So how did the Towers Fall?

aNiMaL

spiral out wrote:

So what were all the explosions that can be heard going of before each tower fell be then if not explosives?

And the towers both fell clearly from the bottom upwards not from the top down, so how does this fit in with this so called pancake effect?

That could be numerous things like the tower supports failing...I am sure they wouldn't fail quietly. I am quite certain they would fail with a loud bang.

How do things fall from the bottom upward? What does that even mean? I saw the towers fall from where the air planes hit. The weight of the upper floors (above the plane crashes), combined with the massive heat from the constant fires, was enough to bring both towers down.

Again....nobody has answered my question about how they "supposedly" rigged the buildings with dynamite with no one ever seeing it.

aNiMaL

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

The government actions are the main reason people believe conspriracy theories. Why should the people believe what the government tells them? Because they are so truthful? Because they have such a good history of sharing their findings with their own people? No. People are not trusting the government right now. While there are some who will never not believe anything slanderous thrown at their government, there are plenty who would rather not have these feelings of mistrust and disbelief. A major part of this is the government's fault.

Because it is not the government telling us that airplanes crashed into the world trade center towers.....we all saw the shit with our own 2 eyes....not to mention all the thousands of actual witnesses that sad day, 5 years ago.

Sure, I distrust our current administration as much as the next guy....and I too think GW is a complete moron. I have no issues at all with slamming and ridiculing this current administration....but to say that they (the current administration) secretly planned 9/11 is a complete absurdity!!

Vedderlution_Baby

I get the impression that most of the fuel exploded in a fireball upon impact outside of the building. I'm not calling anyone out. Just explain this to me please.

acutejam

It's quite simple to debunk these 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

Could an adminstration that has messed up so bad in Iraq really have perpetrated this? I was SOOO surprised they didn't plant a few WMDs in Iraq, I mean c'mon!

You can't have this nefarious cabal that can pull this caper off and then turn around and be absolute clowns a year or two later....

Restless Soul

interesting stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDNPJAr_Ao&mode=related&search=

Don't know if its true though. I do know that I wouldn't trust the Bushites with a bargepole.

Cosmo

You will be hard pressed to find anyone in America angrier at President Bush than me... but, I do not believe he is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He is way too stupid for that. And his administration... there is no way they could keep it a secret. Get Cheney drunk and he'd let the details fly to the nearest cocktail waitress.
The towers fell because some fucking Islamic Fundamentalists flew a fully laden Boeing 767 into each at about 500 MPH. The ensuing fire from the 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel weakend the steel structure to a point where it failed to support the floors above it. Gravity did the rest.
I can almost say I hate President Bush and would punch him in the face (if he wasn't such a pussy to hide behind those Secret Service Agents) if I ever saw him for leading MY country into this shithole. but, I don't blame him for the events of Setpember 11, 2001. I accuse him of using that tragedy to pursue his pre-concieved desire to get at Saddam Hussein. I feel that is a wanton disreguard of the memory of those who died that day.

Vedderlution_Baby

aNiMaL wrote:

Because it is not the government telling us that airplanes crashed into the world trade center towers.....we all saw the shit with our own 2 eyes....not to mention all the thousands of actual witnesses that sad day, 5 years ago.

Sure, I distrust our current administration as much as the next guy....and I too think GW is a complete moron. I have no issues at all with slamming and ridiculing this current administration....but to say that they (the current administration) secretly planned 9/11 is a complete absurdity!!

I know we all saw that. What some people are disbelieving is that the government had no way of stopping the attack. They are also having trouble believing the official story, especially when things are stowed away and classified for no apparent reason. Just because someone doesn't agree with the official story does not mean that they think the government planned the entire event. What they are not believing is that the government is trying to protect them as well as they are saying and that the government could not have done more to stop the attack. As they question this, they start to question more, such as why video tape of the pentagon attack was confiscated and never to be shown. They are questioning why and how the government failed. Not all are saying the the government did it all.

The Illinoisemakers

aNiMaL wrote:

That could be numerous things like the tower supports failing...I am sure they wouldn't fail quietly. I am quite certain they would fail with a loud bang.

How do things fall from the bottom upward? What does that even mean? I saw the towers fall from where the air planes hit. The weight of the upper floors (above the plane crashes), combined with the massive heat from the constant fires, was enough to bring both towers down.

Again....nobody has answered my question about how they "supposedly" rigged the buildings with dynamite with no one ever seeing it.

aNiMal, No one will answer that question because it absolutely discredits their conspiracy theory that President Bush and his Admin were behind the 9/11 attack. And what fun is it if you can't blame everything on George Bush?

The most likely response your going to get on this is something to do with a power down of floors 50 and above the weekend before 9/11. How that explains how not one camera on floors 49 and lower captured video of people preparing the WTC for demo, or any people in or around the trade center failed to notice the hundreds of people need, miles of blast cord, and tons of explosives that would have to be used, I'm not sure.

Abookamongstthemany

acutejam wrote:

It's quite simple to debunk these 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

Could an adminstration that has messed up so bad in Iraq really have perpetrated this? I was SOOO surprised they didn't plant a few WMDs in Iraq, I mean c'mon!

You can't have this nefarious cabal that can pull this caper off and then turn around and be absolute clowns a year or two later....

Why would they bother to plant WMDs? They knew they would have the support of the ever-so-leadable american public and would go along with anything they said.

Pearl Jam and toast

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why would they bother to plant WMDs? They knew they would have the support of the ever-so-leadable american public and would go along with anything they said.

don't forget our greeting as liberators.

It was the perfect plan.

WhiteMaleRat

1) steel impacted and weakened by an explosion has its ultimate failure limit.

2) steel weakened by high temperatures has its ultimate failure limit.

3) steel under both 1 and 2 has an ultimate failure limit that is less than either 1 or 2.

Engineers cannot fully accurately predict how a building will behave under such an event. They can come up with theories and approximations. But they cannot accurately 100% predict how a building will perform under such conditions. There are too many variables. Many assumptions are made, even with computer analyses.

We can't even predict earthquakes yet.

I'll give you an example. A known common steel called A36 has a tensile capacity of 36,000 pounds per sqaure inch.

This means if you pulled on a 1" X 1" steel bar, it would take about 36,000 pounds to stretch it such that if the force is released, the bar would not shorten back to it's original length. Therefore, it has yielded. This is not ultimate failure where it would break in two pieces. That would take about twice the load.

My point is that if you do this test dozens of time in a lab, the actual yield and failure loads would vary significantly - plus or minus 15% would be a guess for talking purposes. That is for one simple piece of steel in a controlled load test.

Think of what the WTC complex steel framing was like, in conjunction with all issues such as connection strength, welds, plating, bolts, strength from secondary elements (partitition walls, window frames, exterior wall system, etc) - then you add in a plane impact, explosion forces, variable heat from a fire. It is beyond science. I'm sure that PHDs, research engineers, chemists, scientists and academia will refute that this is not an unsolvable problem. But those engineers who have real world experience in building design know better.

Cosmo

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

don't forget our greeting as liberators.

It was the perfect plan.

...
Greeted as liberators... uh... Mr. Vice President... why do those roses look like hand grenades?

farfromglorified

spiral out wrote:

So what were all the explosions that can be heard going of before each tower fell be then if not explosives?

They were explosives...the explosives of bodies and debris falling for hundreds of feet from the sky.

And the towers both fell clearly from the bottom upwards not from the top down, so how does this fit in with this so called pancake effect?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why would they bother to plant WMDs? They knew they would have the support of the ever-so-leadable american public and would go along with anything they said.

That "ever-so-leadable" public is now largely opposed to this administration, in large part because of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.

farfromglorified

SweetHarmonics wrote:

The firefighters' first-hand observations seem to contradict the official story and were conveniently omitted from the testimony conducted by the commission.

Actually, no it wasn't. Plenty of testimony from firefighters describing explosions is very much available.

Also, there were pools of melted steel visible in the wreckage. That pretty much dismisses the theory that the beams were merely "weakened not melted".

It would dismiss the theory, if WTC supports were the only steel in the World Trade Center. It would also dismiss the the theory if said support weren't exposed to intense heat after the buildings collapsed.

I guess we'll never really know what condition the towers' beams were in due to the fact they were shipped off to China in quite a hurry.

No. Much of the steel was kept by NIST. Some of them were shipped to China because Chinese firms bought the steel. Some of that was recalled by NIST.

NMyTree

reborncareerist wrote:

For sure ... Of course, at some point, you've got to believe something. I've listened to both sides, and so far, the non-conspiracy theorists are making more sense on this particular issue. Does that mean that Bush hasn't abused 9-11 for political capital? No. I think people get these issues confused. Bush using 9-11 to push a certain agenda does not mean that the event itself is an inside job.

People often lump all issues, events and situations into one big lump. If not guilty of on thing, then not guilty of all things.

I think we all have to learn to look at each individual issue, event and situation; and evaluate each one ......one at a time.

SweetHarmonics

farfromglorified wrote:

Actually, no it wasn't. Plenty of testimony from firefighters describing explosions is very much available.



It would dismiss the theory, if WTC supports were the only steel in the World Trade Center. It would also dismiss the the theory if said support weren't exposed to intense heat after the buildings collapsed.



No. Much of the steel was kept by NIST. Some of them were shipped to China because Chinese firms bought the steel. Some of that was recalled by NIST.

1. Firefighters' direct testimony about first-hand observations were excluded from the commission's report, a glaring omission to say the least.
2. 'Intense heat' meaning hot enough to melt the steel into pools, again this comes from eyewitness accounts and contradicts the official report.
3. It would have been quite a plus to allow the analysis of the beams that failed in WTC 1 or 2, they did this with a beam from WTC 7 so why not the others. That kind of inept decision-making is highly suspect, they aren't that dumb.

rebornFixer

By the way, of course the steel in the towers didn't melt. They found girders, did they not?


Seriously. A Ph.D. does not make one smart, unfortunately.

aNiMaL

farfromglorified wrote:

They were explosives...the explosives of bodies and debris falling for hundreds of feet from the sky.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Great link. Thanks!

acutejam

Uh, melted steel? Been cited that it's actually melted aluminum that looks like melted steel (colored) because of all the crap that got burnt and melted into it.

Here's a nice lil conspiracy counter-point:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjc2MjZmOTI2YzM0M2ZjOTUwZWU4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=

Again, it's easy to take a bit here, a bit there and come up with some credible questions -- but that's not reality, you gotta take it all in. Atta at Logan Airport. Planes crashing into buildings. People jumping from windows. A building that was designed for the floors themselves to serve as structural elements, each floor could hold itself, but when just one fell onto another ... dominoes. Will there be stuff we won't ever understand? Yap. But that shouldn't make us ignore all the points that simply can't be questioned.