WTC--Conspiracy Theory

[Rave]

In any event,the article that I saw on TV showed a building in India that had completly burned and didn't collapse,the article went on to say that no large steel framed concrete building had ever collapsed from being burned.
It has been brought up that the construction of these building was such that they would collapse on themselves if burned,again no buildings before or after have collapsed from fire damage,if this were the case I would consider it criminal to construct a building like that,and the occupants were uninformed,but then again,there may have been a reason.
I don't think that the original designers,architects,enginerrs would be so ignorant of the danger of that construction and lay persons would know of it.
I think the whole thing is a bit fishey and there are a lot of the usual cover-ups going on for whatever reason.

[troylaplante]

With temperatures reaching a couple thousand degrees in some areas from large quantities of petroleum burning along with the other fire load of furniture, people, office supplies, etc. all within a fairly confined space, it is not inconceivable that the steel would buckle and collapse. The WTC was designed with a lot of open space inside, unlike say the Empire State Building, which was designed with a lot more concrete for load bearing and a central core of concrete. I have no idea what the buildings in India are like that you mentioned, but I doubt that they had an airliner sticking out of them, had no structural damage as a result, did not have large quantities of jet fuel burning, and probably didn't have the same design. There have been many high rise fires over the years with similar results as you mention. However, this is the first incident to have a 747 running into a tower. Think about it. It is not feasible or fair to compare such incidents. I have studied building construction and fire behavior for a living. What we saw on 9/11 is not that far fetched as conspiracy theorists keep making it out to be. I have been in enough fires to know how it acts and see the damage it can do to steel. People assume that steel is "fire proof". Yeah, and the Titanic was "unsinkable", too. Gee, isn't steel made from ore and comes from smelting the ore with...fire. For the WTC failure, it was not even necessary for melting of steel, just deformation under many thousands of tons of weight.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by troylaplante

With temperatures reaching a couple thousand degrees in some areas from large quantities of petroleum burning along with the other fire load of furniture, people, office supplies, etc. all within a fairly confined space, it is not inconceivable that the steel would buckle and collapse. The WTC was designed with a lot of open space inside, unlike say the Empire State Building, which was designed with a lot more concrete for load bearing and a central core of concrete. I have no idea what the buildings in India are like that you mentioned, but I doubt that they had an airliner sticking out of them, had no structural damage as a result, did not have large quantities of jet fuel burning, and probably didn't have the same design. There have been many high rise fires over the years with similar results as you mention. However, this is the first incident to have a 747 running into a tower. Think about it. It is not feasible or fair to compare such incidents. I have studied building construction and fire behavior for a living. What we saw on 9/11 is not that far fetched as conspiracy theorists keep making it out to be. I have been in enough fires to know how it acts and see the damage it can do to steel. People assume that steel is "fire proof". Yeah, and the Titanic was "unsinkable", too. Gee, isn't steel made from ore and comes from smelting the ore with...fire. For the WTC failure, it was not even necessary for melting of steel, just deformation under many thousands of tons of weight.

...which shows a picture of steel I-beams draped across a large, charred wood beam like limp strands of spaghetti. Apparently it was a hot, fast fire.

[Outriderdark]

troylaplante and troy2000...please don't misunderstand me. I'm not a supporter of the various conspiracy theories.
I just wanted to point out that what the BYU guy and some other scientists are pointing to is the presence of molten steel...liquified and running under the wreckage many days afterwards. Softening and buckling is normal, but it takes a much higher temperature to melt steel to liquid, viscous form than could have been burning in the building from jet fuel and building contents.
I'm not saying that means conspiracy, but it is a question without an answer at the moment, which is what the BYU guy was pointing out.
As an aside, the paper did go through the usual peer review that you would expect from a scientific paper and was approved as valid.
Like I said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and if you look back on the thread I initially dismissed it, too. But research does validate the paper itself.
I certainly don't condone the leaps of reasoning that some folks make.
I've spent alot of time researching this weekend and some people are plain goofy. But some others point out some interesting things.

[Outriderdark]

One of the more interesting things is the video tape on which we get a confession from bin Laden. Many many people (including many western nations) believe the tape is a fraud made to cinch bin Laden as the culprit.
This link consolidates alot of the info on that. Please note: I don't necessarily agree with the stuff on this website, it just is the most consolidated info on this particular subject I could find.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Put that together with the bin Laden denial on 9/16 of any involvement and it gets you thinking. Terrorists usually jump at the chance to claim resposibilty. If you recall the first ones to claim responsibility was Palestinean Front or something.
this is a video link to CNN coverage that day:
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/...or.cnn.low.ram
And Sept 17 CNN report
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/1...nladen.denial/

Then an interview with Osama bin Laden was published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001 where he denies it again and says the US should look within.
http://www.justresponse.net/Bin_Laden1.html

If you recall, a video interview with al jezeera about a month later that was pulled off the air "in case it had secret messages in it". (A bit strange in the age of internet and cell phones that anyone would need to send coded messages in an interview.)
In that interview he calls US accusations "unwarranted" and more importantly doesn't claim reponsibility.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/3...den.interview/

Not advocating anything, just throwing it out there.

[Outriderdark]

troylaplante....Actually perhaps up to 9 of the hijackers ended up alive and well somewhere else. They likely had thier identities stolen by the perpetrators. That in itself is of little consequence, but the question it raises is if the hijackers weren't those people, who were they and who did they work for? We certainly can't trace their history and affiliations if we don't know who they are.
I'm looking for a link that has this information consolidated in some way. One problem with alot of this is the info is scattered around. Then, if you find it, and it's on a wack-job website so you have to find some legitamite cross references to see if it's true.

[Outriderdark]

Here's two links about hijacker identities. I'll add more when found.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...23/widen23.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by Rockabilly88

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.

all part of the greater conspiracy to defraud America and her citizens of thier rights!

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by Rave

In any event,the article that I saw on TV showed a building in India that had completly burned and didn't collapse,the article went on to say that no large steel framed concrete building had ever collapsed from being burned.
It has been brought up that the construction of these building was such that they would collapse on themselves if burned,again no buildings before or after have collapsed from fire damage,if this were the case I would consider it criminal to construct a building like that,and the occupants were uninformed,but then again,there may have been a reason.
I don't think that the original designers,architects,enginerrs would be so ignorant of the danger of that construction and lay persons would know of it.
I think the whole thing is a bit fishey and there are a lot of the usual cover-ups going on for whatever reason.

"Fishey" doesn't begin to discribe the situation.

[Ctwo]

The only thing I'm focusing on is inline with the BYU article. And that is the buildings collapse.
There is also linked in that article that levels of sulfer, which is consistent with demolition explosives, and would not normally be found in the building's debris, was discovered by microscopic analysis. That is fairly close to being a "smoking gun."
Again, the buildings would not fully collapse the way they did, and especially not at a complete free fall. The only thing I can rely on as a credible source of information is the scientific evidence.
I'm not ready to buy into a lot of the conspiracy theories, but I honestly believe that there were demolition explosives placed through out the buildings and they were brought down intentionally, as the evidence strongly suggests.
The the political facet of this is going to be unproveable until the government releases the information, which may never happen.
But the buildings collapsed because they were brought down by explosives...not just because of the planes and fires.

[iflylow74]

On the history channel show about 9/11, they interviewed the designer of the WTC towers. He did in fact say that the towers were designed to withstand a plane impact, but not at the high speeds the terrorist used.

The designers reckoned that a plane strike would be accidental, and any aircraft at that low altitude would be slow (ie takeoff or landing).

I believe the terrorist slammed the aircraft into the WTC at around 600mph.

Just my obeservation...

[7mmag6]

well it sees the paper is real but remeber its the same people that brought us " cold fusion". I just cant buy into the demolition theory,Its just too hard to believe. Yea I looked at all the evidence but, theres evidence we didnt walk on the moon either. Its bunk

[Outriderdark]

I really don't think it's bunk. And this is hardly on par with the moon stuff.

Note: The Rafelski - Jones work "cold nuclear fusion" is not the same as the Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion experiment (and the ensuing controversy) and the former was renamed muon-catalyzed fusion research to prevent confusion between the two unrelated areas of study.

Anyway, putting all the political stuff aside and avoiding questions like why or who, there are some very valid points in the mountain of information.
We are remiss to dismiss it out of hand like I did in the beginning.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

consolidates alot of info in their 9/11 archive. Again, I DO NOT condone everything the have on there, but it's a good consolidation of info and links. It's the achilles heel of this that you have wade through sewage to get to the diamond ring.

[Outriderdark]

Originally Posted by troylaplante

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

Actually he's refering to 1967 when the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean and tried to blame it on Muslims to draw the US into the war.
Sill a very hot and controversial subject.

[troy2000]

Why stop with 9/11? Look at all the other fun conspiracies we could be exploring:

The lunar landings were faked so they could spend the money hollowing out Catalina Island for a city, where the politicians and their families will live after the Big One.

Lyndon Johnson had the Mafia kill John Kennedy so he could become President, and as revenge for JFK groping LadyBird Johnson backstage "for luck," right before he walked out to get sworn in.

Roosevelt deliberately let the Japs hit Pearl Harbor, so he could drag us into WWII and drive up the stock of San Miguel beer in the Phillippines.

The cops framed O.J., and he never owned a pair of those butt-ugly shoes.

[Outriderdark]

I can't speak for others but I'm certainly not looking at this in an Oliver Stone fashion. I'm merely looking at some questions that don't have good answers at the moment.
Why should we be so opposed to looking at things critically? I certainly blew it off to begin with but with a little time and research, I realized there are unanswered questions and things that don't hold up under scrutiny.
Unfortunately, if you lump every conspiracy theory together in the same cracked pot, you may miss that there is some validity to the questions being raised.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

Actually he's refering to 1967 when the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty in the Mediterranean and tried to blame it on Muslims to draw the US into the war.
Sill a very hot and controversial subject.

And as an ex-sailor from that era, both Merchant Marine and Navy, I've studied this one pretty thoroughly.

The Israelis did shoot up the Liberty, but they never tried to blame it on the Muslims. They just said, "Oops, our bad. Sorry..."

A good case can be made that being in a war they were just cranky about any electronic surveillance, period. Even from a supposed ally. And they may have suspected we were trying to play them and the Egyptians against each other, for reasons of our own.

There's also the fact that they were getting ready for an assault on Syria to win the Golan Heights, and may not have wanted the word getting out.

I personally think it was more likely a result of combat jitters and the plain old normal human stupidity that pops up in wartime.

There doesn't seem to be much doubt that our government tried to bury the incident, to the point of treating the crew shamefully over the years.

An interesting aside: after they broke off the attack, one of the Israeli boats hailed the Liberty with a bullhorn and asked in English, "do you need any help?" On orders from his wounded skipper the quartermaster responded, "F--- You!"

[Outriderdark]

here's a link to the USS Liberty incident
http://www.ussliberty.org/

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

here's a link to the USS Liberty incident
http://www.ussliberty.org/

But you'll notice that nowhere in it does it accuse the Israelis of pretending the attack was carried out by Muslims.

Which assertion was why I entered the discussion to begin with...

[Outriderdark]

I was just giving the link for reference.
And was just telling LaPlante what Rockabilly88 was refering to since he thought he meant the Cole. Alot of people think the original intention of the Israelis was to sink the ship and blame it on the Muslims. That's what rockabilly88 was refering to.
I don't know one way or the other. I wasn't meaning to advocate anything. Never looked into it.