[xenon]

Hmm. I think I'd rather come to terms with my loved ones having died at the hands of some lunatic terrorists and reconcile with that.

For people to say "actually that's not what happened, they were killed by their own government and it's been covered up" I would find somewhat difficult.

The enormity of people that would need to be in the know for this to be a conspiracy is preposterous.

[Steve A]

Originally Posted by Dave_3

This addresses those points. 1:29

Dave.

The bulge on the underneath of the plane was analysed by some scientists in Spain. They used 3d analysis to show this was a separate item on one side only not a symmetrical part of the plane that houses the lading gear.

Those two planes have different engines and wings so its not the same plane anyway.

On different footage and from some angles, the flashes seem to occur not at the point of impact, but at a separate entry point? how can this be explained?

Simon

Where does it say that the producers of the 911 in plane sight support david icke????

[beemerbird]

Originally Posted by Krozi

This is fucking ridiculous. How about you all stop disrespecting the victims of 9/11? Keep the political bullshit out of this. This thread was most likely intended to remember the victims, regardless of what happened. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You are of course entitled to your opinions but then so are the others who have been participating in this thread.

I absolutely fail to see how discussing any of the events is disrespectful to anyone and am amazed you even think that way. It is melodramatic and plays right into the wrong hands and sadly reaffirms certain sweeping generalisations. Unfortunately I very much doubt there is the time for us all to discuss the many previous terrorist attacks that have been carried out throughout HISTORY around the WORLD.

[E902717]

Interesting read this thread...

I went to ground zero in 2007 and when i was there a young lad was sitting in the corner of the viewing platform playing amazing grace on his flute, it was very moving. What surprised me was how quiet it was there and if you didn't know it you could feel something bad had happened, we went the memorial museum which is next door to the fire station again very moving, I cant imagine the pain the families of the victims went through.

All the Conspiracy theory's are crap to be honest I just cant believe the US Government have got or did have the intelligence to pull something like 9/11 off the sheer amount of people that would need to be involved just isn't possible.

'Blowing the towers up' anyone with an tiny bit of common sense would know it wouldn't be possible to rig those buildings for demolition the amount of explosive would be huge, how would they plan it? let alone rig it all up with no one twigging? its just crazy!

Also the plane having a missile attached?!?! don't be daft how the hell would they attached one to a everyday commercial airliner without anyone knowing? everyone at the airport would need to be in on it, passengers, pilots, maintenance engineers etc... What would there motivation to do it in the first place?


burning buildings will and do collapse its simple physics and basic engineering. the WTC was never engineering to take a hit from a 767 fully laden going at full speed the forces involved in a impact like that are massive I'm surprised the buildings stood as long as they did especially the design of building the floors are what gave the buildings sides their rigidity and strength as soon as they started to sag and collapse there was no way the rest of the building could support the energy and forces involved.

Now the US government might be covering things up I wouldn't be surprised if the USAF shot down flight 77.

What 9/11 shows me is how evil human beings can be to each other when it comes to their interpretation of religion.

I hope I never see anything like 9/11 in my life time.

[Dave_3]

I visited ground zero a few weeks after the event. The skies, planes and airports were like ghost towns as no Americans were flying. So I decided to fly.

We stayed in the inter-continental (also deserted) near the Chrysler building. In the cool of the evening you could very clearly smell the still smouldering ruins of the twin towers in the air. Little things like that are not protrayed through tv.

I visited ground zero, but as I never saw the towers before found it odd visiting a smoking space/hole. The surrounding buildings still looked huge to me, but were savagely mauled by the falling debris. We also walked by the NBC buildings which had been mailed Anthrax. It was a strange time.

Most Americans were still shell shocked, but stoic. New Yorkers were organising a concert.

I'll need to visit NY again.

D.

[Steve A]

Originally Posted by E902717

the sheer amount of people that would need to be involved just isn't possible.

I dont think it would be the case. what can the sas acheive with very small numbers. If the plan is correct it doesnt need many.

Originally Posted by E902717

'Blowing the towers up' anyone with an tiny bit of common sense would know it wouldn't be possible to rig those buildings for demolition the amount of explosive would be huge, how would they plan it? let alone rig it all up with no one twigging? its just crazy!

If the demolition charges weakend the building to make sure they came down i dont think it would take that much. As the buildings were burning why were NYPD saying they were hearing numeruos explosions.??? witnesses who worked in the WTC saying the evevator exploded in the basement and they were pulling people out, cops saying they can smell cordite etc why would they be smelling cordite?????

Originally Posted by E902717

Also the plane having a missile attached?!?! don't be daft how the hell would they attached one to a everyday commercial airliner without anyone knowing? everyone at the airport would need to be in on it, passengers, pilots, maintenance engineers etc... What would there motivation to do it in the first place?

If it was actually a commercial airliner then yes they would have noticed something on boarding. thye thing is though i dont believe it was a commercial flight.

Originally Posted by E902717

burning buildings will and do collapse its simple physics and basic engineering. the WTC was never engineering to take a hit from a 767 fully laden going at full speed the forces involved in a impact like that are massive I'm surprised the buildings stood as long as they did especially the design of building the floors are what gave the buildings sides their rigidity and strength as soon as they started to sag and collapse there was no way the rest of the building could support the energy and forces involved.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

This shows that the buildings WERE engineered with a plane crash in mind.

Originally Posted by E902717

Now the US government might be covering things up I wouldn't be surprised if the USAF shot down flight 77.

maybe

Originally Posted by E902717

What 9/11 shows me is how evil human beings can be to each other when it comes to their interpretation of religion.

I hope I never see anything like 9/11 in my life time.

i couldnt agree more.

[Steve A]

[u2b]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wb-TnB9wAqs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wb-TnB9wAqs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/u2b]

[Steve A]

!

[iamjim]

There is compelling evidence to suggest that Mossad were the source of this.

One big cover up either way.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Steve A

Simon

Where does it say that the producers of the 911 in plane sight support david icke????

I linked to this in an earlier post. David Icke is the first reviewer that they quote on their website. Clearly they value his endorsement, which makes me seriously doubt their judgement.

http://www.911inplanesite.com/reviews.html

Originally Posted by Steve A

If the demolition charges weakend the building to make sure they came down i dont think it would take that much. As the buildings were burning why were NYPD saying they were hearing numeruos explosions.??? witnesses who worked in the WTC saying the evevator exploded in the basement and they were pulling people out, cops saying they can smell cordite etc why would they be smelling cordite?????

The buildings had gas and electrical services, as well as lots of flamable contents. It would be odd if there were not explosions.

Why are you willing to believe that controlled demolition would not need a lot of explosives, but at the same time are not able to accept that an impact on this scale and resultant fire could destroy the buildings?

The planes did a LOT more damage to the structure than a controlled demolition would have.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

This shows that the buildings WERE engineered with a plane crash in mind.

No it doesn't. The design was based on all relevant design codes, the engineers say that they looked at the completed design to see if it would withstand a plane impact. They would not have been qualified to understand the forces of such an impact and there were no design criteria to help them with this excercise. If it was done, no records were kept. The engineers appear to have convinced themselves that a plane strike would be OK, but this did not influence the design in any way.

However, In reality the engineers assumptions were proven true. The buildings DID survive a plane strike. The impact did not destroy the towers.

There is a massive difference between designing a structure to withstand a specific incident and simply checking, in an ad hoc way, to see how a completed design might perform.

[Swiller]

David icke endorsed or not, I don't think it's a reason to watch, or not watch a film, nor to assess the films accuracy. It's just a way to get web traffic.

The Madrid building did not collapse the way the twin towers did, despite burning for 15 hrs longer. In fact it remained largely intact. This would have had gas and electric too as well as flammable contents.

The buildings were designed with a plane crash in mind. As well as hurricanes and absurd weather. The fact that the building remained intact post impact ticks this box.

The fact that the fires only lasted 2 hrs prior to complete collapse, does raise some serous questions from an engineering point of view. Whilst dust will always be a feature in any collapse, the volume of dust compared to that of large boulders of rubble has an explosion written all over it.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Swiller

The Madrid building did not collapse the way the twin towers did, despite burning for 15 hrs longer. In fact it remained largely intact. This would have had gas and electric too as well as flammable contents.

The Madrid building had a concrete core, and structural concrete behaves very differently in fire. The outer steel structure of collapsed

The buildings were designed with a plane crash in mind. As well as hurricanes and absurd weather. The fact that the building remained intact post impact ticks this box.

No they weren't. You will find no evidence of this anywhere. As I said above the designers have stated that they did an excercise after they had completed the design to see it if could withstand a plane impact. This is not the same as designing for that circumstance. No experts were involved and the designers have no record of the assumptions they made. There are no building codes regarding plane strikes and there is no formal or accepted basis for these sort of calculations.

Nonetheless, the buildings did withstand plane strikes and remain standing. They collapsed because of fire.

The fact that the fires only lasted 2 hrs prior to complete collapse, does raise some serous questions from an engineering point of view. Whilst dust will always be a feature in any collapse, the volume of dust compared to that of large boulders of rubble has an explosion written all over it.

The only question this raises is with regard to the quality of the fire protection. Unprotected steel does fail quickly at low temperatures. For some reason the fire protection at the WTC did not work. If you look into this, its clear that the central steel core and composite floors were fire protected with plasterboard. This is a relatively fragile material and it is believed that the impact destroyed this fire protection. That sounds very plausible to me. It's also worth noting that most fire protection is only designed to work for a couple of hours in order to facilitate evacuation. No buildings are fire protected to the extent that they would never collapse.

I'm not at all suprised by the volumes of dust. How could an explosion have pulverised all of the concrete? For that to be true there would have to have been explosives everywhere?

I must admit to being really surprised at peoples willingness to believe that the collapse of the buildings is somehow part of a conspiracy. There is nothing odd about what happened. The collapse was very quick, but if you think about the way the towers were built it becomes obvious why this was.

Have a read of this article, which is quite sensible:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

[Swiller]

There is something odd about the collapse, very odd, as well as the pentagon, bin laden never found, subsequent wars etc.


I guess we will agree to disagree.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Swiller

There is something odd about the collapse, very odd, as well as the pentagon, bin laden never found, subsequent wars etc.


I guess we will agree to disagree.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

I think we will have to disagree. I genuinely can't see anything odd about the collapse.

I've just looked at the link you posted and what they fail to consider is the fire load provided by the fuel from the planes. There has never been a tall building fire in these circumstances. Every other fire has simply been the result of the contents of the building burning.

They also contradict themselves, using the Windsor building in Madrid as an example of a building that didn't collapse, but then admitting on another page that, actually, it did collapse.

[briers]

I can understand this type of thread might upset or even anger some.

But there is a a lot of evidence suggesting that it wasn't as straight forward as some think.

I will pick out the most important part of the big post i made early on in this thread. That the building collapsed at near freefall. I.e. the same speed/time to hit the ground as dropping a snooker ball off the roof.

Also, very importantly, just 4 days ago, a Dutch scientist published a 2 year paper on how nano thermite (a highly reactive, high energy explosive) was found in the dust of the WTC's.

The basic physics says that steel does not loose it's structural integrity or even weeken below it's melting point which is higher than the even the most efficient fuel fire.

There was also reports of explosions from people on the ground prior to the collapse and even 3 whistle blows can be heard seconds below the collapse.

It's not possible for a building that size to fall into itself at freefall speed. Especially when the official theory was pancacking, i.e floors collapsing onto each other.

Molten steel can also been seen very clearly on many of the vidoes on youtube, molten steel dripping from the structure 3/4 of the way up. And also, watching the collapse video's you clearly see the building fold in on itself just above the impact zone. Buildings do not collapse from the top down where the littlest weight is.

Also you can see video's of the lobby, shattered glass everywhere yet even 20 stories below the impact zone floors and windows were still intact.


There are plenty of rational videos floating around

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-evid...on-on-911.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._residues.html

I'm raising this point because the whole thing just doesn't seem right. Many are extremely disturbed by what they witnessed that they don't know what to think. I look at it, and everytime i do it just doesn't seem right and there is a small but growing group of people out there thinking the same thing. This is so serious, we deserve to know the truth.

Not 1 criminal investigation has been opened in 9 years.

Most evidence destroyed and less money spent investigating this than investigating Mr Clinton in his sex scandal with that fat whore.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by briers

The basic physics says that steel does not loose it's structural integrity or even weeken below it's melting point which is higher than the even the most efficient fuel fire.

This is completely incorrect.

Why do you think we fire protect steel?

[briers]

Originally Posted by NFS

This is completely incorrect.

Why do you think we fire protect steel?

Please watch the videos, the fire is clearly burning with black smoke, as mentioned, an inefficient fire.

Fire's don't all burn at the same temperature, different substances have different max temps. Jet Fuel, even with the most efficient catalyst with an abundance of oxygen (not air) it would be highly unlikely to melt the steel to the point of catastrophic failure.

Of course they fire treat steel, coming into contact with certain substances like carbon and pure oxygen temperatures can burn 170% hotter and steel can be weakened to 50% of it's strength by around 650dC. A very efficient, i.e. plenty of oxygen may, just may reach this temperature but the steel structures could still support 3 times the stressed imposed by the fire.

The fire was only present on about 20 stores either side from the epicentre of the impact zone. Lets hypothesise and assume the steel was weakened. How does a building hundreds of stories high, collapse from the top down, collapsing in on itself, at near, if not at free fall speed. There was no fire 20+ stories below. Therefore, the structural core cannot have been damaged. People made it out of the building. Therefore there would defiantly be significant resistances which would have caused the collapse to take 3 - 4 times longer (had their been resistance).

And we haven't mentioned WTC7, the building that collapsed hours later, apparently because of damage from the other buildings collapse. Yet watch it on youtube. They either managed to plant explosives in super quick time or they had already been there, but it was a clear as day, this one was a demolition, you actually see the building fold in on itself.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by briers

Please watch the videos, the fire is clearly burning with black smoke, as mentioned, an inefficient fire.

Fire's don't all burn at the same temperature, different substances have different max temps. Jet Fuel, even with the most efficient catalyst with an abundance of oxygen (not air) it would be highly unlikely to melt the steel to the point of catastrophic failure.

Of course they fire treat steel, coming into contact with certain substances like carbon and pure oxygen temperatures can burn 170% hotter and steel can be weakened to 50% of it's strength by around 650dC. A very efficient, i.e. plenty of oxygen may, just may reach this temperature but the steel structures could still support 3 times the stressed imposed by the fire.

The fire was only present on about 20 stores either side from the epicentre of the impact zone. Lets hypothesise and assume the steel was weakened. How does a building hundreds of stories high, collapse from the top down, collapsing in on itself, at near, if not at free fall speed. There was no fire 20+ stories below. Therefore, the structural core cannot have been damaged. People made it out of the building. Therefore there would defiantly be significant resistances which would have caused the collapse to take 3 - 4 times longer (had their been resistance).

And we haven't mentioned WTC7, the building that collapsed hours later, apparently because of damage from the other buildings collapse. Yet watch it on youtube. They either managed to plant explosives in super quick time or they had already been there, but it was a clear as day, this one was a demolition, you actually see the building fold in on itself.

You've contradicted yourself now. A couple of posts ago you said that steel did not weaken below its melting point. In fact it starts to lose strength at 300 degrees and has just 50% strength at 650 degrees. These temperatures ARE reached in most fires, which is why steel has to be protected.

As it loses its strength steel starts to 'creep'. Creep is slow deformation, where steel will bend as it starts to lose it's structural strength. Different members do different jobs within a structure with some in tension and some in compression. Buckling through creep can lead to weak points in the structure even though the members still have sufficient structural strength.

Steel is also subject to thermal movement. In fire this can be significant and again can cause buckling. The temperatures in the impact / fire zone were massively different to the rest of the building. Steel expands when heated on a molecular level and this expansion cannot be restrained. The steel members effectively increase in length and will either fail at the end connections or (more likely) buckle along their length. This buckling failure causes steel to look as if it has melted and changes the way the structure can support loads.

You say that the fire was ONLY 20 stories either side of the impact zone. That is on the scale of the vast majority of tall buildings. People seem to be forgetting just how big these structures were and the sheer mass and compressive loads involved. So far as I understand it, people were not able to escape from the stories above the impact zone. The core in this area was clearly damaged significantly.

There was redundancy in the structure, but this was primarily about wind loading, where the nature of the external facade would have been important as it effectively acted as a continuous steel tube. Under wind load one side of the structure would be in tension and the other in compression. What the structure could not withstand was the imposition of a massive dynamic load as the floors in the impact zone failed. These provided lateral restraint for the external walls and when the floors collapsed, the external walls started to bow out. The structure above the impact zone fell onto the lower floors and literally punched it's way through the structure below.

This can be seen on all of the film of the collapse and is in fact one reason why I reject any argument that this was a controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is done at the base of structures. But the WTC towers demolished themselves from the top down.

There is lots of good information about steel in fire here:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/fil...0buildings.pdf

[xenon]

If people want to believe it NFS, you won't convince them otherwise with facts. They'll see what they want to see.

[TikoV]

Very informative posts you guys are putting up...

I have no opinions on the engineering aspects of why the building did or didn't withstand the collision. To me, a lot of the theory and testing of the buildings rigidity have somewhat being pretty vague. Like some here have said, lots of finer details aren't available or simply brushed under the carpet.

As to government involvement, that's one of those questions we'll never find out in our lifetimes for sure. As for other intel agencies involved, I wouldn't put it pass them....Lots of coincidental happenings there and before the event that suggest this could be the case. However, we can sit here till blue in the face with this also..

This whole 'who done it' will remain a mystery...

[Steve A]

Simon You are clearly an intelligent man. Before forming your considered opinion, surely you would weigh all evidence and THEN make an informed decision or form a point of view? It seems to me you arent looking at both sides.

All i would ask you to do simply out of curiosity, is watch the video and at least open your mind to it.

There isn't smoke without fire. This is not an open and shut case.

On the video is shows some papers that we released under the official secrets 25 yr act etc. This describes plans by US government to blow up its own war ships and kill it own personnel (nr cuba) to get the country on their side to allow them to enter the cold war. Does this scenario not appear a little bit similar to what happened in the aftermath of 911???

There is so much shit it really does stink.

Why when all other flights across the US were grounded, did the US government fly 22 of the binladen family back to saudi arabia if BIN LADEN was the number one suspect??? it utter madness. If you masterminded a terrorist attack dont you think your familys would be the first ones interrogated to establish your whereabouts????

Why is there reports that 1.3 hrs after flight 93 was supposedly crashed into the opens fields caused by the passengers overpowering the terrorists, that a flight landed at Cincinnati was quarantined because of a suspected bomb on board and was identified as flight 93????

anyway ive just realised im not really bothered what any one else thinks, i think something was covered up and orchestrated and thats it.

[NightVisitant]

I don't wish to partake in this discussion, so I've not read everything, but I can see the gist of what's going on. Do remember that all the buildings that collapsed in that event, fell at vertical free-fall speed, particularly building 7. This is NOT conducive to a gradual collapse caused by weakened steel - particularly as the airplane impacts were, relatively speaking, localised. No idea what that means for the conspiracy experts, I'll leave you boffins to slug it out. :P

Sorry if it's been mentioned already