Conspiracy theory

[Rob]

One other point occured to me last night. The argument is self-defeating.

 

If I understand Scotty's point correctly, he is saying the towers were designed to withstand one or even multiple 600mph impacts from a fully laden 707, and therefore since a similar sized and slower plane did hit them, they should not have collapsed due to that incident, therefore they must have been rigged to collapse by nefarious deeds....and there is proof that the design is as he says.

 

If that's the case, why then did this hidden collective of evil plotters go to all the trouble of hijacking 4 planes fulll of people and secretly rigging the buildings to collapse? Their plan would be instantly flawed and exposed

If it is demonstrable that a plane strike would not cause the buildings to collapse, it would be obvious to all that the planned collapse is due to internal explosives so its pointless to even try it. The only way the plane strike idea could work is if say 10 planes hit each tower from all sides, or maybe one of those Starlifters or Ilushin 220 things, full of fuel, something spectacularly outside the provable design parameters of the buildings.

 

In the ten years since 9/11 architects and engineers all over the world have discussed methods of consstructing tall buildings that would withstand the impacts from hijacked large plane strikes. D'you know what? While not technically impossible, its beyond reason to even try. Such a building would be so heavy and costly, no one would make any money from renting its office space. To start building such towers would be to signal to the terrorists that we are scared of them.

 

The events of 9/11 and 7/7 have already caused huge changes to Western society in the way our freedoms are being eroded in the name of anti-terrorism. I don't like the idea that I'm on camera all the time if I drive to London, I don't like the idea that I have to be fully searched and remove my shoes in an airport. I think some of the things our Govt have done in response to 9/11 are very wrong, but that doesn't mean I think they were behind the whole thing just to gain more power.

[Rob]

I'm still not sure what brought down WTC7. Don't think any major bits of plane hit it, no idea if any 'tower' landed on it, officials say 'fire' but that's not enough to bring it down unless a passenger jet happens to have destroyed all the fire proofing on the steelworks.

 

That's the thing about WTC7, no one really knows because it wasn't visible on TV. According to fire crews there was massive damage to the front caused by the tower collapsing into it and then we're into the same old stuff about how it was designed and whether it should have collapsed through fires or not.

Was it rigged with explosives from its construction? Don't know

Could it have collapsed if a 100 storey tower fell on it? Don't know

 

Did anyone see it being rigged with explosives? No

Did anyone see a 100 storey tower collapse into it? Ooh yes, I think so.

[AJI]

Yes WTC7 to me is also a little confusing.

And I think its this one that gives the most 'support' to any possible conspiracy.

 

So from what I know, WTC7 was only struck by the falling debris from the towers. Could this have been enough to bring it down?

I would have to say that I simply do not know enough about this building to make a decisive comment.

 

The size of the building would have meant substantial reinforcement. But based on simple building design, as it was not one of these new modern shaped curvy buildings we see these days, it was just a block shaped building of substantial size.

So basically you would have concrete and reinforcement working together to support the structure. Strip away either of these from the base of such a weighty structure and you're asking a huge amount from the laws of physics to keep the building standing. I can only assume that the falling of the twin towers created enough of a 'battering force' to strip away a critical amount of concrete and/or reinforcement. Leaving either the remaining concrete to crumble or the remaining reinforcement bars to buckle. (Or both at the same time).

Couple this with any burning fires and you quickly create a situation that brought down the twin towers.

 

 

There were firemen and other officials on video at the time it was still standing saying "its gonna blow", a good few minutes before it actually fell..... this may suggest that there was a gas or other fuel pressure tank(s) being heated by an already bruning substantial fire that was going to create an explosion. Maybe enough to strip away some more supports?

I simply don't know, as the whole scene on that day must have been total chaos.

Or if you are conspiracy inclined then this could be interpreted to mean 'its rigged with demolition explosives'

 

The other confusing part was that on behalf of some of the TV news reports. Some were reporting the building having collapsed before it actually had done. Again you could account this down to the total confusion of the day in that rumours spreading around like wild fire. You can easily imagine that firemen or any other person looking at WTC7 building and seeing the amount of damage it must have sustained coming to a personal opinion that it was about to come down. After all Manhatten was at this stage in a thick dust cloud.

Then as word of mouth spreads eventually to a reporter that maybe things were reported incorrect.

 

The other thing to take in to account is that news stations repeat footage of events over and over, and even place 'green backgrounds' to super-impose reporters on to live or recorded footage. So piecing together the time line of events in what was reported and when can become tricky.

 

 

But the issue remains, if there is little credible evidence of the US government bringing down the twin towers, then why would they rig up and bring down WTC7 building?

Did they have it rigged ready for a future terroist attack on the twin towers? How good must their crystal ball have to be in order to execute this?

[imi]

I'm still not sure what brought down WTC7. Don't think any major bits of plane hit it, no idea if any 'tower' landed on it, officials say 'fire' but that's not enough to bring it down unless a passenger jet happens to have destroyed all the fire proofing on the steelworks.

 

Scotty posted this video, its a good watch and answers a lot of these questions

[tbourner]

Was it rigged with explosives from its construction? Don't know

Could it have collapsed if a 100 storey tower fell on it? Don't know

 

Did anyone see it being rigged with explosives? No

Did anyone see a 100 storey tower collapse into it? Ooh yes, I think so.

 

So from what I know, WTC7 was only struck by the falling debris from the towers.

 

Picture:

 

 

What happened to WTC5 and WTC6 if WTC7 was struck by enough falling tower block to make it collapse?

[imi]

must have been a american submarine then:rolleyes:

 

submarine?

 

Titanic

 

Iceberg

http://www.cgcrayleigh.com/iceberg.jpg

 

Submarine

[AJI]

tbourner, a couple of links :

 

WTC5 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

 

WTC6 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html

 

Links taken from what looks like a pro-conspiracy website, just so that I am not being too biassed with my replies

 

But they show both WTC 5 & 6 taking severe damage as you'd expect from being underneath.

[imi]

The thing is, you may say this, but you are responsible. Your taxes are funding our wars abroad. If you disagree with our foreign policy so much, your taxes should go to a country that opposes our actions.

 

I would say that the British way of life is at threat, but that is wholly the fault of past governments, and their ridiculous immigration policies. It isn't the immigrants per se that are the problem, it's the quantity of them that has resulted in the mass over population of the mainland. Then, trying to keep everyone happy has resulted in a complete lack of direction for our population, and has the british ethnic population discriminated against in every manner possible, just to avoid the possibility of offending one of the minorities.

 

Unfortunately, they won't tackle these issues, for fear of being branded racists.

 

It is extremely unfortunate that you feel this way and it is extremely troubling if this feeling is shared by many others.

 

False Flag.

[Lbm]

submarine?

 

Titanic

http://www.titanictown.plus.com/titanictown/titanic.jpg

 

Iceberg

http://www.cgcrayleigh.com/iceberg.jpg

 

Submarine

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/business_submarine_building_in_barrow/img/6.jpg

 

 

Very good.

[Dnk]

WTC 5 and WTC 6 only had 9 & 8 floors so would be less prone to collapse

[tbourner]

tbourner, a couple of links :

 

WTC5 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

 

WTC6 - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html

 

Links taken from what looks like a pro-conspiracy website, just so that I am not being too biassed with my replies

 

But they show both WTC 5 & 6 taking severe damage as you'd expect from being underneath.

WTC 5 and WTC 6 only had 9 floors so would be less prone to collapse

 

 

I was trying to see it from the conspiracy view, but I just can't, I've just blown my own conspiracy argument out the water with a new image:

 

 

Which clearly shows that WTC7 could take severe damage without affecting the other 2 that much.

[Ewen]

Last time this topic was threaded through the forum, I posted how I thought the collapse of WT7 looked like a controlled demolition. To me, it still does, but for the record I don't believe it was in fact.

No other aspect of the overall episodes of this disaster gives me much trouble based on my limited understanding of the mechanics of inertia and momentum...but the collapse of WT7 remains a nagging worry to me.

 

Just to add a little spice to the already varied ingredients, heres an interesting link to some other high rise buildings hit by aircraft.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml

The Empire Strike Back in the '40s is interesting due to the relatively small hole made by the impact of a much wider plane....which combined with the buildings method of construction gives it a slight parallel with the hit on the Pentagon. The text is rather schoolbookish and a few facts are distorted but the overall ghist is there to see.

[Kirk]

Scotty I must congratulate you for posting every conspiracy video on Youtube. Well done

 

Now get over it and accept fact that the towers fell by plausible means and not by the means of nano thermite or secretly planted explosives which would of taken so much work, time and effort to do someone somewhere along the line would of let the word slip.

[Rob]

Slightly OT, but related to stuff about the engine wreckage.

I don't know why this surprised me, but I was amazed that the maintenance diagrams for jet engines are identical in style to car manuals

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]139333[/ATTACH]

[Dnk]

9/11 was 100% an act of terrorism, Scott was beaten to

the pole, Titanic hit an iceberg and man did walk on the moon

[Tony]

9/11 was 100% an act of terrorism, Scott was beaten to

the pole, Titanic hit an iceberg and man did walk on the moon

 

Hooray correct on all counts

[Lbm]

New theory on how Twin Towers Collapsed.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/theory-twin-towers-collapse-141033664.html

[imi]

New theory on how Twin Towers Collapsed.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/theory-twin-towers-collapse-141033664.html

 

This would certainly explain why the steel in the foundations were molten hot so much so that the piece of metal that they now have on ground zero is effectively a perfect horse shoe shape.

 

Also perhaps explains why you can see (and hear) explosions at different floors of the building before the building uniformly collapsed in a controlled fashion, vertically.

 

Also perhaps explains the collapse of WTC7.

[AJI]

 

before the building uniformly collapsed in a controlled fashion, vertically.

 

 

This is where the logic of the conspiracy doesn't really follow.

Due to the building looking like it came down in a similar fasion to that of the usual controlled demolitions we are familiar with, then the conspiracy logic states that all building falling like that must have had explosives in them that went of in a controlled fashion.

 

Its really not that simple.

The reason why the Twin Towers never fall over like an 'unbalanced pen on a table' is due to the shear weight of the structure and the individual component strengths of the way the forces are distributed within the building.

You will notice that as each tower falls, the part above the damaged floors does tilt slightly. Once this shift of weight has occured then this is now spreading much more weight on the the structure that has already started to fail. And then you get a ripple effect as the structure near to the already failed part is put under more pressure and then 'gives way' in a process that quickly spreads latterally across the floors at the height at which the floors start to 'give way'.

So once this stage of failure is under way you have all the top part of the building gaining momentum vertically downwards. More than enough to start a chain reaction effect whereby the energy of the falling top part of the building is now simply crushing everything below it as it falls vertically. The inner core of the twin towers below the damaged floors would have acted as a 'support' to keep the falling building in a vertical line right down to the foundations. Where as the relative cavity between the outer walls/glass of the towers provided the relative vaccum for the resultant debris to fall in to.

 

 

Just to add further argument to the conspiracy theory of the way the towers fell. A controlled demolition of a number of tall structures can be set so that a building will fall in a certain direction only. If the towers had fell like an 'unbalanced pen on a table' then it could still be argued by the conpirators that it was 'controlled'.

If the US government were trying to inflict as much damage to their own population and infrastruture, then why wouldn't they have set the explosives so that the building fell from the base and toppled from an angle closer to the base in which it could have fallen over a number of blocks of buildings?

Or if that would have been 'too obvious' then an explosion to sever the inner supporting columns of the towers so that at least the total building above the damaged floors could 'slide off' in the falling process and impact over a larger distance.

[tbourner]

It takes LOTS of planning and calculations to perfect a demolition, they have to be 100% certain that it falls within a certain footprint and doesn't damage any other properties, they're hardly going to go to that much planning and detail in order to 'fake' a catastrophic collapse.

Also, what's to say all buildings wouldn't collapse in that way naturally? As above, the demolition crew have to be 100% certain so they can't just crash a wrecking ball into the bottom corner and hope, but maybe that would actually work on 99% of projects.

[Charlotte]

Did you see the latest link? It's actually dispelling the conspiracy theories.

[AJI]

Did you see the latest link? It's actually dispelling the conspiracy theories.

 

Currently at work and can't view the vid link.

 

Is the vid a good reasoned view of the collapse? (Anyways, I'll give it a watch tonight).

[Charlotte]

Currently at work and can't view the vid link.

 

Is the vid a good reasoned view of the collapse? (Anyways, I'll give it a watch tonight).

 

The link that LBM put up is a news article.

[Rob]

Its an alternative theory suggesting that molten aluminium from the aeroplanes seeped into the water tanks for the sprinkler system and caused the explosion noises that were heard just before the towers started to collapse.

I know very little about sprinkler systems so cannot comment. I don't know if there are small tanks on every floor, a pressuried mains system or larger tanks every 10 floors, for example.

[AJI]

The link that LBM put up is a news article.

 

My bad.

For some reason the link is blocked by our works firewall. Usually it does this on vid links.