yeah, that's what their estimates say...so you are accepting what amounts to guesses b/c the nist tells you it's so?
Yes. The fact that they can document their methodology and aren't so afraid to refer to an estimate as an estimate rather than "unquestionable evidence" kind of helps.
Of all the stupid conspiracies there have been, this one is the ultimate stupid conspiracy theory. I am sorry, but it just makes me really sick with people who have bought into this one....it actually shows your lack of common sense, wisdom, good judgement. And you people can vote!
Both buildings were hit by planes that were hijacked. Do we need to discuss this? Imagine the theories that would fly if there was no video!
Both buildings were on fire with plenty of fuel other than just jet fuel.
Steel melts, weakens, breaks from the impact, whatever. It all creates a structure that is weakened. If a building 110 stories tall was totally on fire for hours and it didn't collapse, that doesn't give good insight to a building hit by an airplane at 400 to 600 mph, tearing internal structure upon impact, much like a bomb. EXPLOSION creates shredded steel all the time. And with tons of jet fuel, and with lots of fire coming later, who knows how hot it really got in there. No way to know in my opinion.
Bin Laden takes credit, Al Queda takes credit.
Arabs around the world celebrated, at least showing motive.
Both buildings collapsed roughly in the area of the impacts, if there were bombs planted by the govt then the hijackers would have to have known where to hit the buildings beforehand, and hit that area. Not easy at those speeds to hit certain floors and I doubt they had time to count from the top down. And the devices would have to be planted where the planes were going to hit, ahead of time with no one noticing.
And on the Pentagon: people think proof is there that no plane hit that building because there are no pics. If there were no pics of the WTC you would be saying the same thing, but there are pics because there were cameras on Tower I which was burning. But if there weren't any video that doesn't mean it wasn't true. And it was dumb luck those photographers from France doing the documentary caught the first plane going in. Absense of video proof means nothing.
You don't need a picture to determine that a hijacked plane (77) hit the Pentagon, and it killed all the passengers, one being the wife of a high offical, Ted Olsen. His wife was on TV regularly as a conservative commentator, Barbara Olsen. Haven't seen her on TV doing commentary since, maybe she is with Elvis. FYI, I have a cousin who's friend was a pilot on that plane. He's gone.
The conspiracy requires unbelievable scenarios to be believed, much more unbelievable than the actual truth.
Logical argument. I agree completely. This is the last I will read of this ridiculous thread. To anyone who believes this was a conspiracy, I truly feel bad for you and I hope you get help soon.
"Darkness comes in waves, tell me, why invite it to stay?"
For Me... The Bottom Line...
This administration has proven time and time again that it is incapable of pulling off something as complicated and successful as the September 11, 2001 attacks. I only need to look as far as the total debacle in Iraq to verify that this administration is inept at planning and execution.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I honestly wish that we could conduct a study for all those who believe this was a conspiracy by the US. I wish we could:
a) rebuild the towers exactly how they were
b) all those who believe that the airplanes, fuel, etc. could not possibly make them collapse could volunteer to stay in the building say on the 20th floor or so (well below where the planes crashed)
c) have some more terrorists (w/no innocent people on the flight) smash the planes into the towers at the same times
d) see what happens
those who believe this theory should feel safe staying in the buildings since their beliefs are so supported by engineers, et al. and seem to be factual. I wonder how many people would be willing.....
I am far from a Bush supporter personally - but I think this is the most insane thought anyone could possibly believe and I wish as a NY'er it would stop.
I'd stay in the towers, no question. I do not believe that the towers came down, solely because the planes hit them. This isn't an attack on america or New Yorkers. I'm not saying that America planned 9/11, or carried it out. I'm not saying that after the planes hit, people ran in with explosives, because that clearly did not happen.
All I'm saying, is that there is enough evidence and claims by intellectuals, to make me question why the towers came down.
The explosions in the towers before the planes hit.
The firemen who, half way up the tower, radioed down to say the fire would be out in half an hour, right before the towers collapsed. God bless their soul.
The explosions on the lowers floors before the towers collapsed.
These are all things which should make people think, hang on, perhaps something else did happen.
Is it completely infeasible that Al Qaeda could have planted bombs in the building for example? A few days before 9/11, there were a number of fire drills where everybody left the towers. I'm not saying they did, just perhaps.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
Yes, it does work both ways. I would say there is enough evidence to support both opinions. To paraphrase Jim Garrison in JFK "physics will tell you an elephant can hang over a cliff with it's tail attatched to a daisy", but I think the evidence that "something" was amuck in the government in regard to 9/11 is enough to support some theories.
I would say there is enough evidence to support both opinions. To paraphrase Jim Garrison in JFK "physics will tell you an elephant can hang over a cliff with it's tail attatched to a daisy", but I think the evidence that "something" was amuck in the government in regard to 9/11 is enough to support some theories.
Finding "something amuck" in the government is like finding heat on a fire. It tends to come with the territory.
Finding "something amuck" in the government is like finding heat on a fire. It tends to come with the territory.
Yes, I am just saying there is a strong connection to this administratioin that should support further investigation or is enough evidence to at least give the conspiracy nuts some ground to stand on
Yes, I am just saying there is a strong connection to this administratioin that should support further investigation or is enough evidence to at least give the conspiracy nuts some ground to stand on
It would be nice to be able to devote that much time and energy to it, but i don't see that paying the bills at this point. It seems to be working quite well for those Loose Change fellas though, so good for them. If they could only polish up some facts they present, they might really be onto something.
It would be nice to be able to devote that much time and energy to it, but i don't see that paying the bills at this point.
There's big money in exposing conspiracy. A bestseller and a hit film will pay the bills for quite a while.
It seems to be working quite well for those Loose Change fellas though, so good for them. If they could only polish up some facts they present, they might really be onto something.
The latter would really kill the former...so I don't see that happening.
I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:
1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.
2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.
3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.
4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.
Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?
ah yes; another conspiracy thread. i explained what happened; the scientific evidence to prove it and gave you a way to prove it yourself in your own back yard.
i'm not going through that again but i'll touch on it.
1) open the door of a wood stove and the fire burns a lot hotter. it's the same principle of a jet engine. i can heat steel and bend it without melting it. it doesn't take 2800 degrees to weaken steel. the WTC was the tallest chimney in the world.
2) even if 17 tons of jet A burned out in 10 minutes; there was other things in the building that burned. you can take wood and put it in your oven. when it reaches kindling temperature; it will burst into flames without any fire touching it. we call it spontanious combustion.
3) there has only been 3 incidents of building collapsing straight down like that because the conditions which brought the building down only existed once. a building that big cannot be brought down with an implosion. the larger buildings imploded fell to one side
4) the colapse measured as an earthquake as far away as maine. ever see a building collapse in an earthquake? especially one next to a raging fire long after the quake subsided?
so there you have it.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
ah yes; another conspiracy thread. i explained what happened; the scientific evidence to prove it and gave you a way to prove it yourself in your own back yard.
i'm not going through that again but i'll touch on it.
1) open the door of a wood stove and the fire burns a lot hotter. it's the same principle of a jet engine. i can heat steel and bend it without melting it. it doesn't take 2800 degrees to weaken steel. the WTC was the tallest chimney in the world.
2) even if 17 tons of jet A burned out in 10 minutes; there was other things in the building that burned. you can take wood and put it in your oven. when it reaches kindling temperature; it will burst into flames without any fire touching it. we call it spontanious combustion.
3) there has only been 3 incidents of building collapsing straight down like that because the conditions which brought the building down only existed once. a building that big cannot be brought down with an implosion. the larger buildings imploded fell to one side
4) the colapse measured as an earthquake as far away as maine. ever see a building collapse in an earthquake? especially one next to a raging fire long after the quake subsided?
so there you have it.
1. Again, I refer you to my previous argument, that if the steel had just bended, then the towers wouldn't have just come straight down would they. Technicians and architects have stated that the towers were built to withstand a plane hitting.
2. I believe that a fire can only reach a max temperature, no matter how much fuel you add to it. You can keep the fire going but the temperature won't increase (i believe). I may be wrong, its been years since I did science at school.
3. That is not an argument. You can't say it happened just because its only happened once.
4. I don't understand this point. Are you saying that the planes hitting the towers created an earthquake which caused them to come, straight down in on themselves? Because that seems pretty unlikely, buildings damaged in earthquakes do not come straight down.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
such questions arise from crazy conspiracy theories. yes the CIA wanted the towers to fall. and the apollo moon-landing was faked and actually took place in arizonia.....oh brother.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
I'd stay in the towers, no question. I do not believe that the towers came down, solely because the planes hit them. This isn't an attack on america or New Yorkers. I'm not saying that America planned 9/11, or carried it out. I'm not saying that after the planes hit, people ran in with explosives, because that clearly did not happen.
All I'm saying, is that there is enough evidence and claims by intellectuals, to make me question why the towers came down.
The explosions in the towers before the planes hit.
The firemen who, half way up the tower, radioed down to say the fire would be out in half an hour, right before the towers collapsed. God bless their soul.
The explosions on the lowers floors before the towers collapsed.
These are all things which should make people think, hang on, perhaps something else did happen.
Is it completely infeasible that Al Qaeda could have planted bombs in the building for example? A few days before 9/11, there were a number of fire drills where everybody left the towers. I'm not saying they did, just perhaps.
The stupidity is astounding. You'd stay in the towers? No, you wouldn't.
such questions arise from crazy conspiracy theories. yes the CIA wanted the towers to fall. and the apollo moon-landing was faked and actually took place in arizonia.....oh brother.
Indeed. People who really believe that 9/11 was an inside job dismiss way more evidence than they pay attention to. Holocaust deniers do the same thing. They take one small portion of the story that isn't completely explainable or clear, and use it to say "because this isn't fully explained, they must be hiding something". In the real world, not everything can be fully explained. Even in the most controlled scientific experiments, issues come up all the time that aren't fully explained.
Indeed. People who really believe that 9/11 was an inside job dismiss way more evidence than they pay attention to. Holocaust deniers do the same thing. They take one small portion of the story that isn't completely explainable or clear, and use it to say "because this isn't fully explained, they must be hiding something". In the real world, not everything can be fully explained. Even in the most controlled scientific experiments, issues come up all the time that aren't fully explained.
Applying the "logic" of creationism, those gaps can be explained easily - God did it!
Indeed. People who really believe that 9/11 was an inside job dismiss way more evidence than they pay attention to. Holocaust deniers do the same thing. They take one small portion of the story that isn't completely explainable or clear, and use it to say "because this isn't fully explained, they must be hiding something". In the real world, not everything can be fully explained. Even in the most controlled scientific experiments, issues come up all the time that aren't fully explained.
I don't believe that it was an inside job. I just think other things happened which we don't know about. Is that really so bad?
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
Indeed. People who really believe that 9/11 was an inside job dismiss way more evidence than they pay attention to. Holocaust deniers do the same thing. They take one small portion of the story that isn't completely explainable or clear, and use it to say "because this isn't fully explained, they must be hiding something". In the real world, not everything can be fully explained. Even in the most controlled scientific experiments, issues come up all the time that aren't fully explained.
This is a good post. Add in the fact that you have people deliberately seeking or inventing these "unexplainable" elements and doing so for the wrong reasons (to create doubt rather than seek knowledge), and you have the exact situation we see today with these theories.
1. Again, I refer you to my previous argument, that if the steel had just bended, then the towers wouldn't have just come straight down would they. Technicians and architects have stated that the towers were built to withstand a plane hitting.
2. I believe that a fire can only reach a max temperature, no matter how much fuel you add to it. You can keep the fire going but the temperature won't increase (i believe). I may be wrong, its been years since I did science at school.
3. That is not an argument. You can't say it happened just because its only happened once.
4. I don't understand this point. Are you saying that the planes hitting the towers created an earthquake which caused them to come, straight down in on themselves? Because that seems pretty unlikely, buildings damaged in earthquakes do not come straight down.
1) WTC may have been designed for an accidental plane hitting it in the 1960's, but not a large plane, going full throttle with all that fuel. The building failed because of a gaping whole left the steel structure half of what it was for many floors. The remaining steel left in that area was subject to the temperatures that further compromised it. The weight of the levels above collapsed down, creating momentum and impact loads that the building lower levels could not withstand (pancake effect).
4) The 2 main towers that collapsed created vertical vibrations in the ground that may have effected the 3rd WTC tower. Earthquakes are generally horizontal motion. The vertical vibrations may have caused the 3rd building to spring up and down creating additional stresses to an existing building that was also on fire.
"This guy back here is giving me the ole one more....one more back to you buddy."
1) WTC may have been designed for an accidental plane hitting it in the 1960's, but not a large plane, going full throttle with all that fuel. The building failed because of a gaping whole left the steel structure half of what it was for many floors. The remaining steel left in that area was subject to the temperatures that further compromised it. The weight of the levels above collapsed down, creating momentum and impact loads that the building lower levels could not withstand (pancake effect).
4) The 2 main towers that collapsed created vertical vibrations in the ground that may have effected the 3rd WTC tower. Earthquakes are generally horizontal motion. The vertical vibrations may have caused the 3rd building to spring up and down creating additional stresses to an existing building that was also on fire.
Indeed. People who really believe that 9/11 was an inside job dismiss way more evidence than they pay attention to. Holocaust deniers do the same thing. They take one small portion of the story that isn't completely explainable or clear, and use it to say "because this isn't fully explained, they must be hiding something". In the real world, not everything can be fully explained. Even in the most controlled scientific experiments, issues come up all the time that aren't fully explained.
really would the u.s government (or whoever) really risk being found out murdering 3000 of their own civilians simply to invade afghanistan and then iraq? its insane.....
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
I don't believe that it was an inside job. I just think other things happened which we don't know about. Is that really so bad?
It's bad to say other things happened when you have no solid evidence to back up your statements. A few eyewitness accounts of bombs going off and a couple of firemen saying the fires could be put out, don't really account for much against the majority of witnesses who say nothing about bombs, the structural engineers who radio-ed down to say the steel was weakening, and the majority of evidence that shows the planes and fires caused the collapses.
From what I can tell, all you're doing is watching the video footage and thinking "that doesn't look how I think it should...that building isn't collapsing like I think it should". That is what's driving you to ask certain questions and demand answers for everything that isn't totally clear. That isn't a sensible method for obtaining the truth.
It's bad to say other things happened when you have no solid evidence to back up your statements. A few eyewitness accounts of bombs going off and a couple of firemen saying the fires could be put out, don't really account for much against the majority of witnesses who say nothing about bombs, the structural engineers who radio-ed down to say the steel was weakening, and the majority of evidence that shows the planes and fires caused the collapses.
From what I can tell, all you're doing is watching the video footage and thinking "that doesn't look how I think it should...that building isn't collapsing like I think it should". That is what's driving you to ask certain questions and demand answers for everything that isn't totally clear. That isn't a sensible method for obtaining the truth.
There's plenty of things we think may happen that we have no solid proof of. Life on other planets for example. Solid proof doesn't mean absence of proof. I'm bored of arguing about it now, lets drop it.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
1. Again, I refer you to my previous argument, that if the steel had just bended, then the towers wouldn't have just come straight down would they. Technicians and architects have stated that the towers were built to withstand a plane hitting.
2. I believe that a fire can only reach a max temperature, no matter how much fuel you add to it. You can keep the fire going but the temperature won't increase (i believe). I may be wrong, its been years since I did science at school.
3. That is not an argument. You can't say it happened just because its only happened once.
4. I don't understand this point. Are you saying that the planes hitting the towers created an earthquake which caused them to come, straight down in on themselves? Because that seems pretty unlikely, buildings damaged in earthquakes do not come straight down.
i'm tired of this too but maybe i can answer your questions:
1) if i dropped thousands of tons of concrete on your house; it would flatten. and it would flatten in the direction of the downward force. thousands of tons of steel and concrete hit the floor below causing it to fall straight down. the plane didn't cause the collapse.
2) picture a blacksmiths bellows. it feeds more O2 to the fire causing it to burn hotter.
3) to implode a building requires cutting of certain structural key points. you don't just wire it with explosives.
4) the collapse registered "as" an earthquake as far north as maine. the planes only exposed the steel and caused vibrations; and, delivered fuel for the fire.
it's a progression of events and i don't think many people see this. the building took the plane hit ok. but it blew away a lot of fireproofing. the heat from the fire weakened the exposed steel making it unable to support it's load. the rest is gravity.
Comments
Yes. The fact that they can document their methodology and aren't so afraid to refer to an estimate as an estimate rather than "unquestionable evidence" kind of helps.
Logical argument. I agree completely. This is the last I will read of this ridiculous thread. To anyone who believes this was a conspiracy, I truly feel bad for you and I hope you get help soon.
This administration has proven time and time again that it is incapable of pulling off something as complicated and successful as the September 11, 2001 attacks. I only need to look as far as the total debacle in Iraq to verify that this administration is inept at planning and execution.
Hail, Hail!!!
a) rebuild the towers exactly how they were
b) all those who believe that the airplanes, fuel, etc. could not possibly make them collapse could volunteer to stay in the building say on the 20th floor or so (well below where the planes crashed)
c) have some more terrorists (w/no innocent people on the flight) smash the planes into the towers at the same times
d) see what happens
those who believe this theory should feel safe staying in the buildings since their beliefs are so supported by engineers, et al. and seem to be factual. I wonder how many people would be willing.....
I am far from a Bush supporter personally - but I think this is the most insane thought anyone could possibly believe and I wish as a NY'er it would stop.
All I'm saying, is that there is enough evidence and claims by intellectuals, to make me question why the towers came down.
The explosions in the towers before the planes hit.
The firemen who, half way up the tower, radioed down to say the fire would be out in half an hour, right before the towers collapsed. God bless their soul.
The explosions on the lowers floors before the towers collapsed.
These are all things which should make people think, hang on, perhaps something else did happen.
Is it completely infeasible that Al Qaeda could have planted bombs in the building for example? A few days before 9/11, there were a number of fire drills where everybody left the towers. I'm not saying they did, just perhaps.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
Does that work both ways?
Yes, it does work both ways. I would say there is enough evidence to support both opinions. To paraphrase Jim Garrison in JFK "physics will tell you an elephant can hang over a cliff with it's tail attatched to a daisy", but I think the evidence that "something" was amuck in the government in regard to 9/11 is enough to support some theories.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Cool.
Finding "something amuck" in the government is like finding heat on a fire. It tends to come with the territory.
Yes, I am just saying there is a strong connection to this administratioin that should support further investigation or is enough evidence to at least give the conspiracy nuts some ground to stand on
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Then go investigate. It worked for these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_President%27s_Men
It would be nice to be able to devote that much time and energy to it, but i don't see that paying the bills at this point. It seems to be working quite well for those Loose Change fellas though, so good for them. If they could only polish up some facts they present, they might really be onto something.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
There's big money in exposing conspiracy. A bestseller and a hit film will pay the bills for quite a while.
The latter would really kill the former...so I don't see that happening.
ah yes; another conspiracy thread. i explained what happened; the scientific evidence to prove it and gave you a way to prove it yourself in your own back yard.
i'm not going through that again but i'll touch on it.
1) open the door of a wood stove and the fire burns a lot hotter. it's the same principle of a jet engine. i can heat steel and bend it without melting it. it doesn't take 2800 degrees to weaken steel. the WTC was the tallest chimney in the world.
2) even if 17 tons of jet A burned out in 10 minutes; there was other things in the building that burned. you can take wood and put it in your oven. when it reaches kindling temperature; it will burst into flames without any fire touching it. we call it spontanious combustion.
3) there has only been 3 incidents of building collapsing straight down like that because the conditions which brought the building down only existed once. a building that big cannot be brought down with an implosion. the larger buildings imploded fell to one side
4) the colapse measured as an earthquake as far away as maine. ever see a building collapse in an earthquake? especially one next to a raging fire long after the quake subsided?
so there you have it.
1. Again, I refer you to my previous argument, that if the steel had just bended, then the towers wouldn't have just come straight down would they. Technicians and architects have stated that the towers were built to withstand a plane hitting.
2. I believe that a fire can only reach a max temperature, no matter how much fuel you add to it. You can keep the fire going but the temperature won't increase (i believe). I may be wrong, its been years since I did science at school.
3. That is not an argument. You can't say it happened just because its only happened once.
4. I don't understand this point. Are you saying that the planes hitting the towers created an earthquake which caused them to come, straight down in on themselves? Because that seems pretty unlikely, buildings damaged in earthquakes do not come straight down.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
The stupidity is astounding. You'd stay in the towers? No, you wouldn't.
Indeed. People who really believe that 9/11 was an inside job dismiss way more evidence than they pay attention to. Holocaust deniers do the same thing. They take one small portion of the story that isn't completely explainable or clear, and use it to say "because this isn't fully explained, they must be hiding something". In the real world, not everything can be fully explained. Even in the most controlled scientific experiments, issues come up all the time that aren't fully explained.
Applying the "logic" of creationism, those gaps can be explained easily - God did it!
This part made me laugh.
I don't believe that it was an inside job. I just think other things happened which we don't know about. Is that really so bad?
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
This is a good post. Add in the fact that you have people deliberately seeking or inventing these "unexplainable" elements and doing so for the wrong reasons (to create doubt rather than seek knowledge), and you have the exact situation we see today with these theories.
1) WTC may have been designed for an accidental plane hitting it in the 1960's, but not a large plane, going full throttle with all that fuel. The building failed because of a gaping whole left the steel structure half of what it was for many floors. The remaining steel left in that area was subject to the temperatures that further compromised it. The weight of the levels above collapsed down, creating momentum and impact loads that the building lower levels could not withstand (pancake effect).
4) The 2 main towers that collapsed created vertical vibrations in the ground that may have effected the 3rd WTC tower. Earthquakes are generally horizontal motion. The vertical vibrations may have caused the 3rd building to spring up and down creating additional stresses to an existing building that was also on fire.
- Mr. Edward Vedder 7/11/03
But, but...Bush did it...
really would the u.s government (or whoever) really risk being found out murdering 3000 of their own civilians simply to invade afghanistan and then iraq? its insane.....
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
It's bad to say other things happened when you have no solid evidence to back up your statements. A few eyewitness accounts of bombs going off and a couple of firemen saying the fires could be put out, don't really account for much against the majority of witnesses who say nothing about bombs, the structural engineers who radio-ed down to say the steel was weakening, and the majority of evidence that shows the planes and fires caused the collapses.
From what I can tell, all you're doing is watching the video footage and thinking "that doesn't look how I think it should...that building isn't collapsing like I think it should". That is what's driving you to ask certain questions and demand answers for everything that isn't totally clear. That isn't a sensible method for obtaining the truth.
There's plenty of things we think may happen that we have no solid proof of. Life on other planets for example. Solid proof doesn't mean absence of proof. I'm bored of arguing about it now, lets drop it.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
i'm tired of this too but maybe i can answer your questions:
1) if i dropped thousands of tons of concrete on your house; it would flatten. and it would flatten in the direction of the downward force. thousands of tons of steel and concrete hit the floor below causing it to fall straight down. the plane didn't cause the collapse.
2) picture a blacksmiths bellows. it feeds more O2 to the fire causing it to burn hotter.
3) to implode a building requires cutting of certain structural key points. you don't just wire it with explosives.
4) the collapse registered "as" an earthquake as far north as maine. the planes only exposed the steel and caused vibrations; and, delivered fuel for the fire.
it's a progression of events and i don't think many people see this. the building took the plane hit ok. but it blew away a lot of fireproofing. the heat from the fire weakened the exposed steel making it unable to support it's load. the rest is gravity.