On the eve of the 9/11 anniversary I offer this for the naysayers...

[babomb]

For those who claim the "9/11 conspiracy" is based on pseudoscience, and that independent experts have already disproved the claim of controlled demolition, watch this video.
These are also "independent experts". Architects, structural engineers, chemical engineers, metallurgists, demolitions experts. And they're all saying that there is indeed overwhelming evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

[Mr. Clean]

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/lol/grand/Jack-Nicholson-lol-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-1658.gif

-- -------- Post added at 02:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

[babomb]

And???

[Mr. Clean]

You have one aircraft that weighs 315,000 - 450,000 lbs and another that weighs 255,000 - 272,500 lb. Both filled with fuel and constructed of multiple types of metal including but not limited to steel and aluminum. Traveling at least 400 mph slamming into an object 1,368 feet tall.

And you want to tell me that the towers needed more help than that to come crumbling back down to the earth?

I had never heard of this conspiracy theory until yesterday....and it blows my f*cking mind. Is the person who actually came up with this trying to get limelight or what?

[Sammich]

You have one aircraft that weighs 315,000 - 450,000 lbs and another that weighs 255,000 - 272,500 lb. Both filled with fuel and constructed of multiple types of metal including but not limited to steel and aluminum. Traveling at least 400 mph slamming into an object 1,368 feet tall.

And you want to tell me that the towers needed more help than that to come crumbling back down to the earth?

I had never heard of this conspiracy theory until yesterday....and it blows my f*cking mind. Is the person who actually came up with this trying to get limelight or what?

A plane crashed into WTC 7? That is a new conspiracy theory that I haven't heard before.

4tTMMNTisBM

[Neil]

For those who claim the "9/11 conspiracy" is based on pseudoscience, and that independent experts have already disproved the claim of controlled demolition, watch this video.
These are also "independent experts". Architects, structural engineers, chemical engineers, metallurgists, demolitions experts. And they're all saying that there is indeed overwhelming evidence that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

Really can't get my mind around the (blind) dedication required to bye into this conspiracy. It's as bad as the lunar landings conspiracy IMHO!

I understand some people may find this thread offensive, but some people clearly believe the towers came down for reasons other than the jets. As daft as I find it - no doubt along with many others - I think this should be free to be discussed.


Anyway, the buildings clearly collapsed from the point of the impact floors. Watch the video below. You can clearly see the structural failure happens exactly where the plane crashed in. It doesn't happen as in controlled demolitions at the bottom. It occurs exactly at the plane impact point. The floors above drop down into the failure and this inturn then dominoes down the rest of the building.

What is the suggestion then exactly? The plane was flown into exactly the right floor that had been prepared with charges? Or that every floor had been pre-prepared?

So let's explore this pearl of an idea. So they want to take down the Twin towers, and are going to use demolition charges? And the cover for this is two planes being flown into them? Why go to those insane lengths? Why not just use two (terrorist) bombs in the buildings as cover?


Anyway, watch carefully. Does the building fail anywhere other than the exact point where the plane impacted? No...? There's a clear reason for that.

rLFmkGseZ-8

[AcesandEights]

"These people use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Got to step up to the plate with some actual proof.

[Sammich]

From Seattle Times Saturday, February 27, 1993

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698)

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft.

I suggest that you all watch the video I posted. It was done by architects, engineers, physicists, chemical engineers and demolition experts who question the NIST study. Oh and by the way, NIST said there was no evidence of explosives even though they never tested for explosives.

[bassman]

Anyway, the buildings clearly collapsed from the point of the impact floors. Watch the video below. You can clearly see the structural failure happens exactly where the plane crashed in.

The nutjobs in the original post are talking about WTC7, a smaller building that collapsed later in the day, not the two towers that were struck by planes.


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."


They also claimed Titanic couldn't sink because of the many watertight compartments....

[Neil]

The nutjobs in the original post are talking about WTC7, a smaller building that collapsed later in the day, not the two towers that were struck by planes.
Ooops! My bad!

Still just as daft IMHO!

[Sammich]

"nutjobs" huh? What qualifications do you have in engineering and demolitions? I would like to hear your evidence refuting what the evidence they presented.

[Mr. Clean]

The nutjobs in the original post are talking about WTC7, a smaller building that collapsed later in the day, not the two towers that were struck by planes.

Still don't buy it.

[Sammich]

They also claimed Titanic couldn't sink because of the many watertight compartments....

Is that the best you can do? "They" didn't design the WTC towers.

[Andy]

Im ending this discussion, whether you beleive the events of 9/11 were a conspiracy or not, please remember alot of people died that day and alot of people still find these discussions very distasteful and often offensive.

Please bear this in mind when creating topics of this nature in future.