9/11 conspiracy theories

[Tony]

While you're working out where that load of nonsense came from let's deal with the other 'unanswerable questions'

 

 

This also does not explain so many other factors to suggest that the Boeing 757 was not even in Washington that day.

Apart from the 100+ independent eye witnesses that saw it crash into the Pentagon?

 

 

1. how does the 'pancake theory' allow for the near-free-fall speed of the collapses?

Read the FEMA report.

2. why does the 911 commission report claim the centre of the twin towers was a 'hollow shaft', when it actually contained 47 steel supports?

It was. You don't understand what it means.

3. why did the commission not find any explanation for WT7's collapse?

A lack of full conclusion is not evidence of a conspiracy to decieve. Quite the opposite.

4. why were there so many people claiming to have heard/felt/seen explosions prior to the collapse?

Lots of things happen apart from the actual superstructure collapse. failures of service mains, substructure, and internal structure... in fact there are lots of reasons.

5. why, although a 'crime scene', was ground zero cleared immediately (by a demolition company, no less) and the metal taken, WITHOUT analysis, off to the far east to get melted down.

That's completely untrue.

6. why is it that there has never been a skyscraper before or since wtc7 which has collapsed soley due to fire damage?

Every event has a first occurance. This was the first time that a fully fuelled airliner was deliberately flown into the WTC towers at full throttle. Not sure how this suggests a cover up.

[Bartfarst]

a few questions for you:

1. how does the 'pancake theory' allow for the near-free-fall speed of the collapses?

2. why does the 911 commission report claim the centre of the twin towers was a 'hollow shaft', when it actually contained 47 steel supports?

3. why did the commission not find any explanation for WT7's collapse?

4. why were there so many people claiming to have heard/felt/seen explosions prior to the collapse?

5. why, although a 'crime scene', was ground zero cleared immediately (by a demolition company, no less) and the metal taken, WITHOUT analysis, off to the far east to get melted down.

6. why is it that there has never been a skyscraper before or since wtc7 which has collapsed soley due to fire damage?

can these questions be answered? do the answers all look reasonable?

 

If I didn't have such respect for the well-considered questions raised on this subject, I'd ask if this a special thread for people with learning difficulties.

 

1. Watch some other demolition footage, and see how quickly buildings come down - when only the ground floor supports are blown. None of those buildings will be anything like the size of the Twin Towers. The first few floors collapse relatively slowly, but as the growing momentum of the collapsed floors above hits each successive floor below, it so vastly exceeds the structures strength that the floor might as well be a shoebox – it will not offer even token resistance to the momentum of the falling floors from above.

My dog probably understands that, and although he’s quite good playing dead and opening doors I really don’t consider him to be very bright.

Think of it like this, you can stand carefully on a biscuit tin, but what happens when you jump onto it? Don’t underestimate momentum and kinetic energy, they generate loads that are orders of magnitude greater than the floors below are designed to support which is why they pancaked so quickly. If the floors were blasted there would be high speed shock visible – and there isn’t.

 

There would also be tons upon tons of explosives being tripped over throughout the building and miles upon miles of det cord filling the place like spaghetti. Whatever some people might think after watching Mission Impossible on tv, you can’t bring a building down with small hidden radio-initiated charges, and you can’t hide the huge amounts of explosive, or the drilling, disruption and months of work it would have taken to rig the towers. Ask a professional, don’t base your ‘knowledge’ on tv fiction and loony American conspiracy websites.

 

The building in the video below is only a few stories high, the explosives are placed only on the ground floor but you can see how the collapse is accelerating as it continues (this ‘little’ job required 7,242 holes in supporting elements, 1,825 lb of explosives, 8,640 blasting caps and 37,200 ft of detonating cord: Obviously, it would be a doddle to rig something like this for the twin towers when the cleaner wasn’t looking).

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7

 

Also, try reading post number 362 on this thread – I’ve explained the collapse in as plain English as I can.

 

2. Again, partly from post 362:

 

The structure of the towers was relatively innovative at the time in that it was in effect a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. Floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards. This actually makes for a much stiffer design than conventional skyscrapers and has since been employed on many more buildings.

 

Yes, there were steel supports but the very nature of the design of the towers is based on their strength and rigidity coming from the steel lattice at the outside of the building, with relatively little inside. This type of design is referred to as ‘hollow tube’. If your ‘research’ hasn’t taught you this much by now, you really need to take your naivety elsewhere because exposing that level of ignorance removes any credibility.

 

3. Perhaps because it was less of a priority than the towers – I’ve not looked into WT7.

 

4. There would have been shocks from failures of the structure immediately before the collapse. There would also have been ongoing air/fuel explosions from mixtures trapped in lift shafts and other spaces.

 

5. Dear God give me patience. The towers weighed a MILLION TONS. The area needed clearing. There were gas leaks and fires under the rubble. Mostly, as the main priority, rubble was cleared in the hope of finding survivors (as is often the case in earthquake collapses). As far as I know, there wasn’t a forensic lab in the area with room to carefully lay out and examine a million tons of rubble and steel. In the urgency of clearing the debris, hoping to find survivors, noting the exact position and damage to millions of pieces of rubble was not possible. Is this too much to get your head round?

There was a lot of stuff identified for analysis, and examined, but do you expect them to sift through a million tons of bits in a lab?

As for the terrible coincidence that a demolition company was (among those) used to clear the rubble, who else is going to have the blasting skills and heavy cutting gear to break down the larger remaining pieces and cut the tangle of steelwork? Funnily enough, the answer is a demolition company! (Would it surprise you if bin men emptied your bin?) Many demolition companies, and military, and volunteers, cleared the rubble.

 

6. Partly because it doesn’t happen very often. Also because usually when there’s a fire the emergency services aren’t completely overwhelmed by a major disaster, and a large proportion of them dead. This tends to limit their ability to fight fires.

 

I'm going down the corridor now to talk to a bunch of fellow engineers and assorted military colleagues who understand things like aircraft crashes, explosives and structures, and I'm going to have a good giggle with them over this thread. If I don't do that, I'll end up chewing my office skirting boards out of frustration over some people's inability to see simple common sense laid out before them.

 

Venger / johnbradley, how often have you two been abducted by aliens?

[Bartfarst]

Originally Posted by johnbradley

can these questions be answered? do the answers all look reasonable?

 

In a word No

 

I beg to differ.

[Twiglet]

5. why, although a 'crime scene', was ground zero cleared immediately (by a demolition company, no less) and the metal taken, WITHOUT analysis, off to the far east to get melted down.

 

Tony has answered the rest of these questions pretty well, but I know the answer to this one. Again, it's complete fiction. The debris was all shipped to Staten Island (in NEW YORK not the Far East) and every piece was sorted. They pulled out every fragment of human remains they could find, which are all now in storage for future DNA testing and identification.

 

Ground Zero, and the debris at Staten Island, were both treated as a crime scene. Everything was examined three times, and was either kept, recycled or disposed of.

[Bartfarst]

Tony has answered the rest of these questions pretty well, but I know the answer to this one. Again, it's complete fiction. The debris was all shipped to Staten Island (in NEW YORK not the Far East) and every piece was sorted. They pulled out every fragment of human remains they could find, which are all now in storage for future DNA testing and identification.

 

Ground Zero, and the debris at Staten Island, were both treated as a crime scene. Everything was examined three times, and was either kept, recycled or disposed of.

 

It's no good twiglet - you've probably been paid by the US Govt to say that.

[Twiglet]

It's no good twiglet - you've probably been paid by the US Govt to say that.

 

That's why I clarified the location of Staten Island - they'll be claiming it's been redesignated a secret military base and moved to the Far East next

[johnbradley]

great stuff, thanks for the comments lads.

 

ill post the links later to the engineers at MIT and the others who raised these questions, perhaps they know as little as me?

 

and bartfast, the sarkyness just makes you look like a bit of a tool.

 

cheers:)

[venger]

59 airliners were shot down in the USA between 1970 and 2006?

 

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/transcript.php#mary

 

Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general of the FAA (from a formal statement at a June 10, 2002 press conference held at the National Press Club in Washington)

 

She is involved in one of several civil suits that have been filed against the US gov over 9/11.

[venger]

If I didn't have such respect for the well-considered questions raised on this subject, I'd ask if this a special thread for people with learning difficulties.

 

Partly because it doesn’t happen very often. Also because usually when there’s a fire the emergency services aren’t completely overwhelmed by a major disaster, and a large proportion of them dead. This tends to limit their ability to fight fires.

 

I'm going down the corridor now to talk to a bunch of fellow engineers and assorted military colleagues who understand things like aircraft crashes, explosives and structures, and I'm going to have a good giggle with them over this thread. If I don't do that, I'll end up chewing my office skirting boards out of frustration over some people's inability to see simple common sense laid out before them.

 

Venger / johnbradley, how often have you two been abducted by aliens?

 

It is difficult to take you seriously, the only person raising anything close to an argument is Tony.

 

Emergency services overwhelmed ? There is recorded evidence of firemen upper floors saying that they had figured out a way to control the fire in one of the towers.

 

Common sense laid before them, your defense is weak, I don't doubt you know your job, but this is bigger than three steel buildings collapsing and a half-baked excuse why only 2 of them fell.

 

A circus might suit you better than stand up comedy Bartfast !

[Bartfarst]

It is difficult to take you seriously, the only person raising anything close to an argument is Tony.

 

Emergency services overwhelmed ? There is recorded evidence of firemen upper floors saying that they had figured out a way to control the fire in one of the towers.

 

Common sense laid before them, your defense is weak, I don't doubt you know your job, but this is bigger than three steel buildings collapsing and a half-baked excuse why only 2 of them fell.

 

A circus might suit you better than stand up comedy Bartfast !

 

So how's about you show me the error of my ways on the other answers I gave, rather than just number 6?