[Ctwo]

I know there is a lot of material linked in that article, but if you follow it all, you will find microscopic analysis of the molted metals, and high levels of sulfer is found, where there is no explination for it.

Also, as pointed out in the article, when the upper 35 floors started to twist and collapse, it just turned to dust in mid air, all at once. Why would that happen?

The article does not try to make you believe that bringing down a building is easy. It is much more difficult than just randomly throwing planes at it.

Too neat and tidy for me. I cannot believe that a building with a structure like the WTC would completely collapse. The buildings were designed very well and were much stronger. I could buy a partial collapse, but to watch the entire building just turn into baby powder? Twice? Thrice? From a random tossing in of a plane? Your going to put demolition teams out of business. (don't forget WTC7 that also collapsed, and it was not even hit by a plane. So you would expect it to fall just as neat and tidy as well?)

whirlwind, I am not sure what your saying? I don't want to sound like I'm targeting you, but you bring up some good points.

The building could not have been prepped? In my building, I hear facilities all the time drilling through concrete, banging going on resonating through the vetilation systems...what the heck are they doing? Running new network lines, repairs, or maybe prepping? I know, it was that retrofitting project...or prepping?

Thermite is extremely expensive, but not so much for the richest, most powerful organization in the world.

The molten metal is suspicious because of the quantity, the composition, and the fact that it continued to flow for so long after the collapse. There was far too much melted iron to account for what would have melted at the impact site. The metal was also scientifically analyzed with results consistent to demolition charges.

I understand that people don't want to believe this. There are still millions of Americans who still believe Clinton when he said he did not have relations...just because they do not want to believe it. Why did we let Pearl Harbor happen? and why would the US facilitate the collapse of the WTC?

Reason.

Politics are ugly, but that is the way it is. We could not just go out invading countries without a good reason. It is better to fight them on their ground than on ours. The WTC was just collateral damage, the people, expendable in a broad context.

[Outriderdark]

Even Bin Laden was surprised.
First, the second building was likely compromised by the collapse of the first causing it to become fatally weakened as well. If you've been to WTC you'll know how close the buildings were to each other.
They came down so neatly because of the type of construction they were and the fact that they collapsed top to bottom. What did you expect them to do? Fall over like in a cartoon?
I used to be a firefighter and when you saw the little triangle with the R or F in it, you didn't go in because you knew the roof or floor was going to collapse from the heat (it's a sign they have to put on any building with truss floors or roofs). The Trade Center was a steel I-beam shell filled with trusses to make the floors and ceilings.
Build a house of cards or popsicle sticks on your kitchen table and knock it down from the top down. It ends up in a pile on your table, not all over the kitchen. If you've ever seen a house or building burn down, you'll notice they collapse inwards and downwards. This is called the law of gravity. Only the outside walls will sometimes fall outwards because the masonry cracks or trusses let go of compromised walls.
When they demolish a building, they are reproducing in a controlled way, what happens when a building collapses on it's own. The don't explode the building and they don't implode the building...they use explosives to weaken the main supports so the building collapses under it's own weight. That's exactally what happened here....The WTC collapsed under its own weight.

That day haunts me like no other, but lets not make it what it wasn't.

[Ctwo]

I would not expect the building to come down like it did. I also would not expect the building to fall over like a tree because the bottom was not damaged.

First, the second building was likely not compromised in a way to facilitate the collapse that it had. What do you mean here? The debris only contacted the second building at the base...collapse started at the top down.

What would I expect? I would expect that when the upper 35 floor block started to twist and move downward, that it would collapse on the floors beneath and crush several floors. I would expect the upper 35 floor block to break apart into large sections and fall off to the side of building. That is because there were 47 huge steel colums in the center of the buidling, and around 170 perimiter colums. These colums were securely riveted and welded to the bedrock in the ground, and all of the floors beneath the impact zone were fully intact and structurally sound.

At some point, the weight of the upper block crushing the lower floors would stop as the upper block of floors broke apart. The building was designed to hold the weight of the upper floors, and the vertical colums were structurally sound.

I also would not expect the upper 35 floor block to instananeously turn to baby powder in mid air just as soon as it started to move. Also note the rapid horizontal ejection of concrete and steel from the upper block of floors as it just started to collapse. Makes no sense. Can you explain that? Maybe try not to use a deck of cards or cartoon references.

Did you read the full article or view any of the referenced material? Or did you stop after a few paragraphs, close your eyes and say to your self, oh, that's such a terrible event and too haunting to continue?

Why don't you pick on the actual substance rather than throw in a variety of generalizations and off the wall comments?

How about the "squibs" that run up the side of WTC7 just as it collapsed? Just one issue, can you explain that away?

[Outriderdark]

Off the wall comments? This whole thread is one big off the wall ridiculous comment.
I should have gone with my first instinct and ignored it. I tag out.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

You must realize that that iron would still retain the heat under all that weight; It would be like an insulated furnace. We had a chipped tire pile about 30 ft high that was smoking from the sun's heat; It later caught fire.

[Ctwo]

OK, peaches and cream...I do not believe that the BYU physicists are making off the wall comments. Perhaps you could point it out to me? I can point out the off the wall comments made by FEMA, NIST, and the 9-11 commision about the building collapses. But if you read the article, I would not have too.
You say, "the second building was likely compromised by the collapse of the first causing it to become fatally weakened as well."
That is an interesting point. But what is it supposed to prove even if it was true? That the second building would not have collapsed without this fatal weakening caused by the first building collapse? Do you even have any reason to believe that your own statement is true? You have access to all the video, slow motion, zoomed in, and a whole plethora of stills. Do you see debris from the first building even hitting the second? If it did, it would have hit at the lowest floors anyway, and the second building collapsed from the top down--totally unrelated to any damage caused by the first building's collapse.
I take it nobody can present a stable argument to contradict the BYU physicists, or my own statements?
I guess we all just want to play the three monkeys and cover our eyes, ears, and mouths?

[Outriderdark]

First- I find it interesting that you, like so many others on these forums and in real life, can't discuss something without being insulting and calling people names. Perhaps people would be more interested in hearing what you had to say if you didn't insult them.

Second - I currently (because of some points in the BYU article) am researching this whole idea of a conspiracy and sifting through the mountains of crap on the net to find what gems may be there.
One supposed study from some puprorted expert doesn't cut it if you're trying to get down to the truth.
The problem I'm finding with it all is the propaganda factor. If you think the government or some other entity can propagandize something, so can the folks on the other side.
I don't know if I'm looking at doctored footage or reading erroneous data and bogus anecdote from EITHER side.
Proper research procedure seems almost impossible.
I'm gonna go find out if "propagandize" is a real word or if I just made it up.

[Ctwo]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Outriderdark

First- I find it interesting that you, like so many others on these forums and in real life, can't discuss something without being insulting and calling people names. Perhaps people would be more interested in hearing what you had to say if you didn't insult them.

Put your money where your mouth is and show me where I insulted.

I was responding to your demeaning attitude.

Let me quote how you ended your first post,

"get a grip people! I'm gonna sit here and have a beer and wait for the Mothership to bring y'all home."

That is not insulting? You cast the first stone. Show me where I have thrown one.

You continued,

"What did you expect them to do? Fall over like in a cartoon?"

How is that sort of response warranted?

Continuing,

"Build a house of cards or popsicle sticks on your kitchen table and knock it down from the top down...you'll notice they collapse inwards and downwards. This is called the law of gravity."

Again, you are demeaning the argument and shifting the focus to something you can attack.

How about forget the topic of this entire thread and prove your first point in your previous post. Where did I insult [you] and show me one name I called anyone.

[7mmag6]

that article is not written by BYU physicists, its a fake

[Ctwo]

What reason do you have to believe that?

[Outriderdark]

You're right. The mothership comment was directed at the leap to government involvement. I should have just said it was an irrational leap of reasoning and not tried to be funny. I apologize.
I don't agree that the other two comments you mentioned are insulting.
I think I have been as specific as I can be without an engineering degree. I try to reason within my own sphere of knowledge and not just regurgitate stuff I read somewhere.
The appearance of the squibs is interesting though. I'd like to know if the pressure from the collapse would do the same thing.

[7mmag6]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Ctwo

What reason do you have to believe that?

hmmm I thought I saw this on an urban legend page but I dont have time to look in detail. tell you what Ill do. I know some folks at the byu engineering dept Ill see what I can find out, in the mean time guys be respectfull

[Outriderdark]

Actually the guy and the paper are for real. He did, however respond to the furor over the paper that it was a hypothesis and not fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[7mmag6]

well ill be danged

[troylaplante]

www.911proof.com is an interesting site I ran across on the internet a bit ago.

[Outriderdark]

I read that one. Was on alot of sites last night. Like I said, it becomes difficult to know if you're just getting propaganda from both sides

[Ctwo]

Yes, the entire article is based on hypothesis. I don't want to make it sound like I think the gov. planned the entire thing and just decided to blow up the WTC buildings...

There is good reason, however, to believe that they would rig the buildings for demolition.

The buildings collapsed in the most desirable way. What could have been worse would be them tipping over, killing many people in other buildings and surrounding areas.

An earlier attack on the WTC was a truck bomb in the lower parking areas. The fear was that the building would or could be tipped over from weakening the foundation and lower structure. An attack at this location was suspected to be the most probable. Why not rig the building so it would collapse in a safer way before another assault?

Anyway, the whole idea is based on suspicion, speculation, and compelling, supportive evidence, not to mention the suspicious activities of destroying evidence and lack of analysis to determine the how and why. Moreover, FEMA, NIST, and the 9-11 commision streached to great lengths to find support of a pre-determined conclusion, and continued to "tweak" the models until the desired outcome was achieved. This is admitted in the 9-11 commisions report. The evidence and logic does not support the commision's report, and the report stops far short of explaining anything about how the buildings collapsed. It stops at the moment the building starts its initial collapse.

What would be so wrong with rigging the building to save the lives of many in surrounding areas? They will not admit that because the full collapse killed many, and if the building was rigged, it could have instigated the initial collapse of the upper block.

Now what is more likely to believe?

I still cannot accept that the buildings could have collapsed the way they did without help (in addition to the plane), especially not the WTC7 building that was so lightly damaged and by the way it did collapse, and by the appearance of squibs.

BTW, there are other conspiracy theories that I do not buy into, like the one about the Pentagon not actually being hit by an airliner.

[Outriderdark]

Another one is the holographic airplane theory

[Rockabilly88]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Ctwo

That is also what I recall. I do not see how anyone can read the entire article, view the videos, and review all of the referenced material, and draw any other conclusion that the buildings were all intentially demolished with carefully placed explosives, strategically sprinkled throught the entire building. Quite an engineering feat on its own, and not something terrorists could do undetected. So the next logical question would then be, why would our government blow up the WTC?

9/11 was used to justify:

* The Patriot act, when did patriotism change from love of our country to unflenching support of the government? If I remember the origional patriots opposed the gov holding this much power. Infact if I ever hear another pop country song about 'patrotism' I'm going to puke.

* The war in Iraq, wait wasn't it Saudi's that supposably blew up the trade center?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its a sad fact of life that because so many conspiracy theories are nutty people assume all conspiracy theorys are nutty. I didn't read the article, but I've heard the same thing before. At first I was sceptical, but think about it

1. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
2. The engineers designed both buildings to withstand collision with a plane
3. The people who supposably hijacked the plane turned up alive weeks later ie they were framed
4. Terrorists don't frame people, they're whole objective is to take credit for such acts in order to get their point of view across
5. In the rare case they wanted to frame someone, why would they frame other Arabs
6. Remember watching the tapes where bin laden supposably took credit for the attacks? Or do you infact remember the tapes were never aired because they might have "secret messages in them"
7. Remember what happened with the USS Liberty there was a case of someone framing terrorist attacks (Mossad anyone?)

Don't question the system, remember ignorance is strength.

[troylaplante]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Rockabilly88

9/11 was used to justify: * The war in Iraq, wait wasn't it Saudi's that supposably blew up the trade center?

No, it wasn't, actually. None the less, I am OK with the link between the two.

Quote:      

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

Think again. Besides, it wasn't just jet fuel that was burning. I won't get into a long discussion on this one, but just keep in mind that my degree is in fire protection.

Quote:      

The engineers designed both buildings to withstand collision with a plane

Not that size. Though is may have been "designed" to withstand an impact, it was not designed to withstand an impact along extremely hot fire temperatures. If it were, there would not have been as much exposed steel structure as there was. When the Empire State Building was hit by a B-29 years ago, there was also a harsh fire. The building construction was different and more sturdy for impact and fire by design of the structure and materials/methods used. That is obvious to anyone who has looked into it or even seen documentaries on The History Channel. I sort of wish I had kept my high rise fire safety textbook rather than selling it on Amazon.com. The B-29 was smaller, lighter, had less impact, and less fuel in addition to the aforementioned. That is more akin to the expected design in the WTC.

Quote:      

The people who supposably hijacked the plane turned up alive weeks later ie they were framed

First I have heard of that one. Source?

Quote:      

Remember what happened with the USS Liberty there was a case of someone framing terrorist attacks (Mossad anyone?)

Do you mean the Cole? Moussad? I doubt it, but nice try for a teenager.