BOTS
when i lived in germany (2003-2004)
a. 3 of the top 10 books were 9/11 conspiracy topics.
b. due to iraq invasion, it was almost impossible to find housing.
c. 9/10 evenings out, i'd find myself in a debate over whether or not bush planned 9/11 or not.
d. i went to hyde park, and the police had to pull me out of an "engagement" with several anti-american (and uk) muslims-not fun.
my grandfather (VMI '43 engineering) is convinced that the planes alone couldn't take down the towers.
that being said, loose change brings up several interesting questions.
the pentagon is built up of several layers of concrete. have you ever seen the footage of an f-4 when it hits a concrete wall @ [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=gIjm8kWfAK8/mach .6?[/url] the entire plane vaporizes - it's actually incredible.
A group of students here at the TU Delft put Loose Change to the test and did research on all the claims the movie did about 9/11. They interviewed and showed the footage to a wide group of professionals, varying from pilots to structural engineers to demolition experts.
All information and claims made by Loose Change proved to be false and could easily be refuted by common scientific knowledge.
Popular Science also did an article disputing the theories. However, even though i don't necessarily believe in the 9/11 conspiracies i always found the pentagon thing a tad shady, and the videos i've seen of the incident makes it look like it could be a plane or a missle, you really can't tell that well. But like the JFK assasination, there are always going to be things about 9/11 that are going to draw questions, and the answers to those questions may be pretty far out...
Oh and by the way, the Jews weren't responsible for 9/11, 10% of the victims were jews, they weren't on vacation. I just thought i'd put this up there before the international zionist conspiracy gets mentioned.
like all these crazy things, my money is on that it's somewhere in the middle.
I saw an interview with an structural engineer about 9/11. He just said "uh, yeah, we anticipated the impact of a 727 but not what the jet fuel would do. We should have considered that."
Oops.
I highly recommend people watch PBS's Road to War. It's a 'true' film and absolutely amazing. The 'conspiracy' was much deeper than the attack and goes back to the first Bush admin.
It's scary stuff and such a shame that no one knows about things like the Wolfowitz papers (I admittedly remain largely naive, though).
you are being ignorant assholes. Not only was my cousin in the congress offices of a senator and heard people talking about seeing the plane clipping highway lights as got near the pentagon, my brother was standing under the towers as an employee about to enter work in the world financial center across the street. He can assure you they were american and united aircraft, and that the second one was not flying right - it was way too fast and that it almost missed - signs of a rookie piolet. And do to the nature of a hollow tube, with all the stiffnees in the exterior, welded, wall of tubes, it is completely predictable that it would pancake inwards and down as it collapsed. As for the Pentagon - fly a 727 fully fueled into the side of a cliff or a 6 story concrete building - same result. Now why do you people insist on burying your heads in the sand and not want to attack the real culprit here? Its knowing how retarded you are that makes it possible to tolerate people like Gotan.
I thought the bits about the Pentagon were the most disturbing in that movie particularly, the whole: where is the plane? question.
Somehow, I feel like the WTC stuff is more complicated, and I don't understand it. Certainly not without more information. It's amazing how quickly they cleaned the area up, but what does that tell you? I thought their arguments about people being called and told not to go in that day, that was somewhat convincing. It's a pretty amazing accusation, that the government would have done that. And the movie does make you take it stop and think.
I watched the Loose Change video and even though I think there is too much emphasis on conspiracy, I think there are some issues that have yet to addressed.
With the hanky panky election of 2000, I can totally see a neo-con agenda hatched to get the country to rally around an illegitimate president that lacked all the skills needed to actually perform the job. Add on top of that the fuzzy logic that is supposed to explain how two steel towers could fall so soon in comparison to other high rise fires, the complete lack of conclusive video for the Pentagon attack, and the over-the-top patriotism of the Flight 93. Oh...and add on the foot-dragging involved by the Bush administration in the 9/11 commission investigation and the sheer idiocy and mismanagment of being in Iraq...hemmoraging blood, money, and trust while Osama and Al-Zawahiri continue to taunt us at will. Do I have to mention the emergence of Fox News over the last 6 years and their swift boat tactics in swaying public opinion? Finally, everyone is realizing how far this administration (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.) is willing to lie and scare the bejesus out of everyone in order to pursue their vision of reality and define the geo-political future for everyone. I do believe those that those "we" elected to the White House are more focused on how we are going to take it to Iran in 2007 than being focused on the concern to take care of our own in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.
No, I don't believe in conspiracies, per se...but I do think American apathy in regards to politics and who is allowed to run the country is what created the mess we are in now. Hopefully in 2008, people will realize that it is important who is elected...from the president all the way down to you your local judges.
We did solve the conspiracy during the last thread (but not the one before that), and it was all the work of a cabal of little flag manufacturers. Who else stood to profit from such a tragedy? How was it possible that so many flags were available for purchase within days of the event?
Anyway, I think my favorite people are the ones who'll say they don't really believe in the conspiracy, but that HMM, it does make you wonder! Because no, it does not.
E.P.
you're probably right...it's always best to trust everything your
government/authorities says is true. all possible evidence/
theories to the contrary should be ignored and left unexplored.
i think there are questions about 911..and i think our government
has covered things up in the past...
for instance, where exactly were all those wmds that were our entire
justification for attacking iraq? do you really believe that lee harvey
oswald was the only person inolved in killing jfk?
i think a certain amount of skepticism and cynicism is justified...we
live under one of the best forms of government..but i don't think that
makes it immuned from corruption and underhandedness.
Are you guys fucking joking? I love a good conspiracy as much as the next tin-foil-hat, but there isnt anything in that documentary that even approximates real evidence. That someone could be so bat-shit obsessive and still find absolutely nothing of consequence is as telling as anything else.
I am definetly not the type to buy into conspiracys at all, typcially i am a very skeptical person but there are several things that REALLY freak me out about wtc collapses.
As was already mentioned... the towers fell freely... a pancake collapse which is what the official story spoke of would not happen at free fall speeds. The speed at which all the floors came down seemed seriously to suggest that the floors below were blown or somehow already structurally compramised. And i can not get my head around how the impact of the plane would compromise EVERY floor to allow a free fall like that to happen.
If the fires inside caused the pankake collaps (which ill get into next), it would have required the firet to sufficientlly compromise ALL interior floor structures at virtualy the same time so that collapes at free fall speeds would be possible.
2nd, the melting of steel CAN NOT occur in open flame... that is why steel is created in controlled fires where the temperature reaches upwards of 2500'. open burns typically can reach half of that, but in no way could steel have become molten by the fire inside the tower alone, yet there was molten steel in the basement, as well as molten steel videotaped pouring out of the windows of the tower prior to its collapse. This really seems to suggest planned demolition where controlled explosions instantly raise temperatures to the temps required to melt steel.
im not saying im sold on this thing, but after reading point by point descriptions from people at the scene and seeing a few interesting films on possible options... im realy freaked out.
not to mention there are videos of what look like explosions coming from floors several levels down the tower during the collapse, which are typically found in controlled demolitions.
and last but not least... tower 7 collapsed after burning for 4 hours. If anyone else noticed... many towers surronding the world trade center were compltely burnt out, with nothing remaining but their steel and concrete structure, and never collapsed. not to mention tower 7 imploaded perfectly, collapsing from the center first and falling inward...
way to coincidental for my taste...
it honestly scares me that i cant rule the conspiracy theory out in my own mind
Let's suppose the Loose Change claims are all true. That would mean Bush and Co. are the smartest muther fuckers around. They would've needed an army of midnight workers wiring the WTC buildings, of which nobody has talked. They would need to make all the people on those flights disappear, of which nobody has surfaced. Even Stalin couldn't have orchestrated an event on the scale of 9/11 and kept everything secret. If they were so good at masterminding the whole 9/11 do you think they'd let some moron film student make a half assed conspiracy theory movie?
Seriously people, I have my issues with the current administration the same as the next guy, but I'm completely allergic to the notion it was an "inside job."
About molten steel and the explosions on the lower floors: Steel doesn't need to actually melt before it loses its strength. In other words, steel loses its strength at a much lower temperature than that required to actually melt it.
Also, the explosions on the lower floors could be explained by the fact that burning jet fuel, airplane parts, and debris were falling down the elevator shafts ahead of the actual building collapse.
I don't buy into most of the harebrained conspiracy theories out there. As aquapara said, Bush & Co. would have to be logistical genuises to pull it off, and I don't think they're capable of that -- especially within 9 months of taking office.
That said, they had a mountain of evidence indicating that 9/11 was in the planning stages, and they didn't lift a finger to stop it. Whether they ignored the threat out of sheer incompetence or because they saw the potential to exploit it for their own political gain is an open question. I want to believe the former, but I suspect the latter.
I am aware that steel needs only to reach about 1200-1500 degrees to lose about half its strength. This is one big factor that keeps me from completely buying into the theory that the towers were purposefully broght down.
But the point of the molten steel is that there was molten steel. Both in the underground levels after the collapse, as well as pouring out of the building prior too collapse. Its also true that the temperatures for steel to reach the point where it because liquid could not occur in the fire officials said occured in the building. That kind of worries me.
I definitely dont want to believe that the government allowed 9/11 to happen. And yes, i have significant issues with the Bush administration. But politics and economics are very powerful forces. And for me, so many other things have gotten so out of controll and are so incredibly suspicious, i can not accept the official accounts of what happened.
I know that many will say that some believe all they read/hear/see, the video evidence i have seen that breaks down frame by frame what was recorded at the towers is far too conincidental to be overlooked.
I find it INCREDIBLLY suspicious that tower 7 collapsed. I am boggled as to how that could have happened. Not to mention Larry Silversteins slip up that tower 7 was to be 'pulled'. before the building had actually collapsed
1. WT 7 shouldn't have collapsed as easily as it did. That does seem
odd. Especially the fact that it imploded perfectly causing little collateral
damage.
2. LIG and aqua..i think the point lletdownl was trying to make was
that there was molten steel...which indicates explosives. There shouldn't
have been molten steel.
3. Jet fuel doesn't burn in an open flame does it? The initial explosion
of course...but it wouldn't continue to fuel the fire. So i guess we're
saying the planes, paper etc fueled the fires? I guess that's
possible..but wouldn't the temperature be too low?
4. I don't think anyone's claiming the people were abducted and sent to an island. I knew two people that died that day..I don't assume they're still alive.
5. Would explosions really happen as you describe due to debri
goin down the elevator shaft? Enough to blow out the windows and such? I don't know..this is obviously a catastrophic event..
Maybe it's unhealthy to talk about and wonder about..i just have
questions as to whether or not there could've been any kind of collusion.
It's absolutely crazy to think anyone would plan this from the inside i
agree...but to say that this administration is incapable of that
planning seems a bit naive...although i admit it's a bit naive to think
we also have leaders capable of killing 3000+ people in order to
go to war in iraq...even though they were/ are the main benefactors
of that war...regardless of public opinion now.
they were capable of keeping everyone in line on the thinking of
why were going into iraq..and far more people have died or been
wounded there.
I dunno what I think about the conspiracy. I agree it seems too far fetched.
However, I also know that Bush favored Powell, pre 9/11. This meant Cheney and gang, were not getting what they wanted. So 9/11 happens, them say 'hey, here it is, our chance to initiate the Wolfowitz papers (that were drafter in '92, I think, but deemed too radical to pursue - basically the 'cleansing' of the mid east)' and they took charge.
If you look at in that light, it started in '92.
Those papers are far more scarry and far reaching than a terrorist attack, imho. The fact that barely anyone knows that they called for the invasion of Iraq first, then other mid east countries, decades ago and are finally following through with it scares the hell out of me.
So yeah, I think Bush is a moron, but do I think those that surround him and his dad are morons? No, I think they are some of the most diabolical strategists alive.
Score:
Engineers - oops, they forgot to anticipate jet fuel but anticipated a jet
Osama - pure genius of planning, no wonder we can't find him!
WMD - uh, sorry, we goofed, but the war is still good! Let's send more troops
The entire thing just reeks to me. Maybe not the actual plot of taking out WTC, but so much of it is exactly as planned, for 15+ years.
Ah, feels like the same conversation from years ago!
one other thing id like to add... its a cheap and easy shot but lets talk a bit about larry silverstein.
Not only had he JUST come in controll of the building but...
he re-worked the towers insurance policy specifically protecting the towers against terrorist attacks (granted this makes sense but im talking timing here. plus the towers were already attacked and the policy had been written after the last attack)
also, he ensured that with his 99 year lease on the WTC that in the case of a catastrophic attack or event he, and he alone would maintain the rights to develop the world trade center site.
he succesfully sued and won over 1billion dollars in court over discrepencies about whether the attack was 1 or 2 attacks and counted as 1 or 2 claims
he actually did say that tower 7 was going to be pulled. on national television, before the tower collapsed.
he later clarified that he meant that the firemen would be pulled from the tower though he had been informed and was aware that firemen had already been pulled from tower 7 to help evacuate towers 1 and 2...
and last but not least... this might be a little far fetched... but i have read that there WERE reports from building tenants to building mainanence that the construction going on within the building in the weeks leading up to 9/11 was exessivly noisey and included what sounded like major construction (jackhammers, drilling, large dumpsters being moved around) as well as complaints about large amounts of concrete dust and particles settling throughout the building
Did everyone see the video of the "plane" hitting the pentagon that they released late last year? It looks extremely time lapsed and doesnt include an airplane.
I agree that the WTC part of the theory is far fetched but I think is still do-able. The penatgon is what bugs me and leads me to believe in something bigger than what happened. I just remember specifically that the news was reporting an explosion at the pentagon. explosion at the pentagon. and then after everything "settled" dpwn, they blamed it on another plane.
whatever.
this will probably get a reaction, but did everyone see v for vendetta? kind of eery if you ask me. but its completely believable that the government, in an attempt to gain more power, would sabotage itself. just look at the aftermath, patriot act, bush's latest mail scandal, patriot act 2, etc.
The only reason why I ever thought the towers could have been imploded deliberately was to prevent any collapse scenerio where one or both towers would have "teepled over" causing wider damage and greater loss of life to adjacent areas.
I remember that a domino effect scenerio throughout midtown Manhattan was the reason why people were scared out of their skirts when it was learned that the Citicorp Tower was vulnerable to quarter winds...back in 1978 or so. I could see a decision like that being made to prevent a horrible situation from becoming even worse.
That still doesn't explain Tower 7, but maybe Silverstein got a "buy two, get one free" deal.
I dont believe that the WTC attack was an inside job, thats insane.
But one thing, that is definately doubtfull, is the whole Flight 93 pensylvania crash story.
I mean that plane was OF COURSE shot down by millitary jets.
They had all the time in the world to do it, and it was heading for Washington to smash into something.
The engine of the plane was found 1 mile from the crater, and several other bits (official story). Pretty much proof that it was shot down. And as usual the most plausible explanation is the real one. If i was president i would have shot it down too, before Captitol Hill would get hit....
Thats not a real conspiracy of course, it just makes more sense than the "lets roll" story.
i think you have to actually read, listen too, look and watch some of the alternate ideas before you can pass judgement on something this incredibly serious
the visible plume of collapsing debris as seen on television was not the front of the downward collapse. It was the trail of debris and collapsing tube structure on the outside as the lightweight composite slabs pankaked five and six, maybe more floors below. These are the "explosions" people saw and heard, preceeding the visible outerwall collapse. If you need proof of the rigidity of the outer tube sections please recall the aftermath and images of 10 and 12 story segments of outer wall that wer remaining after complete collapse. This was about the maximum unbraced verticle section of wall the tower could handle and coressponds to the "explosions" on floors below the collapse.
and how did the camera person know where the 2nd plane was gonna hit...seemed like the camera was stationed there before the plane even hit...
i still hate this government........... it's all about power............ i have friends in iraq and they all want to come back home because they dont feel like they should be there.............
the us citizens need to stop letting this fuckin government do what ever they want to create shit........... when was the last war fought on u.s. soil?.... the u.s. is so quick to bully and attack coutries for the hell of it.....
makes you wonder where all your tax dollars are going..... to feed the idiots that are running this country...... they all need to be impeached and tossed in jail for war crimes
well, the current war on u.s. soil is along the southern border. mexican drug cartels rule and border agents get sent to jail for chasing an illegal alien drug runner and shooting him in the butt.
so i agree, cryzko, idiots are running this country. and they do ignore important conditions that soak up tax dollars (ahem .. illegal immigrants using emergency rooms, destroying our school system, in state tuition (?!?)).
tossed in jail for war crimes? i wouldn't go that far. amnesty/open border republicans replaced by amnesty/open border democrats?
*shudders again and weeps for all legal immigrants who follow the rules*
evil,
i appreciate the input and what you say does make sense. i am definetly not the conspiracy theory type and the fact that ive even entertained this affects me.
Even in your scenario, i dont understand how the floors pancaking below would meet so little resistance... collapsing at the speed of a free fall. I cant get it though my head how 110 floors could come down, through transfer floors, through hundreds and hundreds of columns and joists with virutally no impedence to their descent. Perhaps there is a reason... but i cant see it. There is no precedent for this.
I even have a hard time comprehending how a fire could bring down a 110 story building in less than an hour. Theres no precedent for that either.
the fact that there have been 3 steel buildings collapse due to fire in the history of steel framed highrises. Towers 1, 2 and 7. All collapsed after very short times burning.
People forget that these werent standard steel frame buildings. There was no 'pancake' effect because the floors werent standard concrete slabs, they were suspended on thin steel trusses between the exterior wall and the interior core. What you are seeing when the towers collapse is actually debris penetrating these thin floors, separating the core from the exterior wall, which then visibly peels away in that mushroom shape. Much was made of the fact that it was decided mid-construction to forgo the asbestos fireproofing on these trusses for the higher floors, but whether this could have protected them from burning for an hour in 1000 gallons of jet-fuel I couldnt say.
as far as building 7 goes, I suspect having 2 of the largest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it was a factor...
The impact explosion would have blown the fire proofing clean off so it's a bit irrelevant. Steel loses its strength as it heats up. Melting steel is not an issue here.
I can't believe there are still questions surrounding this. the only one I would ask is why that jack-ass is still president. but hey we have done that to death as well...
the truth of this matter is that i have my doubts and you have your beliefs, but there is no one here that can say for sure what happened or how it happened because no ones been alowed to independently verify most of the investigations findings.
The impact explosion might have removed fireproffing this is very true. But if you read what is mentioned above... melting steel is an issue. Its not debated that steel weakens as its temperature rises (yet no other steel building ever had collapsed due to fire). its not even debated that the temperatures inside the building would have reduced the steels strength by possibly as much as 50%.
The issue with the molten steel is that THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL.
If it wasnt caused by the fire from the crash, as this is a physical impossability, where did it come from?
oe--
if building seven collapsed due to the collapse of towers 1 and 2, why then did other structures on the site which burnt completely and were closer to the towers that collapsed not also come down?
Hasn't anyone ever heard the saying: "three can keep a secret if two are dead"?
Also, it wasn't just the floor trusses that failed. The connections at the exterior wall and interior core began to fail first. This is how you can get a whole floor pancaking down onto the one underneath. Although relatively thin, there was still 5-6 inches of concrete in the floor slabs. Taking the square footage of the floors, that's a few tons. Drop a slab from about 10-12 feet onto another and I'm guessing it sounds like an explosion. It would also force a lot of air to move and possibly blow windows out, acting much like a bellows pump. You can see windows bursting down the exterior as the floors collapse.
There was also the the main roof truss that held the four exterior walls together. Once that failed, the floors weren't strong enough to keep the walls from moving.
Open burning doesn't really burn that hot (500-600), add an accelerant like say jet fuel (1700), or hydrolic fluid and it will burn much much hotter. Also burn it in a confined space and the temperature will rise dramtically as well. Steel will MELT at around 1350-1400 degrees.
If you have questions, why watch a documentary done by conspiracy theorists looking for one, but not ask a structural engineer? Especially one who goes by William LeMessurier? We did.
Tower 7 and the Pentagon are different animals though.
I hate to talk about this, but I need to weigh in here. I am a 9/11 survivor. I worked at the WTC before, and worked at a temporary office two blocks away afterwards. In fact, 9/11 is what made me shift careers from engineering, to architecture. I'm not endorsing loose change one bit - there science is very, very shaky, as anyone who's been to engineering school will tell you. However, there is absolutely something a little funny about the way those buildings collapsed, especially building 7, which ironically, was the headquarters for the FBI etc. on the Eastern Seaboard. Why did 7 collapse? If you are familiar with the site, you know 7 was quite a distance from 1 and 2. A big distance, at least a NYC block or so. That has bothered me since that day. There is no question in my mind they were regular commercial jetliners, and all that stuff about it being some kind of missile is nonsense. I didn't see it one tv - this is my first person opinion. I really think that the buildings were eventually brought down with demolition charges because the City Engineers didn't know if they would fall in a tangential direction and decided that was the safer course. It seems crazy in hindsight, but I can tell you no one knew what was going on that day at all. It was utter, absolute chaos in the truest sense of the definition. They may regret their decision now, but it makes the most sense.
Seriously, we all know jet fuel will not cause steel to deform that way. Go back to materials in your first year. It just wouldn't cause that type of collapse. Dig a little bit into what the professional fire engineers seem to think, and they'll agree. I was there on 9/11, and I was also in the pile afterwards and I didn't see any 'molten steel' residue anywhere. Sure, I saw some deformed beams, but they were deformed BECAUSE of the collapse, they didn't deform and THEN cause the collapse.
If I know one thing about 9/11 it's this - Violence is the most fruitless course of action in all situations. I would never, never, never wish what I saw that day on anyone - Iraqi's, North Koreans, whoever we hate this minute. If you have ever truly experienced a terrorist attack you would never wish it upon another living thing.
I have no political motivation here. I lost too many friends for that to mean a g-damn thing to me. I don't know who caused it either. What I do know, is most of the reports about this event are nonsense from an engineering point of view.
what about all the bullshit the president is doing now and how he managed to get into iraq and create a war over the power of oil......
we can discuss for ever and i'm sure in 20 years the truth will arise but if you look at all the links btw the u.s. and the wars over in the middle east over the years, it's just makes you think why the government is even trying to blow them up
i'm sure someone pissed in some one elses coffee a few years back now there's a war going on.............
bring the troops back home and forget about this war and the president..... he's an ass-hole..... and anyone that voted for him should get a chuck norris kick to the head.......
I'm not really into any conspiracy theory but I want to put in my thoughts.
As is already discussed at length here.
I dont buy the theory that the burning fuel , melted the steel caused the collapse of the buildings
BUT
I also dont buy the theory that it was a controlled demolition.
because... (I have some knowledge abt controlled demolitions.)
for a controlled demolition of a building of that size and magnitude and engg, you would have to place major explosive charges at the basement/foundation and minor explosive charges on each floor.
(If only the explosives at the basement are detonated, there is a threat of the building toppling over on its side.
so hence all the detonations have to be timed at the same second. This is to ensure that the building falls into its own footprint..)
Most importantly what I want to stress is that when the controlled detonation takes place..one is able to see explosions "spilling" outside the building, thru the windows and walls at each floor .
Now if we notice the exact moment the buildings started collapsing on itself. It starts exactly from the floors where the airplane struck.
If it was a controlled demolition , one would have seen a flash of fire smoke/dust at that moment ,appearing on each floor below, till the basement.
9/11...loosechange documentary? U believe that?
Anybody saw Loose change?
THe documentary about 9/11
http://www.loosechange911.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut
Curious about what archinecters thinks about this?
It pretty much freaked me out.
and even though I am now big on all the conspiracy therories it do make sense...
I hardly believe those WTC towers fell out of the sky that fast.
The towers fell at F=MA...basically freefalling.
Where is the plane in the pentagon.
No wings? And such a tiny hole in the wall? Cmon
No more plane in the wtc due to jet fuel burning, but they found the paper passport of a ''terrorist''....yeah right
Rookie pilots targetting the towers with military precision...
The zombie-like approach with this with or against us 1984-rethoric
The lies for Iraq war
The rigged election
...
Gotan - you've got to be american to beleive any of this conspiracy shite.
Remember they filmed the moon landing in an LA backlot...
the gubment is wack
this conversation is so 2006.
BOTS
when i lived in germany (2003-2004)
a. 3 of the top 10 books were 9/11 conspiracy topics.
b. due to iraq invasion, it was almost impossible to find housing.
c. 9/10 evenings out, i'd find myself in a debate over whether or not bush planned 9/11 or not.
d. i went to hyde park, and the police had to pull me out of an "engagement" with several anti-american (and uk) muslims-not fun.
my grandfather (VMI '43 engineering) is convinced that the planes alone couldn't take down the towers.
that being said, loose change brings up several interesting questions.
the pentagon is built up of several layers of concrete. have you ever seen the footage of an f-4 when it hits a concrete wall @ [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=gIjm8kWfAK8/mach .6?[/url] the entire plane vaporizes - it's actually incredible.
A group of students here at the TU Delft put Loose Change to the test and did research on all the claims the movie did about 9/11. They interviewed and showed the footage to a wide group of professionals, varying from pilots to structural engineers to demolition experts.
All information and claims made by Loose Change proved to be false and could easily be refuted by common scientific knowledge.
So please forget this hyped "documentary"
Popular Science also did an article disputing the theories. However, even though i don't necessarily believe in the 9/11 conspiracies i always found the pentagon thing a tad shady, and the videos i've seen of the incident makes it look like it could be a plane or a missle, you really can't tell that well. But like the JFK assasination, there are always going to be things about 9/11 that are going to draw questions, and the answers to those questions may be pretty far out...
Oh and by the way, the Jews weren't responsible for 9/11, 10% of the victims were jews, they weren't on vacation. I just thought i'd put this up there before the international zionist conspiracy gets mentioned.
like all these crazy things, my money is on that it's somewhere in the middle.
I saw an interview with an structural engineer about 9/11. He just said "uh, yeah, we anticipated the impact of a 727 but not what the jet fuel would do. We should have considered that."
Oops.
I highly recommend people watch PBS's Road to War. It's a 'true' film and absolutely amazing. The 'conspiracy' was much deeper than the attack and goes back to the first Bush admin.
It's scary stuff and such a shame that no one knows about things like the Wolfowitz papers (I admittedly remain largely naive, though).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/
Yeah, trace, the truth is always wilder, deeper, and more complex than the conspiracy theorists can imagine.
you are being ignorant assholes. Not only was my cousin in the congress offices of a senator and heard people talking about seeing the plane clipping highway lights as got near the pentagon, my brother was standing under the towers as an employee about to enter work in the world financial center across the street. He can assure you they were american and united aircraft, and that the second one was not flying right - it was way too fast and that it almost missed - signs of a rookie piolet. And do to the nature of a hollow tube, with all the stiffnees in the exterior, welded, wall of tubes, it is completely predictable that it would pancake inwards and down as it collapsed. As for the Pentagon - fly a 727 fully fueled into the side of a cliff or a 6 story concrete building - same result. Now why do you people insist on burying your heads in the sand and not want to attack the real culprit here? Its knowing how retarded you are that makes it possible to tolerate people like Gotan.
jet fuel only burns under combustion ....i.e. engine chamber.....
and i heard that the u.s. is trying to force iraq to give up 75% of all oil monies .......wtf........
anyways......
I thought the bits about the Pentagon were the most disturbing in that movie particularly, the whole: where is the plane? question.
Somehow, I feel like the WTC stuff is more complicated, and I don't understand it. Certainly not without more information. It's amazing how quickly they cleaned the area up, but what does that tell you? I thought their arguments about people being called and told not to go in that day, that was somewhat convincing. It's a pretty amazing accusation, that the government would have done that. And the movie does make you take it stop and think.
I watched the Loose Change video and even though I think there is too much emphasis on conspiracy, I think there are some issues that have yet to addressed.
With the hanky panky election of 2000, I can totally see a neo-con agenda hatched to get the country to rally around an illegitimate president that lacked all the skills needed to actually perform the job. Add on top of that the fuzzy logic that is supposed to explain how two steel towers could fall so soon in comparison to other high rise fires, the complete lack of conclusive video for the Pentagon attack, and the over-the-top patriotism of the Flight 93. Oh...and add on the foot-dragging involved by the Bush administration in the 9/11 commission investigation and the sheer idiocy and mismanagment of being in Iraq...hemmoraging blood, money, and trust while Osama and Al-Zawahiri continue to taunt us at will. Do I have to mention the emergence of Fox News over the last 6 years and their swift boat tactics in swaying public opinion? Finally, everyone is realizing how far this administration (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.) is willing to lie and scare the bejesus out of everyone in order to pursue their vision of reality and define the geo-political future for everyone. I do believe those that those "we" elected to the White House are more focused on how we are going to take it to Iran in 2007 than being focused on the concern to take care of our own in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.
No, I don't believe in conspiracies, per se...but I do think American apathy in regards to politics and who is allowed to run the country is what created the mess we are in now. Hopefully in 2008, people will realize that it is important who is elected...from the president all the way down to you your local judges.
I bet all of this can be resolved on an internet forum about architecture.
We did solve the conspiracy during the last thread (but not the one before that), and it was all the work of a cabal of little flag manufacturers. Who else stood to profit from such a tragedy? How was it possible that so many flags were available for purchase within days of the event?
Anyway, I think my favorite people are the ones who'll say they don't really believe in the conspiracy, but that HMM, it does make you wonder! Because no, it does not.
LOOSE CHANGE BLOWS.
read this
Refer to the South Park episode about the 9/11 conspiracy to know how I feel about the subject.
E.P.
you're probably right...it's always best to trust everything your
government/authorities says is true. all possible evidence/
theories to the contrary should be ignored and left unexplored.
i think there are questions about 911..and i think our government
has covered things up in the past...
for instance, where exactly were all those wmds that were our entire
justification for attacking iraq? do you really believe that lee harvey
oswald was the only person inolved in killing jfk?
i think a certain amount of skepticism and cynicism is justified...we
live under one of the best forms of government..but i don't think that
makes it immuned from corruption and underhandedness.
Are you guys fucking joking? I love a good conspiracy as much as the next tin-foil-hat, but there isnt anything in that documentary that even approximates real evidence. That someone could be so bat-shit obsessive and still find absolutely nothing of consequence is as telling as anything else.
I am definetly not the type to buy into conspiracys at all, typcially i am a very skeptical person but there are several things that REALLY freak me out about wtc collapses.
As was already mentioned... the towers fell freely... a pancake collapse which is what the official story spoke of would not happen at free fall speeds. The speed at which all the floors came down seemed seriously to suggest that the floors below were blown or somehow already structurally compramised. And i can not get my head around how the impact of the plane would compromise EVERY floor to allow a free fall like that to happen.
If the fires inside caused the pankake collaps (which ill get into next), it would have required the firet to sufficientlly compromise ALL interior floor structures at virtualy the same time so that collapes at free fall speeds would be possible.
2nd, the melting of steel CAN NOT occur in open flame... that is why steel is created in controlled fires where the temperature reaches upwards of 2500'. open burns typically can reach half of that, but in no way could steel have become molten by the fire inside the tower alone, yet there was molten steel in the basement, as well as molten steel videotaped pouring out of the windows of the tower prior to its collapse. This really seems to suggest planned demolition where controlled explosions instantly raise temperatures to the temps required to melt steel.
im not saying im sold on this thing, but after reading point by point descriptions from people at the scene and seeing a few interesting films on possible options... im realy freaked out.
not to mention there are videos of what look like explosions coming from floors several levels down the tower during the collapse, which are typically found in controlled demolitions.
and last but not least... tower 7 collapsed after burning for 4 hours. If anyone else noticed... many towers surronding the world trade center were compltely burnt out, with nothing remaining but their steel and concrete structure, and never collapsed. not to mention tower 7 imploaded perfectly, collapsing from the center first and falling inward...
way to coincidental for my taste...
it honestly scares me that i cant rule the conspiracy theory out in my own mind
Let's suppose the Loose Change claims are all true. That would mean Bush and Co. are the smartest muther fuckers around. They would've needed an army of midnight workers wiring the WTC buildings, of which nobody has talked. They would need to make all the people on those flights disappear, of which nobody has surfaced. Even Stalin couldn't have orchestrated an event on the scale of 9/11 and kept everything secret. If they were so good at masterminding the whole 9/11 do you think they'd let some moron film student make a half assed conspiracy theory movie?
Seriously people, I have my issues with the current administration the same as the next guy, but I'm completely allergic to the notion it was an "inside job."
About molten steel and the explosions on the lower floors: Steel doesn't need to actually melt before it loses its strength. In other words, steel loses its strength at a much lower temperature than that required to actually melt it.
Also, the explosions on the lower floors could be explained by the fact that burning jet fuel, airplane parts, and debris were falling down the elevator shafts ahead of the actual building collapse.
I don't buy into most of the harebrained conspiracy theories out there. As aquapara said, Bush & Co. would have to be logistical genuises to pull it off, and I don't think they're capable of that -- especially within 9 months of taking office.
That said, they had a mountain of evidence indicating that 9/11 was in the planning stages, and they didn't lift a finger to stop it. Whether they ignored the threat out of sheer incompetence or because they saw the potential to exploit it for their own political gain is an open question. I want to believe the former, but I suspect the latter.
I am aware that steel needs only to reach about 1200-1500 degrees to lose about half its strength. This is one big factor that keeps me from completely buying into the theory that the towers were purposefully broght down.
But the point of the molten steel is that there was molten steel. Both in the underground levels after the collapse, as well as pouring out of the building prior too collapse. Its also true that the temperatures for steel to reach the point where it because liquid could not occur in the fire officials said occured in the building. That kind of worries me.
I definitely dont want to believe that the government allowed 9/11 to happen. And yes, i have significant issues with the Bush administration. But politics and economics are very powerful forces. And for me, so many other things have gotten so out of controll and are so incredibly suspicious, i can not accept the official accounts of what happened.
I know that many will say that some believe all they read/hear/see, the video evidence i have seen that breaks down frame by frame what was recorded at the towers is far too conincidental to be overlooked.
I find it INCREDIBLLY suspicious that tower 7 collapsed. I am boggled as to how that could have happened. Not to mention Larry Silversteins slip up that tower 7 was to be 'pulled'. before the building had actually collapsed
I know this has been talked about ad nauseum but:
1. WT 7 shouldn't have collapsed as easily as it did. That does seem
odd. Especially the fact that it imploded perfectly causing little collateral
damage.
2. LIG and aqua..i think the point lletdownl was trying to make was
that there was molten steel...which indicates explosives. There shouldn't
have been molten steel.
3. Jet fuel doesn't burn in an open flame does it? The initial explosion
of course...but it wouldn't continue to fuel the fire. So i guess we're
saying the planes, paper etc fueled the fires? I guess that's
possible..but wouldn't the temperature be too low?
4. I don't think anyone's claiming the people were abducted and sent to an island. I knew two people that died that day..I don't assume they're still alive.
5. Would explosions really happen as you describe due to debri
goin down the elevator shaft? Enough to blow out the windows and such? I don't know..this is obviously a catastrophic event..
Maybe it's unhealthy to talk about and wonder about..i just have
questions as to whether or not there could've been any kind of collusion.
It's absolutely crazy to think anyone would plan this from the inside i
agree...but to say that this administration is incapable of that
planning seems a bit naive...although i admit it's a bit naive to think
we also have leaders capable of killing 3000+ people in order to
go to war in iraq...even though they were/ are the main benefactors
of that war...regardless of public opinion now.
they were capable of keeping everyone in line on the thinking of
why were going into iraq..and far more people have died or been
wounded there.
I dunno what I think about the conspiracy. I agree it seems too far fetched.
However, I also know that Bush favored Powell, pre 9/11. This meant Cheney and gang, were not getting what they wanted. So 9/11 happens, them say 'hey, here it is, our chance to initiate the Wolfowitz papers (that were drafter in '92, I think, but deemed too radical to pursue - basically the 'cleansing' of the mid east)' and they took charge.
If you look at in that light, it started in '92.
Those papers are far more scarry and far reaching than a terrorist attack, imho. The fact that barely anyone knows that they called for the invasion of Iraq first, then other mid east countries, decades ago and are finally following through with it scares the hell out of me.
So yeah, I think Bush is a moron, but do I think those that surround him and his dad are morons? No, I think they are some of the most diabolical strategists alive.
Score:
Engineers - oops, they forgot to anticipate jet fuel but anticipated a jet
Osama - pure genius of planning, no wonder we can't find him!
WMD - uh, sorry, we goofed, but the war is still good! Let's send more troops
The entire thing just reeks to me. Maybe not the actual plot of taking out WTC, but so much of it is exactly as planned, for 15+ years.
Ah, feels like the same conversation from years ago!
one other thing id like to add... its a cheap and easy shot but lets talk a bit about larry silverstein.
Not only had he JUST come in controll of the building but...
he re-worked the towers insurance policy specifically protecting the towers against terrorist attacks (granted this makes sense but im talking timing here. plus the towers were already attacked and the policy had been written after the last attack)
also, he ensured that with his 99 year lease on the WTC that in the case of a catastrophic attack or event he, and he alone would maintain the rights to develop the world trade center site.
he succesfully sued and won over 1billion dollars in court over discrepencies about whether the attack was 1 or 2 attacks and counted as 1 or 2 claims
he actually did say that tower 7 was going to be pulled. on national television, before the tower collapsed.
he later clarified that he meant that the firemen would be pulled from the tower though he had been informed and was aware that firemen had already been pulled from tower 7 to help evacuate towers 1 and 2...
and last but not least... this might be a little far fetched... but i have read that there WERE reports from building tenants to building mainanence that the construction going on within the building in the weeks leading up to 9/11 was exessivly noisey and included what sounded like major construction (jackhammers, drilling, large dumpsters being moved around) as well as complaints about large amounts of concrete dust and particles settling throughout the building
Did everyone see the video of the "plane" hitting the pentagon that they released late last year? It looks extremely time lapsed and doesnt include an airplane.
I agree that the WTC part of the theory is far fetched but I think is still do-able. The penatgon is what bugs me and leads me to believe in something bigger than what happened. I just remember specifically that the news was reporting an explosion at the pentagon. explosion at the pentagon. and then after everything "settled" dpwn, they blamed it on another plane.
whatever.
this will probably get a reaction, but did everyone see v for vendetta? kind of eery if you ask me. but its completely believable that the government, in an attempt to gain more power, would sabotage itself. just look at the aftermath, patriot act, bush's latest mail scandal, patriot act 2, etc.
The only reason why I ever thought the towers could have been imploded deliberately was to prevent any collapse scenerio where one or both towers would have "teepled over" causing wider damage and greater loss of life to adjacent areas.
I remember that a domino effect scenerio throughout midtown Manhattan was the reason why people were scared out of their skirts when it was learned that the Citicorp Tower was vulnerable to quarter winds...back in 1978 or so. I could see a decision like that being made to prevent a horrible situation from becoming even worse.
That still doesn't explain Tower 7, but maybe Silverstein got a "buy two, get one free" deal.
I dont believe that the WTC attack was an inside job, thats insane.
But one thing, that is definately doubtfull, is the whole Flight 93 pensylvania crash story.
I mean that plane was OF COURSE shot down by millitary jets.
They had all the time in the world to do it, and it was heading for Washington to smash into something.
The engine of the plane was found 1 mile from the crater, and several other bits (official story). Pretty much proof that it was shot down. And as usual the most plausible explanation is the real one. If i was president i would have shot it down too, before Captitol Hill would get hit....
Thats not a real conspiracy of course, it just makes more sense than the "lets roll" story.
Geez, if you believe this, you'd problably believe that pearl harbor was planned to justify the use of an atomic bomb...
i think you have to actually read, listen too, look and watch some of the alternate ideas before you can pass judgement on something this incredibly serious
I was looking at the towers when the first 'plane' hit. I never saw an airplane
lletdown -
the visible plume of collapsing debris as seen on television was not the front of the downward collapse. It was the trail of debris and collapsing tube structure on the outside as the lightweight composite slabs pankaked five and six, maybe more floors below. These are the "explosions" people saw and heard, preceeding the visible outerwall collapse. If you need proof of the rigidity of the outer tube sections please recall the aftermath and images of 10 and 12 story segments of outer wall that wer remaining after complete collapse. This was about the maximum unbraced verticle section of wall the tower could handle and coressponds to the "explosions" on floors below the collapse.
actually if u look close karl rove and dick cheney are pulling the keystones out of the towers right before the collapse. pallleeeze...
and how did the camera person know where the 2nd plane was gonna hit...seemed like the camera was stationed there before the plane even hit...
i still hate this government........... it's all about power............ i have friends in iraq and they all want to come back home because they dont feel like they should be there.............
yeah - why would a camera be filming the world trade center after the first plane hit?
it's almost as if the camera man thought something was happening. he must have known .. clued in by the government, no doubt.
*shudders*
look at the evidence/facts/ rubble/etc......
the us citizens need to stop letting this fuckin government do what ever they want to create shit........... when was the last war fought on u.s. soil?.... the u.s. is so quick to bully and attack coutries for the hell of it.....
makes you wonder where all your tax dollars are going..... to feed the idiots that are running this country...... they all need to be impeached and tossed in jail for war crimes
well, the current war on u.s. soil is along the southern border. mexican drug cartels rule and border agents get sent to jail for chasing an illegal alien drug runner and shooting him in the butt.
so i agree, cryzko, idiots are running this country. and they do ignore important conditions that soak up tax dollars (ahem .. illegal immigrants using emergency rooms, destroying our school system, in state tuition (?!?)).
tossed in jail for war crimes? i wouldn't go that far. amnesty/open border republicans replaced by amnesty/open border democrats?
*shudders again and weeps for all legal immigrants who follow the rules*
evil,
i appreciate the input and what you say does make sense. i am definetly not the conspiracy theory type and the fact that ive even entertained this affects me.
Even in your scenario, i dont understand how the floors pancaking below would meet so little resistance... collapsing at the speed of a free fall. I cant get it though my head how 110 floors could come down, through transfer floors, through hundreds and hundreds of columns and joists with virutally no impedence to their descent. Perhaps there is a reason... but i cant see it. There is no precedent for this.
I even have a hard time comprehending how a fire could bring down a 110 story building in less than an hour. Theres no precedent for that either.
the fact that there have been 3 steel buildings collapse due to fire in the history of steel framed highrises. Towers 1, 2 and 7. All collapsed after very short times burning.
iraq needs architects..government contracts, biatches
thats clever of you mdler
People forget that these werent standard steel frame buildings. There was no 'pancake' effect because the floors werent standard concrete slabs, they were suspended on thin steel trusses between the exterior wall and the interior core. What you are seeing when the towers collapse is actually debris penetrating these thin floors, separating the core from the exterior wall, which then visibly peels away in that mushroom shape. Much was made of the fact that it was decided mid-construction to forgo the asbestos fireproofing on these trusses for the higher floors, but whether this could have protected them from burning for an hour in 1000 gallons of jet-fuel I couldnt say.
as far as building 7 goes, I suspect having 2 of the largest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it was a factor...
The impact explosion would have blown the fire proofing clean off so it's a bit irrelevant. Steel loses its strength as it heats up. Melting steel is not an issue here.
I can't believe there are still questions surrounding this. the only one I would ask is why that jack-ass is still president. but hey we have done that to death as well...
the truth of this matter is that i have my doubts and you have your beliefs, but there is no one here that can say for sure what happened or how it happened because no ones been alowed to independently verify most of the investigations findings.
The impact explosion might have removed fireproffing this is very true. But if you read what is mentioned above... melting steel is an issue. Its not debated that steel weakens as its temperature rises (yet no other steel building ever had collapsed due to fire). its not even debated that the temperatures inside the building would have reduced the steels strength by possibly as much as 50%.
The issue with the molten steel is that THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL.
If it wasnt caused by the fire from the crash, as this is a physical impossability, where did it come from?
oe--
if building seven collapsed due to the collapse of towers 1 and 2, why then did other structures on the site which burnt completely and were closer to the towers that collapsed not also come down?
isn't there a video of bin laden stating that they under estimated what they hoped to accomplish by flying the planes into buildings?
Hasn't anyone ever heard the saying: "three can keep a secret if two are dead"?
Also, it wasn't just the floor trusses that failed. The connections at the exterior wall and interior core began to fail first. This is how you can get a whole floor pancaking down onto the one underneath. Although relatively thin, there was still 5-6 inches of concrete in the floor slabs. Taking the square footage of the floors, that's a few tons. Drop a slab from about 10-12 feet onto another and I'm guessing it sounds like an explosion. It would also force a lot of air to move and possibly blow windows out, acting much like a bellows pump. You can see windows bursting down the exterior as the floors collapse.
There was also the the main roof truss that held the four exterior walls together. Once that failed, the floors weren't strong enough to keep the walls from moving.
Open burning doesn't really burn that hot (500-600), add an accelerant like say jet fuel (1700), or hydrolic fluid and it will burn much much hotter. Also burn it in a confined space and the temperature will rise dramtically as well. Steel will MELT at around 1350-1400 degrees.
If you have questions, why watch a documentary done by conspiracy theorists looking for one, but not ask a structural engineer? Especially one who goes by William LeMessurier? We did.
Tower 7 and the Pentagon are different animals though.
I hate to talk about this, but I need to weigh in here. I am a 9/11 survivor. I worked at the WTC before, and worked at a temporary office two blocks away afterwards. In fact, 9/11 is what made me shift careers from engineering, to architecture. I'm not endorsing loose change one bit - there science is very, very shaky, as anyone who's been to engineering school will tell you. However, there is absolutely something a little funny about the way those buildings collapsed, especially building 7, which ironically, was the headquarters for the FBI etc. on the Eastern Seaboard. Why did 7 collapse? If you are familiar with the site, you know 7 was quite a distance from 1 and 2. A big distance, at least a NYC block or so. That has bothered me since that day. There is no question in my mind they were regular commercial jetliners, and all that stuff about it being some kind of missile is nonsense. I didn't see it one tv - this is my first person opinion. I really think that the buildings were eventually brought down with demolition charges because the City Engineers didn't know if they would fall in a tangential direction and decided that was the safer course. It seems crazy in hindsight, but I can tell you no one knew what was going on that day at all. It was utter, absolute chaos in the truest sense of the definition. They may regret their decision now, but it makes the most sense.
Seriously, we all know jet fuel will not cause steel to deform that way. Go back to materials in your first year. It just wouldn't cause that type of collapse. Dig a little bit into what the professional fire engineers seem to think, and they'll agree. I was there on 9/11, and I was also in the pile afterwards and I didn't see any 'molten steel' residue anywhere. Sure, I saw some deformed beams, but they were deformed BECAUSE of the collapse, they didn't deform and THEN cause the collapse.
If I know one thing about 9/11 it's this - Violence is the most fruitless course of action in all situations. I would never, never, never wish what I saw that day on anyone - Iraqi's, North Koreans, whoever we hate this minute. If you have ever truly experienced a terrorist attack you would never wish it upon another living thing.
I have no political motivation here. I lost too many friends for that to mean a g-damn thing to me. I don't know who caused it either. What I do know, is most of the reports about this event are nonsense from an engineering point of view.
what about auto pilot on planes?......
what about all the bullshit the president is doing now and how he managed to get into iraq and create a war over the power of oil......
we can discuss for ever and i'm sure in 20 years the truth will arise but if you look at all the links btw the u.s. and the wars over in the middle east over the years, it's just makes you think why the government is even trying to blow them up
i'm sure someone pissed in some one elses coffee a few years back now there's a war going on.............
bring the troops back home and forget about this war and the president..... he's an ass-hole..... and anyone that voted for him should get a chuck norris kick to the head.......
including chuck norris? cos i fairly sure he votes that way
I'm not really into any conspiracy theory but I want to put in my thoughts.
As is already discussed at length here.
I dont buy the theory that the burning fuel , melted the steel caused the collapse of the buildings
BUT
I also dont buy the theory that it was a controlled demolition.
because... (I have some knowledge abt controlled demolitions.)
for a controlled demolition of a building of that size and magnitude and engg, you would have to place major explosive charges at the basement/foundation and minor explosive charges on each floor.
(If only the explosives at the basement are detonated, there is a threat of the building toppling over on its side.
so hence all the detonations have to be timed at the same second. This is to ensure that the building falls into its own footprint..)
Most importantly what I want to stress is that when the controlled detonation takes place..one is able to see explosions "spilling" outside the building, thru the windows and walls at each floor .
Now if we notice the exact moment the buildings started collapsing on itself. It starts exactly from the floors where the airplane struck.
If it was a controlled demolition , one would have seen a flash of fire smoke/dust at that moment ,appearing on each floor below, till the basement.
_____
|____|
>>.<<
_____
|____|
>>.<<
_____
|____|
>>.<<
_____
|____|
>><<
(something like that )
however That didnt happen.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.