Petem95

A lot of people have gone on about this being an inside job, and I've always instantly written them off - no way in my mind the government would do such a thing, and it would have been too complex to keep it quiet..

However I downloaded a film off limewire recently, which wasnt what it was stated to be - and turned out to be a 9/11 documentry, which I watch and there are a LOT of things which seem very odd, but the main things for me....

1) Squibs - puffs of cerment dust coming out of the building preceeding the fall, just like in a controlled explosion - these can clearly be seen in the collapse of the towers.

2) Building 7 Collapse - another building on the complex which was very slightly damaged, steel framed, yet collapsed in EXACT controlled-explosion like manner soon after the main towers...

3) Build up - A COMPLETE power down of the building the weekend before the collapse - all staff out as a new 'security system' was being installed... also the security contract for the building is by a firm owned by Bush's brother.

There were many other things mentioned, basically steel framed buildings simply do not collapse in the manner and speed they did.

It would be stagging if it really was an inside job, and surely a government would not attempt something like this on such a scale?

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

I've seen this, there were a few points that made you scratch your head a couple of times. In the most though, it does all seem really strange to claim it was a conspiracy.

Why bother with squibs when planes were flown into the building. 9/11 would have still been such a big deal even if the buildings had not fallen. Who cares about building no 7?

If it was staged, they won when the planes few into the buildings. The explosives are just daft. They are way for you to be caught and achieve nothing of consequence imo.

Geezer

A quick search on the web dispels those.

People just love a conspiracy theory!

Geezer

SirFozzalot

Have you seen a building demolished with explosives?

The prep work involved is huge and the amount of explosives rather large which have to be positioned with some precision, especially buildings of that size. Somehow I think one or two people may have noticed something with all the preparation and cabling required, it's a bit more than a weekends work in my opinion.

KiwiGTI

May be conspiracy theories - but I don't believe the US government would have a conscience about doing things like this if it could?

Petem95

It had a various overhauls prior to that by a company owned by Bush's brother who had a $15m contract for maintenance apparently.

IMO a steel framed building with a steel core would not collapse like that either - extemely strong steel framed building pancakes neatly down in 10 seconds?

And why the hell did 'building 7' collapse?! Barely damned and falls in a controlled explosion type collapse, ie middle first then the rest in so it falls nealy.

All this is coming from someone who totally discounted it being an inside job as well - just too many things look very suspicious.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Whilst I am very dubious about these conspiracy theories being bandied about, I would recommend people watch Fahrenheit 911 for an insight into American politics and George W. Bush.

SirFozzalot

If it was that strong then surely it would have needed a colossal amount of explosives throughout the entire building to bring the whole thing down neatly in 10 seconds too!

SirFozzalot

Fair point, but what did the "US government" achieve by bringing down building 7? Surley the twin towers was enough of a statement without having to bring down building 7 too.

By the way, I have also seen the conspiracy theories programs and also found them very convincing! These are just things that I thought of whilst I watched. Don't suppose we will ever know for sure.

warrenm2

There have been lots of studies on the collapse. The conspiracy theories do sound plausible at first glance, but then again steel framed buildings arent designed to withstand hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel down the centre structual core. That weakening the building is just as plausible IMHO. As for all the "finacial deals going on" at the time, well there are so many deals happening every day, it would be easy to simply name any date and any major terror act and find "evidence" on previous days trading.

For me the only suspicious thing is the pentagon, a modern airliners wing spars are substantial bits of metal, as are the engines. The rest is pretty flimsy in comparison. I would expect a lot more damage from a 757 even at relatively low speeds

Petem95

YouTube - 9/11 Coincidences (Part One)

That video shows the collapse of the two towers and building 7 (steel framed building which was barely damaged) - watch that and see what you make of it!...

Petem95

They are however, they were designed to withstand strikes by 707's (biggest airliners at the time) which are bigger than the planes that hit.

Also the majority of the jet fuel was burnt up in the initial huge fireballs, and the temperature of the burning fuel would not be sufficient to melt steel anyway (by some margin).

SirFozzalot

Agreed.

I have to admit, the Pentagon situation doesn't quite add up for me either. The damage and wreckage don't seem to be consistant with the story.

Petem95

YouTube - 911 Mysteries : squibs

Here are the 'squibs' - other than the way 'building 7' collapsed, this is the other thing that looks very fishy in my eyes.

dsmith

Petem95 - what qualifications do you have in civil engineering ? and accident investigation ? and building demolition ?

I'm intrigued by your multi-discipline skill set that has enabled such detailed analysis of the plane hitting a building to determine it was in fact explosives and not the plane that caused the collapse. All from watching a film you accidentally downloaded.

SirFozzalot

I can see what you mean and the videos make it sound very convincing.

I initially just see it as the possibility of internal floors further down the building either collapsing under the movement and shaking of the above collapsing building causing dust and debris to be thrown out of windows or the rush of wind and debris down the remaining stair cases and lift shafts (which must have been very powerful) and with the internal layout of corridors and possibly open lift doors or stair case doors on certain floors could be a reason for them to appear at certain points and act like PRV's (Pressure relief valves) on the outside of the building.

Just a thought.

dsmith

You mean hundreds of tonnes of building falling down might push a little bit of air infront of it, which might escape by blowing out a few windows just in front of the falling rubble !?

Thats utterly impossible and you're clearly part of the conspiracy and just spreading mis-information around the net.

Nido

Not that much difference between a 707 and a 767 really.

Also the design of the twin towers to survive a jet strike were assuming that the jet was flying at approach speed for the airports and was lost in fog etc. The planes that hit the towers were of course going a hell of a lot faster.

The building design was essentially the main core, with an outside framework. These two parts were joined by floor trusses. These trusses are thought to have failed first, the weight of the above floors then sent the floors above crashing down (from the inside out basically) so the outside framework was standing for moments longer than the inside core - this is where the "explosive" theory comes from as it does look a little like it.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

The trusses were known to have lost their fire proofing and jet fuel easily burns hot enough to soften the steel. Once this happens a building like this is very weak.

This has been covered in a number of sources, one on Channel 4 included input from the architect.

Once the trusses lose hold of the steel girders holding up the floor the floors start to collapse inside the shell and then there is nothing holding the shell up.

fast bloke

That will be the qualifications he got after the ones he uses to predict house price crashes

I have been in a steel framed building that was stripped out and being prepared for demolition. To ensure that it would collapse in the required fashion, the had to cut out large chunks of steel from 3 out of every 4 legs and beams. Then they drilled the concrete and put in the explosives. There appeared to be about a million miles of cabling. Total prep time for a 6 story building was about 2 weeks........ but they can do a 120? floor building on a Saturday evening and no-one notices?

warrenm2

fuel burning and temperatures covered in section 2

Debunking The 9/11 Myths - Mar. 2005 Cover Story - Popular Mechanics

BTW To declare a tiny bit of background I have a Bachelor of (Mechanical) Engineering degree (with Honours) from Liverpool University. Whats your background of knowledge?

stara

so it can't be a conspiracy then because it wasn't a building demolished in a health & safety controlled environment, and JFK wasn't a conspiracy, neither was diana and dodi, these things just don't happen do they.

warrenm2

The Warren Commission report on JFK did seem to be economical with the reality. I am quite willing to believe there is more to 9/11 than meets the eye, I just require high standards of evidence for such a conspiracy claim. They are not being met to my mind, other may disagree!

stara

phew, i'm glad a government agency debunked all the government conspiracy theorists, and what does your university degree give you advanced knowledge into what happened at 9/11. my brother-in-law has a BA in photography, but he is **** at taking photo's

jods

Looking at that video raised a concern. Towers 1 and 2 I can believe collapsed due to the melting of steel structure and hundreds of tons of concrete collapsing down from the top.

The other building, however, looked VERY much like a controlled demolition.

Aren't these buildings built with predetermined, easily accessed locations where explosives can be placed to expedite safe demolition ?

KiwiGTI

If you put it like that - kind of makes it even harder to believe that both towers would collapse so perfectly like that.

JackClark

Two 100 story buildings collapse and an adjoining building falls down as a result, what a shocker, I'd have expected a couple of broken windows at the most.

Petem95

Have you seen the damage to building 7? Was not that much more than broken windows. There were other building surrounding with more damage, yet building 7 (a steel framed building, we are not talking a mud hut) then collapses (see video link above)

As I said earlier, I've always eaten up the official story too and never doubted it. I always thought the Pentagon thing was odd that there was no wreakage, and never any decent footage released, but I was wiling to believe the official story there too.

Also fire crews in first tower who made it to the fires say on radio recordings that there were "two isolated pockets of fire, and two hoses would be enough to get them out", yet somehow these were enough to cause a very even collapse of the floors?

mart360

Smoke and mirrors ...excuse the pun...

you see whats at the top, but not whats at the bottom...

how many towers have you seen fall in such a manner? most tower collapses.. start from the top, and then gravity takes over , the top mass that falls overcomes the rest of the structure, and the top slides outwards.

to go straight down either requires intervention or luck.....

luck x3 in this case....



and the pentagon.......you saw when the plane went in on the tower, you got a classic plane shaped slice in the side of the building..... where was this on the pentagon......


if it was a missile? wheres the plane then? Bermuda? area 51?


mart

OllyK

If you want a conspiracy theory that's fine, but please keep it plausible, why do they become so complex, involving hundreds of people all being "in on it" and keeping quiet?

If you want to claim US government involvment, why not just claim the hijackers were actually CIA and leave it at that? It's still bo**ocks, but it's 10,000 times more plausible than the garbage that comes out of the conspiracy sites!