do you know about the conspiracy theory involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Question

apparently, the twin towers were rigged with demolitions to collapse them after they were hit by the airliners - sounds crazy, but the documentary i watched on it had testimony from the designers of the building, and that it was built to take a hit from a 707, and that the fire never neared the temperature to melt steel, and the building collapsed in on itself into its footprint - which only happens with controlled blasts to bring down skyscrapers. also, they had numerous other examples of steel structured skyscrapers that had caught fire - some burned for days - which never collapsed. there are no modern examples of steel structured skyscrapers collapsing from fire. and the weeks before the attacks, there were electrical blackouts (some over the weekend), massive construction on unused floors, and a lot of other coincidental circumstances that tend to lend credibility to this conspiracy.

i accept fanatics want to kill us. i spent a year in iraq. but i also believe that our country is being run down the toilet by our elected officials, who can't separate church from state and never stand up for my best interests. i don't know if this theory is correct, but that's why i was asking. i'm sure that any elements that didn't support the documentary makers theory were left out.

thanks for the popular mechanics link.

i don't believe or discount the conspiracy theory - i didn't even know about 24 hours ago. i'm only trying to get some of the facts - a lot of which are totally immersed in these rumours, so much it's hard to separate them from one another. both sides have plausible elements, but also have holes in their backing sources, it seems. just another casualty of the internet / information age. anything that's on the web is believed by someone.

i don't read tabloids - this was a documentary.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, and with all due respect, most of what you said is not true. Here are some points;

1. No one said steel melted nor was melting of the steel necessary.

The towers mainly collapsed due to the large number of supports being knocked out by the jets.

As NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) says:
"About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. “

The remaining supports had to hold up about 200,000 tons and were near the failure point. Meanwhile, the raging fire started weakening these remaining supports. (Steel loses half its strength at 600 deg C. Melting is not necessary nor did it occur)

The horizontal supports sagged downward & slowly pulled in the perimeter columns.

Many photographs of the towers show the exterior columns bending inward, a sign that the towers were doomed & also excellent proof that, without question, the jets alone caused the collapse.

The exterior columns then snapped inward & collapse ensued.

See the lead investigator from NIST explain how the buildings collapsed at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
(Click on “Impact to collapse” )

2. The statement "no other steel building ever collapsed from fire alone" is both false & irrelevant

It's false because On 2/12/2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. In spite of the fire-proofing (concrete), the building collapsed, solely due to failure of the steel frame due to heat-weakening.

See
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

It's irrelevant because hundreds of published experts have pointed out that the towers collapsed because of DAMAGE caused by the jets, along with the fire weakening the steel

3. Collapse of WTC7

The fact that WTC7 collapsed even though it wasn’t hit by the planes is not surprising.

Even though they were NOT hit by the jets, numerous buildings over a wide area were hit by debris from the collapsing towers and were destroyed.

This includes: The Marriott World Trade Center , 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (which wasn’t even in the WTC complex). The Deutsche Bank Building was also outside the WTC complex & was massively damaged, and was declared a total loss in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#Damage

As for WTC 7:
According to NIST "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." See http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

WTC7 was only 400 feet from WTC1. Since WTC1 is over 1300 feet tall, as they pealed away, the large perimeter columns from WTC1 struck WTC7 & many other buildings with terrific force due to their high starting position. Archival photos shows perimeter columns lying on the ground up to WTC7. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In addition, WTC7 was built straddling a Con-Edison substation. This meant that its walls had to carry a tremendous amount of force and were vulnerable to impact. In addition, WT7 contained numerous fuel tanks for generators, some holding 6000 gallons of fuel, & this contributed to its destruction.

4. Popular Mechanics unassailable

The Popular Mechanics article is a simply a collection of opinions of famous experts. That's why it's so powerful. See:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

The only way Pop Mechanics can be wrong is if they either misquoted the experts or the experts are wrong. Not very likely.

Example:

Pop Mechanics says that Professor Bazant (Northwestern Dept of Civil Engineering) is one of only 14 people to win the Prager Award in engineering.

He first described the collapse mechanism as follows: http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

This article says the towers collapsed from jets alone (impact & fire). There is zero need to have “thermite” or “bombs.”

Now, what part of this is wrong? There are hundreds of other experts in the article. Which of these experts is less qualified than the 2 guys who made "Loosechange"?

5. The towers did not "collapse into their own footprint". TO see all the buildings that were destroyed by the collapsing towers, see #3 above.

6. Actually, all the security tapes from the Pentagon & the Citgo station have been released. See

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2411.html

7. Explosions not heard at WTC.

Quote: “NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.”

From Section F of http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

8. Towers not designed to take a hit from a 767.

Leslie Robertson, one of the chief designers of the twin towers, said that the towers were designed to handle the impact of a Boeing 707, but not a 767. He said they did NOT take into account the burning fuel, either. These 2 factors made all the difference. (Popular Mechanics, “Debunking 9/11 Myths” page 31)

Robertson was “racked with grief after 9/11,” meaning he himself was angry that he hadn't considered the effect of burning fuel

*********************
*********************

Some additional points

1. Almost certainly most of the fire-proofing (on the steel) was gone. Unfortunately, the fire insulation was simply “sprayed on” & could be wiped off with your finger. This method never worked well. It’s well known that during construction of the towers the fire proofing kept coming off. (I have pages & pages about this). When the fire ball exploded, hurricane wind speeds occurred. NIST analysis SHOWED that the type of fire-proofing used would be gone.

Photos of fireproofing:
http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm
(scroll way down to see fireproofing) You can see it’s flimsy.

2. The towers did NOT fall into their own footprints

Numerous buildings over a wide area were hit by debris from the collapsing towers. The following buildings collapsed or were massively damaged by the twin towers & were demolished :

7 World Trade Center, the Marriott World Trade Center , 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Note that St Nicholas church was not in the WTC, but was destroyed by debris from the twin towers anyway. The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street & not in the WTC complex, was declared a total loss in 2004 & demolition began in 2007. The list goes on with many other buildings & their damage.

To see a map of the site with what buildings were damaged, see
http://www.september11news.com/AftermathImages.htm
Click on the link, then scroll down to & click on “building status” on the right, about half way down.

Also, NIST has stated that predicting the fall pattern is impossible because the collapse is "chaotic". I don't know how non-engineers seem to know so much about collapse patterns when real engineers say it's too hard to model.

3. Heating the steel

Hundreds of photos showed the support columns bending, (over 4 feet!!) just before collapse. This is absolute evidence that the steel was weakening. & the end was near.

There was “…inward bowing of the exterior columns, reaching an observable maximum of about 55 in. near column 316 on the 96th floor. The inward deflection appeared to extend over the entire south face of the building at this time, and was visible between the 94th and 100th floors.”

From: NIST (National Institute of Science & Technology) NCSTAR 1-3 Section E.3.5
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

4. Actually, all the Pentagon footage has been released. You can see it (including the gas station camera) at

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2411.html

Answer 2

I have yet to read, or see, anything that convincingly states that 9/11 was an inside job. Many who I've talked to who think it was generally hate the government in general, not just the President.

Thinking logically, when the plane hit the towers, at least some of the supports had to be damaged causing the stress of the above load to be transferred to the other supports. Now as the fire raged unchecked it didn't have to melt the steel to bring the towers down. It only had to heat the steel enough so it could no longer support the weight above. Once that failure point had been reached the towers came down.

If this had been a controlled demolitions the debris falling around the towers would have been less. Also if you ask any demolitions expert it takes a lot more time than a weekend to prepare the explosives to destroy a building.

As for building 7, eyewitness state that the face of the building facing the WTC towers had been severely damaged and fires were still burning. People are also not aware that WTC 7 held storage tanks of fuel as well.

My favorite is the fact that if it had been an inside job, quite possibly thousands would know and with the way people hold secrets, I doubt so many would remain quiet.

A lot of stuff in conspiracy theories fall apart when you start questioning them. Just don't quesiton big brother, question those who are questioning big brother as well.

Answer 3

Conspiracy Theories spring up like weeds. each time the reality is unacceptable, human beings arise with conspiracy theories to rationalize away the info. 9/11 replaced into Bush, 9/11 replaced into Chenye, 9/11 replaced into merely the guy who owned the WTC saving on a demolitions invoice, 9/11 replaced into the MOSAD, 9/11 replaced into Iraq - something different than the thruth.

Answer 4

the popular mechanics hit piece is hardly a credible source. this has been debunked as well.

it's pretty obvious that there were very large explosions at the ground level, on top of that, building 7 THAT WAS NEVER HIT BY A PLANE was brought down by what we know was a controlled demolition.

couple this is Bush refusing to testify about 9/11 initially, then only with Cheney, with no transcript, not under oath.

you don't need an IQ over 100 to start to see the reality for what it is. i gotta admit though, 9/11 was the most impressive thing this incompetent administration pulled off. probably because they had help from the beneficiaries.

EDIT:

Force = mass x acceleration;

The problem with your explanation is, that your Nova lead investigator assumes a lot of things, like, the planes that hit tore ALL the flame protection off enough beams to weaken them. IF this was the case, the buildings would have most likely fallen into the area that was hit. Instead, they fell into their footprint. That, and most, if not all the fuel was burned off in a huge fireball upon impact. The problem with thinking that this fire would melt steel, is that there just isn't a sufficient heat sink for this to happen. you would have to have at LEAST at 600ºF fire, SUSTAINED to weaken that steel.

Then, the fact that Bush REFUSED to testify about anything about 9/11 until pressured heavily, then only agreed if he could go with Cheney, and they were NEVER under oath, and there was absolutely NO TRANSCRIPT OF ANY INTERVIEW.

The pentagon bombing was even less covert:

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

Finally, Force, what happened to all the film that was consificated from the following locations that day?

http://pentagonresearch.com/video.html

explain that one away, and i'll believe that the goverment committed no foul play. i won't hold my breath. too much 'coincidental' evidence points to Bushco knowing something.

If you have any doubts about what this administration is capable of, no need to look any further than the Pat Tillman case. Nuff said.

EDIT.2*

rz1971, explain where all the video footage of the 'plane' hitting the pentagon from all the vantage points provided in my link. i won't hold my breath.

Answer 5

If you are really searching for the truth, stop reading the tabloids. Not everything you read is true.

The towers did NOT come down by controlled explosions. You can tell by the way the controlled building's windows explode outward from multiple floors simutaneously. Windows did break on the WTC towers, but not in a controlled explosion manner.

Again, just stay away from the tabloids and you'll be ok.

Answer 6

Popular Mechanics was guided by William Randolph Hearst who wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and he himself is a major part of the disinformation machine.

Not only that but John McCain(bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran) included his personal Zionist Neocon Brainwashed point of view and coming from a Bush butt kisser that enough should show how tainted that Popular Mechanics issue was.

In fact there was a debunking of the Popular Mechanics debunking campaign and everything that was said in that article has been proven false or fabricated disinformation.

It is called Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers

It is all covered right here.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

Everytime a Neocon says that Popular Mechanics debunked the 9/11 conspiracy theories - direct them here.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

When first hand witnesses like Fire Department personel who were on scene at the WTC towers claim they heard secondary explosions after the plane impact - you can believe them!

Not to mention they still have not shown any of the Pentagon tapes they confiscated. There is nothing on them of security importance as far as terrorism - they don't show them because it proves the Neocon lie and staging!

Answer 7

Why do some people never want to accept that fanatics want to kill us? You get out of your comfort zone if you can't find easy answers. You need to read credible news and science for facts, and conspiacy theory as fiction. And be able to seperate the two.

Answer 8

Your conspiracy theory was debunked by an investigation by Popular Mechanics.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Answer 9

You are right about one thing. It sounds crazy.