9/11 Was an Inside Job

Ah now I wish I had seen that. The problem there is, the support beams are designed specifically to not fall even if the floor itself does. Remember, the construction firm who built those towers designed them with the idea of being able to withstand, not one hit, but three hits by larger commercial planes than the 757.

And even if that were true, that doesn't explain the third building that fell. It didn't use the same construction method. Ugh... questions questions questions.

Hi Andy,
Ill just throw in my two cents for discussion purposes. Firstly, the building was designed to withstand being hit by a 707 which is not larger than a 757 despite having 4 engines. Also, it was designed to not topple over from the impact which it didnt.

Also, there is not a single highrise building in the world that has been engineered to withstand the impact and fire that the WTC sustained.

As for the third building, IIRC it was more or less right across the street and when you have that much destruction and debris and all happening, it would not surprise me WTC7 came down.
 
Werbung:
Well maybe but...

Hi Andy,
Ill just throw in my two cents for discussion purposes. Firstly, the building was designed to withstand being hit by a 707 which is not larger than a 757 despite having 4 engines. Also, it was designed to not topple over from the impact which it didnt.

Also, there is not a single highrise building in the world that has been engineered to withstand the impact and fire that the WTC sustained.

As for the third building, IIRC it was more or less right across the street and when you have that much destruction and debris and all happening, it would not surprise me WTC7 came down.

But... uh... if you look at sky view pictures, the debris was fairly well contained within a small area. The building collapsed inward on itself. Which that alone is fairly remarkable. Plus, the video of the 3rd tower is pretty clear... there wasn't much damage to it at all!

Further, perhaps you are right, but the testimony of the engineers who built the building specifically stated that it was designed to handle as much fire and damage as the largest full loaded, fully fueled commercial jet of the day, could dish out... times 3!

I would be far more accepting of what you say... if not for the archived videos of the twin towers being built and the engineers boasting that they made it specifically to withstand the exact scenario that occurred, only with 3 planes instead of 1.
 
if you look at sky view pictures, the debris was fairly well contained within a small area. The building collapsed inward on itself. Which that alone is fairly remarkable. Plus, the video of the 3rd tower is pretty clear... there wasn't much damage to it at all!
Without knowing which shot you are referencing, I cant comment exactly, but most buildings that collapse do so on top of itself. any number of the publicized building or stadium implosions will show this.
Gravity pull straight down.
Further, perhaps you are right, but the testimony of the engineers who built the building specifically stated that it was designed to handle as much fire and damage as the largest full loaded, fully fueled commercial jet of the day, could dish out... times 3!
I never saw any claims of three times, but I do know thier were claims of being able to sustain a 707, which was the standard in the 60s. This of course all stems from back in WWII a b-25 medium bomber struck the Empire State Building in a fog. Of course the physics involved are exponentially larger with a 757 compared to a B-25.

As for the claims of being able to withstand those impacts, I will also point out that the Titanic could never be sunk was claimed far and wide. The fact of the matter is that for the forces involved, it is amazing those buildings didnt crumble immediately and stood for a long enough time to let thousands of people make it out of the buildings and survive.
 
Not likely.

Without knowing which shot you are referencing, I cant comment exactly, but most buildings that collapse do so on top of itself. any number of the publicized building or stadium implosions will show this.
Gravity pull straight down.

I never saw any claims of three times, but I do know thier were claims of being able to sustain a 707, which was the standard in the 60s. This of course all stems from back in WWII a b-25 medium bomber struck the Empire State Building in a fog. Of course the physics involved are exponentially larger with a 757 compared to a B-25.

As for the claims of being able to withstand those impacts, I will also point out that the Titanic could never be sunk was claimed far and wide. The fact of the matter is that for the forces involved, it is amazing those buildings didnt crumble immediately and stood for a long enough time to let thousands of people make it out of the buildings and survive.

Not so. Buildings with uncontrolled fires normally fall toward the side that the structure is weakened. They never fall straight down. Just like a tree that is hacked on one side, will fall toward that side, so to does a building in which one side is eaten out by fire.

The fact there was an implosion indicates a problem. Uncontrolled fires to not naturally have implosions.

Only in a controlled demolition are there implosions and does the building fall into it's own basement.

I do not see it as amazing at all. These buildings were designed to handle hurricane force winds across the entire height of the building. Do you think the force of wind and rain at hurricane level is less than a plane with a little fuel? No it is not.

I suffered through the first video in the original post. It is difficult for me to watch because of the amount of human life lost... but nevertheless, the video is very well done. I would suggest you watch it.

If you can watch the entire video and answer for yourself on a scientific level the questions raised in the video, then I for one will admit you are a better man than me. I simply can't. The video evidence, the personal witnesses, the laws of physics broken... I don't have the answers.

I do know the lame attempt to pin this on the current president is a joke. Whatever went down, it could not have possibly been setup in a few months time... no way, no how.
 
Hi Andy,
I did go and take the time to download the smallest movie that was about 20minutes long, considering my connection, it took well over 3 hours. But that alright.

A few things, as for WTC 7, I dont know enough about the detail to make any confident judgement. That being said, I am not one who thinks 9-11 was an inside job and despite what some theorists would demand, sometimes questions go unanswered because a correct answer isnt known.

For for the burning points and melting point of steel etc, from the show and what I have read, the points to keep in mind is that steel does not need to reach its melting point to make it structurally weak enough to not hold up to its normal specs. Also, there was more than just jet fuel burning there as you probably know. Everything in the office setting burst into flames adding to the firestorm that caused those buildings to come down.

As for them not coming down like a tree, this is something that I have thought about, having sawed more than few trees down myself. So if one were to have crashed those aircraft or a similar amount of structural damage at the base of the building you may have seen this.

As for the pancaking scene, I am not an engineer, but it seems to me, that once the structure is weaked around the fire scene that the 20+ floors above fall onto it, it of course makes for a domino effect.

Also, the debris field at ground zero was quite xtensive from what I understand. Dust and soot covered everything for blocks, debris was all around the surrounding area. Including the roofs of other nearby buildings.

Regardless Andy, I realise that not all of the answers can be provided to every question. That does not mean the US government had anything to do with the actions of 19 radicals who brought it upon themselves to target innocent civilians and the heart of our military and financial arteries.
 
Hard to explain it all

I started to respond and found myself mumbling on and on, so I'll try and give the highlights.

Yes, steel does lose half it's strength at around 900C....
Color of flame determines temp. Flames at WTC were red, indicating temps of under 500C.
Smoke indicates oxygen staved fire. (lower temps)
Steel was protected by foam. Despite claims, the company that made the foam says it would not have been 'knocked off' by the blast.
The Steel was certified to handed the temps of an inferno by Underwriters Laboratory.
FEMA's report says most of the jet fuel burned with the initial hit. That big orange fire ball, that quickly went out.
There are pictures of people looking out from the hole in the side of the building. Would a person be able to survive looking out from a hole were supposedly temps of 900C existed? Not a chance my friend.

So what else could burn? The floors were concrete, the frame steel, and everything was covered with fire retardant asbestos. What would burn? Paper and wood furniture.
Problem: both paper and wood burn at a lower temp than jet fuel.

Issue: There was no 'firestorm'.
So, again even there, the temps needed to reach 900C required to half the strength of steel... could not have been reached.

But even then, we have another issue. See, melted steel was found! There was melted steel at the ground zero. So even if the fire was somehow hot enough to bring the building down, there is no way in science for it to melt it, yet it was melted... We have an impossibility here. Unless... something else was used.

And look at this real quick
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html
Note how the steel support pillar directly above the fireman's head, is cut at a perfect 45º angle. This is typical of a demolition charge used to break through a support pillar. Note that all the base support pillars are cut that way... at ground level! Now how does a plane hitting that 80th floor, cut a perfect 45º angle cut through a pillar at the ground level?

Also note in the first photo how the metal is melted around the cut... not just sliced through, but melted through. Again, how does a 300º-500º fire at the 80th floor, melt a perfect 45º angle cut through a support beam at ground level?

Forget that even. What if the plane hit the lobby dead on, with a full load of fuel, ok... still explain what melted that beam! Forget that, fill the whole lobby with fuel... again... what melted that beam! (and I have come to find out, neither plane had a full load of fuel)

You know.. I want to believe those crazy Jihadist did it all, but how do I explain that? I can't. There must have been help.
 
OK Andy, here is part 1 of at least 2. I need to spread out my posts as if they become to long it wont let me post and I lose the whole thing.
Here is why I am skeptical of the conspiracies, especially those that involve shaped charges. Also, after doing a quick bit of research it was 767's that crashed into the respective towers.
A 767 is a twin engine, twin aisle cabin commercial jetliner. It is the third largest type Boeing makes currently, behind the 747 and 777.

Using cautious estimates, each of those buildings were struck by projectiles weighing 200,000lbs each, going at easily 350mph, carrying at minumum 5,000 gallons of jet fuel.

That is an extraordinary impact, and one that no highrise building in the world could survive. I think you are possibly overlooking the damage to the structure when that happens. Also, your assertion of the use of secondary explosives makes little sense. If you were going through the trouble of doing that,
why not set them off at the same time?
Why stagger them and allow more people to escape?
Why bother with the airplanes if the bombs would do?
Why bother with the bombs when the airplane alone would work?
 
Andy, the reason melted steel may have been found at the bottom might be becasue when it all collapsed the heat was trapped in a huge smouldering infero at ground zero, getting hotter than before? I don't know to be honest, I don't claim to be someone with any expertise in the field, and its why I don't go around making judgements about 9/11.
 
Thanks!

Andy,
Here is the PM site that talks about debunking the 9-11 theories. Page 6 or so I think sums up pretty well what I think happened and explains it enough for me to be satisfied, especially much more than the other conspiracy stuff.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

A number of the ill-advised crack pot theories are addressed, but then I never gave them serious thought anyway. Was flight 93 shot down? Does it really matter? Honestly I don't know, not sure it makes a difference. Clearly it was taken over. Clearly the terrorist intended to flight it into a building. Would I, myself, as Commander in Chief, shoot down a passenger jet knowing if I didn't, it may fly into a building? That's hard to answer. Plus there would be no way of knowing the passenger were going to try and regain control, and even if I did, there's no way I'd be certain of their success. So all in all, not sure it matters. The other theories are, neat, but unimportant.

LOBBY
Sorry, but I am a nerdy science buff, and I can spot this a mile away. So a plane hits the side of the north tower, bursts into a huge fire ball. Jet fuel that is designed to vaporize quickly, is aided by a large blast, while already burning..... is ... going.... to 'spill'... down an elevator shaft?... and do so with... force enough to blow out the entire ground level floor... er... from the elevator shaft.... No. Sorry. That is NOT an explanation.

The fuel would have to be in liquid form, which it wouldn't be after that impact... and then not be ignited, which it clearly was.... and pool at the ground level, which it would not do since the elevator shaft goes down another 4 or 5 levels into the ground below the lobby. NO! Sorry, that is OBVIOUSLY wrong. Even if all the other scientific impossibilities suddenly were true... there would be no reason for the force of the explosion to vent at the lobby rather than the parking garage, or in the floors above the lobby.

Only if there was an explosion at the sub-basement would the force be released at the first above ground level... the lobby.

MELTED STEEL
It covers the melted steel... but it doesn't. It simply says the steal didn't have to melt, only get hot enough to flex and bend. This ignores that IT DID MELT. Look at the picture I posted. That steel *is* melted! So what did that?

It also goes over Curtains and paper and furniture, but again, those items would burn cooler than Jet fuel, still making it impossible to get hot enough to bend or sag, much less melt the steel.

PICT
Page 4 is neat. Note in the photo, the top of the building is intact. This is what would have been expected. If the floor had been burned out, the top should have remained in one piece. If all the support beams had been severed, the top should have slid off, like the photo shows. But instead seconds after this photo, the top disintegrates. Think of it like a stick planted in the ground... if you burn out the middle of the stick, the top falls off. This is what should have happened.

Also, note the dark red flames on the other tower. Again, this indicates a low temp burn, and doesn't look anything like an inferno. Go to Google Images and type in Building Inferno to get pictures of what a real inferno looks like. That looks more like a camp fire dying out.

GRAPHS
There is something vastly wrong with the graphs on page 5. Note how on the second graph, the plane impacts were larger, and had longer lasting readings, than the collapse of the entire building. Clearly something wrong.

Also note how prior to the plane crashes, there are a number of reading, while prior to the buildings collapse, it's nearly flat line. It should be flat line prior to both events. ...Unless there were explosions prior to the collapse, in which case the two upper readings would be expected, not the bottom ones. They seem reversed, but they are most certainly not correct.

BUILDING 7
The WTC 7 theory is complete hot air. Watch the videos. No one, as in, no one saw WTC 7 on fire until late afternoon. Yeah there were no firefighters there, because it wasn't of fire. Further, the buildings directly adjacent to the twin towers were vastly more damaged, but they were still standing. WTC 7 was barely touched, but it fell down after 1 hour of burning? No. Lastly, the diesel pump would not have been running. WTC 7 still had power.

However....
What is more telling is what Popular Mechanics didn't answer. Like all the people who testify to there being explosions. Or the audio recordings of firemen inside the building that do not indicate high temps. Or the news reports of explosions. To the audio tracks of explosions. Nor did they answer what caused the core to fall. Or how the Slurry walls in the basement of the building were damage. Nor does it cover what would cause chunks of metal to be ejected from the building with enough force to embed into buildings blocks away. Or how concrete floors pancaking, turn into pulverized dust. Nor what caused the large blooms of white smoke to appear at the base of the building just prior to the collapse. Or how a woman can stand in the hole where the plane hit, while supposedly 900ºC temps existed there weakening steel.

Thank you very much for your link though. I had been looking for such a report. Sadly, I think that due to the lacking, illogical, and scientifically unsound explanations, combined with all the vast amount of questions they conveniently didn't answer.... I am now more convinced than before, the terrorist clearly didn't do it alone.
 
What are we supposed to do with the IP? Send it to the FBI? It's only some pathetic individual hiding behind a computer.
 
What are we supposed to do with the IP? Send it to the FBI? It's only some pathetic individual hiding behind a computer.

the post was from a group in Germany. and threatened retaliation.
I don't think you understand this terrorism thing.
no, the feds pick up the IPs themselves, but you should keep a record for your own protection.
 
Werbung:
First yea there where explosions in building 7...they had generators with large fuel storage units with them...oddly did not mix with fire well. As for the "pull it" thing that was said...1 pull it has zero meaning for setting off a controlled demo..2 it was to the fire chief saying the fire was to bad, and everyone was out. so pull the fire fighters out and not risk losing more lives to save a empty building.

Does anyone think that on any building that
1. they could find enough people willing to kill Americans for no reason realy as a government plot?
2. that none would talk?
3. no one planning it would talk?
4. that no one would notice them setting up bombs in the buildings?
5. they would bomb buildings just to blow them up...when they already have 747's loaded with people flying into them?
6. they could also set up all the hijackings with out anyone talking?
7...even more people in the government willing to kill civilians helping set up the planes
8. for idiots that don't believe a plane hit the pentagon..A...that many people saw it...2 that people died on the plane ( or are they all fake people with fake friends and relatives set up by the government as well?) or that a plane that dive bombs into a building at full speed...leaves wreckage like a normal plane crash where they are trying to land or just taking off and slow speeds with a will to survive it?
9 If they shot down one of the flights? they would not tell us? It would been on of the only things they did right that day...what you think they felt the public would yell at them for shooting down a suicide plane aiming for the white house? ( that was the target of the pentagon plane it is believed as well..but was not able to hit it, so just went for the pentagon when it saw it.
10. that the bush admin has the ability to pull of something like this if they wanted? Come on really? Name one thing they have not botched beyond all hope and repair?
 
Back
Top