I think you should go work for NIST then because they are finding it difficult to explain the collapse of the towers, "global collapse" starts and that's all they say. No official report has explained how each floor was crushed to pieces, not 1. Nobody can explain how WTC 7 collapsed. That sounds like a thorough investigation to me.
About your sum there. There are things which happen in a gravity driven pancake collapse, which is what the official story is. Pieces don't get thrown 100's meters from gravity driven collapses, 4inch thick concrete floors do not get pulverised in a pancake collapse. But on 9/11 both of these things happened, twice. Actually 3 times including WTC7.
And I can't believe you say my sources are plainly wrong without showing anything to back it up.
lol, no i'm not one of those people, i just find this whole thing to be way too fishy.. check the post from Obsolum also, he sees it the way i see it..
Not exactly, you did watch Loose change, Zeitgeist? There's a video on the streets when very loud explosion was heard, after the plane strike, there's also interview with the firefighters describing the basement explosions, i would find that but can't access Youtube from here, type "the real thruth about 9/11" or something like that, that bang is on the start of the video..
But as i said, leave the towers if you want, where's the useable Pentagon footage, what's there to hide? You would expect the engines to bounce off of that kinda strong building (which exact same part of the building was reinforced earlier that year, another coincidence?) You've seen the perfectly rounded hole on the oposite side of the building, is that from an engine?
About the WTC7 footage you posted, can't see it right now..
I've shown plenty of my own sources in the first 3/4 of this thread - I just don't feel like digging through everything again. Why can't a 4-inch-thick concrete floor be crushed by 80 inches worth of concrete above it? That's like asking how a car can be crushed when 20 cars are dropped on it.
Remember that the outer shell of a jet engine is designed to contain the massive explosion of energy that occurs in the event of a blade-out failure (when one of the compressor blades comes loose.) Those blades carry an INCREDIBLE amount of energy. I'm not saying that could prove why the engine punched through the Pentagon (since in this case, the design is to contain forces pushing out from inside the engine, not pushing from the front of the engine to the back) but it's definitely some extremely strong stuff.
But, if you have a pile(tower) of 100 cars on top of each other, you take the top 30 up about the height of 2 cars, drop them, will they crush every single car? Please don't tell me you think every car will be crushed?
So where's this engine? Or any engine from the plane that hit the Pentagon. It would be nice to see it.
It 'vaporized' :shhh: but only after it punched through reinforced concrete and through couple of more walls and ended up on the other side of the building punching another perfectly rounded hole, then it vaporized, offcourse..
Ok, I had a look, just at the first page and already I get an idea of your thoughts...
First post from you -
Now... first of all, not jet fuel in the world can melt steel, it's just not possible. An object being heated by fire cannot get hotter than the fire itself. Jet fuel can't burn at hot enough temps to melt steel.
Second, there were plenty of other buildings, some closer than WTC7, which didn't collapse? Some even had the towers fall directly onto them, WTC5 & 6. They suffered massive damage but didn't just fall down. Building 6 had to be demolished to bring it down.
Third, "when a 757 flies into a building, it can destroy 25% of the outer skeletal support structure" now that is a brave statement. 25% is a big part of the towers mate, I don't think it destroyed anywhere near that amount.
Fourth, " for cost-reasons, the steel was not correctly fireproofed and started to warp under the heat, and that the small bolts holding the trusses in place were not designed to withstand any significant amount of lateral sheer force" who decided to cut costs? Anyway, the fires could not have burned hot enough to weaken enough of the steel that there would be a catistrophic failing of almost all columns across the impacted floors. Small bolts, ha nice. Do you think people who designed a building to take a hit from a plane would use small bolts and flimsy trusses for the floors that people would be working on? And you say these small bolts were not designed for lateral forces? These towers would sway in the wind, the tops I'm sure would have alot of lateral force put upon them, how come they never failed in windy condition? Or when the planes first struck?
And finally, these trusses. The whole story balances on these. If I showed you images that proved these trusses were not the final load bearing parts of each floor, what would your reaction be? Because I can tell you now that there was more than just trusses holding up these floors.
The steel didn't have to melt the metal to collapse the structure. I forget what the exact temps are, but at a temperature NOWHERE near its melting point, steel looses a fair portion of it's structural integrity (at a molecular level, obviously.) Even the TINIEST big of sag in the support trusses was all that was needed to shear the bolts holding the whole thing together.
Because they were build in en ENTIRELY different fashion than the WTC towers. The twin towers had an exoskeleton and a core. These buildings were just a network of pillars and beams. It's much harder to destroy something built that way. (e.g. it's easier to crush an empty cardboard box than it is to crush one of those wine-bottle boxes with the criss-crossing cardboard... thingies.)
I didn't say 25% of the WHOLE TOWER, I said 25% of the OUTER SKELETON - which it did. Take a look. The plane gouged out a significant portion of the wall on one side of the building, and quite a bit of the opposite side. Give or take, it's pretty close to that much of the outer wall that's been compromised.
Don't know the guy's NAME if that's what you want, but in the end, it was decided by someone - or some people - not to apply the protective coating, which was included by the original architects.
As I stated above, steel looses a lot of it's strength way before the melting point. That's all it needed.
Actually, yes - small bolts are all that are needed. Take a look at an airplane being put together. When they attach the wings on some aircraft - they are held on by nothing more than two bolts the width of two of your fingers put together - with maybe a third for redundancy. If they designed everything to be MUCH stronger than it needed to be, the building would weight 10x as much. These small bolts can support MUCH more than the weight of the floors in a horizontal direction, and also a decent amount of vertical flex. However, you have to remember that when the whole building sways in the wind, the entire thing moves one way or the other. When the trusses were melting and sagging, they were pulling the structure together, presenting more than just "swaying forces" that the architects and engineers planned for. You say "I'm sure that the engineers..." but that statement is an assumption on your part. I actually KNOW how the towers were built, so what I'm saying is a fact.
Uhmmm - actually the trusses were what supported most of the floor. Take a look at the schematics. The "FINAL LOARD BEARING POINTS" would technically be the outer shell or the central core - as these are what the trusses transferred their load to. So theoretically the structure SHOULD be able to support every floor without these trusses. However, what happens when the trusses collapse is the outer wall of the building looses ALL its integrity. I'll use the previous example. Stand on a coke can. It can easily support your weight, but when you just tap the side, it collapses, because it has no horizontal structural integrity. The trusses were responsible for holding the outer skeleton upright and keeping it from flexing in and out. When the trusses failed, the outer wall was allowed to peel away, and when that happened the FINAL LOAD BEARING POINT no longer existed and the structure collapsed.
I took the trouble to read it. It's basically the same stuff that you were posting here: references and repeats of "evidence" from the conspiracists. No original research.
And it's a load of rubbish. A couple of points (first pick):
The author also tries to prove government conspiracies behind the JFK asassination and the McVeigh bombing. This only weakens his case: it shows he is biased towards believing in conspiracies. (He probably thinks it makes his case stronger, because it shows governments are crooks.)
First he states that the temperature was too low to weaken the metal structure, next he claims there was liquid metal. Self-contradictory.
He asks "How is it that the 19 supposed hijackers [...] were identified almost immediately, when the other side of the official story is we were taken by complete surprise?" He doesn't see the obvious answer.
He mentions that "policemen and firemen clearing people away saying the building [WTC7] was going to come down." Could that be because it had been burning heavily for while, so it was bound to collapse?
In short, the usual bending of the facts towards the desired conclusion.
I was actually refering to WTC7 there, saying buildings closer survived and never collapsed, but #7 collapsed.
I didn't think you were refering to the whole bulding, that would be stupid. There's no way it done 25% of damage to the exterior of the building, I'd give it somewhere between 5 and 10%, if even that.
But fires were not burning throughout the entire floor space, a short while after the planes imapcted there are pictures of a woman standing in the hole the plane just made in the side of the building. Not sure which one, I think it was the first one hit. But there was no raging fire where she was, so it obviously spread, then obviously that steel began to cool and condcut heat from where the fires were. It wouldn't be burning in the same area for long enough to weaken the steel.
First of all a plane is built to be light, so of course they'd use as small a part as possible. So a plane is a bad comparison. A building is built to be tough/rigid/strong so why small bolts?
I've kind of covered the trusses but what happenes to the truss directly below which isn't heated up? It just can't hold twice the weight it already is? Anyway, as the trusses didn't actually hold the floors up (I know technically the outer walls are the final load bearing part of the structure we are talking about the floor so that's why I didn't mention that) the I beams you've seen in those photos are and in this next link you'll see steel frame buildings DO NOT catastrophically fail due to fire. I've only gone through a part of this powerpoint but already there's some good information in it - http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=58&hires=1 Some pages to note: 28, 29, 47 is the start of WTC7 and 57 has an interesting video. So now, you asked for some evidence, have a look for yourself.
Ok, there's evidence to show that the trusses were not the only thing holding up the floor, which in turn disproves the official story that says the trusses pulled the walls in and the small bolts failed which made the floor collapse, which brought the whole building with it. There's evidence that steel frame building do not collapse from fire. Both delt with in my previous post. There's evidence, in the form of eyewitness reports, of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY There's video evidence of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 (Thanks to Obsolum for that.)
My responses in bold...
I can't understand how you see bending of facts in there, I just can't. Anyway, have a look at some unbent evidence there and see what you think.
Sam, don't quit I still didn't get an answer as to where is the Pentagon footage, not that slide show which my mobile phone would capture better, but real footage.. If there's nothing to hide, why not release it?
Also, everyone seem to forgot about that Bin Laden's "confession", where his nose sudenly got shorter and wider? and he started wearing rings oposite to his religion? If that's Bin Laden i'm Michael Jordan..
Sam, the very same goes for people like you who are desperately clinging to official story as the truth. Just because it's official, doesn't mean it's the truth. I get the same impression from you as the impression you get from U4IK ST8.
There hasn't been any irrefutable proof of a planecrash in the Pentagon. But even so you refuse to acknowledge the absence of such proof (eg. footage that actually shows a plane, or even wreckage that's somewhat identifiable as coming from a plane).
You have it easy. You just say "I believe in 'the truth' (ie. the official story with holes in it) so I don't need to prove anything."
I'm not going to defend my views or beliefs or anything like U4IK ST8 is doing, because I don't have any conspiracy theory. I don't give a flying rat's ass who did it, to be honest. All I'm asking is "where is the proof of the plane that hit the Pentagon?".
Yea, you would wonder why is that... He is the main suspect for 9/11 after all, and reason for invading Afghanistan, so why they wouldn't write that on the FBI site is beyond me, is that only a poor site maintainance or something else...
But at the same time, i can't deny that there are terrorists, various US embassies across the world haven't bombed themselves probably, there ARE some people with fighting power in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise there wouldn't be so many casualties every day for 7 years, so..
The interesting point from Zeitgeist, is, that, the US never meant to win these wars, only to prolong them.. so i don't know, what do you people think about these wars, is world a safer place now?
I'll be honest, I have no idea about WTC 7 really. I never really looked into it (so I don't know how it was built, where it was hit, IF it was hit, etc... so anything having to do with that building, you've got me.
I should probably clarify that what I meant was that 25% of the exterior columns AT THE AREA OF IMPACT were compromised. So in other words the upper 20 floors only had 75% of the support they would normally have gotten from the outer skeleton.
You are correct sir. However, even after some of the initial fire burned out, MUCH of the building at that level remained engulfed in flames.
Actually, it's a very good comparison. A building also has to be very small and light for a variety of reasons: Cost (one large bolt is not much more expensive than one small bolt, but a million large bolts ARE a lot more expensive) is just one reason. And yes, skyscrapers ALSO have to be light, just like an airplane, so weight has a lot to do with it. Besides, why use a big bolt when a small bolt will more than adequately satisfy the design requirements.
And what does it matter WHY they used small bolts?! The point is they DID, and that's why it collapsed. Don't try and tell me that this whole conspiracy started 40 years ago in the design phase of the building...
Again, with regards to WTC 7, I don't know much about it, so I won't make any judgements.
Anyway, back to the trusses. First off, the reason I know so much about the WTC is because, a) my dad knows someone who was one of the cheif architects of the project, so he knows quite a bit about them, and b) i've watched quite a few history channel videos which detail the construction of the buildings.
Anyway, I realize Wikipedia is a terrible source, but the photo illustrates the design pretty well:
The fact is that there were many I-beams involved in the construction, but the trusses provided the main support. I could just as easily claim that the concrete was what supported the floors and then point you to a picture where they are pouring the concrete floors and say "SEE! CONCRETE! THAT'S THE SUPPORT!"
And even so, let's pretend that the floors are supported by I-beams alone, and that the trusses ONLY SERVED to hold the outer skeleton in place. When the trusses failed, the outer skeleton would have failed ANYWAY, and then the I-Beams would have failed and the structure would have collapsed regardless. The trusses failing are not the POINT of failure, the outer walls buckling are what started the collapse.
It is possible but I think there's a chap who actually rang them, I recall hearing someone talking about that, and they told him he(bin Laden) wasn't a suspect.
That is most definately true and I think this is one of the main reasons terrorist were used as the scapegoats, because there are real terrorists. Bin Ladens are friends of the Bush family so I think they made a deal somewhere along the lines. But that is massive speculation on my part and I'll admit that now. But the two families have crossed paths numerous times in the past.
"Is the world safer?" Not at all, the people are terrified and they are being manipulated by the media every day. I think before the towers even collapsed they had it pinned on bin Laden and when they did collapse the just kept playing it over and over and over again, all the while repotig that bin Laden did it. So people are easily led. Although it's obvious they don't think so.
Are people still talking about this? I used to think it could be a conspiracy until I realised how completely and utterly incompetent the current United states government really are. They can't even put together coherent speeches, how the hell would they mastermind something this complex and keep it a secret for so long?
I wonder how many people supporting the 9/11 conspiracy also took the film JFK seriously.
AFAIK, there's the REAL Bin Laden's story, saying that he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, at least that's what they say in Loose Change, is there a video or something about this? If that's true, you would guessed, that if he is the man behind it, that he would post 10 videos about it, braging how he owned them, but no, there's only that fake confession (and don't someone dare to say that's real, camera angles and lightnings can't change the man's nose so drasctically ffs, or his entire head for that matter)..
Ah, I get you now. Even still, the weight would have just transfered to the other columns, it would have stayed standing only for some certain events that we can't agree on.
Much of the building at that level? I can't see, nor have I seen, any footage to support that, sorry.
Because it's possible that a 707 might fly into it, with a possible 20,000+ gallons of fuel on board, which might weaken those small bolts. I agree that skyscrapers would have to be a lot lighter at the top than at the bottom, even more reason the top section shouldn't have crushed the whole building.
Now there's a good stretch of the imagination...
Ok, so learn. Go have a flick through that powerpoint, or bookmark it, because it's factual. No bs in there.
Wow.... I have to say those are some spectacular reference images. Truss one is a computer generated image and I don't deny the existance or contruction of the towers without the use of these trusses. Truss 2 is a very nice selective image because a) I can't see underneath the floor and b) becuase I can't see very much of the rest of the structure.
That's a rediculous arguement, sorry, but it is. These trusses come in large, pre-fabricated, sections. Which are then lowered onto these I beams. Even in the second image you link to, you can see where the I beam would be bolted in, right under where the truss is resting. The trusses DID NOT provide the main support for the build. Now I know why you were so cocky at the beginning, you know someone who knows someone who was chief architect, nice. Well ask him for the plans of the towers and see what he says, I'll tell you what he'll say. They're classified. Now that's rediculous if you ask me, why classify that info when it's important for people to see it?
Another rediculous claim. It would be impossible for the trusses to fail before the I beams because the trusses are supported by those I beams. Each section of floor+trusses had around 3 to 4 trusses already attached, I watched the construction video just can't remember how many trusses, and these floor sections would sit in top of the I beams, with 1 I beam between each truss. That's the way I see it anyway. And lets say the fire was hot enough to heat/warp the beams, they still wouldn't catastrophically fail as shown in that fire test video in the powerpoint I linked to.
@ ATC - I 100% agree, that the current government are totally incompetent. Well not everyone. Do you think Dick Cheney is an incompetent person? I think not. Now John McCain is a different kettle of fish and if he gets in the US are doomed. Well either way they're doomed according to Bush. He says "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison." Feb 13th 2008 So it's not looking good for American citizens. He sound pretty sure of himself. He's not the only one claiming this either.
EDIT: Also, you say how could they keep a secret so long, well the Vietnam war was started from an event which actually never took place, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but only rescently this has been declassified. Many, many people died in that war for nothing. I'm not sure why they wanted to do this because I haven't researched but it seems governments have the capability, no matter how incompetent, to withold information from the masses about certain subjects.
...and I think the US government used the event as an excuse to wage war on certain countries for no real reason, and they are capable of exploiting terrible accidents or attacks for their own personal gain, but they can't deliberately target their own country or deliberately demolish several buildings in the middle of New York without being caught.
I don't think he is a stupid person and I think he would be more in control than Bush, but this is only speculation so don't quote me on that.
I think they have attacked their own and gotten away with it. It would be impossible, on any other day, for any aircraft, whether it had transponders on or off, to get into Washington airspace undetected and be free to line up with the Pentagon from a fair distance away(see the final maneuver from th ... recorder data on youtube), without getting shot down or some how intercepted. Impossible.