9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?

[daryn]

that's the funny thing about conspiracy theories/theorists, they are always like "psh you guys believe everything you're told! idiots!!" but then they will point to the testimony of a small % of experts who may back their claim, and they'll believe that as absolute gospel.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
1/2 WTC failed from the top down. Controlled demolitions cause failures from the bottom up

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are in CONTROL of the demolitions, and you are trying to fake al qaeda etc, then you are obviously not going to do it from the bottom up in this case.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I have 2 question for the people that say the 2 towers were taken down by explosive. In all my looking around I have not found any answer to either.

1 ) How do you attach explosives to load-bearing I-beams in such a way that they stay in place during the initial violent explosions when the planes hit at 450+ MPH ?

2) What kind of explosive and remote detination device was used that could withstand the 1000+ fahrenheit fire for 55 minutes without cooking off ?

[/ QUOTE ]


An attempt at looking at things like that:

Gordon Ross analyses the destruction of the World Trade Center
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...3615&hl=en
25m22s

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
So if the floors started coming down, why is there no central steel structure still standing today?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once the building begins to fail, the weight of several floors falling on the structure causes progressive failure of the lower floors. The mass of the lower floors are added to the mass of the falling floors and overwhelm the floors below that. It's a domino effect.

The building failed from the top down. Controlled demolitions destroy a building from the bottom up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA

Ignore the flashy fireworks--the interesting part of the video occurs at 55s. Notice the smoke trails go UP the building. Notice that building failure starts from the BOTTOM.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...55002470780153

Again, watch the squibs. Bottom up. The building fails at the bottom and the rest of the building falls in on it.

1/2/7 WTC failed from the TOP.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide...tion_waves.mpg

1. No squibs prior to the building collapsing.

2. Building clearly collapses from the top. The force of the collapsing floors expels air from the floors below, blowing debris out several feet. Notice that this doesn't happen in the controlled demolition videos.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide.../wtc_7_cbs.mpg

1. No squibs prior to the collapse.

2. 7 WTC is not as obvious, but notice that the penthouse falls in FIRST. Had the building been destroyed in a controlled demolition, the penthouse would've be among the last things to collapse.

---

I know the official story makes no sense to you, but the problem is that the 9/11 Truth Movement's version of the story MAKES EVEN LESS SENSE.

[Nielsio]

1. You didn't answer my question

[ QUOTE ]
So if the floors started coming down, why is there no central steel structure still standing today?

[/ QUOTE ]


2. You just re-stated your bottom up idea, which I already replied to. Did you do any thinking about what I said?

[ QUOTE ]

If you are in CONTROL of the demolitions, and you are trying to fake al qaeda etc, then you are obviously not going to do it from the bottom up in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
that's the funny thing about conspiracy theories/theorists, they are always like "psh you guys believe everything you're told! idiots!!" but then they will point to the testimony of a small % of experts who may back their claim, and they'll believe that as absolute gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the funny thing about statists, they're always like "pshh, you conspiracy theorists will believe any conspiracy theory you hear, idiots!" Then they see a greater number of experts supporting the states' story on a few minor issues surrounding a major event, and believe it as absolute gospel, that the major event couldn't possibly have been a conspiracy.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Each floor failed individually from the weight of the floors above it falling on it.

[/ QUOTE ] Can you explain how the lower floors, which presumably aren't affected by the fire/heat, could have their angle clips compromised? Is it the shear force coming down on them, and not the weight, coming down on them?

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You didn't answer my question

[ QUOTE ]
So if the floors started coming down, why is there no central steel structure still standing today?

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

The central structure was crushed by the floors above it collapsing. LDO.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You just re-stated your bottom up idea, which I already replied to. Did you do any thinking about what I said?

[ QUOTE ]
If you are in CONTROL of the demolitions, and you are trying to fake al qaeda etc, then you are obviously not going to do it from the bottom up in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you posted this after I had begun my last post.

Second, I suppose you could blast the angle clips on the vulnerable floors near the collision. Setting this up is a logistical nightmare that makes much less sense than the official account, though. And it still doesn't explain 7 WTC.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean I think you took my post the worng way. I AM ON YOUR SIDE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a dog in this fight, I mistakenly popped in here to share some off-the-cuff FWIW on the planes being discussed, and apparently I wandered into the section where all the freaking loons and kooks are segragated, and I don't mean you.

[ QUOTE ]

But when you are having a debate about what is fact or fiction you can't just say "FWIW, a dry (empty) 707 weighs about 100,000lbs. Max weight is about 250,000lbs." because it depends on which version of 707 your talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I was talking about the 707 most likely to be flown commercially at the time they where designing the WTC.

[ QUOTE ]
If you know that the designers were using the specs for a 707-120 I stand corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what's been printed about them planning for a low-speed nudge from a 707 circa the planning phase in '60/'61, it's just my best guess, off the cuff. I didn't realize people were actually seriously debating this as if it wasn't the cause of the collapse. I have since read through the thread and had to stop and go call my parents and thank them for me being normal.

[ QUOTE ]

It is plain to the whole world ( apart from the 9/11 Conspiracies nuts ) that they couldn't take a that hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. Either way or either, 707, 767, or 777, I'd have to say the buildings performed admirably, most likely even surpassing expectations. They stayed up for an hour after impact, correct? That's precious times and potentially thousands of lives saved.

I doubt anyone expected it to be designed for the plane to just bounce off, and much like a mangled crumple bumper that is off no more use, it did it's job and saved lives.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. You didn't answer my question

[ QUOTE ]
So if the floors started coming down, why is there no central steel structure still standing today?

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

The central structure was crushed by the floors above it collapsing. LDO.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. You said the floors came loose of the support structure. The floors surround the support structure. If the trusses fail and the floors start to fall then the support should still be there.

Oh, and another thing: this floor collapse theory fits with the video evidence in no way. NIST has a nice theory though: they say the floor concrete jumped up in mid-air and exploded itself. That was awesome to read.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. You just re-stated your bottom up idea, which I already replied to. Did you do any thinking about what I said?

[ QUOTE ]
If you are in CONTROL of the demolitions, and you are trying to fake al qaeda etc, then you are obviously not going to do it from the bottom up in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you posted this after I had begun my last post.

Second, I suppose you could blast the angle clips on the vulnerable floors near the collision. Setting this up is a logistical nightmare that makes much less sense than the official account, though. And it still doesn't explain 7 WTC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why derail? Do you forfeit your point about down up versus up down?