I'm not an engineer or anything but I'd assume that modern skyscrapers are built in a way that if they should collapse for any reason they don't take out a ten block area in the direction of the fall. Just a guess. Doesn't fit the conspiracy theories at all. Those theories apparently choose to include worlds in which falling skyscrapers take out pieces of the city all the way up to Chambers Street or across to Wall Street. That'd be the obvious way to construct what were the world's tallest buildings at the time they were constructed, no?
I understand what you are saying,But there is still no way they fall like that. The top was cocked at an angle from where the damage was done. If it was able to on it's on pulverize the below floors,with the corner of the top leading the way,they wouldn't have stood that long anyway because they would have bee made of fairy dust. The fuel,unable to damage steel anyway to that degree,burst mostly on impact,which led to standard degree fires burning those floors for a hour or so. It's all just not possible. If there was no help at all,physics would have had the top of that building falling away,unless the floors on the way down are pre-destroyed.
How do you know that the buildings weren't built to collapse in that manner if a catastrophic event took off the top of the building? You keep saying things like "there is still no way they fall like that" and "It's all just not possible" when in fact you're not an engineer and you don't understand the physics in play. Face it, you're an idiot on the subject and you're being a loud idiot and saying things that you can't back up because you don't understand how modern skyscrapers are constructed. You're loudly expressing an opinion that has no basis in fact.
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel that comprised the inner structure of either building, yet the official reason given for the collapse was fire. Not the impact of a passenger plane. And since they carted the debris to New Jersey immediately and smelted all of it without investigation, we conveniently will never know the exact truth of the collapse.
Borrowed this from the post of an Engineering student who said that he had no opinion on the conspiracy theories BUT... Since I am not an Engineer or even an Engineering student I'll rely on his post although if you want to debunk any of the factual statements he made I'll happily listen to your FACT based debunking of them.
BTW, here's an interesting read on the collapse of WTC 7 from the noted Anarchist/NWO (take your pick) rag Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
Ok,well I am relaying info from people who do know the subject(some of which can be found on the net easily,and some from someone I know personally who is in the field). Which is info that is easily obtainable with some investigation. If they were designed to fall in that manner,as if they were expecting anything larger than a Sesna to hit,then that in itself is reason for question. I think I have backed up more in elementary know nothing physics,than anyone has been able to refute so far other than,"well you're an idiot",or "you are a conspiracy nutjob". In order to design a building to perfectly pancake even the lowest floors,you would have to be expecting a jumbo jet to hit it some day. And if basic physics would have put the top piece of each building on the street below,or bouncing off it's neighboring building,and jet fuel had nothing to do with lets say floors 1 thru 65,what compromised those floors to dust?
yeah,evidence found in the dust. I don't believe it,and neither did Silverstein when he aid "we pulled it"
http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493 Why would you need to listen to me when your engineering student's argument got dismantled in the same place you borrowed his comments from? Never mind the fact that there was molten steel and evidence of thermite found on the site, the steel was simply "weakened", right? Oh, and by the way... engineering student guy was giving the maximum burning temperature for a controlled burn, not an open air burn, which is what WTC was. The maximum burning temp for an open air burn of Jet-A is 260–315 °C (500–599 °F). His entire premise is based on incorrect data.
Yes, I have seen that turd of an article before. Burning office chairs and cubicles apparently made WTC 7 fall down. Never mind that only 3 skyscrapers in the history of this country have fallen due to "fire" - and all on the same day. Here is debunking of their debunking: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/ continued in next post...
Look, it's really enticing to think that the WTC were collapsed by some vast government conspiracy designed to do so. It feeds into the "government is bad" meme that has infected American politics since at least the mid-90's. It's easy to say things like "only 3 buildings have ever collapsed due to fire" and sound convincing when you do so. Of course only 2 buildings have ever had a jumbo jet with nearly full fuel tanks flown into them intentionally. No building other than WTC 7 has ever had two of the world's tallest buildings collapse in close proximity too it sparking uncontrollable fires at the same time that its water supply was disabled. It's easy to say that the buildings collapse must have been a "controlled demolition" since they occurred in such an orderly fashion. This despite the fact that they were likely designed to fall in an orderly fashion in the event they fell. It's easy to say that the destruction of the Secret Service and FBI offices in WTC 7 must have been planned to cover up complicity by the Secret Service and FBI, two completely separate entities, both of whom had heads that predated the neo-con rise to power in 2001. All of this is nuts though. You can't keep a secret between three people, let alone the number of people that would have had to be involved to make this thing happen as a government conspiracy. You want to know the clearest indicator that this was not some vast conspiracy of the US government? Follow the trail of non-bodies involved. Almost nobody of any significance in the governmental structure has died in the years since the attacks took place. One Secret Service officer died in the collapse of the WTC. There were dozens of Special Agents in the vicinity of the attacks and subsequent collapses and only one of them perished in the attack. Sixty-seven of them received the Director's Valor Award for setting up triage areas after the initial attacks and helping to evacuate the towers. Take down WTC 7 to hide complicity in the attacks? But leave all those good officers alive to spill the beans? What kind of conspiracy is this anyway? Amateur hour? Dick Cheney, still improbably alive a dozen years after the attacks? He's got to be the big cheese behind this, right? King Rat of the neo-cons and he's still breathing? Any good conspiracy would have taken him out easily in the aftermath just to be sure. All the conspiracy stuff is entertaining to read but it just doesn't pass the Occam's Razor test. This doesn't need to be any more complex than Al-Qaeda tried a new form of terror attack and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It doesn't need to be any more complex than the US security apparatus got caught with their pants down because they were looking for truck bombs instead of pilot delivered plane bombs. It doesn't need to be any more complex than the towers fell the way they did because they were designed not to take out large swathes of lower Manhattan if they somehow improbably fell. Inventing reasons that require human interaction on the day of the attack is exactly that, inventing them. Do you really think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his nephew Ramzi Yousef were conspirators working for the US government? Seriously?
That meme just sort of showed up when people had other ways to learn about the world outside of the idiot box. Coincidence? It's not easy to say that. It's easy to believe the opposite, since what you present is a simplistic and easy to understand explanation that was presented to you on a platter without having to know any other details of the how and the why. Yeah, a bunch of burning office chairs made a 47 story steel and concrete building collapse straight downward. As far as your repeated assertions that the buildings being designed to collapse into their footprint at the first sign of loss of structural integrity, I am "willing to listen" to resources that you will most certainly provide to qualify them. Please. Information is compartmented to avoid security leaks. The Manhattan Project went on for close to 10 years without the secret getting out. That project employed close to 100,000 people, yet only about 10 knew the full scope of the project. And that secret only got out by the destruction of 2 cities in Japan. Who is saying that anyone in those buildings knew anything? You're arguing against things that I haven't even said. Fuck off with that. Funny that you follow this up with Occam's Razor, when you are flippantly basing your opinion upon assumption. Yeah, Occam's Razor. The simplest answer that is presented to you ad nauseum on television over and over and over again like a propaganda bullhorn is always the best, right? Why doesn't it need to? To make you feel better? And who are you to say what it needs to be? You really suck at this argument, Bway. I guess you went this route when you realized you'd actually have to do more than provide the first Google result you get for melting girders in a skyscraper. Again, prove it, or shut the fuck up about it. You want to know what's really funny about this comment? Our government just celebrated 9/11/13 by sending the CIA to Syria with arms to supply to al Qaeda in yet another overseas conflict that was most likely invented by our government. Anything to please Israel, I guess.
No, that meme showed up when the two parties irrevocably turned their backs on the loose coalition government that had governed America since WWII ended. The internet exacerbated the withdrawal to WWI style trench warfare but it was the breakdown of consensus that caused the "government is bad" meme to blossom. The structure burned for 7 hours. It wasn't just chairs. It was the entire infrastructure that ignited. Have you ever thought about how typical office decor differs from, like, home furnishings? There are a lot of semi-permanent structures that are used in a typical office layout instead of your common tables, chairs, dressers, etc. You have cubicles, you have partitions, you have a *lot* of flammable material per square foot. You have many filing cabinets, even in 2001 in the WTC. You have an interior structure that was built to accommodate 1970's era offices and commerce, not the new digital age. Ok, so the best I can come up with here is that the WTC was indeed built in a new and trail-blazing manner in the 70's. Instead of having steel-reinforced concrete and masonry in the main vertical structure the designers chose to make the building a steel-only structure for the primary vertical supports. They used a hollow tube method in which closely packed steel columns were attached to trusses which then held the concrete slabs for each floor. The central area of the structure was essentially empty, designed to house the high-speed elevators. There were no interior columns, no spine, running up the middle of the structure and extending out from there in a lattice as in most skyscrapers of significant height. There were exterior columns set just 22" apart around the exterior of the buildings that worked with the hollow tube to support the buildings weight and to handle the wind stressors which were severe in that location at those heights. The buildings were actually designed with the concept that a Boeing 707 might collide with them at some point. The actual 767 impacts on 9/11 were close to that range for Tower One but 10% above the level envisioned for Tower Two. Tower Two is the tower that came down first. The thing that brought down the buildings was not the impacts, although Tower Two was in trouble after it was impacted. The thing that brought down the towers was the fire that raged uncontrolled for an hour after the impacts. The firefighting system in the buildings was not a chemical system. It was a water-based system. In the early parts of the event the temperatures at and near the impact sites was high enough to reduce the water to steam as the systems initially came online. The systems were not designed to fight a hydrocarbon fire of the intensity and temperature that the impacts and the subsequent fuel burn off created. Chemical foam would have likely dampened the fires enough to withstand major structural damage to the buildings but there were no chemical systems available. So basically within minutes of the impact there was effectively no firefighting system left online. The fires burned out of control. The main structure of the towers was devoid of concrete and masonry, both of which would have had a flame-retarding insulating effect on the primary support columns. Instead what was in place was a comparatively light steel structure (compared to steel-reinforced concrete) in the interior of the buildings that was matched by an exterior ring of columns that jointly supported the loads. The vertical weight of each floor was supported by the 5 inch concrete floor slabs which were in turn supported by the interior hollow tube arrangement and the exterior ring of columns. Now the hollow tube was not your usual concrete/steel reinforced construction either. The engineers worried that, without masonry, the conventional elevator shafts would buckle and collapse with the intense air pressure exerted by the high speed elevators. So they used a steel-reinforced drywall/plaster construction to house the elevator shafts. This was much more flexible than a concrete reinforced system would have been but it was also much more flammable. Couple this with an ineffective firefighting system and you basically had a core that was going to burn out under high temperatures and then collapse in on itself when structural integrity failed. Which is what happened. When you build a structure that looks like this: 00000000000000000000 0-------------------------0 0 ------------------------0 0-------------------------0 0---------000000--------0 0---------0xxxxx0-------0 0---------0xxxxx0-------0 0---------0xxxxx0-------0 0---------0xxxxx0-------0 0---------0xxxxx0-------0 0---------000000--------0 0 -------------------------0 0------------------------- 0 0 -------------------------0 00000000000000000000 With the 0's supporting concrete slabs on each floor and nothing in the middle and then the middle becomes structurally unsound what you get is the building falling in on itself, with each failure pancaking down on the floor below until the entire structure has come down. Even if the exterior beams were not weakened by fire they were not designed to stand in the absence of the overall structure. They'd have been pulled downwards by the trusses that held the concrete floor slabs following the path of least resistance, which was downwards. And you wind up with a building pancaking in on itself pulled down by a lack of interior structural integrity and the weight of all the load-bearing floor slabs progressively driving the collapse. Yes, but you had 100k people who knew something big was going on. You think if those bombs had been dropped on NYC and Washington instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the word wouldn't have gotten out? I'm assuming the simplest answer. That's what Occam's Razor is all about. Not adding complexity to something that can be explained in simpler terms. We were attacked. The attack succeeded in ways that we didn't think possible. In retrospect the failures of all 3 buildings can be simply explained by the physics we know were in play. This is what multiple investigations did. That's Occam's Razor at work. Once you begin suggesting that our government did this to ourselves? That's so not-Occam's Razor. That's complex and it requires so many different leaps of faith, from motivation, to competence in carrying out the attack, to supreme competence in covering it up in an environment in which the two political parties hated each other and would happily have gouged each other's eyes out politically if they could use the event to do so. I'm just being rational in looking at the issue. The idea that our government would have done this to ourselves when there are a million better ways to provoke a war with Iraq is crazy-talk. If you want to believe that FDR was in collusion with the Japanese on Pearl Harbor you have every right to do so. If you want to believe that he ordered the carriers away from Pearl Harbor and watched the US Pacific Fleet get devastated have at it. I'm going to call you a loon for thinking that, but have at it. That's the level that you're at here. You're suggesting that the US government decided to pancake two of the most important buildings in our financial infrastructure at the time, inflicting an unknowable amount of harm on the economy, just to go fight some terrorists sitting in caves in the most forbidding terrain on earth for any power to attempt to fight. Got it. Nut. And BTW, once again, the funniest thing in the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that most of them are put forward by people who claim big government can't do anything right and yet they pull this off? Really? Furthermore... Who were the big conspiracy theorists right after this happened? Michael Moore and the Left Wing Fringe. Why? Because they hated the current government and so... Furtherfurthermore... If the Bush administration really wanted to do what you suggest they'd just have taken the full shortcut and had the attackers be Iraqi terrorists and obviously so. That way they could have invaded Iraq with no problem at all. Think about it. We're going to go invade Afghanistan. Yeah that's the ticket. We could have made the bad guys Iraqi's or Iranians but NOOOOOOOO we're going after the Afghans. Right.
I am so getting an Architect's keyboard for the next one because all those x's and -'s and 0's are hard to line up. And here's the next thing: There are like a million conspiracy theories out there around 9/11 from it was an inside job to it was an Israeli plot to it was a Saudi plot to it was the biggest insurance arson job of all time. Just the fact that there are so many different theories tells us that the answer is really simple. Only very simple things can produce so many different complex offshoots. if something is complex to begin with it is very hard to simplify it enough to make it reproduce-able in so many different and contradictory ways. It sucks that it happened but thinking like your typical Arab in the street is not the answer to dealing with the tragedy.
I agree there are many theories,but that doesn't say anything. I would be more inclined to believe there was't one,if there were more results from it,Iraq did not happen in the name of it(which im sorry,but those were war crimes and manipulation)and "terrorism" wasn't used as a reason to swindle us out of our privacy and rights. Were not going to convince eachother of anything,but there is MUCH more evidence and common sense pointing to a conspiracy,and the defense is running out of ammo.
That was about the Caspian sea pipeline,very simple. Poppy din't hurt either,as our opiate consumption skyrocketed since. Iraq was a bonus
