What is your opinion to my essay?

Question

Controversial history has been subject to conspiracy theories since the beginning of time. Did man really walk on the moon? Who shot JFK? And more recently, who was behind 9/11? The World Trade Centre’s (WTC) were located in Lower Manhattan, New York, and built in the 1960’s. Consisting of seven steel structures in total, these buildings were a part of New York City’s skyline and were recognised all over the world as an icon of the United States of America. Since their untimely demise on that fateful day of September 11, 2001, theories as to who was behind the tragedy have arisen from the debris. Was it an act of terrorism? Or was it more likely an inside job, covertly arranged by multi-million dollar, power hungry American men*? Although painful to suggest that such a disaster of this magnitude was caused by people of their own nation, more and more evidence is being found that leads us to doubt the validity that foreign “terrorists” perpetrated the attacks. Today, almost 7 years late

later, many questions are still unanswered, regarding the collapse of the towers, Building 7, limitations on investigations into the attack and insurance policies being reviewed just prior to the attack.

Never before in engineering history, has a building completely fallen due to fire or impact alone. Yet on September the 11th, there were 3 separate incidences; the two twin towers and less publicised “Building 7” of the World Trade complex. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, issued a report stating the twin towers collapsed because “jet fuel on board ignited…and as these fires spread, they weakened the steel structures, eventually leading to total collapse.” On face value, this seems like a reasonable conclusion, until we become aware that 2750F is the melting point of steel. FEMA claims that burning jet fuel managed to weaken the steel to a point that the structure literally imploded on itself. However jet fuel has a maximum burning point of 1500F, which therefore rais

raises serious concerns to the validity of this claim.

There is justifiable reason to believe that the destruction of the WTC was due to cleverly planted explosives. Numerous employees have verified that a “power down” was scheduled for both towers, 24 days before September 11th for rewiring new “internet cables”. This conveniently meant that all security cameras were not operating the day of the attack. This also meant that there were scores of supposed “construction workers” onsite, plus suspicious “internet cables”, (which look similar to explosive leads) lining walkways, hanging from walls and leading into internal steel cavities. New Mexico demolition expert Van Romero has stated “…it could have been done in the time with a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points”. Also supporting this demolition theory, is the fact that the two buildings collapsed in a matter of mere seconds. This is typical of a controlled demolition using explosives. You may also wi

wish to note that the clean up of this disaster was quite efficiently completed by a company called “Controlled Demolition Inc.” that has the appropriate internal controls to support Federal agencies.

Huge controversy surrounds the less publicised collapse of WTC Building 7 which was not hit by a plane, or damaged in any significant way, yet went from free-standing to free-fall in a matter of 6.5 seconds. The official myth stated it collapsed due to fire. During an interview with PBS, Larry Silverstein, the lease owner at the time of building 7, was quoted to saying“…the Fire department Commander told me they…had so much terrible loss of life, and the smartest thing to do is pull it…and then we watched that building collapse.”. “Pull” is a term used in the demolition industry to describe the controlled demolition of a building. Pulling a building requires weeks of prior planning that within the time frame given, would have been impossible to do without pre-planted explosives. Silve

Silverstein later said he was referring to “pulling the firemen out of the building, to refrain from harm.” However there were no firemen in the building 7. BBC World also made an error in prematurely announcing building 7 had collapsed, an incredible 6 minutes before it actually happened.

It has also been reported that in the weeks prior to the September 11 attack, Larry Silverstein, the owner of the $3.2 billion dollar WTC company, reviewed the lease to ensure that he was insured for any unexpected terrorist attacks. Subsequent to September 11, Silverstein sued the insurance agency, claiming the two attacks on the two separate buildings entitled him to double the insurance. Silverstein is seeking a $7.2 billion dollar return from insurers.

Succeeding the attack, Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle released a statement, wishing to “limit the scope and the overall review of what happened.” with regards to finding the answers to these questions, and those responsible for the att

attacks. Was this limitation by the American Government an attempt to hide the known enemy within?

The public are somewhat conditioned to believe authorities and the half-truths told through the media. One thing that is certain, is that the tragedy of 9/11 will forever remain a sad day in American history. As proven by the aspects discussed above and the numerous other inconsistencies and conspiracy theories that surround the events of September 11, 2001, it is imperative that you, the public, know the facts, yet reach your own conclusions to what exactly happened on that tragic day.

THANKYOU SO MUCH FOR READING!

Answer 1

The third word of your paragraph should be have.

Answer 2

Sounds to me like you are just repeating a popular theroy, keep drinking the cool-aid, I'm curious, how many people do you suppose it would take to pull of such a stunt,\; say this were infact true? And how long do you think it would take for one of those people to spill the beans. You expect us to believe our own Gov, planted explosives in stratigic loocations throught the WTC, and nothing fishy was ever noticed? PLease,.... Did you know my Father is a Leprachan and plays the acordian, he met my mother in a spaceship orbiting the earth. In 1941 it crashed in Roswell New Mexico. It was there that I was genetically enginerred; born. My mother was a reseacher under Warner Von Braun, no kidding; it's all true. I escaped from the labs in 1967 and found myself in San Francisco, I was singing back up for Jimmy Hendricks, and had a great gig going; ya man, Psychidelic. I was recaptured in 1969 when Nixon came into office. I was taken back to area 51;... Project Blue Book and all that stuff; " That was a cover;... for the recovery of all alien technology that had been proliferated, and exposed to the media. I was assigned duties in the labs, to keep myself busy; one of which, was helping to set up the "set", for the fake moon landings. I sabotaged the set during the Apollow 13 mission, hence the problems that occured on live tv. They pulled it off though; they are good, they are very good. I have been free ever since. Yes they are still trying to find me; It is my life blood they are after; it holds the answer to imortallity, and they will kill me to get it. I travel the world now, staying out of sight, keeping a low profile, you know. I spend a lot of time being mischevious, I create what you people call "Crop Circles". The nature of it must come from my father, lepracans are tricky little devils.
; and the designes well,... that must come from my mother the engineer. I just want to be in a rock and roll band man. It's really hard. I have to mutalate cattel to get my sustanance; you don't want to know. Point is partner, secreats like me, have a way of getting out. No person with a concious could pull off what you suggest. How many "Evil" people would have to conspire to pull such a stunt? I will tell you. It would take so many,... "Evil," people in power, that if it were so, we would be already doomed; and not having this chat! You are suggesting that George Bush could pop a cap in your sisters head, then her daughters head, then your dogs head and go do a state of the union. I just can't buy that.

I give your essay an A+ for being an exact copy of the conspiracy theory. I give you a big fat F if you expect me to believe this is the result of your own research. did you interview any Firemen from New York? We should go have a nice cup of tea with Laura Bush the big Conspiritor. I could probably hook you up, George and laura did send me a Christmas card, (True Fact) part of the conspiracy I'm sure. I know you are only showing us this essay to make sure you got all the absurd details the conspiricay therorists are spewing so you can go make a mockery of them. No intelligent persone would consider such an odasicty. this is not an essay it's a copy, of a theory. What I just wrote,... now that's an essay. It is my own thought from my own research in my own words. I sure hope you are not in first grade, I would feal real bad. By seccond grade you should know what an essay is.

Answer 3

Another who shot JR conspiracy theory!!!

When will they end.

Answer 4

It seems that there is a need for some people to reject all research and grasp on to secret conspiracies to fulfill their lives. The events of 9 September 2001 seem to be one of these conspiracy generating events even though it has all been fully explained. The site which explains it all is NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) at http://wtc.nist.gov/.

This site has many different sections explaining al of the events of 9 September 2001. One of those sections is ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and here NIST is defined as well as its funding, goals and methodologies. This is a scientific project with fully certified members of the scientific community doing the work. NIST has more than 30 years of experience investigating building fire and structural failures. Scientists and engineers in NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) often lead a failure investigation. BFRL has experts in concrete and steel construction, earthquake engineering, and fire performance in structural systems. Other NIST experts, such as materials scientists, manufacturing engineers, and electronic engineers, often provide their specialized knowledge to investigations.

Following are only a few of the frequently asked questions and the answers:

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
•the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
•the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
•An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
•Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
•Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Answer 5

am i the only one who didn't read this?