So how did the Towers Fall?

spiral out

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

And what was all the clouds of smoke that can be clearly seen rising from the bottomof the world trade centres before they fell be then?

I don't think bodies and debris that has not began to fall yet can sound like explosives.

Or that really is an amazing thing that could only happen in america.

spiral out

Magus wrote:

2 the towers do not fall "straight" down if you look at the video the first tower falls slightly to the size it was hit on first...

This only lends weight again to the explosive theroy, I have watched many building being pulled down by explosives and some do lean to the side for a bit.

I believe i posted a link to some somewhere on this site.

pushmepullme

Firstly, I did not say that America flew the jets into the twin towers.

Secondly, sky scrapers are designed to withhold large amounts of damage, and the engineers who built the towers, have said they would have been able to withstand the damage caused to it.

pushmepullme

Another thing, which i've just found out, is that there are a number of witnesses, who reported explosions in the buildings, BEFORE any planes hit.

Also, Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. The chief, Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could. But he said that there was another explosion, which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

No one is claiming that steel "melted". The claim is that the steal weakened, and temperatures do not have to be 2800 degrees F to weaken steel. Furthermore, the 650 degree number you quote is ridiculously low. NIST estimates put the temperature in some areas closer to 1800 degrees.

yeah, that's what their estimates say...so you are accepting what amounts to guesses b/c the nist tells you it's so?

spiral out

pushmepullme wrote:

Firstly, I did not say that America flew the jets into the twin towers. So shut the fuck up and read my original post.

Secondly, sky scrapers are designed to withhold large amounts of damage, and the engineers who built the towers, have said they would have been able to withstand the damage caused to it.

Not the twin towers, they wern't designed to withstand planes hitting, they were apparently built to collapse.

But then the story changes so much who knows what the truth is.

pushmepullme

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, that's what their estimates say...so you are accepting what amounts to guesses b/c the nist tells you it's so?

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote,
1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."

ledvedderman

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

I know that this is from Prison Planet, but it a video of the Construction Manager saying the buildings were meant to withstand numerous plane crashes

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

Just try and say that the above video looks like a building falling on it's own.

Once again, the said videos are from Prison Planet, and I will agree that Alex Jones is 80% crazy, but these aren't HIS videos

AllNiteThing

The government was not responsible for carrying out these attacks.

They were however criminably negligible, and aware that some attack would happen. All threats and warnings were there, and the CIA was involved with Attah very closely. The exact specifics were not known, but also nothing was done to apprehend them. Cheney told them to 'back off'. They may not have orchestrated it, but they certainly created the conditions favorable to SOME attack against our civilians.

Why? Because they had a long standing agenda drawn up years before that they were eager to implement. Patriot Act, Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were all planned well before 9/11, but this act gave them the popular support to do what they wanted. Who has benefited more than anyone else from 9/11? Look closely.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

farfromglorified

spiral out wrote:

And what was all the clouds of smoke that can be clearly seen rising from the bottomof the world trade centres before they fell be then?

It's called dust and smoke. That's what happens when things like elevators and burning debris fall dozens of floors to the ground.

I don't think bodies and debris that has not began to fall yet can sound like explosives.

Ok.

Or that really is an amazing thing that could only happen in america.

This did happen in America.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

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.

T-Bone 82

WindNoSail wrote:

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.

Cosmo

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.

edvedder913

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.

pushmepullme

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.

Affroman

All I'm saying, is that there is enough evidence and claims by intellectuals, to make me question why the towers came down.

totally agree with what your saying.

farfromglorified

All I'm saying, is that there is enough evidence and claims by intellectuals, to make me question why the towers came down

Does that work both ways?

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

Yes, it does work both ways.

Cool.

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.

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

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