If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Unless your a scientist, with an expertise on this area, we're all going to be talking in general terms and relying on what others have told us. However, even as a non-scientist I'm not convinced that showing a ball dropping and comparing it to a building is going to convince sceptics of their case (especially as we haven't seen the experiment there data comes)
However on the off-chance you are a scientist please critique this report
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
because it looks a lot more credible and well researched that the dropping of balls on the internet.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id289.html
Look like old frank is gonna be pretty lonely in 2007
http://www.teamliberty.net/id245.html
Shame we'll have to wait until March 2007 to hear what he has to say -
Another video which puts forth views based on science and physics
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1069360941118691605&q=911+facts
.. still waiting for a single video from the other parties ...
Given that I've posted a proper scientific critique of why the buildings collapsed p'haps we should work on that rather than a few videos posted on the internet?
If you're interested in different sides of an arguement you should be prepared to look at the evidence people are presenting, not ignore it it because it'll take longer than a few minutes to watch.
I have an HND in Construction Technology and i am starting 2nd year of BSc Building Engineering Course in September, so not quite an expert, but I know a few things.
A few thing strike me as odd from the off.
One of the professors talking about the science of the collapse of the 3 buildings is a Professor of Theology, and another one is a Professor of Philosophy. What are they doing talking about the science of the falls???
The WTC Towers were designed to withstand an impact of a passenger jet, even multiple impacts. However the explanation of one of the main designers that it was like a pencil going through a mosquito net was a bit ridicilous. Can you imagine the stress the building is gonna suffer after being hit by a massive plane at surely over 300mph, (the cruise speeds of those planes are like 450 - 600 mph)? However strong the main column are, they are gonna suffer. And they are going to cause a shockwave. A kind of a shockwave that's gonna register as a seismic event. A kind of a shockwave that can inherently weaken the whole structure.
The North Tower was hit on the 96th floor. People ask why the North tower fell some 40 minutes after the south tower, it's probably because the impact on the south tower was around the 80th floor making it more unstable. Once the South Tower went, it probably destabilized the whole foundation system of the area including the one for WTC 7. Imagine all that weight falling down, it would cause serious damage. Then the North Tower went and destabilized the foundations even more. I assume the WTC building were connected. The WTC 7 building was on fire at a few places and at some point the the FDNY decided to pull their people out because they said thay couldn't contain the fires which is quite believable and maybe with agreement with MAyor Gulliani they decided to do a controlled demolition on it to lessen the potential impact.
Why were the Twin Tower buildings not controlled demolitions?
Because for one it happened too fast.
A controlled demolition will take longer because explosives cannot explode all at once but in a certain order. When the South Tower went down it is noticable that the tower started to fall towards one side first, the side that was impacted and then carried on pancaking.
I am not discounting explosions in the lower levels of the buildings either.
People assume terrorists are idiots.
They could have gone on the net and done some research about the buildings and they would notice the claim that a plane hit will probably not take the building down. So they might have sent someone to the basement levels to detonate a few bombs to help the buildings on their way. We will never know.
The video asks why the concrete was turned into dust and the concrete block thrown from a 1000 feet will not become dust. Of course it will!!
They seem to be suspicious of the 30ft pieces of steel being taken away sharpish.
Of course they wanted to get rid of them fast, who knows how many people were maybe trapped under the rubble, they might have still been some survivors. and the fastest way to find out is to get rid of the rubble fast!
The video is making some wild assumptions all based on suppositions and circumstencial evidence!! Surely Bush would use someone other than his brother if he wanted to cover it up!! And the low point of the video was charlie sheen and the entertainment news. That has no place in a scientific discussion.
So, in my opinion, it is possible that the 2 Towers collapsed through natural stress and i do believe the 3rd building was a controlled demolition.
As for Pentagon, I don't think they had SAM sites in and around the place. They have a rapid responce unit in Edwards that can deploy jets in seconds to intercept any known and incoming danger. However, they couldn't have known that a Passenger jet was gonna hit them.
People say it's hard to steer a jet into a specific target. Most pilots these days are instrument trained even the amatuer pilots and they learn to rely on instruments rather than what they see. It would be easy to plot a course into the buildings with some basic training. A 767 is a modern plane and quite capable of making a manouvre like the one seen on the day.
We will never know what exactly happened and why exactly all those people died, we can only hope it won't happen again.
If you believe WTC 7 Building was a controlled explosion - then who exactly do you think put the explosives there in the first place and when?
Watch Alex Jones-Rise of the Police State. It gives a comprehensive insight into this issue.
The video I saw a few weeks talked about the above and also how corrupt the US Gov't is with it's cases of money laundering a mass drug dealings, as well as 9/11.
I'll try and fnd the video.
By a civil engineering company perhaps in between the time of the North Tower collapse and early evening/late afternoon when the Building 7 went down.
I don't know.
No way mate ..
From the time the first building got hit to the time they all started to fall was less then a few hours.
The first plane hit at 8:45 and then that building fell at 10:05am
The 2nd plane hit at 9:03am and then falls at 10:23am
The WTC 7 Building fell at 5:20pm (the only building not hit by a plane)
If a building is already on fire ...no fire deptartment in the world is going to allow anyone in apart from rescue workers if even that.
Plus what company would go in to a place in that kinda situation?
As well as the fire the smoke would kill people and how would you lay explosives in that kind of smoke?
Usually if you want to demolish a building it takes months of planning and weeks to lay down the explosives, wires, etc.
http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/web/explosive_template/explosive.asp?Content=../../content_library/ex_case_studies_all.asp
To make a building fall down on itself (within it's own footprint) takes lots of planning and specialist skills.
Operation Northwoods
Some result was achieved though. Many politicians/parasites chant the 9/11 mantra/excuse in some way or another before their latest act of tyranny.
Thanks.
As for the video, take a look at THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11. It is very interesting to say the least, it's not just another 9/11 conspiracy video.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=Michael+C.+Ruppert
For one, the North Tower was hit first, yet was the second to fall, and it fell an hour and 37 minutes after impact. But lets put that aside.
You have to remember how extreme the situation was on the day. Normal regulations and procedures do not apply. Whatever company mate, americans are very patriotic and will risk their lives for the stripes and stars.
There is such a thing as PPE, you know! You want me to explain how demolition explosives get laid in? Coz I can...
Months?? A dedicated team who know what they are doing and skipping all the H&S procedures can lay the explosives in a matter of hours. As for wiring, you don't necessarily need a lot of wiring, you can remote detonate.
Please bear in mind that the understructure of the building and it's foundation was more than likely very much weakened by the 2 Towers coming down and the explosives would just help it go down in a controlled fashion rather than going all over the place.
OK, assume I am wrong on every count, can you please explain to me how and why WTC 7 collapsed. And please, I would like your opinion on it. Can you also explain why it went down some 7 hours after the North Tower?
I agree with what you said ... that it looks like explosives
Only difference is I don't believe they'd send in demoliation guys into a burning building
And I certainly don't believe if you got say 5 hours to drive to down town New York, set up a building to demonlish it can be done in that amount of time, whilst there are flames and smoke around you... and get it to fall so perfectly in it's own footprint.
You can blow up a building in no time at all but I doubt it would fall straight down... with say 5 hours to carry out the task.
It was all faked.
It was all real.
The idea that this bit was real, this bit was fake just seems impossible, you can't have just had a load of people just waiting to go in and do something on the off-chance someone hit the building nearby with a plane.
Once again common sense prevails from the moderator with a mind Jim_V!
I applaud Jim_V on his courageous stand and intelligence! I agree!
That's my point exactly..
which is why I don't understand why MigPilot thinks it's explosives on building number 7 if he don't think the same for 1 & 2 as well.
If building 7 had just burnt out like in the madrid fire last year. I'd have said OK, 1 & 2 got hit by a plane, both building were pretty much identical, both planes were similar so they both fell in similar fashion (straight down) - but then there's building 7, no planes, not huge impact into the side of it, just fire and of course it was about half the height too and different shape. And yet that fell straight down too .. :chin:
Never in the history of sky scrapper fires has any building ever fallen like that and here it happens 3 times in one day.
I believe that the fact all 3 buildings fell so perfectly within their own footprint is either the most amazing miracle or just good preplanning - had those buildings toppled over they'd have landed on other buildings causing way more damage and destruction and probably killing many more people.
It's the perfection of how all 3 buildings fell that makes me question why did they fall that way?
And also consider building 7 is across the street a fair distance away from 1 and 2
I've already explained in detail why I think this might have happened, you can either agree or not....and I guess you don't
This is what happens when history and unpredictability meet. And the circumstance of the 3rd building were different than the 2 towers.
But, mate, they didn't fall down perfectly. I've written about this before about the point of impact, timing of the collapse and the manner of the collapse. All 3 were different although similar. I am not gonna repeat it again. Look at the videos of the collapses.
Also there is such a thing as gravity, bits are not gonna fly miles and then flal down, they will drop immediately pulled by the gravity.
May I also say that a building will only fall to one side if only one side of it is weak.
That wasn't the case with the towers.
The main columns of both building were clearly damaged and the upper sections came down on the lower sections straight down.
Fire was not the cause of the collapse of the towers.
As for the distance between WTC7 and 1 & 2, the WTC7 was the newer building there and connected to the other WTC buildings underground. The post office building wasn't.
I've actually been to the site 3 months after 9/11, and I've seen the damage.
I am not saying I am right. I am saying I don't think it was done by the government, it was one of those things and one of those days. Ain't nothing black or white.
The buildings were designed to withstand strong winds and earthquakes, in which case they would wobble and then restabilize. This is what happened after impact. The buildings wobbled and then restabilized. Then the area that was hit weakened sufficiently enough for it to collapse.
The buildings don't get designed with collapse in mind, they are designed against collapse.
If they wanted to design those buildings for a possible collapse they wouldn't have put a giant iron mast on the North Tower.
Maybe because Larry Silverstein owned it and would get more money out of the insurance deal?