9/11 Conspiracy Theories

POSTED BY: GreenFaerie
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 15:36
VIEWED: 25728
PAGE 6 of 9

Go ahead you traitors, keep "rebutting" facts and photos with NOTHING but preschool banter, while 80% of readers in this forum agree with the facts I post. I hope your paycheck is worth it. Not. The People aren't buyin your shit no more.


You folks are all insane! Does that seem right to you?
Jubel Early

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I am going to give civil, productive discussion one last attempt, as difficult as it is to fight the wave of bickering on internet forums. Someone, anyone, please, I am not out to persecute anyone for what they believe, I simply want intelligent responses from intelligent people so that I can expand my understanding if it does indeed require expansion (and a lot of you are saying it does, so I want to try and do that).

Please read this:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm

Please read it in full. It is trying to demonstrate the physical impossibility of the factors that are claimed to have caused the Towers to collapse. I am not an engineer, or a physicist, but my basic education in physics and chemistry leads me to believe that a great deal of it is solid logic.

If there is something wrong in this report, please quote it and explain to me what is wrong with it. I will gladly consider (thoroughly) any civil response that is offered to me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

It seems to me that this report does not take one thing into account that is very, very important in statistical physics (thermodynamics); pressure. They aren't looking at the stresses and pressure caused by impact, burning, and the weight of the buildings. The fact that pressure is not considered leads me to believe that the model is flawed.

They also don't seem to consider the idea that the steel in the buildings was weaker the higher up they went- this was apparent to the engineers constructing them in the 1970s and was a distressing fact to all of those who worked in them until 2001.

Also, the idea of "stacked trays" falling and not being visible on the ground; some were. There were bits of concrete that did not totally turn to dust, though the author of what you linked says there were not- I've seen them in the loads heading out to Fresh Kills which were on TV again and again. If these "stacked trays" fell again onto each other with enough force to bring the building down-consider pressure again here; "stacked trays" are similar to "piston heads," which would lower the pressure, cause a vacuum, and up the temperature significantly; the buildings would implode like a soda can that has had the air removed from it-the force of these "trays" hitting each other would be sufficient to cause major shattering and cracks.

I think that if pressure was considered, it would become immediately clear why these buildings fell.



"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thank you Freeradical. I appreciate your reading that and responding. I will try to show my consideration of pressure:

Quote:

---

pres·sure ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prshr)
n.

1.
a. The act of pressing.
b. The condition of being pressed.
2. The application of continuous force by one body on another that it is touching; compression.
3. Abbr. P Physics. Force applied uniformly over a surface, measured as force per unit of area.
[...]

---

I think we can agree on the 'force per unit of area' part of definition 3 for our purposes (if it would be better to use another, please do not hesitate to suggest one). The force in this case is going to be the downward force (due to gravity) of the floors above the plane's impact point. Let's consider the South Tower, which was struck lower down than the North Tower, at around floor 80. Presumably, with more floors above the impact point, the downward force on the weakened structure would be greater, and possibly be why the South Tower collapsed first.

The South Tower was struck on the eastern half of the southern face. Pictures of this can be found here:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews1.htm

We can see from the WTC floorplans which can be found earlier in this thread and again here: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm , that this leaves most of the central support columns in tact. The South Tower did not collapse until 56 minutes after impact, so we know that impact alone did not cause the collapse.

Quote:

---

They also don't seem to consider the idea that the steel in the buildings was weaker the higher up they went- this was apparent to the engineers constructing them in the 1970s and was a distressing fact to all of those who worked in them until 2001.

---

We have no reason to believe that they used different grade steel, or less steel as they went higher, so I cannot believe this statement. If you can provide some source or proof for it, I will reconsider it.

I do think the article considers the pressure you are talking about. From the article:

Quote:

---

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity — particularly if there are casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength).

According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. (emphasis mine)

---

I think these are fair assumptions. I do not believe that the people who designed and built the Towers were incompetent and didn't follow safety standards.

So, we know that just after impact, the majority of steel columns were in place in

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Just an observation but have you ever watched how a building actually falls? Everything has inertia so the top of a building actually only starts to move when the area lower down has already started moving. Like you say you cant really see the roofline start to move for the dust, that dust came from lower floors that had already colapsed.

Observation no 2. After the first WTC bombing there was a "modern marvels" show on the construction of the towers. It refutes the primary core of your argument. The WTC was not the strongest building ever made, or over engineered. Far from it. Very tall buildings have the same problems that aircraft have, their principle enemy is their own structural weight. Every pound higher up the building is supported by every foot of the building bellow it. This structure itself adds weight. The trick to big buildings is to keep the weight down, especially the higher you go, consequently the towers were not over engineered, every unnesccessary ton of "over engineering" actually costs tens of tons extra in the structure. You actually engineer it to just have enough strength to do the job plus a safety margin for worse envisaged weather otherwise the materials lower down would have to be "Unobtainium" or so dense that there would be no space for offices.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Just an observation but have you ever watched how a building actually falls?

---

From what I understand, buildings can fall in various ways, depending on construction, and what is causing the collapse. This site has some interesting pictures and bits of info:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

Quote:

---

* Nearly all the buildings that claim earthquake victims are heavy masonry low-rise structures, not steel-framed high-rise structures.
* Collapses of buildings of any type of construction are rare in the developed world, whose building standards anticipate severe stresses.
* Nearly all building collapses not involving controlled demolition are partial rather than total.

Excepting the 9/11/01 anomaly, the only documented cases of high-rise buildings undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes. Of those, only controlled demolitions have caused such buildings to fall vertically into their footprints, leaving relatively small rubble piles, as was the case with WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In fact there are numerous observed characteristics of the destruction of the Twin Towers that have not been observed in natural collapse events

---

Quote:

---

Everything has inertia so the top of a building actually only starts to move when the area lower down has already started moving. Like you say you cant really see the roofline start to move for the dust, that dust came from lower floors that had already colapsed.

---

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. For my part, I'll clarify, that the roofline is only obscured when it nears the bottom, where the dust cloud is rising. You can tell when it starts to fall with decent accuracy from certain videos. It's figuring out when it stops falling exactly that is the tough part.

I'm sorry I don't understand what point you are trying to make about inertia. Could I ask you to clarify?

Quote:

---

Observation no 2. After the first WTC bombing there was a "modern marvels" show on the construction of the towers. It refutes the primary core of your argument. The WTC was not the strongest building ever made, or over engineered. Far from it. Very tall buildings have the same problems that aircraft have, their principle enemy is their own structural weight. Every pound higher up the building is supported by every foot of the building bellow it. This structure itself adds weight. The trick to big buildings is to keep the weight down, especially the higher you go, consequently the towers were not over engineered, every unnesccessary ton of "over engineering" actually costs tens of tons extra in the structure. You actually engineer it to just have enough strength to do the job plus a safety margin for worse envisaged weather otherwise the materials lower down would have to be "Unobtainium" or so dense that there would be no space for offices.

---

I don't think it was me or my sources that claimed the Towers were the strongest buildings in the world, just the tallest. Another poster cited that it used to strongest steel in its construction. However, that is mostly besides the point. As for 'doing the job plus a safety margin', all I can say is that the Towers were, in fact, designed to take hits from a 707, so said Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management in January 2001. See a video of him saying it here:

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

And he was right, they each survived the impact of an eminently comparable size of plane (source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm). The physics of the fires don't add up, especially when we consider that the 1975 fire was on the 11th floor, and if "Every pound higher up the building is supported by every foot of the building bellow it" as you say is true, then we can presume that the stress on steel at the 11th floor is higher than on the 80th floor, and the 1975 fire burned longer, and over more floors, so it subjected th

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I love thermite. It's a pity powdered Aluminium is so hard to get hold of these days.

I have one question for those conspiratorially minded posters. Let's assume for the moment that everything PN and others have intimated is true. Let's look at the problems.

First, controlled demolition is not a question of just planting a big enough bomb, you actually selectively weaken the structure first, a process that can take weeks with a large building. You try and leave it strong enough that it will stay up until you want it to fall down. In truth those calculations are often out. Sometimes things fall early, sometimes they dont fall at all. So here we have it. If the argument is that the building is so strong that ONLY a controlled demolition could bring it down then to ensure it's destruction you would have had to have progressively weaken the structure in advance. When was that done, who did it and how did they stop the 1000 of office workers from noticing?

What would they do if they pushed the tit and the building didn't fall? That can happen wrong wire breaks, guy forgets to remove the safety. If you are left with a standing building full of evidence of planned sabotage I think we're talking revolution or at the very least a long row of folks waiting on the gas chamber. That's a big risk for these conspiracists for a tiny reward (relatively speaking)

Alternately, what happens if it fails early? What's the cover story if WTC1 falls on Sep 10th? What do you do when the maditory inspection of the other tower shows it ready to blow?

What happens if parts of your elaborate cover story fail? Where are all the people that were not really killed? How do you plan to keep something like this watertight secret forever knowing that if it ever did break your neck was in a noose bigtime?

Just curious.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The central support columns in the South Tower were mostly in tact due to the angle at which the plane crashed into the building, so they were still doing a large percentage of their job. Why didn't the North Tower collapse in 1975 if the fires were the chief cause of collapse in 2001?

---

I can answer that, because there was no impact in 1975. During construction various parts of the building including the structural steelwork was coated in fire restardant --basically a thick asbestosy pancake material. Like most products of it's type it has fantastic heat resistance but minimal structural strength. When the plane hit you had 3 circumstances not evident in a regular building fire.

1) You had structural damage to the building that meant that some structural elements were now missing and others were bearing unexpected loads and crossloads they were not designed for.

2) The shock shattered the spray on fire restartant material. We know this because some of the steel that came to rest away from the ground fire showed signs of fire damage. It therefore was in contact with the fire in situ. A basic fire would not have broken the fire retardent and with the retardent in place it would take far longer to heat the steel to a critical temperature.

3) Most fires start small in a small area and then spread. Fuel air explosions, or situations where an airborne accelerant are ignited cause a wall of flame that can have evrything in the area on fire in miliseconds. It could take several hours for a regular fire to spread as far and effect as much of the building as the explosion could ignite in one instant. A bigger area of fire gets hotter quicker.

As to the 707 comment. The case the towers were designed to meet was an impact like the one where the Army bomber flew into the Empire State building. Ie, lost pilot in fog flying relatively slowly and accidentally hiting the building. This was not a design envisioning a fully fueled jetliner ramming the building at close to maximum velocity (and much faster than a 707.) The design considerations dealt only with the initial impact, and as we can see that worked really well. Had there not been a fire chances are the buildings would have stayed up.

On inertia etc I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that you didn't see when the tower started to fall. It probably started to fall several seconds before the upper stories started moving. Wondered if you added that to your timings.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RolandReynolds:
Then there were the "carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks..." Fires from these sources could not have had such a drastic effect on the central support columns, which were mostly in tact after impact. How can we draw this conclusion? In 1975 a fire started on the 11th floor of the North Tower, burning over 6 floors for 3 hours (as opposed to the 56 minutes of the South Tower).

---

The tower didn't have a great big hole in it from a plane crash though did it. Apart from that something catastrophic, like a plane crash for instance, does a lot more damage to the structure of a building than the hole it leaves behind. It's fair to say the entire structure would have been weakened by a plane hitting it. There are incidents where planes have hit tower blocks, the buildings haven't fallen, they've sustained the impact but they are condemned afterwards because the structure is weakened.

Quote:

---

So, we know that just after impact, the majority of steel columns were in place in the South Tower, and that they were able to support the weight of the upper floors.

---

That doesn't mean the remaining supports can be considered as strong as they were pre-crash. There's also a reason why we stay well below stated maximums, in the real world materials never achieve them.

Quote:

---

The photos featured in the article, and just about anywhere else you can find them, confirms that it was black smoke pouring from the Towers. Black smoke = oxygen deprived = not an efficiently burning fire = not a high temperature fire.

---

You can get black smoke from Blast furnaces at 1500c. Black smoke can also indicate WHAT is burning; like for instance black smoke is what you get from burning foams used in furniture, like that which you find in say, an office. Your whole chain of causality is fallacious.

Quote:

---

The next argument is that the steel did not have to melt, and jet fuel wasn't the only fuel for the fire.
From http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm :

Quote:

---

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?

---

---

Erm no. You don't have to raise the temperature of the entire structure, that's ridiculous. Physics (material and thermal dynamics) are on my side here. You can test it your self, take a metre pipe of steel, cut the end off with an oxyacetylene torch, and then touch the other end. Notice how you can melt the end without noticeably raising the temperature of the entire bar.

Quote:

---

A vacuum is necessarily air-tight, and lacks oxygen, which is required for combustion, which is what would raise temperature, so I think your analogy may be flawed. I do not think the environment of the collapsing Towers was an air-tight environment at any stage.

---

You get similar effects in homes, you don't need air tight. All you need is restricted airflow (which is a given in a building, whether you have a hole in the side or not) and a demand that outstrips the supply (like with a big damn fire). What you get is a reduced air pressure in comparison to the outside environment, which is what we call a vacuum.

Quote:

---

Forgetting that we've established that none of the fires could have weakened 200,000 tons of heat-conductive steel, let's say the columns that were closest to the fire did weaken enough to buckle (and all buckle at exactly the same time).

---

No we haven't and it's irrelevant.

Quote:

---

The fires were confined to the floors around the impact (around 4 floors, see the Loose Change documentary), so we can assume that the sections of column in the lower floors still had their original integrity. If certain flo

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME