So what reappl happened with 9/11?

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
Amen. Email from Nigerians is easier to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever happened to Idi? That guy was a solid poster.

[NSchandler]

The proper response to the loose change video.

[hmkpoker]

I'm not going to try to defend the conspiracy theories to the majority here who don't think it was an inside job. That's impossible, especially since I don't even have any qualifications in physics, architecture, or any of the other fields that could be useful in analyzing the physical nature of the collapse of the buildings.

However, one must admit that the following, which are logically derived from the official explanation, are very peculiar circumstances:

1) That both buildings were constucted in a way such that if a large fireball were to travel through the elevator shaft, it could detonate existing fuel supplies within the buildings, causing the building to accidentally collapse in a well-contained free-fall that appears identical to a well-planned, expert demolition.

I am not an expert on demolitions, but it would seem to me that getting buildings of that size to collapse so perfectly would be a remarkably challenging task, and would require the best experts the field had to offer. Buildings that collapse in the absence of planned demolition teams tend to look more like this:


(these are photos of Earthquake disasters)

2) It is also strange that building seven collapsed in a very similar fashion, despite having an entirely different cause of its destruction (no fireball could have accidentally taken out all the load bearing members simultaneously, as was the case with the twin towers).

3) If indeed the terrorists' intent was not only to crash into the buildings and kill the civilians who were incinerated in the explosion, but to in fact destroy these extremely sturdy structures in a manner beyond repair, then we must admit that they must have undertook a PHENOMENAL level of research in the architecture of the building to know that, why and how an explosion from an airplane could in fact bring about a full demolition of two 110-story steel buildings. (If you had asked anyone before Sept. 11, 2001 what would happen if you crashed a plane into the middle of one of the buildings, I don't think anyone would suggest that it would bring about the destruction of the entire building in such a manner that would accidentally resemble a very difficult expert demolition.)


I recognize the holes in the conspiracy theories, I know that, if it was an inside job, the chances of keeping everyone quiet would probably be as unlikely as the above-mentioned situations, but anyone who believes the official report of how the buildings collapsed must acknowledge that the way it unfolded was either remarkably unlikely, or required a phenomenal mistake in the construction of the building, accompanied with an equally remarkable level of planning, research and coordination.

[UATrewqaz]

"So what reappl happened with 9/11?"

An event occurred that gave ample opportunity to retarded conspiracy theorist idiots to make fools of themselves.

[kazana]

I know exactly what really happened, but, whoops, there goes my last sentence.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

2) It is also strange that building seven collapsed in a very similar fashion, despite having an entirely different cause of its destruction (no fireball could have accidentally taken out all the load bearing members simultaneously, as was the case with the twin towers).




[/ QUOTE ]

The towers did not collapse because all load bearing beams were taken out simultaneously. The plane crashes started huge fires as the jet fuel ignited, and the fires grew as furniture, office paper, etc. burned. Steel looses strength as it is heated. Estimates I have read are that the structural steel beams in the towers lost well over 50% of their strength at the tempertures involved, causing them to collapse under the weight they were supporting.

Building 7 was also the site of a major fire. The fire department abandoned it as a lost cause, and it collapsed after burning for several hours.

[ QUOTE ]
3) If indeed the terrorists' intent was not only to crash into the buildings and kill the civilians who were incinerated in the explosion, but to in fact destroy these extremely sturdy structures in a manner beyond repair, then we must admit that they must have undertook a PHENOMENAL level of research in the architecture of the building to know that, why and how an explosion from an airplane could in fact bring about a full demolition of two 110-story steel buildings. (If you had asked anyone before Sept. 11, 2001 what would happen if you crashed a plane into the middle of one of the buildings, I don't think anyone would suggest that it would bring about the destruction of the entire building in such a manner that would accidentally resemble a very difficult expert demolition.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Investigations after the fact, reported in the media, indicated that the attack was planned in detail, and included members who had engineering degrees. The results were expected. The planes chosen were long range non-stop flights which would be carrying full fuel loads, and the impact points were chosen because of the effects of fire there, and because fires that high up would be impossible to fight. Again, the destruction was not caused by the impact or initial explosion, but by the subsequent fire. This was anticipated by the planners.

[Lestat]

1. If the government was willing to kill all the people in the planes and two trade centers, would it really have made much difference if they had risked a few more lives and property damage and let the towers collapse in a more disorganized, unsuspicious fashion?

2. There's no comparison to how a building falls over in an earthquake, to how it would behave under the circumstances of 9/11. No comparison at all. Those photos are useless.

3. Osama himself has said that the building collapses were beyond his wildest dreams. Of course, he liked it, but had no idea the destruction would be so complete.

4. I'm not an engineer either, but it makes sense to me. The planes crashed through the upper floors. The fire was unimaginably intense. All you needed was a couple of floors to have their integrity compromised and collapse. So now the weight of all the floors above collapse and created a pancake effect, adding sudden and tremendous weight to the floor beneath it and eventually caving in the whole building in a somewhat neat and orderly fashion.

5. The number of people who would need to be in on such a conspiracy would be quite a lot. It would be an overwhelming task to insure so many people kept it a secret forever. There's just too great a risk it would be leaked and come out eventually. It wouldn't even be worth attempting.

6. If it WERE a conspiracy, and Bush had planned this out with Bin Laden so that he would have reason to invade Iraq, don't you think people like Osama and his brethren would eventually jump at the chance to tell-all, and destroy not only the Bush administration, but the whole integrity of the United States of America and it's reputation throughout the world?

Don't get me wrong. I think President Bush is probably one of the dumbest men ever elected to the this country's presidency, but I still don't think even he is dumb enough to have created such a conspiracy.

[NSchandler]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong. I think President Bush is probably one of the dumbest men ever elected to the this country's presidency, but I still don't think even he is dumb enough to have created such a conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This leads me to a question I still don't have an answer to: How do the people who think Bush is too stupid to tie his own shoes in the morning but simultaneously claim that he's intelligent enough to orchestrate and cover up the largest terrorist attack in history reconcile the contradiction?

[Lestat]

Well, I don't think presidents have all that much to do with the actual implementation of things. They decide what to do, and have people who figure out how to do it. I'm not even sure how much say they have in the "what to do" part.

Of course, this is if a president is smart. Smart leaders guide and realize certain things are better left in the hands of people specifically trained in certain areas (I've always thought good CEO's operate in this fashion). Say what you want about Bush, but he does seem to be a very "hands on" president. That IMO, is the problem. He's not smart enough to know what needs to be done and can't manage the messes he gets us into.

[hmkpoker]

Lestat-

Half of your arguments involve citing the absurdity of the conspiracy theory. I am not arguing for that (as there is no point; I have neither the evidence nor qualifications to make a convincing argument of any kind). All I am saying is that it seems extremely unlikely that buildings 1, 2, and 7 would have been brought down in a manner that so greatly resembles a planned demolition as a result of a massive fire. I think it is very strange that no other buildings in history, when hit by a plane or an unquenchable inferno, have ever displayed this behavior.