Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
.
Why does this thread have 2 banned members in it? It isn't because they posted and concurred with the original post was it?

Anyone else think that is statistically odd?
.




posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I have seen all these "conspiracy theories" about the collapse of the two towers and I don't believe any of it. Discovery or the Learning Channel, I forget which, did a special on this very issue. No conspiracy, they had eyewitness accounts, structural engineers, explosion experts, and a host of other specialist comment of what happened. They even did an exhaustive theory, with the designers familiar\and or the actually designer\or one of the designers that participated in the design of the building, of how the buildings collapsed. The reason they collapsed so perfectly is when the planes hit the buildings, two large explosions occurred, both causing massive amount of heat and fires. After awhile, the heat slowly weakened the structural support beams till they could no longer hold the weight of all the upper floors. Well here let me quote an expert who did an interview with CNN on why they collapsed.

“Tod Rittenhouse: Why the World Trade Center collapsed
September 13, 2001 Posted: 4:06 PM EDT (2006 GMT)

Tod Rittenhouse is an expert in blast engineering from the international consulting engineering firm Weidlinger Associates and has been the blast engineer for a number of embassies and government buildings. He has been called to discuss such problems as the Oklahoma City bombing and the previous World Trade Center calamity.

CNN: When you learned about the airplane hits and saw the pictures, what did you think about the structural soundness of the World Trade Center buildings?

RITTENHOUSE: When the event first occurred, naturally we all wondered how sound the building would be given the structure. We were concerned about the damage and in getting the people out in time before some type of collapse occurred. Like most people, I did not want to believe that a complete collapse could occur. But these were large bombs, strategically placed -- the bomb being the airplane and the placement being in a vulnerable spot in the building. The port authority has worked to secure the perimeter around the base of the building so the only way to attack the building is at a higher elevation -- such as an air attack.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Can you explain why the buildings collapsed?

RITTENHOUSE: The exterior structure is comprised of columns. The vertical load bearing members and the horizontal elements called "beams." When the plane impacted the building, it severely damaged those exterior columns. The following fire further damaged the support columns. So it was a two step event; initial damage by plane and further damage or subsequent loss of structural stability that caused the building to fail.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Was it due to the structural engineering that the building collapsed relatively straight down?

RITTENHOUSE: There are two reasons why it fell straight down. One is the structural engineering --how it was designed. And how it fell is really a phenomenon. The other reason is because the impact zone was so high up in the building that the weight of the uppermost floors fell onto the impact zone. Had the impact zone been lower in the building, the structure may have fallen in a tree-like effect, rather than crushing down on itself.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: I am amazed the buildings didn't collapse immediately when the planes crashed into them. Is this more or less unique for these two buildings?

RITTENHOUSE: No. They are very big buildings. They were carrying a lot of weight. And so the structure was acting as it was designed. In most buildings, you might be able to lose a column and have the building remain standing for a period of time. But given the structure of these buildings, and that is called a "tube structure," the remaining structural elements were able to carry the load. A tube structure building is like a garbage can, very rigid around the outside but once the damage starts, it is very easy to crush it. And this time that time to crush, that is, the time to achieve structural instability, was about an hour.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Do you think the towers could have withstood the plane crashes if the fire hadn't burned so hot and so long?

RITTENHOUSE: Very difficult question. I think that if the fireball was not so great, that they could have contained the fire. Fires are meant to be fought in localized areas. In other words, if a fire breaks out in a 15th floor, the sprinklers will go off on the 15th and 16th floors and so on, up the building as required to fight local fire. However in this case, there were fires located on 15 to 20 different floors. So there was never enough water to arrest the fire to prevent structural instability.

Tod Rittenhouse joined CNN.com via telephone. The above is an edited transcript of the interview on Thursday, September 13, 2001.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Yeah! Right! Demolitions teams went in and strategically placed explosives either before 9/11(a pre-planned attack covered up by the NYC Port Authority) or after the airliners rammed into them.
I'm going to do some serious research to disprove these ridiculous theories! Be for real!



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
Why does this thread have 2 banned members in it? It isn't because they posted and concurred with the original post was it?

Anyone else think that is statistically odd?
.


slank,

The banned members made their posts in May, 2003.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 04:23 AM
link   
If you really dig into the events of 9-11 here are some interesting things you will dig up...
The primary company charged with clean up of the debris, also just happened to specialize in demolitions of large structures, and also happened to be the same comapny that was hired to clean up the OK Federal Building.
Also, one of the suspects involved in OK federal building was a former employee of the aiport that one of the 9-11 planes upped from.
The steel from the WTC was sold off to foriegn scrap metal companies before they could be examined for traces of explosives. Also there were molten pools of steel at the base of each tower, that kind of heat is generated only by "thermite" used in demotlitions.
Close examination of footage from various sources of the collapses of the towers also show a flash of light from the lower fuselage of one of the planes right before impact, and also shows "squibs' going off on the floors below the falling debris on both towers.
The firefighters who reported hearing the explosions were blocked from testifying before the 'independent' 9-11 commision.
Don't forget the Israeli nationals who were questioned after concerned witnesses reported seeing them taping the disaster and "dancing and high fiving". The thing that really got to me was one of the employees of the ATC from the airport took the tapes of the communication between the pilots and tower and "pulled the tape out and cut it into shreds and put them in seperate trashcans" this by his own admission.. WHat the hell??
Also, one of the designers of the WTC complex has stated that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a large jet liner, and there was signifigant seismic activity right before each tower collapsed consistent with 'explosions'. Cell phones and other communication devices suddenly went dead for a few seconds before each collpase as well.
The sprinkler systems for the WTC were disabled on the floors where the planes impacted, a violation of NYC building codes btw. and the roof access hatches were locked that day, unlike any other day. Also, lets not forget the sudden mass of trading that went through the WTC computers hours before the collapses. Also one Israeli group received emails warning them not to go to work at WTC that day, and specifically mentions an attack.
The jets that hit the WTC flew over some of the most prolific stretches of military complexes in our nation and not a single air craft was scrambled even after the the planes were known to be hijacked. Also WTC had a strange power down protocol the day before the attack, a very rare event which temporarily disables power to the buildings.
Don't forget the flight of binladen family memebers and other saudi nationals that were allowed to leave the country despite a no fly order from the FAA. And as mentioned, ole Bush's brother just happened to be in charge of security at the WTC and the airport contracted to do literally until 9-11.
Another thing, cell phones don't work very well at 30,000 ft where some of the calls were made.
This is just a scratch of the surface to the questionable WTC events, and all of these facts are verifiable, just ask me and I will be glad to provide source quotes for any of them.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 04:44 AM
link   
lets face it pepole what did osama have to gain from these attacks and what did america have to gain?
a comspiracy theory about explosives hmmmm? what about one where the so called coalition conspired togeather along with osama the coalition had alot to gain so think about it. explosives?? planes boom now that's explosive. what about the date 911???
and osama still hasn't been caught his part of the deal was probably 50 virgins and the best hashish who he is bonking & choofing on right now.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yes, many key words pop up in this little piece: Israel, Mossad, and Zionism. When thinking of September 11, Israel comes forefront to the mind. Enraging america against the entire muslim world has limitless benefits. They now have the most powerful nation in the world drooling and foaming like a rabid dog sicking all ther enemies in the middle east. Iraq was a threat to israel. Syria and iran are both major thorns in israels side. And notice the Israelis goading and pushing us to take them both out........

Yes, many motives for 9/11, not all of them bush related. The semi fascist zionists have much to gain as well.


And it couldn't be what it seems to be huh?...just some freaking terrorists trying to kill as many infidels as they could and land a devastating blow to the nation which has been labeled as the great satan by these idiots. (terrorists/islamic radicals)......................

I haven't seen any evidence that tells me this was anything else but what it has been declared to be. None, nada, zero.

oh yeah, now I am going to be labeled as a spook too......


[edit on 25-9-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Where's the efvidence that Osama was behind this? Come on, I'm sure you can find it, cause I can't and C. Rice promised to release their evidence of his collusion, but to this day nothing has been heard. But wait a minute, we have evidence of Arabs linked to Al-Qaeeda boarding the planes. Not really, one of the flights had no Arab names on it. Also, Osama has consistently denied being involved in 9/11, now isn't this odd for a man in charge of a group who some claim are out to hit the infidel, the Great Satan? In fact, the ideology of this is bogus from the start, words twosted to infer that Muslims are out to hit the West no matter what. How muddled so many of us have become because of the media. If Osama wanted to lay his mark on ths tragedy, then don;t you think he would have been screaming at the top of his voice about he dealt the infidel a killer blow? Since Osama dids lay claim to much smaller incidents in the past, and hi goal has always been to get US influence out of the Mid-East, not to destroy the US because of their way of life, huge misunderstanding there folks.

So if Osama, who up till now only committed acts of violence (minor ones at that) in Asia and Africa, and accepted responsibility, then why has he he denied 9/11? Scared in case he gets killed? Nah, he knows fine well how the CIA works.

So let's look at Al-Qaeeda as a group. Are we to believe that this bunch of merceneries that the US created was only under the influence of Osama? Are to just suddenly disregard the close contacts between Al-Qaeeda and the CIA and that those links were gone? Doubt it. So as to the hijackers, if we say that Osama was strictkly behind this because of his links to Al-Qaeeda; then we can safely say that it could equally be the CIA since these men are linked to the CIA.

We all know that the first World trade center bombing involved collusion with the CIA, it's on tape, recorded. So if the CIA was hiring Arabs to do its dirty work back then, who's to say they didn't just do it again?

I'm sorry, but there's too many holes in the whole incident for us to squarely say it was just some radical Muslim group. You may take apart each incident as best you can, but the whole of it just stinks to high heaven of an inside job. It was too convenient, it's heralded in laws and a shift in world thinking that was being discusse for years prior to 9/11 by the Government.

One other question, are we really to believe that within 48 hours the CIA had the names of all the terrorists, and what flights they were on, and that it was Al-Qaeeda most definitely? Uh huh, and I'm capable of flying. lol


The answer isn't so clear cut thogh, and Arabs were probably involved in this, they had to be becaue the US needed to link this to the Mid-East where their NWO is unfolding. The question though, is what exactly were these so-called terrorists really doing on the flights, what were they told was going to happen by their paymasters, the CIA. More than likely they are all patsies, the puppeteers are the Americam Government here.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
You say prove that Osama was behind the attacks, well how about you prove that it was an “inside job”? This whole topic is erroneous and just shows how much paranoia people have. No matter what happens in the world you’re always going to have a group of people think that there is more to a situation then meets the eye, especially when it comes to not liking or agreeing with Bush or his policies while he is in office. These are usually people that want to see Bush leave office. I am not trying to defend him in any way, because lord knows I think ALL politicians are self-serving. Osama said for years that he would strike a deadly blow to the western world, so what makes you think he wouldn’t?? Well you want proof of admittance that Osama and Al Qaeda were involved, here are some interesting articles that may help you out:

11:07 2002-09-10
Al Qaeda admits September 11th attack

A 112-page document drawn up by Ramzi Binalshibh, of Al Qaeda, and released by Qatar-based TV station Al Jazeera, admits that the organization was involved in the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11th and warns of a wave of new terrorist activities.

The document, called ?The new reality of the Crusades¦ is about the justification for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 and celebrates the destruction caused by the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, described by the author as ?That glorious Tuesday¦.

The document tries to justify the attacks by quoting from Islamic Sunnah, or teachings, such as ?For anyone that has followed the events, it is clear that what happened in America was a punishment from God for all the injustice and oppression which America has done to the nations everywhere in the world, especially to the Moslems¦.

It claims that the main planners for the attacks were Khaled Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh and the four pilots of the hijacked aircraft, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Ziad Samir Jarrah and Hani Hanjour, although it attributes the responsibility for the attacks on the USA, stating that the Koran stipulates that it is legal to destroy any country which shows aggressiveness against Moslem nations, claiming also that ?if the infidel fixes as objectives women, children and old people, then the Moslems can do the same thing¦.

The document declares that ?America converted itself into a country at war when it broke the peace and helped the Jews, over 50 years ago, to occupy Palestine-the day it bombed Iraq and began the blockade, when it attacked Sudan and when it bombed and blockaded Afghanistan and attacked the Moslems there¦.

It is claimed that the attacks were a pre-emptive strike because the USA was already planning to attack Afghanistan: ?America had drawn up a plan to invade Afghanistan and to make an attack there by diverse countries long before the events in America¦.

The author of the document goes on to gloat over the fact that the USA lost around one billion USD in revenue after the attacks on September 11th, and the fact that it lost 2,000 financial experts, suffered a Stock Exchange crash, the USD lost value and airline companies went bankrupt.

Finally, the document promises ?thousands more attacks¦ like September 11th to make that event ?the beginning of the end for America¦.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
PRAVDA.Ru

english.aljazeera.net...

Zawahri exhorted Muslims to carry out attacks against Western interests.
"Oh Muslims! Carry out attacks against the embassies, companies, interests and officials of the US, Britain, Australia and Norway. Burn the ground under their feet".

“The crusaders and the Jews only understand the language of murder, bloodshed…and of the burning towers,” he said in reference to the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York.

“Learn the lesson from your 19 brethren who attacked America with their planes, in New York and Washington, wreaking on it unprecedented havoc from which it is still reeling,” he said.

Zawahri also lashed out at Arab states he said helped the US campaign against Iraq, naming Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan.
Considered to be bin Laden’s right-hand man, Egyptian doctor Zawahri founded a group which tried to topple the Egyptian government during the 1990s.

english.aljazeera.net...

If you want more links of these terrorists linked to the 9/11 attacks please take a look at the 9/11 commissions report on the situation which gives more detail about the whole terrorist story and how it all ties in together. It is probably the most exhaustive report on the subject.
I don't have much time right now but I can get you more links... Later.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing EyePlanes were sent to the New York area, after unprecedented delay, from Falmouth, Massachusetts rather than nearby Ft. Dix or Laguardia. Of course, they didn't arrive in time - there was no visual scan of the cockpits.

[Edited on 8-5-2003 by All Seeing Eye]


Ft. Dix NJ is an army base. Not an airforce base.

And LaGuardia(LGA) is an airport. Never knew they had interceptors there.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Ok, I have a request.. I tried finding this video myself, but it seems it's copyrighted..

The video from the 2 french guys that recorded the first plane hitting.. They also recorded (from inside the WTC) the collapse. Can someone that has this DVD or movie possibly clip that part of the movie, when the fire fighters are all talking and setting up, all stop and ask eachother "what was that" shortly before they all go running...

If you cant copy/snip this section of the movie, then could you watch it and note if you see any vibrations in the camera shortly before the suspicion arises? If indeed there was an explosion, you should see a short flicker on the tape before the action went down..

Anyone got it?



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxaudioholicxX
Al Qaeda admits September 11th attack.....

Osama denied the attacks, praised "whoever did this" but denied any personal involvement, do you recall that? Proove it was an inside job? Prove it wasn't without espousing rhetoric or propaganda, there's your real challenge.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Found some quotes..



Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.


www.wnbc.com...


And found this:


North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29;
South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50;
(See www.infoplease.com...)

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I read a previous post regarding this.. and did some research..

vancouver.indymedia.org...


T = 0.04275 m = 1.683", which is less than 1-3/4" of coating for the largest column.

In short, if a coating slightly less than 2" thick of a thermite coating were applied to the outer surface of any box column, that is sufficient chemical compound to melt that column section. A protective, insulating and cosmetic/disguising layer (e.g. fiberglass/foam) 1" or less would also be helpful.

Conclusions
In this paper we have attempted to establish the amount of thermite that would be necessary to melt a box column at or near the base of the WTC towers' cores, to see if the amount necessary was physically feasible, or would require an unrealistic amount sure to attract detection before its use. We have used thermal parameters for iron, and assumed thermite as the chemical compound. The analysis is thus imperfect, since the structural steel used may have slightly different properties, requiring more (or less) of the chemical compound. A different, more sophisticated compound may have required even less volume than has been calculated here.

Still the implications are clear: such a melting of a section of all the inner core box pillars is possible, using relatively simple technology. Such compounds could have been applied to the interior or the exterior of even the largest of these columns in a surreptitious manner, to accomplish the task of melting and collapse. The amount necessary for complete melting of a segment of even the largest box column was calculated, and found possible. Of course complete melting was not necessary to cause total failure: a lesser amount of a thermite-like compound could have been used to raise the temperature of the steel to a point where the columns would fail before melting, although some melting must have occurred to account for the steel pools.

It is pure speculation if, how, and when this was done. The columns would have been most easily filled during the initial construction phase, but this requires belief in a foresight and 30-40 year "master plan" that may be difficult for many to think possible. (Many buildings are constructed with ultimate demolition in the design, to make way for future construction in urban areas. Usually, the building design includes cavities for controlled demolition explosive placement. The non-availability of WTC tower blueprints makes it difficult to access this possibility).

However, there have been undoubtedly a number of opportunities under the guise of maintenance: many stories exist about problems with the "insulation" adhering to the steel support structures of the WTC towers. Also, the first attack on the WTC towers in 1993, in the basement of the complex, offered an opportunity for access and "repair" to demolition experts and construction personnel. Thermite is a relatively safe compound, requiring high temperature to initiate reaction - a magnesium fuse is commonly used. We will probably never know exactly what sequence of events unfolded to culminate in the WTC collapses of 11 September 2001.


Long read but worth it


IBM

posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   
You know what funny thing is that I saw(correct me if im mistaken) two planes smash into the trade centers. They went BAM, and I did not see any bombs go off, I mean I must be crazy to think that two planes crashed into the centers.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I watched a video a while back about the pentagon and 9/11 attacks and they interviewed the guy who owned the buildings and he said that they gave the word to "pull" one of the Wtc bulidings 7 hours later because of damage and to organize a controlled demolition it takes months now how could they pull it 7 hours later?



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Well, I'm willing to listen to what they have to say. I dont believe it one bit. I think it went down just like the Government said it did. I think people that think otherwise are out there. But I am willing to listen.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The picture below shows the anomalies:



Heres some more pics//




It has been claimed that the explosions of dust that span the east face of the tower, were caused by air being forced from the windows as each of the floors above collapsed. This explanation is obviously incorrect. If it was correct, such lines of dust would have been expelled from the windows of each floor in succession. That is, we would have seen such lines of dust expelled from floors 79, 78, 77, 76 and 75 in succession, but what we observe is an explosion of dust at floor 79, no new clouds of dust for a few floors, then another explosion of dust at floor 75.




A whole slew of pictures

Edit Add:

I just wanna add, that when all this Sept 11 conspiracy crap started I laughed at it.. but as more info, pictures and video comes out pointing out unexplainable events, the more I'm skeptic.. Read some of the websites.. and take others with a grain of salt.. but by no means beleive everything you're told to be believe.. believe what you choose.

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
The picture below shows the anomalies:


It has been claimed that the explosions of dust that span the east face of the tower, were caused by air being forced from the windows as each of the floors above collapsed. This explanation is obviously incorrect. If it was correct, such lines of dust would have been expelled from the windows of each floor in succession. That is, we would have seen such lines of dust expelled from floors 79, 78, 77, 76 and 75 in succession, but what we observe is an explosion of dust at floor 79, no new clouds of dust for a few floors, then another explosion of dust at floor 75.


I just wanna add, that when all this Sept 11 conspiracy crap started I laughed at it.. but as more info, pictures and video comes out pointing out unexplainable events, the more I'm skeptic.. Read some of the websites.. and take others with a grain of salt.. but by no means beleive everything you're told to be believe.. believe what you choose.

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]



QuietSoul, Take some time to read this. It is a fairly good rundown of the prevailing collapse theories among structural engineers.

It is also quite damning of the design and structure of the towers. Well, hindsight is always 20/20.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul


And found this:


North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29;
South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50;
(See www.infoplease.com...)

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]


Read this, and take a look at page 9. Do you still think that the siemic record indicates bombs?

Apparently the seismologist doesn't think so, I trust his judgement on these matters more than some goof on Rense.com.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join