9/11

[Revolver]

I would call it all an act of God...

So this is how you think it happened?

[isitafox]

So this is how you think it happened?

That is the funniest thing I've seen in ages!!!!

[AndrewEH1]

So this is how you think it happened?

As much as I enjoyed that drawing, I still stand by my comment.

Religion has screwed the whole world up, and it always has, and I'm not trying to troll people who have a faith. All these people fighting over who are 'God's Chosen People' and killing whoever isn't to ensure their place in heaven. Utter bollocks.

[Mikee]

I will come back with some other possible theories and facts. Some I believe, some I am not so sure on. But discussion is good .

I won't go into every little detail because it's 1.24am and I should really be in bed....but...

The explosives in the building theory......to me that's one of the most unlikely things that people claim to have happened.

Even with the presence of a thermitic material which was found? And the discovery of the iron microspheres in the dust ( a bi-product of a thermitic reaction) and molton metal found in the derbis of all 3 buildings? I would say it would be a difficult thing to do, but not impossible.

To demolish a building, a LOT of work has to be done, firstly you actually have to be able to have direct access to all the main structural pillars on every single floor, drill deep holes in them, pack the explosives and then wire in the few kilometres of wiring. Don't forget also that the buildings had people in 24-7, to rig both buildings with enough explosives to bring them down would take weeks. To manage all that without one of the thousands of people who would have used the building within that time would be very very very unlikely. The odds against someone not finding out would be so high, no "corporation" would ever think of it as a viable idea.

The core was the main structure in the building. It was completely walled off. They could have accessed it from the basement levels and been in their all day with out anybody who they didn't want to know from knowing. There was even a large update on the elevator system a few months before 9/11 which could have been used as access to the core. There are also records of people saying that security was lowered, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed, there were power outs, and many floor evacuations weeks before 9/11. The security company of the wtc and Dulles airport used to (at that time) have George Bush's brother as one of the big boss men aswell.

I hear people say "look, you can see the floors blowing up as the building falls". If you have thousands of tons of building falling in on lower floors, where is the air going to go? There would be more than enough air pressure created to easily blow out the windows/walls.

It was doing that even before the buildings collapsed. And when it happened when it was collapsing, there was only a few isolated ones (some even like 40 stories lower). If it was air, surely it would have happened alot more often and would have blown out several windows and wouldn't have been so concentrated.

Some people say that Thermite could have been used on the main pillars/beams, but you would need so much of it that it would be logistically impossible to implement.

THIS GUY made a device were it only took 2 pounds of thermite. What was found there was a higer tech version that you can't buy and mix up yourself. So even less was probably needed.

I had not heard the "bombs in the basement" theory before. I don't know what happens when a plane hits a building and before the twin towers attack, I am pretty sure not many other people did either.

My first thought is this: Buildings that tall are not super rigid structures, they even flex in strong winds. I could imagine that when a few hundred tonnes of plane hits such a tall building so high up, it could cause it to flex more than perhaps the structure was designed, perhaps the forces of flexing was transferred into the supports in the basement causing some failure. As I said I had not head about people claiming there were bombs in the basement so I don't know what people are using as evidence and my above theory is just that....a theory.

The witnesses who spoke about the bombs in the basements said it happened a few seconds before the impact of the planes. They said how they were thrown about, people died, had their skin ripped off and suffered serious injuries, black smoke and soot filled the air and then they heard and felt the inpact from the plane. The buildings were designed to withstand plane inpacts from the biggest plane at the time that was bigger and heavier than the planes that hit on 9/11. Because though they were slighty slower they created roughly the same amounts of forces on impact. So for the designers not to take such forces into account when designing them is abit wierd.

People say that "jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt the main beams". That may well be true, but as most riders know, frames are never quite as strong if they get re-welded, metal that has been heated but not treated again is never as strong. The same goes with the building, you don't need to melt through them to cause failure, heating them up and removing the careful heat treatment process they went through before being put in the building would be more than enough to cause failure. Even if the heat only caused a slight twist, there is still hundreds if not thousands of tonnes of building above the now weakened section, the building could not support the weight and it collapsed on itself. It had a lot of momentum and continued to collapse the rest of the weakened building.

Jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel, but molten steel was there. People also say (including even NIST and the official report) that most of the jet fuel was burnt off in the initial fire ball and that the rest burnt off quite quickly, which is why they say that most of the visible flames disapear in a short period of time. If that is the case, then don't all buildings have that flaw with them being welded together as they are built and not being heat treated as a huge complete structure? There have been many other skyscraper fires and they all didn't collapse. And how was the rest of the buildings below the inpact weakened? And how did it collapse so uniform in the directing of most resitance? to fall that square, all the connection would have to fail at the same time, on each floor, at a rate of 10 floors per second. Seems abit far fetched to me as a result of random damage. And don't forget that building 7 collapse because of office fire. It had no pre-structure damage, just a few scrapes outside from falling tower debris.

That's my take on the whole "bombs in the building".

There's my come back on the whole "bombs in the building".

I'm not saying whether it is a conspiracy or not. But it does make me wonder and I personally don't see how it doesn't make other people wonder, especially with all the holes in their story and when you think about who is benefitting and getting rich off of it.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Mikee

[dann2707]

Lets not forget how deep and quite frankly ridiculous the conspiracys go. I'm all for a little bit of controversial ideas and that but...

Who installed the Fake Smoke & Piping Delivery System at the World Trade Center before 9/11?

Also analysing the jumpers

The last link made me laugh though, they are all saying how this dead body is related to the conspiracy but at the end of the thread it gets found that the picture is actually from russia. Then the "leader" of the forum just goes, "turns out it wasn't from 9/11". All of his and the followers just shun it off after doing all the research on it. Just shows how disposable their ideas are.

Edited September 12, 2011 by dann2707

[Mikee]

Lets not forget how deep and quite frankly ridiculous the conspiracys go. I'm all for a little bit of controversial ideas and that but...

Who installed the Fake Smoke & Piping Delivery System at the World Trade Center before 9/11?

I agree that's why I said this earlier.

Some of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 do get a bit silly though

There is also a theory about the planes being holograms. Those kinds of theories come from the people who wear foil hates and spend their lives on the interent trolling every conspiracy known to man.

But the ones that come from the engineers and the scientists, who don't go into the conspiracy, it was the government side of things and concentrate on the "That doesn't make sense, they ignored this and that, this is the best hypothesis from the evidence and testimonies I have observed", For example... Richard Gage. They make more sense to me and seem to have more evidence to support their theories. They do make me wonder.

[dann2707]

That wasn't a direct dig at you buddy. Was just throwing it out there.

[Mikee]

That wasn't a direct dig at you buddy. Was just throwing it out there.

I know, I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't one of the crazy people from that crowd, since I have said alot of stuff in this thread alot of people probably won't agree with.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Mikee

[Ali C]

Even with the presence of a thermitic material which was found? And the discovery of the iron microspheres in the dust ( a bi-product of a thermitic reaction) and molton metal found in the derbis of all 3 buildings? I would say it would be a difficult thing to do, but not impossible.

Thermite is basically rust and aluminium, I don't think it would be impossible for those two materials to be in the building where the planes hit. How much of it was found? Who Found it?

The core was the main structure in the building. It was completely walled off. They could have accessed it from the basement levels and been in their all day with out anybody who they didn't want to know from knowing. There was even a large update on the elevator system a few months before 9/11 which could have been used as access to the core. There are also records of people saying that security was lowered, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed, there were power outs, and many floor evacuations weeks before 9/11. The security company of the wtc and Dulles airport used to (at that time) have George Bush's brother as one of the big boss men aswell.

Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. These were a redundant design when one system fails, another carries the load. Ideally "they" would have had to blow out more than just the central core to guarantee a collapse.

It was doing that even before the buildings collapsed. And when it happened when it was collapsing, there was only a few isolated ones (some even like 40 stories lower). If it was air, surely it would have happened alot more often and would have blown out several windows and wouldn't have been so concentrated.

The fire from the planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors. This would cause some windows to blow out even before the building collapsed. Doesn't air tend to look for a easiest way out? Again this is no fact and I am just trying to use logic but couldn't air travel through the building until it finds the path of least resistance?

THIS GUY made a device were it only took 2 pounds of thermite. What was found there was a higer tech version that you can't buy and mix up yourself. So even less was probably needed.

Those were actually some cool explosions. I still think that logistically it would be next to impossible to implement. The video Shows burning on the outside of the building. People into conspiracies tend to always find something "meaningful" in things if they look hard enough. He said there was a pattern in the burning (3 pillars then 6 then 3) but there were only 12 points on fire, you could find a pattern in pretty much any order of burning with only 12 options. Also if his theory was true, wouldn't there be much more visible burning going on? why only 12 pillars on the outside and only on one wall? As I said earlier there were hundreds of "failsafe" pillars inside around the main column, even if "they" had access I still think it would be waaaaay too risky to every be considered a viable plan.

Also, planes are made of some pretty exotic materials, I don't think the "molten metal" pouring from the building had to be from the building, that guy in the video (conveniently) never even mentioned any of the planes materials. There is a whole load of other tests that could be done.

The witnesses who spoke about the bombs in the basements said it happened a few seconds before the impact of the planes. They said how they were thrown about, people died, had their skin ripped off and suffered serious injuries, black smoke and soot filled the air and then they heard and felt the inpact from the plane. The buildings were designed to withstand plane inpacts from the biggest plane at the time that was bigger and heavier than the planes that hit on 9/11. Because though they were slighty slower they created roughly the same amounts of forces on impact. So for the designers not to take such forces into account when designing them is abit wierd.

From videos I have seen, most of the key points about how the eye witnesses prove it's all a cover up are taken from people just moments after the buildings have collapsed (or just about to). I find it hard to take their word for granted. They would have been under a HUGE amount of stress, they just went through something that has never happened before. At first they wouldn't have known a plane had hit the building, they would have assumed a bomb had gone off. The buildings are perhaps tall enough that there would have been a delay from the moment of impact to when they heard the explosion. Again I had not heard about any of this so I can't talk with any definite theories, only what first pops into my head from a logical point of view.

Jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel, but molten steel was there. People also say (including even NIST and the official report) that most of the jet fuel was burnt off in the initial fire ball and that the rest burnt off quite quickly, which is why they say that most of the visible flames disapear in a short period of time. If that is the case, then don't all buildings have that flaw with them being welded together as they are built and not being heat treated as a huge complete structure? There have been many other skyscraper fires and they all didn't collapse. And how was the rest of the buildings below the inpact weakened? And how did it collapse so uniform in the directing of most resitance? to fall that square, all the connection would have to fail at the same time, on each floor, at a rate of 10 floors per second. Seems abit far fetched to me as a result of random damage. And don't forget that building 7 collapse because of office fire. It had no pre-structure damage, just a few scrapes outside from falling tower debris.

The planes contained at least 10,000 gallons of fuel each, sure some was burned up in a fireball, but when a plane crashes and bursts into flames on a runway, it doesn't just make a big fireball and then go out. It would have burned for a while contained and concentrated in the building. The fuel burns at around 1500°F, I don't know the exact properties of the steel used in the building, but 1300°F wouldn't be a million miles off the temperature used for the heat treatment process of it. Welding the beams wouldn't be an issue as they would be at re-enforced joints held with bolts and other beams. The heat would have effected the longer unsupported lengths of the steel. They twisted or buckled which was the death of the building. As I said earlier the floors pancake in, it would be pretty unusual if it fell sideways considering the only force acting on it at that time was gravity (and a little bit of wind). The buildings were also about 95% air.

The buildings may well have been designed to withstand an impact from a plane, and they did survive the actual impact. I think the impact combined with a fire more intense than the designers had imagined was the killer blow. I don't really know about building 7, that does seem slightly odd, perhaps I'll look into it and come back with a reply.

[casualjoe]

Lets consider the south tower, it was hit off centre like this:

and it fell like this:

You've just got to look at it really.

[Ali C]

what are you saying?

[casualjoe]

Well, the tower first buckled exactly where the plane hit. It looks real enough to me. And building 7 had a giant skyscraper collapse right next to it, there is hardly any footage of the damaged side so people think this structurally sound building was demolished when actually it was pretty screwed after fire had been raging for 8 hrs.

[Ali C]

ah, I thought you were saying it was impossible for it to fall in that particular way. I agree with you.

[Mikee]

Thermite is basically rust and aluminium, I don't think it would be impossible for those two materials to be in the building where the planes hit. How much of it was found? Who Found it?

It wasn't normal thermite that was found. It was some hi-tech military grade stuff. Tiny, un-reacted chips of it was found in alot of dust samples by many people.

Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. These were a redundant design when one system fails, another carries the load. Ideally "they" would have had to blow out more than just the central core to guarantee a collapse.

So explosives would have to be planted everywhere to guarantee a collapse but when a plane hits the top of it, a collapse is inevitable? Why couldn't they use momentum and less explosives as the collapse progressed? Just using the explosives to keep the collapse going and keep it straight.

The fire from the planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors. This would cause some windows to blow out even before the building collapsed. Doesn't air tend to look for a easiest way out? Again this is no fact and I am just trying to use logic but couldn't air travel through the building until it finds the path of least resistance?

If they pancaked, wouldn't we see a load of pancaked floors at the bottom? And it has been argued that pancaking floors would not take out the perimeter collumns or the core.

Those were actually some cool explosions. I still think that logistically it would be next to impossible to implement. The video Shows burning on the outside of the building. People into conspiracies tend to always find something "meaningful" in things if they look hard enough. He said there was a pattern in the burning (3 pillars then 6 then 3) but there were only 12 points on fire, you could find a pattern in pretty much any order of burning with only 12 options. Also if his theory was true, wouldn't there be much more visible burning going on? why only 12 pillars on the outside and only on one wall? As I said earlier there were hundreds of "failsafe" pillars inside around the main column, even if "they" had access I still think it would be waaaaay too risky to every be considered a viable plan.

Also, planes are made of some pretty exotic materials, I don't think the "molten metal" pouring from the building had to be from the building, that guy in the video (conveniently) never even mentioned any of the planes materials. There is a whole load of other tests that could be done.

The one we see in the video could have been set off premiturely. Which could explain why it is the only one seen. But what it is and what got it too that temperature is the question. As planes are mostly aluminium, most of the exotic materials are in the engines, like some titanium, steel alloys. And the engines can take some pretty extreme temperature.

And why aren't other tests being done. Why won't they do it if they have nothing to hide. Their aluminium theory was proven wrong so why haven't they done any other experiments for another theory? Since it is such a big mystery that could prove right or wrong whether it is thermite or not, I think it is pretty important.

From videos I have seen, most of the key points about how the eye witnesses prove it's all a cover up are taken from people just moments after the buildings have collapsed (or just about to). I find it hard to take their word for granted. They would have been under a HUGE amount of stress, they just went through something that has never happened before. At first they wouldn't have known a plane had hit the building, they would have assumed a bomb had gone off. The buildings are perhaps tall enough that there would have been a delay from the moment of impact to when they heard the explosion. Again I had not heard about any of this so I can't talk with any definite theories, only what first pops into my head from a logical point of view.

Ok. The theory is that they took out some difficult columns under the cover of the plane explosion. And the ones down in the basement were the toughest as they were the foundations and biggest weight supporters. The buildings collapsed into the basements, so core columns failed all the way down to the basement. Also don't forget that the basements and the ground floor lobbies took on serious damage, but the 80-90 floors between the ground floors and impact zone recieved none apart from the odd few.

The planes contained at least 10,000 gallons of fuel each, sure some was burned up in a fireball, but when a plane crashes and bursts into flames on a runway, it doesn't just make a big fireball and then go out. It would have burned for a while contained and concentrated in the building. The fuel burns at around 1500°F, I don't know the exact properties of the steel used in the building, but 1300°F wouldn't be a million miles off the temperature used for the heat treatment process of it. Welding the beams wouldn't be an issue as they would be at re-enforced joints held with bolts and other beams. The heat would have effected the longer unsupported lengths of the steel. They twisted or buckled which was the death of the building. As I said earlier the floors pancake in, it would be pretty unusual if it fell sideways considering the only force acting on it at that time was gravity (and a little bit of wind). The buildings were also about 95% air.

I am just going by what even the 9/11 commision have said. They all agree that the jet fuel burnt off fast and became an ignition for desks, computers, carpets etc.

About the steel, i found this which several sources say is pretty standard for structual steel... " Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours". I have also read that a British company made a replica of a floor of the towers and exposed it too a greater temperature than was possible and they didn't fail.

The south tower did start toplling sideways straight away, but It carried on going straight down which I find very unusual.

The buildings may well have been designed to withstand an impact from a plane, and they did survive the actual impact. I think the impact combined with a fire more intense than the designers had imagined was the killer blow. I don't really know about building 7, that does seem slightly odd, perhaps I'll look into it and come back with a reply.

I don't think people will design something to withstand a plane inpact and not take into account fire from jet fuel to follow. That seems abit silly.

So it is hot enough to weaken steel but people can survive the infurno? Plus a few people survived the impact in the impact zone and people escaped from above floors. I read online that it is about 212*F for a human body too boil. But 1300+*F is surviveable?

Also am I right in saying that steel is a very good dissipater of heat? Wouldn't it just spread the heat to other joining collumns and not actually get too a very high temperature?

[Mikee]

Lets consider the south tower, it was hit off centre like this:

and it fell like this:

You've just got to look at it really.

If you look at the possibily of it being a demolition, more of the colums were taken out on that side, so it would have fallen that way first anyway. What I don't get it why it didn't keep falling that way. Not quite the same... But when a tree is cut, it falls towards the cut. I don't see how the weight of the top of the building, over to one side, can take it down with such symetry. We see a wonky object take out a sound structure symetrically, and then that ebject gets smaller untill it disappears into the rest of the falling rubble during the first stages collapseand then it just looks like a fountain of explosions bringing it down from the top. The same thing happens to the north tower, the 'pile driver' dissapears.

Doesn't the collapse go against Newton's 3rd law aswell? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Wouldn't the top and the lower part destroy each other evenly until they balanced out and stop any further collapse as the 'pile driver' would be gone?

[casualjoe]

That's not even a person in that red square of yours.

Also am I right in saying that steel is a very good dissipater of heat? Wouldn't it just spread the heat to other joining collumns and not actually get too a very high temperature?

I think you're underestimating the fires in the middle of the building, look at the smoke! Lots of heat would be dissipated along the columns until the whole supporting structure began to heat up.

I won't mention how ruthless US foreign policy and republican corporations have been in perpetuating capitalism throughout the world. All our diverse cultures and environments are becoming impacted in some way. Humanity is not in their best interest, making the rich richer sadly is.

[Mikee]

That's not even a person in that red square of yours.

I think you're underestimating the fires in the middle of the building, look at the smoke! Lots of heat would be dissipated along the columns until the whole supporting structure began to heat up.

I won't mention how ruthless US foreign policy and republican corporations have been in perpetuating capitalism throughout the world. All our diverse cultures and environments are becoming impacted in some way. Humanity is not in their best interest, making the rich richer sadly is.

It is. She was seen on many video, photos and by people.

But the stairs and elavators are in the middle. People got out from above the impact zones.

The smoke is very dark and we don't see much fire after a while. Doesn't that normally mean that the fire was oxygen starved?

[casualjoe]

Ok that poor lady must have been lucky, as well as the people that managed to escape through a few of the shafts still intact, many others weren't. Thinking about it I couldn't begin to comment on the dynamics of the fire, I'm pushing it with what I've said already

[Ali C]

It wasn't normal thermite that was found. It was some hi-tech military grade stuff. Tiny, un-reacted chips of it was found in alot of dust samples by many people.

Did the military confirm this? Are you sure it's not just a case of if people look hard enough, they'll find what they want to find? Could such a crash with high temperatures and different materials crate something that looked similar? If I look hard enough I can find faeces pretty much everywhere, I am not saying this is the case but an idea perhaps?

So explosives would have to be planted everywhere to guarantee a collapse but when a plane hits the top of it, a collapse is inevitable? Why couldn't they use momentum and less explosives as the collapse progressed? Just using the explosives to keep the collapse going and keep it straight.

If it was me and I wanted to demolish the towers, I sure wouldn't rely on a small amount of explosives to do it. If I planted explosives and the building didn't collapse then you will get found out. If someone had asked me beforehand if a plane would destroy the buildings, I wouldn't have an answer. Now that I have seen the planes hit, I think its very possible. As I said before, the buildings were 95 percent air, the buildings weighed around 500,000 which is pretty light for it's day being one of the first buildings to be made out of fairly lightweight materials. I just don't see why it would be so hard for it to fall straight down? It was still heavy enough and had momentum (falling at around 200kph) to crush concrete below it. If it really had explosions helping it down, it would have fallen faster.

If they pancaked, wouldn't we see a load of pancaked floors at the bottom? And it has been argued that pancaking floors would not take out the perimeter collumns or the core.

Kinda the same points I made above, 95% air, blah, momentum, blah. The rubble left was still a quite a few stories high, not sure how you would expect to see floors in-tact but flatter after they just fell hundreds of meters with hundreds of tonnes of material falling on top of them.

The one we see in the video could have been set off premiturely. Which could explain why it is the only one seen. But what it is and what got it too that temperature is the question. As planes are mostly aluminium, most of the exotic materials are in the engines, like some titanium, steel alloys. And the engines can take some pretty extreme temperature.

I think with things like this, unless you were somehow in that room watching no-one will ever know for sure what it was, be it Thermite or other. Perhaps it's something really simple like liquid aluminium reacting and cooling with the air? Or perhaps it's something not so simple like a planted Thermite device planted by the government.....who knows? The burning pillars thing just seems like another case of the conspiracy folks again finding something if they look hard and long enough, just seems like some normal fires to me.

And why aren't other tests being done. Why won't they do it if they have nothing to hide. Their aluminium theory was proven wrong so why haven't they done any other experiments for another theory? Since it is such a big mystery that could prove right or wrong whether it is thermite or not, I think it is pretty important.

A lot of tests have been done by many people, either professional scientists or conspiracy nuts. I have seen people do tests that both explain why the building collapsed and very similar tests that say it is a cover-up. If you watch videos made by the conspiracy fans, they tend to skip over important info, or disregard it altogether, they tend to have selective hearing too, so a scientist could be explaining how it is possible for the buildings collapsed, but the conspiracy guys will only hear what they want to hear.

Either way, I'll be taking any tests shown by the conspiracy guys with a pinch of salt. I want to see every side of the story by a completely neutral source point before I start to believe it was all planned.

Ok. The theory is that they took out some difficult columns under the cover of the plane explosion. And the ones down in the basement were the toughest as they were the foundations and biggest weight supporters. The buildings collapsed into the basements, so core columns failed all the way down to the basement. Also don't forget that the basements and the ground floor lobbies took on serious damage, but the 80-90 floors between the ground floors and impact zone recieved none apart from the odd few.

I just don't see how 500,000 of building travelling over 100mph couldn't destroy the basement. From what I have seen of the wreckage all floors looked pretty damaged to me, I think it would be pretty hard to predict exactly what floors would take what damage, all floors seemed pretty wrecked, but out of the hundreds of floors the building had, some are going to come off worse than others.

I am just going by what even the 9/11 commision have said. They all agree that the jet fuel burnt off fast and became an ignition for desks, computers, carpets etc.

About the steel, i found this which several sources say is pretty standard for structual steel... " Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours". I have also read that a British company made a replica of a floor of the towers and exposed it too a greater temperature than was possible and they didn't fail.

How fast is fast? I am sure the steel could cope with 2000°F, but at the same time as being damaged by a plane and with thousands of tonnes of building pressing down on it? Unless you build a life-size model with the same conditions, you won't get the same results, building a single floor won't behave the same way as the floors that were hit by the plane did. I bet the conspiracy fan club love those tests and use them as proof, but to me it just isn't relevant.

The south tower did start toplling sideways straight away, but It carried on going straight down which I find very unusual.

It pretty much put a crease in the building. Once the structure started falling on one side, the building shape was compromised buckling supports in other floors. I just personally can't imagine the building not fall like it did, it just wouldn't make sense to me.

I don't think people will design something to withstand a plane inpact and not take into account fire from jet fuel to follow. That seems abit silly.

Without anything like this ever happening before, you can only go with either what computer programmes tell you or what you have learned about materials. Lets face it, the best they could do was make an educated guess as to what would happen if a plane hit the buildings. Seems they were pretty close but it was just an unfortunate series of events which caused an epic amount of damage.

Trees fall sideways because they are top heavy and are not 95% air. Also if that picture really is a person in the hole (is it from a video?) I don't see any flames at that particular point, assuming where that person was standing was at that temperature seems to be jumping the gun a little, without talking to them all we can do is make educated guesses and my guess is that the wind is blowing towards that side of the building pushing the heat away, he/she may have got there from either a lower or higher floor and was looking for survivors/a way out/checking the view.

[Mark W]

Saw an interesting documentary by an independent group of architects about whether it'd be possible for the building to collapse like that, why it did, etc. Was pretty in depth and was done by people who are aware of what they are talking about. Seemed to cover it pretty easily, and explained most of the conspiracy theories regarding their collapse. The WTC buildings also had a totally unique structure which was mainly responsible for the way it collapsed (they verified it by performing a bunch of tests on a smaller scale, and they all reacted in a similar way), and is also why I don't really understand why people refer to collapses of other buildings in that they have no relevance at all. I think it was broadcast on the BBC originally so was probably hard to find elsewhere, although all the people I showed it to just said it was propaganda. Always the way.

I still fail to see what they really had to gain from doing such an incredibly high risk thing if it was actually a conspiracy. The US government has never had problems pushing through laws it wants to implement, pushing through reforms it wants, going to war for whatever reason it wants and so on. It's just such a massive risk to take, especially with what would apparently be literally thousands of people involved, that I don't really see how they'd really approve it and manage to really make it work. The fact no-one's come forward as a whistle blower also seems a little questionable, although no doubt that's because they were 'silenced'. There are so many avenues (e.g. wikileaks as one obvious example) for doing so, and people are generally so shit at keeping things under wraps, that I just don't understand how it would work out.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

It wasn't normal thermite that was found. It was some hi-tech military grade stuff. Tiny, un-reacted chips of it was found in alot of dust samples by many people.

Which some specialists and scientists have also studied and decided could well be paint primer...

[Ali C]

don't quote me saying that!! , I ain't "one of them"

Oh yeah, conspiracy fans in "not telling every side of the story" shocker

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

don't quote me saying that!! , I ain't "one of them"

Sorry Ali!

It was a recent documentary I watched (on Channel 4 maybe?) whereby one of the 'academic' conspiracyists was stating how he'd written a paper about the 'thermite' content of a couple of samples he'd analysed and how the fact that no other academics had shot him down or rebutted his paper meant that it must be true. They then asked a couple of (Swedish?) scientists for their opinion who said that their analysis showed that the 'thermite' may in fact just be primer. They also said that the reason no one has challenged the first dude's paper was most likely because people have far more important things to spend their time on...

I'm all for a good conspiracy and certainly think there are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11 but the problem is that the full on crazy conspiracyists just take it too far and ruin their own arguments by not considering any alternative and assuming that everything about everything must've been a massive government orchestrated coverup.

[casualjoe]

This event was a consequence of globalisation, the truth is in the history of US business, government and war.

In the words of Roy Walker on the drive to make billions of dollars:

Edited September 12, 2011 by casualjoe

[Ali C]

he looks pretty ragged in that picture