Shit, I actually miss read his post there. Thought it said "I don't think the official story is" questionable. My bad...
You still need to prove how they crushed themselves. Using a report that only shows how the buildings were damaged(edit: by the planes impact), how the fires burned but not show how it physically crushed itself isn't proving anything. And there are plenty of people, well educated people, debunking the official story, so who's right?
I watched it also, as it happened. I also fell for the story that bin Ladens crew did it and that the towers crushed themselves. Why? Because I just took their word for it, I never looked into it at all. Once I did look into it and start listening to people I understood that what happened to the towers was physically impossible.
What I said was... " but that is not proven to have crushed the whole building, has it? So it's actually not an example of a building being crushed. It's more speculation" I never once mentioned collapse in my response. There's a difference between crush and collapse, I'm sure you are aware of that...
The video is proof that the building collapsed on itself, crushing the floors below. You say it couldn't do that, and yet I see it doing that in the video. How do you explain that that's in the video and yet apparently never happened.
You have not offered any proof whatsoever, and neither has any of your fellow conspiracy theory fans, that what happened was not what we see happening.
The argument is that what brought down the towers was a deliberate demolition. However, there is a complete and distinct absence of explosives residue in the phorensic evidence in the wreckage. None of the conspiracy theorists address this, and yet it's obviously fundamental to that theory. They point at the compression and explosive decompression of air, blowing out windows further down the building, and yet we all know what happens to a packet of crisps if you tread on it.. but they ignore these physics..
I would like you, now, to explain that. Forget everything else, I want to know where that evidence is and I would like you to explain why it has never been offered as proof by the theorists. And I want to know how you can dismiss the video proof that the building collapsed while supporting a story of events that has absolutely no evidence at its foundation, at all.
No, it's been 7 years of crap from you lot. It's now time for you to come up with some proof.
And there are not plenty of educated people supporting conspiracy theorists. There are a very TINY number of educated people supporting them, and they are probably proportionate in society to the percentage of the population currently held in mental institutions. There are millions of educated people that don't believe the conspiracy theorists, but you choose to listen to a few nutters. It's not reasonable.
You believe what you see is a collapse, but how can you or anyone for that matter, prove it? A video alone is not proof. People believe that there were no planes because the videos of the planes hitting the buildings are not "real" looking. Does that, therefore, mean, that because the footage of a plane entering the tower has only one wing that there were no planes? Obviously not. Just because they tell you it was a collapse, you look and think it's collapse, doesn't mean it's a collapse. The video IS proof that the buildings came down, no doubts there. The video IS proof that the towers were totally destroyed. But the video IS NOT proof that they collapsed, it just isn't.
And where is this evidence? I haven't seen any. NIST only had around 250 pieces of steel to examine. You can't tell me that was a full and thorough examination of the steel from the towers. Steven Jones has found evidence of thermate reaction in the dust. Tiny iron balls which only get ejected with a thermate reaction. There was nothing else in the towers which could have caused these tiny irons balls/pellets to form.
What proof have you got mate? Show me some. Crap you call it, others may differ from that evaluation.
Ah, can't be arsed looking through stuff just to show you. Getting tired of saying the same shit and it being rejected by you lot. One day, like the Gulf of Tonkin, this will be opened up and people will find out the real reason for invading Afghan/Iraq.
Just don't go in here if you don't have anything to say...
Sam, can i get your view about WTC 7 collapse?
Also, as i know, both towers fell aproximately in the same time, am i right? Something about 10 seconds, almost freefall speed, one building got struck at the half, the other at the upmost part, and they fell exactly the same, and with the same speed? How do you know there were no traces of explosives, if it was an inside job, they would make sure to hide those traces.. How do you explain numerous explosions going off, what could explode there, monitors, keyboards? Maybe the remaining fuel or something like that, but some of the explosions were at the basement, what's your view on that?
@U4IK, where is the explosives residue? Hundreds of independent laboratories were involved in the phorensic examination of debris from ground zero in the months following 9/11, and not one of them has since claimed to have found any evidence of explosive residue during their phorensic and DNA testing. Come on, put up.
@Boris, WTC7 suffered structural damage and was gutted by fire (no firefighting meant it burned freely). It collapsed as a result. There is no evidence to the contrary, just claims. Claims are not proof and they are not evidence. In fact WTC7 is one of the most heavily and irrefutibly debunked theories from that day.
When I watch the video of the WTC falling down, it's pretty obvious to anyone who isn't blind that it's a collapse. I don't know what else you'd call it. Even IF it was brought down by explosives then the building still would have 'collapsed'. Jesus
what is it proof of then? Aliens? Inside job? Pray tell, please
in other words - I don't have any irrefutable proof, so I'm backing out of this thread in a huff
Well, that morning it was there, and that evening it was a pile of rubble. Correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere in between the building collapsed. Maybe I'm wrong- I've not actually been to 'Ground Zero', so maybe all towers are standing there just fine, and this is the actual conspiracy - but I'm pretty sure they aren't there anymore, and thus they collapsed.
Hundreds? Ok, show me even 50 agencies that released documents on there tests for explosive residue.
And you say I speculate? There is absolutely NO PROOF what so ever, of extensive damage, enough to cause collapse, from the towers debrit OR from fire.
I just said what it was proof of in the previous sentences.
I don't huff like a child does, so where you got that from I don't know. YOU don't have "irrefutable" proof either so we're both on the same level. If you did, or anyone else did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.
Anyway, read what this chap thinks and forget about what I have to say on the matter.
Force of gravity, plus fire, plus structural damage? Wouldn't that be enough to make a floor collapse? And once one floor as collapsed it would over-stress the structure in the surrounding floors and cause their failure too in one big chain reaction (a dynamic failure, which you seem to think doesn't actually exist*)
A perfectly plausible theory that can happen.
*When I was at uni our year had a group project - build a balsa bridge to span a metre wide gap. There were some pretty elegant solutions in terms of shape and truss size/length. The results were calculated using final mass of the structure, and it's ability to carry a known load (40kg I think). Points were deducted for every 10g of weight over a 'standard figure' and awarded below. Points were deducted for every additional kg the structure took and deducted for every additional kg under the required amount. This meant we had to optimise our design. Mine tool 42kg before it started to sway as the forces within the structure started to become unbalanced, but it didn't break instantly. It took 30 seconds before the structure started to oscillate wildly, and it was only when a section was put into bending on the edge of the gap that it failed - this was a dynamic failure, and had the load been static I have every confidence it would have taken another 10kg easily. I won that competition by 3 points (I think I got about 60, but I can't remember to scoring criteria well enough now). I like to think it was because I designed it carefully, but it was probably just good luck. Oh, and mine was the lightest design too I suspect you won't believe me though, but I have my Balsa bridge (repaired) hanging up in my house as a show of pride
The damage that building 7 suffered was pretty minor - at least compared to the two towers - and I can not believe that a building like that would collapse the way it did from the damage it had suffered.
Interesting vid about building 7 aka Solomon Building: "7 is exploding". Watch it 'till the end, there's some interesting footage IMO.
And then there's the plane that supposedly flew into the pentagon. No other building on the planet is covered by as many cctv cameras as the Pentagon. Yet we've seen absolutely no footage whatsoever that shows there actually was a plane. None. Come on, you gotta at least wonder why there isn't a single camera shot or even a photograph that proves a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Plus, where was the wreckage? Where was the black box? Oh yeah, that's right, it evaporated because of the intense heat of the kerosine burning. I don't know, you'd think a black box would be designed to at least survive a planecrash, even if the plane catches on fire, which is pretty darn likely in the event of a crash.
Mind you, I am not claiming anything here. I am just asking questions. And I'm not arguing about the two towers at all. But the "attack" on the Pentagon and the "collapse" of building 7 just stink too much for me to just swallow the official bullcrap. And if they're lying about those buildings, or holding back evidence or whatnot, then it's very possible that they're lying about a lot of other things as well.
If the fire wasn't there would the tower collapse?
And I never said dynamic failure didn't exist, I just thought it wasn't a good example of the towers collapse.
Also, you talk about the floors as if they are flimsy/paper like structures. The trusses were not the final load bearing structure for the floors. Although we are led to believe this.(See my previous post about this it's the final part of that post) So, I find it hard to believe the floors failed as easy as they did. Anyway, the fires would never have gotten hot enough to even weaken the steel. Alot of the fuel was burned up in the initial explosion and the rest would have burned out in 10-20mins. What's left? Office furniture, which would find it extremely hard to weaken this steel. Also, the furniture would have to have a fire proof rating, since it's in a high rise building. And because there was so much steel and it was all interconnected, it would easily conduct the heat away from the heat source.
And about the bridge, I can believe what you say because I have no other choice. You built/designed and had a hand in making it fail so therefore I have no other option but to believe you. If you didn't have any input I would still believe you because bridges are a different structure and have different strengths and weaknesses. The same way if the towers oscillated so much it would obviously fail. They do not need to be particulalry bulky structures either, to hold considerable amounts of weight compared to their own.
Dynamic failure does actually sound more fitting when you speak of a bridge, don't you think?
C'mon Boris, this is why you guys look silly. You place your faith in the people who deliberately mislead you, time and time again.
Attached are a couple of pictures of WTC7, taken from the side of the building that was actually directly affected.
See that building, almost entirely on fire on pretty well every window of every floor on one side? They call that WTC7.
[edit - inline image removed, didn't realise it was that big.]
See that cloud of smoke and dust in the background? They call that WTC7, too. Just a minor fire? Suckers!
You are calling that proof? Nice...I see smoke alright, no fires. And alot of black smoke, which indicates what? Well, firemen say it's an oxygen starved fire but anyway. I also see some windows blown out, no substantial structural damage.
What it looks like to me is, the smoke is from the towers debrit and a couple of floors you can see on the sides of WTC7 which are blackend, and the wind is coming from behind WTC7, along the side and its creating like a vortex, sucking thing(lol technical term anyone? pls?) and it's sucking the smoke into that area. You can almost see through the smoke in some parts and see that there's not that much damage at all. You can see the front of the building is ok through the smoke at the bottom.
"See that building, almost entirely on fire on pretty well every window of every floor on one side?" Blatent lie, every window? every floor? Come on Sam, don't start bullshitting.
EDIT: Sam, you also seem to be seeing what you want to see, not what's actually there.
Ok, that side does seem heavily on fire, but could all that smoke be from the towers collapse? Large cloud of smoke from the towers was there all the time, i'm just saying that smoke from that picture could very well be from that.. It seems like only the bottom floors were on fire and smoke was coming only from those floors, the other smoke seems like it's from the tower debris.. But since when buildings fall that easily by fire, have you seen that picture from Belgrade i posted in previous post, it was struck by freakin misiles, couple of them and it burned like that Madrid building and remains stationary till this day and that was back in 1999..
What about mutliple eye witness reports, firefighters and genitor reports that there were explosions in the basement of the WTC towers, why would there be explosions in the basement?
YOU show me ONE that did. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a conspiracy exists. I DON'T believe they exist. It is not up to me to prove a negative. Or does that reason factoid escape you as well?
2 fuel-laden intercontinental aircraft hit 2 towers. Only an idiot would claim that they didn't cause extensive damage. They damn-near cut the buildings in half for crying out loud.
Where is the explosive residue evidence? C'mon, I'm bored with your blind faith.. giz us some substance to your claims.
Guys like Thierry Meyssan wrote conspirationists books because they have some politic goals. The conspiration theory fits their political goal which is to accuse USA or more generally Europe-USA of everything.
History is filled with conspirationists who seduced believers and used them to propagate crazy theories for political purpose. For example on Thierry Meyssan website, you will see that US gvt planned WTC collapse, planned Pearl Harbor attack, planned Lusitania attack...etc.
Dozens of conspirations, and always about one single government: USA. And all these theories always shared and propagated by the same people from extreme-left. So many coincidences...
Five heads of state approved publicly Thierry Meyssan theory:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran)
Bachar el-Assad (Syrie)
Hugo Chávez (Venezuela)
cheikh Zayed (Émirats arabes unis)
Fidel Castro (Cuba)
Do you see like a pattern? Conspiration is certainly a need for truth for you, but it is a powerful tool and business for those who start it and maintain it.
I know of one, Steven Jones, who found microscopic iron spheres in the dust from the WTC. A woman who was cleaning her apartment, that was in direct sight of the towers, kept a bag of dust and gave it to him. He analysed it and found the iron spheres in it, these are ONLY produced during a thermite reaction. He is also supposed to have found some grey and red flakes in the dust which have the signature of thermite, but I haven't heard it from his mouth yet, nor have I looked into it. I read it in a document by David Chandler, a member of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.
Wrong, intercontinental? I don't think so. Fuel-laden? The towers were built to withstand a 707 which could carry twice as much fuel as a 757, so I think they took into account the fuel/fire scenario.
@Juls: The US government knew Pearl Harbour was going to happen, they faked the Gulf of Tonkin to atack Vietnam, so it is entirely possible they had a hand in 9/11. False flag terrorism isn't a new thing. I have only heard the name Lusitania, I haven't heard anything about it though.
So, Juls, what do you say to 1 gallon of fuel having about 100 million joules of energy? So if there was only 100 gallons of fuel in the planes that would be what? 1 billion joules?(not sure if thats right but it would be alot if the tank was half full, 5,000 gallons @ 100 million joules per gallon) 400 million joules doesn't sound like much now I know that.
Damn. I wish I'd caught this thread when it started up again so I could be as involved as I was last time...
...anyway, I've skimmed the first few pages, and all I can say at this point is that U4IK ST8 is an idiot (or never had the opportunity to attend school).
U4IK ST8 - I can't reread everything here, but with regards to ANYTHING having to do with the structures themselves (the collapse of the buildings and why it happened, etc...) ask me anything you want about things that don't make sense to you and I'll give you a logical explanation that supports the fact that this was a terrorist attack, and not a well-planned demolition project, as you seem to believe. Everything I've seen from my skimming so far leads me to believe that you have no fundamental understanding of any type of physics whatsoever. Ask away - I'll explain anything you want.
See here's the thing, Boris.. it's clear that you WANT there to be a conspiracy theory, and despite the fact that you NOW know that you have been lied to about these "minor fires", you still have a desire to push the conspiracy theory. You hypothesise, get debunked, find a way around the debunk to push your hypothesis again. If you had my email address, I bet I'd be receiving chain email from you about supposed viruses being distributed by email, that hack into my computer and format my disk drive.. right? Because that's exactly what people who spread panic irresponsibly do, and that's what the conspiracy believers do.. they spread crap without checking facts.
I imagine you'll be ready, again, to push the WTC7 theory again tomorrow. You just want it too much. All you conspirologists do.
9/11 was without doubt one of the most traumatic things that could possibly happen to someone first-hand. Memory and recollection do not always work predictably, most especially under extreme duress. It is inevitable that some people are going to retain recollections that are faulty. It is also inevitable that the conspirologists, who never let truth get in the way of a good conspiracy, will latch on to these isolated narratives and exploit them as much as possible.
AFAIK, "multiple" actually only equates to one guy, William Rodriguez. Out of all the people with him (22 IIRC), he is the only one who claims to have heard an explosion in the basement. HE says they heard it, they don't. There's the suggestion that what he felt and heard may have been a primary shockwave, ahead of the sound of the aircraft crashing. With a burst of adrenaline, it's feasible that the 1 or so second delay between them may have seemed like several seconds. If he isn't making the whole thing up, or if his memory isn't faulty (it was traumatic for him, as he says) then who knows? There's still a distinct lack of explosives residue to support the suggestion that it was a bomb. Not that Rodriguez claims it was a bomb. He just said he heard a loud bang. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that he was seeking his 15 minutes of fame in Puerto Rico, though.
Hmmm, nice personal attack on me there but I'll put that aside for a minute.
None of the things I say here are my own personal thought up ideas. Everything I say here is what I have heard engineers, structural engineers, firemen, professors, policemen and eye witnesses say. All alot more qualified than I am on there certain fields. Don't come here and start bashing me personally 'cos well, it wont do you any good. And because of your tone I will NEVER ask you anything. So, stick around if you like but I wont be looking to you for advice, thanks.
I'd like to know the structural engineers you talked to who stated that the top 20 floors falling would not have the energy to crush the rest of the building if the building stood perfectly fine before.
Because they should be fired...
...no - scratch that - they should be ARRESTED for impersonating someone who has spend YEARS taking classes/passing tests/spending money getting certified to do one of the more difficult jobs in the world.
Your sources are plainly and simply wrong. Period. There is no, "They have valid opinions" argument here. Their supposed "facts" can be completely proven wrong with a few simple equations.
If someone told me that 3+2 = 6 and I came on here telling you that, you'd say, NO 3+2 = 5! That's math - that's how it is! There's no possible WAY it can be 6! It's the same situation here. What you have heard from supposed "experts" is plainly WRONG. There is no other way to state it other than that.