Home Politics and Debate

How did the World Trade Center buildings collapse?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
How did the World Trade Center buildings collapse?
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Someone flew two planes into them mate.

    Finally out from under that rock huh...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually it's not the planes that make them fall down, but nevermind, old story anyway...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A hologram projector cunningly disguised a missile as an aircraft....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    A hologram projector cunningly disguised a missile as an aircraft....

    lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How about the other smaller building that subsequently collapsed after the two towers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They just bomb the stuff... I mean why not get over it it's been 5 years,everyone fucking now there is something no clear there... buildings collapse from level below the impacts of the planes... I mean come on...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Iron Nic wrote:
    How about the other smaller building that subsequently collapsed after the two towers?
    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

    Because it was damaged in the collapse of the other towers and became structurally unsafe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Controlled demolition in another one, if you watch the films and it was then they did an awesome job of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Controlled demolition in another one, if you watch the films and it was then they did an awesome job of it.
    interesting
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the thermite around some of the support beams might have had something to do with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the thermite around some of the support beams might have had something to do with it.

    Or just that the fire-proof coating was improperly maintained around the support beams.... ;) as was found to be the case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nash wrote:
    Or just that the fire-proof coating was improperly maintained around the support beams.... ;) as was found to be the case.
    that doesn't explain the thermite residue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeh fireproof story sounds plausable
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    that doesn't explain the thermite residue.

    what thermite residue?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    what thermite residue?

    There were tests done on some scraps from the bottom of the structures by steven jones of BYU - and the chemicals found are apparently the signature of thermate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

    Because it was damaged in the collapse of the other towers and became structurally unsafe.

    There have been about five different reasons given for the collapse of building 7 and there still is no official line. Quite how it fell at freefall in exactly in the same way as the twin towers did will take some serious explaining.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    loose change vs. popular mechanics - I know who I believe

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and to quote at least one non-million man conspiracy theory view from the interview-

    DYLAN AVERY: Sure. Well, basically, which is -- this is one thing that a lot of people don't know about September 11th, myself included, until I started doing the research. At 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, World Trade Center Building Seven -- it was a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper 300 feet to the north of the North Tower -- at 5:20 p.m. this building collapses in under seven seconds completely into its own footprint into a debris pile about six or seven stories high. Now, it wasn't hit by a plane. It was hit by debris from the North Tower when it fell. But, if you look at all the buildings surrounding the World Trade Center, and if you actually look at Building Five, which is right underneath both the Twin Towers, that building is engulfed in flames for hours after Building Seven even collapses.

    So, we have all the buildings surrounding the Twin Towers heavily engulfed with debris, some engulfed in flames. We have World Trade Center Building Seven, which has isolated fires on floor seven and twelve. It has smoke coming from its south face, and these guys claim that 25% of the building was scooped out. Even if 25% of the bottom of the building was scooped out, that still does not account for the building falling in perfect freefall into --

    AMY GOODMAN: And your thesis about what happened? What do you believe?

    DYLAN AVERY: It would have had to have been a controlled demolition. That's the only way to prove -- that’s the only way to explain what we saw with our own eyes, and any attempts to discredit that are just not scientifically sound.

    JAMES MEIGS: You know, this is a wonderful example of how conspiracy theories work. Any time there’s a little bit of doubt, a little bit of area where we don't know everything, then the answer immediately is, well, someone must have blown it up. It’s a form of argumentation that’s also used by creationists. If they can find one little gap in the evolutionary record, they say evolution’s a hoax. Or Holocaust deniers --

    DYLAN AVERY: Mr. Meigs, with all do respect, these are two completely different things.

    JAMES MEIGS: Holocaust denial works with very similar --

    DYLAN AVERY: Oh, my God!

    JASON BERMAS: Oh, man!

    JAMES MEIGS: And, but what we see here is -- one of our sources was Vincent Dunn, the retired deputy fire chief for the New York City Fire Department, who wrote the textbook, The Collapse of Burning Buildings. And what he explained is that the building was extremely unconventional. It had this giant Con Ed substation with enormous trusses carrying extraordinarily high loads, very vulnerable to fire and other kinds of damage. It was not a conventional skyscraper by a long shot. Those fires burned unfought for seven hours, fed by diesel tanks that were in the building to fuel backup generators. And when those trusses ultimately failed, the building did collapse in its own footprint. That's what happens when a building's internal supports fail.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    loose change vs. popular mechanics - I know who I believe

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

    That debate was framed from the start and there are plenty of rebuttals to Popular Mechanics' supposed debunking of 9/11 theories on the net.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You don't get anythign more left-wing than democracy now to be honest, so I'm confused as to what you mean by framed?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    You don't get anythign more left-wing than democracy now to be honest, so I'm confused as to what you mean by framed?

    Errr...Democracy Now didn't conduct the debate, not that 9/11 "conspiracy theories" tend to come from the left anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where's Clan when you need him eh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    Errr...Democracy Now didn't conduct the debate, not that 9/11 "conspiracy theories" tend to come from the left anyway.

    and the far right.

    Lots of the theories are from right wing american libertarians who think its part of a plot by the federal govt to take away their weapons and liberty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Where's Clan when you need him eh?

    That's a point. Where is Clan? Haven't seen him in a while.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    That's a point. Where is Clan? Haven't seen him in a while.

    He probably discovered the truth and was bumped off by the CIA/Mossad/the Illuminati/Darth Vader/Goldilocks and the three bears (delete as appropriate)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The controlled demolitian line, which gives you the freefall you see (just to credit them, to get such good freefall and foot print landing you have to be really really good at controlled demolitian) has a lot going for it.

    The official report makes interesting reading, especially if you know what a good report should read like (just for the record, it's one a fresher would get bollocked for writing a rubbish report). There are a lot of things in the report that are not explained or justified and it has some truly beautiful examples of circular referencing.

    The 'explosives in the building' people make a good case, and have energy conservation on their side. Either they built the twin towers very badly wrong, OR there was more to it than the planes and the fires because there wasn't enough energy there to crumble the concrete into the dust it became from just the planes and the fires.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the more obvious question is, if they were brought down by the government what exactly does it change?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    There were tests done on some scraps from the bottom of the structures by steven jones of BYU - and the chemicals found are apparently the signature of thermate.

    What crap.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    and the far right.

    Lots of the theories are from right wing american libertarians who think its part of a plot by the federal govt to take away their weapons and liberty.

    There's also a strand which seeks to blame the Jews and ZOG.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The controlled demolitian line, which gives you the freefall you see (just to credit them, to get such good freefall and foot print landing you have to be really really good at controlled demolitian) has a lot going for it.

    The official report makes interesting reading, especially if you know what a good report should read like (just for the record, it's one a fresher would get bollocked for writing a rubbish report). There are a lot of things in the report that are not explained or justified and it has some truly beautiful examples of circular referencing.

    The 'explosives in the building' people make a good case, and have energy conservation on their side. Either they built the twin towers very badly wrong, OR there was more to it than the planes and the fires because there wasn't enough energy there to crumble the concrete into the dust it became from just the planes and the fires.

    The freefall thing has been debunked for a start.
Sign In or Register to comment.