It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The truth about WTC attack...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
After sifting through what ATS has to offer on the subject, I'm still totally confused about what actually happened to the WTCs.

The reasons I think the towers collapse wasn't caused by the aeroplanes:

1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.

2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.

3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.

5. The BBC found that suposed hijackers were still alive.Source.

I've read other believable reasons that suggest this was an 'in-house job'. The removal of the dogs used to sniff bombs a week before the attack, Marvin Bush (Bush's brother) bring . of a security firm used by the WTC and the gagging of fire fighters.

I also think that there is something wrong with the official story due to the actions of 'scholars for 9/11 truth'. One thread contains a letter (at the bottom of the page) and the author of this letter was sacked. In it he states how NIST falsified the findings of UL labs, because the steel should not have been melted.

A true investigation into the events of that fateful day will never be known because the building's remains were quickly shipped off to China to be melted down.

Now the reason for this thread.

See, my opinion is only that, my opinion. I smell a fish, but I have nothing substantial to support it.

Please could someone with a good knowledge in this area post with irrefutible evidence either way. (Therefore the evidence must be impartial and ultimately be the truth.)

Please can a mod remove any unworthy replies. I just want a thread that someone can look at to get true facts, that tells us either way, what happened.




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Never mind, if people stick to posting the facts as you suggest this may be a good thing.


[edit on 27-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
i stron'ly agree wth the byhiniur opinion coz it has tooo many weak facts abt d attack.
1. d hijackers..still alive and not going to US
2. THER'S NO PROOF TILL NOW THAT MUSLIMZ DID THAT...they only found d holy Quran in that case....everybody can buy Quran rite!
3.ther's no single Israelis killed in that 9/11 attack...weird huh..coz ..many Israeli workin' there.
4.n d most important thin..why they attack Afghan not Saudi Arabia aftr d 9/11 accidents...coz Osama bin Laden is Saudi not Afghan..d answer is simple..they do not attack Saudi coz US goverment have strong economics tie wth Saudi (of course OIL!)
5.Then they attck Iraq for chemical weapon reason....dude...until now they haven't found evidence on this matter.
....could u see the process....no hijackerzz....no isreali killed...attack Afghan....attack Iraq...d answer is US WANT TO DOMINATE THE OIL MARKET



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Oh lord not the no Israeli's killed on 9/11 myth again. That has been debunked many times, in many places, including here on ATS.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
After sifting through what ATS has to offer on the subject, I'm still totally confused about what actually happened to the WTCs.

The reasons I think the towers collapse wasn't caused by the aeroplanes:

1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.

2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.

3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.

5. The BBC found that suposed hijackers were still alive




1-4/

The towers were not designed to withstand the weight of several floors falling onto each other. Combine this with the weight of the plane and the fire that would buckle the steel and the tower collapsed. Even steel in a house fire can buckle and this is why in many areas the buildings regs require fireproofing (eg plasterboard).

The buldings fell downwards because of gravity. There were no sideways forces once the floors crashed onto each other. The building did not collapse from the bottom as in a demolition. Video evidence suggesting bombs going off as the towers fell, show just that: blasts as the towers were already falling (probably caused by electrical mains damage). The towers collapsed at different time spans because the damage to each tower was different.

Why use explosives if a plane can cause so much damage anyway?



5/

I agree there is no good evidence the named hijackers were on the planes.
We have no proof the hijackers were on the planes. We must therefore question if they were involved, and if not who was?

If they were not involved, why were the authorities quick to say they were? And why was it announced within hours that Bin Laden was the man behind the attacks if the government had no prior knowledge?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh lord not the no Israeli's killed on 9/11 myth again. That has been debunked many times, in many places, including here on ATS.


I'm curious on this. Can you list some names of Isreali victims please? I'm not refuting you but just would like to see. This thread is about proof and not just anecdotal evidence.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Legolas, why would they attack Iraq to get their oil but not attack saudi arabia which is also abundent in oil. Anyway, the issue for this thread is proof of what happened with 9/11.



Originally posted by Clipper
1-4/

The towers were not designed to withstand the weight of several floors falling onto each other. Combine this with the weight of the plane and the fire that would buckle the steel and the tower collapsed. Even steel in a house fire can buckle and this is why in many areas the buildings regs require fireproofing (eg plasterboard).

The buldings fell downwards because of gravity. There were no sideways forces once the floors crashed onto each other. The building did not collapse from the bottom as in a demolition. Video evidence suggesting bombs going off as the towers fell, show just that: blasts as the towers were already falling (probably caused by electrical mains damage). The towers collapsed at different time spans because the damage to each tower was different.

Why use explosives if a plane can cause so much damage anyway?



The weight of the plane? The wieght of the people in the towers would have been heavier. Each floor could hold the weight of all the other floors, so even ten crashing onto one shouldn't have caused the whole thing to go over.

I don't agree they feel due to gravity. If this was the case, with the towers damaged unequally then it would have fallen unequally. Take away the two left legs of the chair your sitting on, it doesn't fall down straight, it'll topple.



5/

I agree there is no good evidence the named hijackers were on the planes.
We have no proof the hijackers were on the planes. We must therefore question if they were involved, and if not who was?

If they were not involved, why were the authorities quick to say they were? And why was it announced within hours that Bin Laden was the man behind the attacks if the government had no prior knowledge?



IMHO the planes were remote control, UAVs have been around for half a century, but they are still pretty unheard of.


Thanks for the replies, yet ultimately, there has been no proof given on this thread. Everyone seems to be in my position... alot of opinion but no proof. Somebody must have an undeniable source that states either way what happened.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I suggest you start by reading the 9/11 commision report ,NIST report , FEMA's report and the Silverstien property assesment. Then go hang out on prisonplanet.com and Rense for a while.

Then try to come to your own conclusion. Do you believe 4 seperate investigations, or do youbelieve the guy who thinks Blair is a reptile and than Iran has stealth technology?

Don't come on ATS looking for answers about 9/11, rather be ready to defend YOUR theories and feelings. It can be brutal.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.


That is a common misconception. It is based on the mistaken idea that skyscrapers are solid, rigid objects. We think that because they are so massive, but in fact they are made up of a flexible framework.

Many people also tend to under appreciate the shear size of the tower floor plans. These were not a typical building where you can fit four of them in a city block, they were the city block. 200 feet per side, almost an acre of floor space per floor.

In order for the buildings, or parts of the buildings to have toppled to the side like you imagine, two things would have had to have happened.

Firstly the center of gravity of the falling portion would have had to have shifted 100 feet from the middle of the building floor plan to being outside the building envelope. There was no lateral force on t he structure, the only force on it was downward. Gravity.

Secondly, and this is more important, the structure of the building would have had to remain rigid and inflexible as it tipped over. No steel framed skyscraper in the world possesses that quality. The frame would have racked and twisted out of alignment. Since a steel framed structure derives most of it’s strength from the geometry of the structural components in relation to each other, one you lose that geometry, the frame would have lost all rigidity and stiffness. Thus the only direction for it to have gone was straight down.


Originally posted by byhiniur
2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.


There have been no large fires in buildings similar to the WTC towers. Remember that there are lots of different types of buildings out there with different structural systems and different building materials. Further more, there have not been any other buildings that were as severely damaged structurally from causes other than fires. WTC 1 and 2 were both hit by airplanes, WTC 6, 7, and the Marriott were all hit by pieces of the towers as they fell.


Originally posted by byhiniur
3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?


There is another thread here about the role of the fireproofing. that might help your questions.

Structure fires can routinely exceed 1000 C.


This post might help explain things a bit.

You might want to read up on this test of the typical cubicles in use by one of the tenants.



Originally posted by byhiniur
4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.


Lots of reasons.

There was more weight above the impact point in 2 than in 1. The fires were different. The impact floors of WTC 1 had been retrofitted with new fireproofing, the impact floors of wtc 2 had the original materials.

The impact into WTC 2 caused more damage to the long span section of the trusses on that side.



Originally posted by byhiniur
I also think that there is something wrong with the official story due to the actions of 'scholars for 9/11 truth'. One thread contains a letter (at the bottom of the page) and the author of this letter was sacked. In it he states how NIST falsified the findings of UL labs, because the steel should not have been melted.


Worng, wrong, wrong.
:



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Howard... esdad... Do you have any other proof than your opinions? Also Howard, whats wrong with scholars for 9/11 truth? I would spend my time countering your claims but its been done before in other threads and you just overlook them.

Fair enough my points may be wrong but that isn't the issue of this thread. I don't want to read the official reports because the story they portray changes every time and it would be better if the reports were independant. I want a piece of evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt what happened.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
My question then is this, regardless of how the building fell, Look at how long it took to fall.

It was measured that an item in free fall would take 8.4 seconds to hit the ground from the 94th floor. The collapse of the building only took about 8.4 seconds. Now the impact of each floor colliding as the report concluded is what happened, would surely slow them slightly even if only for a second.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
How are you determining the actual time of the collapse? From the time it started to the time that the dust and debris falling outside the building envelope hit the ground?

In any case, the collapse was a classic case of a buckling failure, which it typified by being sudden and catastrophic.

Have you noticed that structural engineers don’t find anything suspicious about the collapse speed?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Well from what I read, they went with the cheaper fire proofing when the building was first erected. Not to mention, if their was a cover up, it surely would not take too much to convince these guys to hush up.

Howard you seem to be very well educated on the day so I would like to explore some of your thoughts on it.

What about as the buidling is collapsing, you can see some windows being busted open with dust, almost like explosions. Now the collapse would have every window dispursing dust and debris, but you can see clearly that floors below the collapse, debris being shot out on several different locations.

Possible explosions?

This would help with the free fall.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Have you noticed that structural engineers don’t find anything suspicious about the collapse speed?


Not all Howard. The collapse speed and symmetry are what I have questions with about WTC7. I haven't made up my mind yet about 1 & 2. If the building was suppossedly damaged 20 floors on the south (I think) facade, then the building should have toppled over to the south (at least at first). Instead it went straight down.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
See, my opinion is only that, my opinion. I smell a fish, but I have nothing substantial to support it.

Please could someone with a good knowledge in this area post with irrefutible evidence either way. (Therefore the evidence must be impartial and ultimately be the truth.)


It's a fishy fact that we are to believe the 1st plane into the tower punctured 2 rows of steel columns before coming to rest in the core.
We are then to believe the pentagon craft punctured 1 row of steel columns then a further 14 rows of Spiraly Reinforced Concrete, before smashing through a brick wall and coming to a rest in AE Drive.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Links

It's a fishy fact that we are to believe the 1st plane into the tower punctured 2 rows of steel columns before coming to rest in the core.
We are then to believe the pentagon craft punctured 1 row of steel columns then a further 14 rows of Spiraly Reinforced Concrete, before smashing through a brick wall and coming to a rest in AE Drive.


I never thought of it that way. Can you show me or point me in the direction of evidence of the pentagon damage. I'm not up to speed on the pentagon part of this whole debackle. You can U2U me if you want instead of using bandwidth.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
I want a piece of evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt what happened.


If there was that "evidence" then either the conspiracy wouldn't exist OR someone would be on trial (the government for example).

What you're asking for has never been found (and might never be found or might not even exist.)



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Have you noticed that structural engineers don’t find anything suspicious about the collapse speed?


That's because a lot of them don't know any better. They build skyscrapers to stand, not fall, remember? They don't study how they fall.


You should approach, say, a physics professor, before a structural engineer in cases like this.

Or better yet, use common sense. Seriously. This stuff isn't rocket science.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
If there was that "evidence" then either the conspiracy wouldn't exist OR someone would be on trial (the government for example).

What you're asking for has never been found (and might never be found or might not even exist.)


See what your sayin. Wanna close this thread cos its just resortin to things that have been covered before.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by byhiniur
1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.


That is a common misconception. It is based on the mistaken idea that skyscrapers are solid, rigid objects. We think that because they are so massive, but in fact they are made up of a flexible framework.

Many people also tend to under appreciate the shear size of the tower floor plans. These were not a typical building where you can fit four of them in a city block, they were the city block. 200 feet per side, almost an acre of floor space per floor.

In order for the buildings, or parts of the buildings to have toppled to the side like you imagine, two things would have had to have happened.

Firstly the center of gravity of the falling portion would have had to have shifted 100 feet from the middle of the building floor plan to being outside the building envelope. There was no lateral force on t he structure, the only force on it was downward. Gravity.

Secondly, and this is more important, the structure of the building would have had to remain rigid and inflexible as it tipped over. No steel framed skyscraper in the world possesses that quality. The frame would have racked and twisted out of alignment. Since a steel framed structure derives most of it’s strength from the geometry of the structural components in relation to each other, one you lose that geometry, the frame would have lost all rigidity and stiffness. Thus the only direction for it to have gone was straight down.


Originally posted by byhiniur
2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.


There have been no large fires in buildings similar to the WTC towers. Remember that there are lots of different types of buildings out there with different structural systems and different building materials. Further more, there have not been any other buildings that were as severely damaged structurally from causes other than fires. WTC 1 and 2 were both hit by airplanes, WTC 6, 7, and the Marriott were all hit by pieces of the towers as they fell.


Originally posted by byhiniur
3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?


There is another thread here about the role of the fireproofing. that might help your questions.

Structure fires can routinely exceed 1000 C.


This post might help explain things a bit.

You might want to read up on this test of the typical cubicles in use by one of the tenants.



Originally posted by byhiniur
4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.


Lots of reasons.

There was more weight above the impact point in 2 than in 1. The fires were different. The impact floors of WTC 1 had been retrofitted with new fireproofing, the impact floors of wtc 2 had the original materials.

The impact into WTC 2 caused more damage to the long span section of the trusses on that side.



Originally posted by byhiniur
I also think that there is something wrong with the official story due to the actions of 'scholars for 9/11 truth'. One thread contains a letter (at the bottom of the page) and the author of this letter was sacked. In it he states how NIST falsified the findings of UL labs, because the steel should not have been melted.


Worng, wrong, wrong.
:




A good summary. The first building to collapse did so, because tge plane hit it lower down, so there was far more weight above the damage. IMO, there is nothing mysterous about the collapse of the twin towers, but Building 7 is a different matter.



[edit on 28-3-2006 by Clipper]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join