WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by Calex1987
so please explain this then because this building got hit by a plane...yet today its still standing tall and was older then the towers....www.aerospaceweb.org...

so the empire state building took a direct hit from a B25bomber and stayed standing the twin towers we're built to take multiple hits from an even bigger air craft...yet the older building that was infact on fire hit by an aircraft and yet is still standing...im having a problem here.

The Empire State Building was a standard steel girder frame building. The Twin Towers were constructed in a different way.

A B-25 weighed 12 tons. The fuel alone that went into the towers was almost triple the weight of a B-25.

I am not saying that means planes could bring the towers down but comparing it to what happened to the Empire State Building is total nonsense.

psik

Holy hell, I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense...

Originally posted by Gando702
1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.

The WTC towers were designed in the late 1960s, the same time that boeing was designing the 747. You don't think the engineers knew about that plane? Besides the fact that if you really look at the damage those planes did, they really didn't remove a whole lot of structural material, especially on the outside.

2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.

Gosh, this is such a fallacy it is absurd. Jet A burns at less than 600 degrees F. Structural steel has a melting point of 1000-1200 degrees F. Let's also remember that the steel was covered in fireproofing material. Not to mention that most of the Jet A was consumed in the fireball that EXITED the building, burning up in mere SECONDS. Contrary to popular myth, it didn't continue burning after the initial fireball. So this argument is just hogwash top to bottom.

3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.

At freefall velocity, of course. Having zero resistance from the perfectly intact, undamaged floors beneath. Do you think that structural engineers would design a building that is precariously close to collapsing on itself, and that all it needs is some kind of damage and the whole thing comes down? Please. Nothing should have given way beneath the damaged area. NOTHING.

4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.

Claiming jet fuel burns hotter than the melting point of structural steel is equally as silly. You pretty much contradicted your second point right here.

5. Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down. Anyone claiming that the second tower should have "tipped over" because of the angle, is naive at best. It's still being held together by the core columns, and even being weakened, still held the building together. The building simply had too much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.

Not even going to address this baloney.

You should go back to being a "truther". It's much more logical.

While I'm always open minded, I have to say I've never really "bought in to" the whole 9/11 inside job theory. Not because of lack of logic or evidence that contradicts the official story but simply because I strongly doubt the competence of anyone inside the gov't, or hell TPTB, to pull an event and plan of this magnitude off and maintain the security on the event that continues to this day.

So I've always kind of written off the occurrences of that day as being part of a perfect storm that created a series of unlikely, but not impossible, results.

That being said I simply can't reconcile what happened to WT7 as an unlikely but not impossible event. And the OP as someone who has been a passionate critic of the official story should not easily surrender their suspicion about these events until a even slightly plausible explanation for WT7 is developed and considered.

Originally posted by psyop911

Originally posted by stevecc
When the first plane hit, can someone explain why the windows in the lobby were blown out. Still can't get ny head round that.

magic air pressure DUH! although wtc towers had sections sealed off in case of fire.
so that the whole building wouldn't act like a large chimney in case of fire. i read
that on some kooky conspirator website. oh noes, wait. one of the engineers who
worked on wtc said that (iirc). and it's a fact. whoopsie-doopsie. debunkers and
shills are having a sudden attack of headache. stand back, please. shill might
self-combust. juj.

Actually, fuel going down the elevators with a fireball behind it would do it.

Not sure where you get these crazy air pressure ideas from.

all the newer planes are lighter and built with less superstructure and weight, unlike the planes from the past, so unfortunately there goes your theory

3 buildings went that day, the odds of that occurring are a billion to 1

if you want to prove that the government wasn't involved you need to build a steel re-enforced model of one building and slam a fully fueled airliner into it and when it doesn't collapse then you can point your finger at the government and the Jews who were holding the lease on those buildings and weren't going to spend the money to remove the asbestos or repair it.
It was worth killing 3000 plus americans to give the military industrial complex an infusion, destroy the constitution so the corporate socialists could take control of us and the oil industry to not have to give in to technology or to prolong the inevitable

The bush Whiteelephant and the skull and boners did us...now get even and quit debating this issue

Originally posted by LibertyCrazy
While I'm always open minded, I have to say I've never really "bought in to" the whole 9/11 inside job theory. Not because of lack of logic or evidence that contradicts the official story but simply because I strongly doubt the competence of anyone inside the gov't, or hell TPTB, to pull an event and plan of this magnitude off and maintain the security on the event that continues to this day.

So I've always kind of written off the occurrences of that day as being part of a perfect storm that created a series of unlikely, but not impossible, results.

That being said I simply can't reconcile what happened to WT7 as an unlikely but not impossible event. And the OP as someone who has been a passionate critic of the official story should not easily surrender their suspicion about these events until a even slightly plausible explanation for WT7 is developed and considered.

A plausible explanation I found is that WTC 7 was damaged by debris and was on fire, causing one main support to fail. The building was built on top of a Consolidated Edison power plant, and so the supports were not put in the most ideal places, structurally. The debris caused an 8 story hole in the corner, a 20 story hole near the bottom as described by firefighters, and at least a chunk off the roof as visible from pictures. Later on in the day, firefighters witnessed a 3 story bulge forming in the building, and the decision was made to pull them out of the area, creating a collapse zone. Then, the building began to collapse, penthouse first, as it was directly above the failed column. Then, the debris crashing down in the building caused the supports to buckle for 8 stories along with the damage to the corner, and then the building simply continued coming down.

But naturally, I will get attacked personally for this post and completely ignored, called crazy and such. That's ok. It makes sense to me and to many others, so who cares what some anonymous people on the internet think?

reply to post by Gando702

Oh yes I totally agree with you. Buildings have been hit by planes before and collapsed into their own footprint at free fall speed. Especially when explosions were detonated in the subfloors. And kerosene does burn very hot, especially all the black smoke that was seen around the towers hit by planes. That black smoke you know signifies especially hot fires like that found in foundries where they mold and melt steel. I personally visited the WTC builidings and went to the top floor observation deck and I can tell you that cars looked like matchbox toys and planes would look like go carts being driven into a big box store comparatively at best.
Of course, all those in the media and government were overwrought and did not reach a conclusion until months of independent investigation after allocating 50 million dollars to the effort only days after the attacks. In the spirit of freedom and democracy they welcomed the pilots for 911 truth and Dr Steven Jones' investigation and peer reviewed findings of nano thermite because as they stated: The Truth is greater than us all and those who were tragically murdered that day demand justice. We will leave no stone unturned in our search for the truth even if the evidence leads us to uncomfortable conclusions and will by no means use this tragedy to rob Americans of the civil liberties that so many have died for over the years in countless wars. Bill O'Rielly led the cause and teamed with David Ray Griffin and the Jersey Girls to investigate the countless military exercises on the precise day whose objectives were eerily similar to the tragedy that unfolded.
Yes all is well. The future is in fact so bright I need to wear shades.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.

So you think the only possible reason for a controlled demolition was because they wanted to remodel?

LOL

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.

So you think the only possible reason for a controlled demolition was because they wanted to remodel?

LOL

The chinese needed the steel

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


No it is well known that prior to 9/11 the buildings had to have asbestos removed and it was going to be expensive to do. Demolition was cheaper.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.

So you think the only possible reason for a controlled demolition was because they wanted to remodel?

LOL

He was making the point that in demolitions, you don't have pockets of fire because the debris is meant to be easily clearable. At ground zero, there were conditions you do not see in an average demolition. I know you'll say, "But it wasn't an average demolition," but I'll respond by saying, "But I thought that's what the people here were trying to argue all along."

I still maintain that there should be audible explosions before the building begins collapsing. I'm not talking about a single boom twenty minutes before or a crash every now and then. I'm talking about the explosives that are claimed to be detonating before collapse. I have heard none. The only claimed explosions occur specifically during the collapse, when stuff is collapsing everywhere and making tons of noise.

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

No it is well known that prior to 9/11 the buildings had to have asbestos removed and it was going to be expensive to do. Demolition was cheaper.

The whole point of removing it is to avoid its ill health effects. Naturally, they decided to expose it to thousands of people, right?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

No it is well known that prior to 9/11 the buildings had to have asbestos removed and it was going to be expensive to do. Demolition was cheaper.

The whole point of removing it is to avoid its ill health effects. Naturally, they decided to expose it to thousands of people, right?

RIGHT

reply to post by LibertyCrazy

This is easy, just think of compartmentalization. Think of the Nazi death camp machine. One guy rounded them up. The other drove them to the train station - no crime in that right? The others served them gruel on the trains and chained them up for their own good. The other drove the train. The other processed them off the train etc etc.
All these people in on this "conspiracy" of industrialized death. Were they all evil consipirators in the top echelons of secret societies? Weren't these good German people who went to church on sundays and baptized their sons and daughters and shared a pint of beer at the local pub and sang folk songs with the gang? If I had a work order to "paint" elevator shafts with a new fire resistant paint in the WTC buildings would I be part of the conspiracy? If someone else had a contract to rewire or install new fuse boxes or provide additional wiring infrastructure would they be a part of it? Would I even know what the wiring was for? Would I ask if I got and evasive answer if I needed the work? Truth is you don't need a lot of people and the government didn't need a lot of people involved. The government is a LOT of people, and a good percentage of them are not loyal to the ideals of the constitution just like the nazi inner circle were not loyal to freedom and democracy.
These same kind of people will perpetually use these same tactics to dominate us and people like yourself will continue to deny that they have this kind of power or know how? This is the story of history, how the few constantly dominate the many and make like a living hell for them by killing them and robbing them and leading them into filthy wars by lies lies lies. You need to realize that the people who organize this stuff are insane. They have opened themselves up to dark forces and in the process have lost their minds and their humanity. You need to read about these people and know that they think that we are nothing but animals. Its not a conspiracy. Its what they believe. Its not true of course but that's because thier nuts. Hitler and Stalin were nuts too but they still fooled millions and killed millions and caused utter hell on earth. Wake up!

reply to post by SavedOne

The fire burned until the steel fireproofing was destroyed

ok, you're definitely on the payroll.

FEMA stated all the jet fuel burned up within minutes, and the towers themselves in about an hour. but you've already said insulated steel lasts for 1 or 2 hours before the steel starts taking the damage. the fires at jet fuel temperature didn't last long enough, even by your standards.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

 

No it is well known that prior to 9/11 the buildings had to have asbestos removed and it was going to be expensive to do. Demolition was cheaper.

The whole point of removing it is to avoid its ill health effects. Naturally, they decided to expose it to thousands of people, right?

I see. SO you are saying they staged a terrorist attack to avoid having to pay to remove asbetsos?

PLEASE tell me you are joking.

reply to post by jamiebenzy


That is so complex it is near ridiculous. I mean, surely someone would realize that he/she was placing stuff all throughout the tower near the time of 9/11.

And to answer some people's wondering about explosives being built into the tower; after 50 years, they would not be reliable. Age does not treat anything very well.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.

So you think the only possible reason for a controlled demolition was because they wanted to remodel?

LOL

He was making the point that in demolitions, you don't have pockets of fire because the debris is meant to be easily clearable. At ground zero, there were conditions you do not see in an average demolition. I know you'll say, "But it wasn't an average demolition," but I'll respond by saying, "But I thought that's what the people here were trying to argue all along."

I dont think anyone is saying this was a normal demolition. . Except for the people who say the plane was faked, who are either idiots or disinfo.

I still maintain that there should be audible explosions before the building begins collapsing. I'm not talking about a single boom twenty minutes before or a crash every now and then. I'm talking about the explosives that are claimed to be detonating before collapse. I have heard none. The only claimed explosions occur specifically during the collapse, when stuff is collapsing everywhere and making tons of noise.

You mean the explosions noted in several videos and by all the fireman on the scene?

You seem like you maybe know nothing about this topic.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by SavedOne

 

The fire burned until the steel fireproofing was destroyed

ok, you're definitely on the payroll.

FEMA stated all the jet fuel burned up within minutes, and the towers themselves in about an hour. but you've already said insulated steel lasts for 1 or 2 hours before the steel starts taking the damage. the fires at jet fuel temperature didn't last long enough, even by your standards.

Right, which is why SavedOne was incorrect. The fireproofing was mostly blown off by the impact of the planes. NIST showed that the fireproofing does not fair very well against impact, because it is basically just gypsum drywall.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
You mean the explosions noted in several videos and by all the fireman on the scene?

You seem like you maybe know nothing about this topic.

I've heard the reports. All of the explosions happened during the collapse, not before it. During the collapse there was a lot that could make explosive noise. I mean, imagine dozens of floors of steel and concrete smashing into the floors above you. Would it sound like a gentle breeze or explosive booms?