Originally posted by Xcathdra
Interesting topic I guess.. Where to start?
Basic Historical background - Contrary to what people want to believe, this is not the first attempt to bring the World Trade Center down. It was
tried in 1993 using a truck bomb in the parking garage.
Contrary to what?
In 1993 the FBI was involved with that bombing by their own admission. They said they were trying to set up a sting operation with the alleged terror
cell, give them a dummy bomb and then arrest them, but "somehow" they got a real one instead. The FBI also gave them the idea to bomb the WTC.
This is also according to the FBI's informant to the alleged cell, Emad Salem, who grew suspicious of the FBI and started taping their phone calls,
which was presented at the trial for this bombing. Without their informant taping their phone calls they might never have even admitted this.
Convenient that you left out all that isn't it? And there's more to the '93 bombing but it's off topic and people can look it up for
Both planes fully loaded with fuel for a cross country flight. Both hitting the respective towers at over 500mph. Engineering reports have
stated that the impact stripped the fire proofing off the steal.
Steel. Yes, this was part of NIST's hypothesis, which was based on speculation and a "test" where they shot spray-on fireproofing on a truss with
a shot gun. No joke. And they totally ignored all other forms of fireproofing in the building besides the spray-on. There were at least 4 kinds of
fireproofing in the buildings if I recall correctly.
Check the design of the WTC buildings themselves. The design was unique in that it didn’t utilize many support columns in order to create as
much open / free space on each floor.
47 large box columns in the core structure and a few hundred perimeter columns on the exterior of the building. The buildings were redundantly strong
as are all skyscrapers, and as is required by law (building code).
The fire - In a controlled setting anyone can prove that jet fuel alone would not have caused the structural burning / failure issue. However,
I point out that the rashes were not controlled tests. There are variables involved that cannot possibly be taken into account.
This is a bunch of sensationalism. The impacts severed less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors, including both perimeter and core columns
separately. There is debate as to whether or not the planes would have been able to take out a single core column. NIST said the engines were the
only things dense enough to still damage columns once that far in the building.
Again, the design of the floors would have created a pancake affect going down as the structure was compromised. When this starts, you will get
a high air pressure below the collapse, as its being caused by the collapse itself.
The explosive outbursts were not just air but solid debris and dust. And you are assuming pressure could build up within the towers, from air being
forced down. The opposite is true. Survivors inside the buildings said there was an upward suction while the buildings were collapsing. All of the
air pressure was exiting through the path of least resistance -- the increasingly giant holes in the tops of the buildings as they were being
destroyed. That's the thing about air pressure: it needs an air-tight container. The WTC were air-tight as they were being destroyed, and even
SOLID debris was flying out? Don't think so.
No amount of controlled testing will ever be able to reproduce what occurred that day. People can try as much as they want it’s not going to
This is equivalent to admitting you can't possibly scientifically prove your theory. Sounds like a cop-out to me.
People have put out videos showing people talking about hearing secondary explosions... I don’t doubt them, but I do take exception to the
spin. The next time you are in downtown New York city.. Next chance you get, point out the power lines to me. There are power generating stations,
along with transformer, etc built into the larger buildings. A transformer does not have to get hit back anything to cause it to explode
This BS again. Transformers explode from extreme current overloads. Current overloading does not occur from lines being severed by impacts or fire.
They are also extremely noticeable as they continue gushing vast amounts of smoke and sparks.
WT7 - Was hit by falling debris from the Trade Center collapse. Included on several floors of building 7 there were massive fuel storage
Which were said by both NIST and FEMA to be unrelated to the collapse. FEMA said most of that fuel was even recovered from the building afterward.
Again, factor in explosions from debris hitting the building
NIST did, and they said it wasn't a significant factor in the collapse.
fires burning out of control.
The fires were pathetic by comparison to many other documented skyscraper fires.
You can get a collapse out of it.
And this is based on nothing but speculative theory at best. The only thing known to bring skyscrapers down like that is controlled demolition.
There are no other examples for you to point to, to justify this.
The theory that this was an inside job and that the Government is covering it up is laughable to me for the simple fact they could never keep
it a secret.
And this is laughable to me because it's classic military strategy to make your potential adversary think you are incompetent. You want proof? Read
Sun Tzu's ancient "Art of War." In the very opening it describes how all operations should be based on deception. Really, go read it. That makes
you a few hundred years late to this party.
They act incompetent for plausible deniability. Our military industrial complex employs some of the most capable people and advanced technology in
the world. You have no possible way of telling what is being kept from you to this very day. Politicians are incompetent, and politicians get
busted, but politicians didn't do this themselves in any case.
In addition to the Fed reports, check NYPD, and the Port Authority of NY/NJ who also did their investigation.
FDNY and NYPD members who were there that disagree with these reports. Want names?