Hello troops. I'm the newest of the new round here - been lurking for a while - so please go easy on me.

I understand that 9/11 is a contentious subject and that there are massive differences of opinions on what actually happened.

I've read the plane/no plane, bombs/no bombs discussions with interest but here's my stance.

I spent much of last night watching video of the crashes and, I have to say, it appears to me that the planes were real, the impacts were real and the screams and pleas of the people looking on were real.

I honestly can't see how an event as big as this, in scale and repercussion, could have been staged with smoke and mirrors.

Where I think the scandal may lie - and I haven't trawled through the site completely so forgive me if it has been discussed/dismissed before - is in the actual buildings themselves.

A number of people are adamant that the WTC buildings could not have been brought down by the impacts - hence the bomb theories.

But what if the buildings were not made to the specifications that was claimed? The construction industry has, rightly or wrongly, long been perceived as one where corners have been cut to save costs and blind eyes have been turned in receipt of kickbacks/favours.

Could it not be the case that the Twin Towers were built using shoddy materials or a second-rate design? Which company put them up? Who was in charge of the build? Have all those in City Hall, or wherever, who were involved in the project come up clean?

These are all genuine questions which intrigue me.

And before I sign off, I mean no slander on anyone. I'm just curious.

Red V

Well if you read the NIST and FEMA reports they both state the the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

Also the majority of the fuel was burned off in the intial blast outside the building and what fuel was left burned off quickly.

I was curious. If one omitts the whole truth, is that the same as lying? I mean Ultima, shouldn't there be more to your post? The fireball burned up a good majority of the jet fuel, the jet fuel burned off quickly....

If you are getting your information from the NIST report, shouldn't you share more with the OP ? I feel your post was misleading.

Originally posted by Red V\Who was in charge of the build?

If I'm not mistaken, David Rockefeller was the man behind the construction of the WTCs. I think the WTCs were constructed at about the same time Rockefeller and friends started the Trilateral Commission and the SWIFT Banking system which processes every international wire transfer which Bush and Co. now monitor. (something like 6 million wires a day.)

Welcome to ATS and the NWO!

Originally posted by Red V
Could it not be the case that the Twin Towers were built using shoddy materials or a second-rate design?

The design was good. If anything it would be shoddy materials or construction.

But, that still begs the question: Why is the government covering up a contractor's/manufacturer's mistake? The only answer i can come up with is that all buildings are shoddy and people would panic.

Remember (in the US) the company with the lowest bid gets to build.

Originally posted by Griff


Remember (in the US) the company with the lowest bid gets to build.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you.... mmmkay? (in my best Lumberg Voice)

Typically the fairest price AND reputation both make up the minds of owners, contractors, etc.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Typically the fairest price AND reputation both make up the minds of owners, contractors, etc.

OK. You got me there on semantics. Reputation really doesn't come into play because architects and engineers send their bid packages out to already known contractors (that's where reputaion comes into play). Then, when the bids come back, it's usually the lowest bid (since all bids are from already reputable sources) that get's the job. At least that is my experience with it.

Edit: just some info. I have had contractors screw up on my jobs before and I refuse to list them on my next bid lists. That's where reputation really comes into play. Piss off the engineer or architect and you can assume that you are no longer on their bid list. Again, this is just my experience.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Typically the fairest price AND reputation both make up the minds of owners, contractors, etc.

In the case of the WTC Towers specifically, it's agreed historically that David Rockefeller rejected two expensive bids from major US suppliers of steel to turn to an obscure company and get the same amount of steel for only a fraction of the cost. There were rumors that the mafia was involved.

I would have to see a specific case as to why the structures would have been sub-standard in their construction, though, because aside from the cheap steel (which was the same steel all over Ground Zero, and most of it was still in pristine condition, cleanly separated from its neighbors) the actual construction of the buildings (at least partially) is available in video format and photos and you can see these guys putting the buildings together, and you can see where the bolts went and you can see welds in photos from Ground Zero, and there's really nothing specifically to suggest to me any corners were cut, so to speak.


But even if corners were cut for the sake of money, and it wouldn't surprise me (I just fail at this point in time to see where any corners were cut), then that argument would only go so far.

For example, the so-called "collapse wave" of the generalized building failures across each floor continued at a steady rate down the floors of the buildings, evidence suggests the failures did not speed up or slow down. In other words there was no acceleration at all, one way or the other. This suggests a regular, linear sequence of events in terms of time, which is something consistent with a sequence of explosives going off to bring a structure down.

If it collapsed on its own, then physics would have to dictate that it would slow down significantly. This is because (1) mass was constantly being lost of the sides of the building in the "mushrooming" debris cloud as the buildings peeled apart like bananas, and therefore less and less mass is going to crush the floor below it over time, and most of the mass eventually ends up outside of the footprints (see footprints below),


(2) kinetic energy was constantly being spent on an enormous level to account for all of the destruction seen, ie all energy "expenditures" from the PE/KE on failing the intense grids of steel columns, pulverizing all of the concrete, ejecting large steel debris with considerable lateral force, all of the heat generated that lingered in the footprints, etc.

When kinetic energy is spent, velocity is lost. We've generalized a complex system here but it should work out regardless, because another law of physics (of thermodynamics) states basically that you can never get more out than you put in, and it cannot be argued that all of the energy above came from anywhere else but the building collapsing, if one is arguing no planted explosives. So then logically this mass that is falling, no matter HOW it is falling, cannot do what we have seen and refuse to slow down, when everything else between the upper block of floors and lower block of floors was virtually identical, except the lower floors were much stronger.

That applies no matter how the buildings were constructed, unless you believe the construction amounted to suspending a sledge hammer over a stack of toothpicks.