Was 911 an Inside Job?

bro, you are GRASPING big time. The towers were identical. They were both hit with relatively the same factor. The most important factors remained the same between both buildings. so YES, I would expect them to fall the same way and approximately the same time.

I was never sure if it was their goal to bring down the towers or if that was just a "bonus". I am lead to believe it was their mission to bring the towers down. The middle easterners are not idiots. They knew what it would take to bring the towers down. It was not some hypothetical-thought-out-of-the-ass plan. Give these guys some credit where its due. Lunatics, yes. Idiots, no.

The towers were meant to withstand a collision of a smaller jet, slower speeds, and less fuel. The tests were run against an accidental collision, not an intent to bring it down.

An expert in physics, engineering and conspiracy theories. you're out of your mind. What next? argue that the big bad wolf didn't blow the stick structure frame down from the little pigs house? Let me guess, it was a conspiracy for the other little pigs to live in the brick house?

 

So it was the first time in history of mankind that two buildings fell down into themselves pefectly in free fall speed (less than 10 seconds) along with the steel structure, that should of been still standing since the 9/11 commission said it was a pancake effect, and also pulverized the concrete into fine dust (exaclty like a controlled demolision). All three just "happended" on 9-11-01 for the first time ever in history? Wake up cowboy and smell the manure. It just doesn't add up.

 

No...it wouldn't have. The steel frame was built a floor at a time...just like the rest of the building. The weight of the upper floors would snap the already compromised steel at the weld joints.

You have been scientifically wrong at every turn during this thread.

Next we need to have somebody show you the difference between your butt and a hole in the ground.

Simply astonishing.

 

Except the annealing temperature for steel is around 1200°F, at which point it undergoes a shift to a different crystalline structure and looses a great portion of structural strength.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=3030066&postcount=97

 

So if your job is to get a bunch of people out of a building as fast as possible, you are going to tell them there is a tank in the building? You are more likely to get questions and puzzled expressions than evacuation. You say bomb and people understand. Using the word bomb doesn't necessarily mean that the building was rigged with explosives and set to be demolished.

As for their being a big difference between a diesel fuel tank and a bomb, not really. Have you ever heard of napalm, or incendiary devices in general. A big tank full of diesel fuel when combined with some method to detonate it is a bomb. The Mk 77 bomb is not radically different than a fuel tank with a detonator attached to it. Given that they figured it was going to explode, labeling the fuel tank a bomb is not inaccurate.

 

Yeah...I suppose next you'll say it was planned by Mayor Guiliani.

It is impossible to argue rationally with a tin fiol helmet, black helicopter conspiracy theorist who persists on quoting sources who have no independent credibility and documentary makers trying to make a quick buck.

Night night...don't let the UFOs bite.

 

First, I stated the factors were exactly the same, regardless of what brought it down, so therefore, I expect them to come down in the same pattern.

Now how exactly do you expect them to fall down?? Videos show they started top first. We're not talking about a few thousand tons for each floor. The initial chain was hundreds of thousands of tons and nothing was going to stop that momentum. You're giving way too much credit to the strength of the buildings. 10 seconds is a hell of a long time.

 

If WTC 7 was a planned collapse, why did the Fire department notice a bulge in the building at 2pm (3 hours before the collapse) and decided the building was unstable, cease rescue operations, and evacuate?

And WTC 7 was build on a con edison substation, which also meant the building was less stable because it had to have a smaller foundation built around the substation.

Planned collapses don't have raging fires, massive structural damage that was visible before the collaspse, and bulging going on 3 hours before the collapse.

Please, stop this sick non-sense.

 

I seriously cant believe that many people think it was an inside job. R U KIDDING ME??? This poll makes me sick

 

I seriously hope that natural selection eliminates those that believe this garbage from the gene pool.

 

I've just skimmed this thread and haven't had a chance to see any of the videos but I've noticed a lot of mistatements of fact and a lack of understanding of construction and the design of the WTC.

The WTC wasn't designed to withstand a strike by a 747 but by a 727 which is smaller and with less fuel capacity than the 767's that struck the towers. In that regard the designers did a good job as the towers initialy withstood the strikes. What took down the towers though wasn't the strike but the result of the ensuing fire and of the gypsum insulation of the steel structure being blown off by the explosions.

The next mistatement is that a fire has never taken down a steel building. That isn't true as I myself have seen steel buildings collapsed from fire. What many people don't understand is that steel actually performs poorly in fire, even poorer than heavy timber, and has to be heavily insulated. It doesn't take steel to melt for it to lose its structural strength which will occur at a much lower temperature. The WTC steel was insulated with spray gypsum insulation and gypsum wallboard (drywall). This material is fairly brittle and also the contractor who built the Towers had skimped somewhat on the insulation so its no surprise that once the planes exploded you suddenly had a large area of uninsulated structural steel exposed to a fire. It is already known that uninsulated structural steel in a fire will lose its strength in about one hour.

I also noticed that it was mentioned that no investigation was done and that the government didn't allow examination of the debris. That is patently untrue.

Immediately following 9/11 the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) started an investigation. They are a professional organization and due to the size of the investigation the ASCE made call for engineers and others who knew about construction to volunteer to help examine the debris. I personally had considered volunteering for that but couldn't due to time constraints but I got to see the debris anyway a few weeks after 9/11 when I visited Ground Zero.

So it would've been impossible to have a coverup of the debris when independent engineers were coming in to examine it along with that anyone could go and see Ground Zero.

A lot of comments have also been made regarding how the buildings fell down. One thing that people need to understand is that a skyscraper isn't a monolithic structure like a domino but is really like a stack of cards held up by sticks. When you knock out some sticks in the middle of the stack the whole thing doesn't tilt over but what happens is that the cards above start falling down onto the cards below. If there is sufficient weight the whole things falls into a relatively contained pile. of cards.

Many have commented that the WTC collapse looks like a controlled demolition. For one their are some key differences but if you understand how a controlled demolition works it makes sense that the collapse would look very similar. In a controlled demolition seeks to do two things, one is to bring the building down in such a way as to limit damage to other structures but the other is do it in a way that works with gravity so that you don't have to use too many explosives. Given the nature of a multistory building as a stack of cards held up by sticks the most likely way gravity will take it down is through pancaking. The size of the WTC powers and design would mean that short of overrooting them at their foundations the most direct path that gravity would take to collapse is pancaking them down.

As for the collapse Building 7 again people have to understand the design of the WTC as a whole. At floor level the buildings weren't sitting on bedrock but there were several basement level stories. The towers were huge with each floorplate about an acre in size. Further there was a lot of air in each of the towers. As they collapsed the energy realeased by the collapse of the material and the force of all that air being blasted out created an explosive force at ground level and in the basement levels so its no surprise that other buildings would be fatally damaged at the foundation level. What to me is more amazing than that Building 7 was taken down but that other buildings on the site weathered the collapse enough to be repaired.

So again if you understand construction and the facts of what happened on 9/11 it not only makes sense and is the most likely explanation that the buildings collapsed as a result of the plane strikes and ensuing fire rather than through some other conspiracy.

 

Always a pleasure to read your stuff, Sishir. Great post.




D&D. Go Rockets!

 

Pardon if this has been posted before. Let's look at two factors.

1. Conspiracies are incredibly difficult to pull off. Even the Iran Contra types of deals come out fairly quickly. If you have *ever* been in a position of leadership, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It is just nearly impossible to plan even small backroom plans and keep it quiet if you involve more than 2 or 3 people.

2. The Bush Administration's record of success with honestly just about any policy or "strategery." I mean no offense, but just combine this with #1 and I think you have your answer.

Whether or not people knew something was coming may be a whole different matter.

 

You're too kind for a replicant.