a typo?

Boaing 757 - Which was loaded with fuel and was traveling at around 600 mph when it struck the WTC.

767 specs
Weight: 395,000 Ib
Length: 159 ft
Feul Capacity: 24,000 gal.
-------------------------------------
North American B-25 - Which crashed into the Empire State Building and was unarmed and low on fuel after a long flight and was cruising at around 300 mph.

B-25 specs
Weight: 21,120 Ib
Length: 52 ft
Feul Capacity: 2,000 gal.

I think this issue is pretty much debunked.

 

[Xenocrates]

The US government knew that the towers would be subject to attack (was it in 1994 that the first attempt was made?).

It does not seem beyond imagining that explosives were placed in the buildings to ensure that they collapsed with a 'small' footprint rather than topple, causing more deaths.

I'm not saying that it's what happened but it's concievable that the planes did not directly cause the collapse.

If you knew that two very important buildings in the centre of your most important city were inevitable terrorist targets and you couldn't protect them from such an attack what would you do about it?

The big question is: if there were explosives there, why were they detonated when the towers had appeared to survive the attack? Who's decision was that and why?

If you remember there was also an anthrax scare shortly afterwards, which appears to have caused a feeling of panic. This attack has not yet been cleared up and I am deeply suspicious about that.

http://www.oilempire.us/anthrax.html
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/

There are many precedents in history for attacking yourself as a justification to start/enter a war.