Anybody else out there wondering about the curious way the twin towers imploded, er, collapsed?

Question

I am certainly not a conspiracy nut by any means, but several new investigations of the collapse of the twin towers indicate that they definitely could have been imploded. Aside from the jet engine fuel not being hot enough to melt steel, there was the mysterious collapse of building 7--which was not hit by a plane, and where all the records of ENRON and WORLDCOM were held, now lost forever; the developers who made billions off the collapse; the visible squibs (explosions) coming from the buildings as they fell; mysterious power outages in the buildings weeks before they fell; Bush's younger brother Marvin ties as security chief of the WTC; bomb sniffing dogs being removed from the towers the weekend before; and many, many other eye-opening details. Curious, indeed!

Answer 1

I agree with you totally, it was not brought down by planes. But for some reason people refuse to see the truth and so they call you a crazy conspiracy theorist. If they knew all the facts maybe they would change their minds.

Answer 2

You sound like a conspiracy nut who has gone far out of your way to avoid the numerous and in depth reports on the collapse of the twin towers.

There is not a single report in existence by anyone other than non-engineer wack jobs that suggests anything other than jets hitting the building.


1) Nothing melted the steel. It was heated and compromised. As steel heats it losings its load bearing capacity on an exponential path.

2) Building seven had several thousand tons of steel and debris land on it and damage its frame. I suggest you take a look at the structure of the building and also consider how much fuel was stored inside.

And for the record, the Enron and Worldcom trials ended in major prison sentences. I'm not sure what else you would be referring to other than unrelated conspiracies.

3) The developers did not make billions off of the collapse. They paid 3.2 billion dollars for it and received somewhere around 5 billion for the destruction of the towers and surrounding buildings. For the last six years, they have not had any money coming in from that 3.2 billion dollars that they spent. Also consider the gigantic costs associated with building the new Freedom towers and surrounding complex. The will likely not come out ahead on this deal.

4) Dust coming out of a building as it collapses floor by floor is nothing like a squib. Buildings are demolished from the bottom up, not the top down, for one. Second, the time in between blasts is less than one tenth of a second usually, not slowly from floor to floor as you see at the WTC. You will also want to compare the size of these alleged squibs coming out of the building to ones you would see during an actual building demolition. You can find several of these on youtube.

5) Power outages are not proof of anything. Same goes for the other unimportant things you said.

Most of all, I would suggest you consider how many people a conspiracy of this sort would implicate in the murder of several thousand innocent people. Do you honestly believe that every single engineer in the country is pretending they think it collapsed from the planes to cover for whoever you think did this?

The proof against you is completely irrefutable to such an extent that many engineers have said they do not want to discuss the event so that they will not lend credence to claims as wild and irresponsible as your own.

Quite honestly when someone says something like what you just said, he sounds like a child wandering into a conversation who would do better to keep quiet while the adults talk.

I've included several links that make up a small, small amount of the academic work done on the collapse. These are made by engineers, not "activists" who weren't smart enough to even be accepted to college like those Loose Change kids.

Answer 3

Of course they collapsed! Heat does that to steel. Ever seen a welder doing work? Jet fuel is kerosene! I've seen it set fire to and melt steel warships. Building 7 was hit by burning embers from the two towers and it went through the same melting of steel process which brought down the two towers.
The security chief of the WTC was an employee with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. That was the quasi-governmental entity which built and owned the complex.
There's only two curious things. The first attack on the WTC in 1993 took place on the second anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait from invading Iraqi forces. Yet, we dismiss out of hand any role Saddam Hussein may have played in that attack. The second attack happened on the anniversary of the date when a Christian Army stopped the forward advance of a Turkish Muslim Army into the heart of Central Europe outside the gates of Vienna. from that point on, Islam retreated out of Central Europe into its current geographic boundaries. It was September 11, 1684. We desperately need to start reading the enemy's calendar and stay away from giving any credence to the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and the other celebrity luminaries who fashion themselves as experts in metallurgy.

Answer 4

yes actually you are a conspiracy nut, that or really deluded.

could have imploded huh.. they could have spontaneously combusted too but they didnt.

who said it wasnt hot enough to melt stee... besides the fact that it only takes 900 degree temperatures to cause steel to lose its structural integrity anyway you dont have to melt it.

no building 7 wasnt hit by a plane it was hit by debris which knocked out a large section near its base and there are pictures showing it.

the squib thing has been explained in multiple locations as not to be squibs.

ya know this stuff is getting so old...
why do no actual demolitions experts agree with these theories, why do the conspiracy theorists not have any notable metallurgists supporting their claims, why do all the structural engieers discount the conspiracy theories.... not some math engineer or physicist, but a structural engineer.

cmon man get alife.

Answer 5

Curious? It's nonsense. Purdue University, which has been ranked as one of the top 3 engineering universities in the nation for decades, recently completed their THIRD study of the Twin Towers collapse. Three for three have proven that they fell due to the stresses caused by the impact of the planes and structural weakening due to fire.

Why did it look like they imploded? Easy to explain. They didn't give out from the bottom, but it wasn't all that close to the top either. The weight of the floors above the impact sights was so heavy that when they fell, they literally smashed anything beneath them. Gravity is pretty effective when dealing with that much weight. It doesn't wobble, it doesn't tumble to the side like a stack of books. It goes STRAIGHT down, and anything beneath it crumbles as well.

The idea that there were explosives in the building is laughable. There were thousands of civilians in those towers, and hundreds of rescue personnel. You're telling me that not one person noticed a bomb anywhere? The only place you could plant enough explosives near structural supports is in the fire stairs, and those were pretty crowded during the evacuation. Someone somewhere would have noticed something.

Answer 6

Don't expect that any government would admit to blowing up a building any more than they would admit to shooting down the 4th plane on 9/11. Too much liability and too much political backlash. We already know that Bush is a liar so we will never know the truth about alot of what has happened since he took office.

I think they knew those buildings were targets and wired them for demolition in the event of an attack like 9/11 that way they could at least control the fall of those very large buildings in a heavily populated area. Given the fact that the terrorists had already tried to blowup the towers someone certainly should have thought to prepare for the next attack in that way.

Having said all of that, if someone offered convincing evidence that it was all done by this government i would not be surprised at all given the criminal nature of the current regime.

Answer 7

The buildings exploded. This was not jet fuel that made the buildings explode. Most of the fuel burned on impact. Jet fuel cannot melt steel. A steel building has never exploded like that in history without a controlled demolition.
Anyone who denies this fact needs to look at the footage again.
Anyone who was there will tell you it was a demolition.
Our government has lied about 9/11.
When will people understand the leaders of this country don't like you?
Just keep defending this government that is spying on and manipulating your daily life.
They want you to do what you are told.

Answer 8

No. 60 ton aircraft slammed into both structures. Simple physics.

The bolts connecting the steel girder frame of the structures simply sheered due to the vibration caused by the impact. Gravity did the rest. Skyscrapers are not designed to absorb a side impact of such magnitude.

The weakest point of any narrow structure is its side. When the towers were erected no one considered the possibility of a fully fueled commercial airliner striking the structure at 350 knots.

Its amazing how people are so easily led into believing that something very possible, is impossible.

Answer 9

What no smart a$$ tin foil hat responses yet? Must be in bed

You have shown only a couple of the literally hundreds of questions that need to be answered. There are no end of extremely suspicious things that went on around these events. One that implies government duplicity is how they conveniently had the patriot act ready to go and let none of the members of congress have time to read it before the forced vote. I personally think this was one of the prime reasons for the whole false flag operation!
The linked site below is a good place to start as it links to massive amounts of information.

Edit

Well I was wrong about the op-ed groups being awake and slinging their disinfo BS! Every statement made by them has been thoroughly discredited by scientific groups, ones that weren't bought off! Type in any of their crap into a search engine and you will see what I mean.

Further edit;
I guess Biggg is an officer in the paid op-ed ranks as he is capable of writing a complete sentence. Every one of his references have been thoroughly discredited by unbiased groups! I am surprised he didn't throw out the Popular Mechanics trash as a reference. It does seem to be one of their favorites.

Answer 10

It doesn't take a physicist to know that:

Large Passenger Plane + Thousands of Gallons of Jet Fuel + Fire = Building Collapse.