9/11 - Controlled demolition?

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,817
Location
, Washington DC
I'm sorry to post another one of these threads up, but theres still a real lack of conclusive evidence about what happened on 9/11 and a lack of disclosure of tapes etc. that could definitively quash any conspiracy theories.

I stumbled onto this video today and it contains a piece of footage I've never seen before, which to me, looks extremely hard to explain away.

At the 38 second mark:-

For more supporting evidence:- http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

www.martiallaw911.info/video.htm

http://netctr.com/media.html

http://www.question911.com/links.php

What do you guys think? Please try and refrain from bashing this idea on principle if you haven't watched the videos.
 
Zip said:
I Know what i saw live on TV and why would they do "Controlled demolition" on probably the biggest money making thing in the entire US?

To provoke fear among the country and make them willing to sanction an illegal war in an oil rich country to secure billions of dollars worth of oil?

Also, could the idiots who can't read the first post comprehensively enough to see the section:-

"Please try and refrain from bashing this idea on principle if you haven't watched the videos."

please go troll in another thread.
 
Zip said:
So you want every one to come in here and agree with you and the videos? :rolleyes:

You do know OPEC is the ones that gets the oil and makes the most money and control oil prices dont you?

No. I want people to watch the videos and then construct a reasoned argument, something that used to be possible on these forums. Obviously now people would rather post pictures of owls saying 'O RLY' than actually try to enter into any sort of debate. The point of this thread is to watch the video footage I've cited, and go to the websites, then reply, but post with some idiotic kneejerk reaction or attempt to be funny about a subject which is deadly serious.

Where exactly would the US economy be as a whole without sources of cheap oil?
 
DaveyD said:
I really can't beleive that that would be controlled explosions, there must be a decent explanation in why those small isolated blowouts happen, it's probably just some sort of support collapsing causing massive amounts of force to be put on thing all around or whatever.

I personally disagree with any of these silly, sad theories, as so many people died tragically, and that people refuse to believe that these terrorists were capable of such a controlled devastating attack.

I don't doubt for a second that the terrorists were capable of such an attack, I think that's been proven with co-ordinated attacks elsewhere in the world by much smalled terrorist cells (7/7, Madrid bombings etc.).

I just think there is a lot of questionable data from the events on 9/11 that should be properly analysed and reported on by an independant committee.

I agree that there was a tragic loss of life, but if there's even the remotest possibility that what happened on 9/11 was part of a government sanctioned action, or any government complicity then I don't think anyone should be resting until all material pertaining to the attacks has been made public.

Telescopi - I've seen a lot of documentaries on building demolitions (you should really try when buildings attack tbh ;)) and I know what you mean about preparations, but I don't know enough about the structure of the WTC and whether there were weak points on each floor that would require only small explosive charges that could have been camouflaged as something else. Unfortunately the people who would have been in the offices and could shed some light on this aren't around to tell anyone.

If the building was being 'pulled' would it not be a case of getting the collapse going, then sustaining it through timed explosions so that the weight above the explosions provided the necessary force?

I agree that the providence of these videos is in most cases at best questionable, and at worst ludicrous, but sadly I'm yet to see any major paper/news company stick it's neck out and take these claims into serious consideration.

Stolly - If you could, detail in a paragraph what the primary reason for the war in Iraq was then?
 
Zip said:
It wasnt the expected out come because know one believed that 2 building couldnt have been taking down like that.

The truth is that the buildings wernt ever designed to take an impact by a plane

Did the designer of towers one and two not say that they were designed to take multiple aircraft strikes?
 
Hamish said:
Er 2 planes flew into the towers, is that not enough?

Not to cause the catastrophic collapse of two hugley overly engineered buildings. The same goes for Building 7.

Wardie said:
How about NOOOO, you crazy dutch *******.

I'm not Dutch. Thanks.
 
Hamish said:
The planes weighed hundreds of tonnes, almost full with highly flammable aviation fuel, flying at hundreds of miles an hour, yes the building was designed to cope with high winds and a small plane flying into it at low speed but nothing as big as actually happened, with the fire too. IMO its a wonder the towers stood as long as they did.

As for WTC 7 Hundreds of tonnes of girders and other debris fell over 50 floors onto the building as well as the fire between floors 5-7. besides I don't see how this helps your argument as it is a drop in the ocean compared to the other events and the building was evacuated anyway so no casualties.

Hamish

Because the way it collapsed was identical to the way towers one and two fell - and it was referred to as being 'pulled'. Building 7 was the furthest away from towers one and two, and as they fell straight down, I don't see how it could have sustained serious damage while the buildings around it were left standing:-

http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/170305martialpreview2.wmv

I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation why the towers fell straight down as opposed to toppling over, when no other building has ever collapsed due to fire, which is the accepted explanation for the collapse of the WTC. Steel's melting point is around 3000*C and IIRC jet fuel burns at a maximum of around 500*C
 
Last edited:
e36Adz said:
According to William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked in the WTC, there was an explosion in the basement before either of the planes hit. I saw an interview of him about a week ago where he was speaking of numerous witnesses who were with him at the time, all of whom's stories have been ignored, or never really highlighted. Was that due to jet fuel aswel? ;)

It's stuff like this that bothers me most - why are eye-witness reports being ignored by the media and investigators?

Borris - if someone could show me diagrams of force that conclusively proved that the WTC collapsed because of the impact of the two planes and no other forces I would have no problem agreeing with it. It's the fact that at the time there were a lot of reports of secondary explosions - which I remember news channels talking about at the time of the attack on live TV.
 
sidthesexist said:
whilst 99.9% of these vids are a complete load of tosh there are one or two small bits that must at least raise an eyebrow and go wtf, for instance how did a 757 only cause a 16 foot hole in the pentagon with no damage to the roof caused by the the tail section and trained military men reportedly smelling cordite? and one of the vids shows a fireman saying to clear the area because "A bomb had been found"

The one part that must ask the most questions though is the small clip of the owner of these buildings stating that it was decided to PULL building number 7, considering that PULL is the word used in the demolition trade for a controlled demolition and that to demolish a building like this must have involved weeks of structorial analysys along with days of instaling the charges this at least seems to point to the fact that the owner had prior knowledge? that and this building was a regional home to the CIA means that they must have as well?

Have a watch of the video I just linked.
 
Sorry to drag this back up, but I found a really good summary of proposed evidence:-

Here is overview that gives you just a couple of reasons to question the official claims the government makes regarding 9/11. This was taken from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. ST911 is a large organization consisting of scholars of all fields including physicists, engineers, architects, university professors, etc. In other words, intelligent individuals knowledgable in their fields who cant be easily blown off and discredited.

1) The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

2) The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

3) UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

4) If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

5) There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.

6) There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

7) Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

8) The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

9) The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

10) Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

11) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

12) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

13) The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

14) The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

15) If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.

What do people think of that?
 
Beansprout said:
What's the point, when the other side will post unqualified, disproven armchair crap again and again and again simply because either a) they sounds cool, b) it's cool to be against the establishment, or c) they can't believe that such an awful thing happened so they'll try anything to try and make it better, seem less real, blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah.

Which is where Scholars for 9/11 Truth is different in that they're not average joe's spouting the same David Icke endorsed conspiracy crap. To me you need to include a d) option - There are enough unanswered questions that haven't been addressed by the US government/authorities that a fully independant investigate is warranted.

squiffy said:
Let's presume in 5 years time documents and video footage is leaked that proves that high ranking US servicemen and US Goverment, the US President, Vice Presidents planned all this was from the beginning, and knowing full well of the outcome.

What would your reactions and actions be?

For everyone involved to be charged with mass murder.
 
OK... for time saving purposes I'll narrow it down to ones I don't think we've covered.

7) Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

8) The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

15) If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario. A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93,which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered overran area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

A few more from another page on Scholars for 9/11:-

The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
 
MookJong said:
I can't believe people are still debating the Pentagon crash, thread revival yet again....

There are far bigger and provable questions about 9/11.

This isn't just the Pentagon, the initial point of the thread was the possibility of controlled demolitions of the twin towers.

What bigger questions?
 
Al Vallario said:
I've read one or two of the links he's posted, and I think it's a load of rubbish (I remember one site just attempted to poke holes in everything they could find and failed to explain the relevance of these holes; of which, in most cases, there was none), but hey :)

Well it's fact that NORAD stood down standard operating procedures with regards to shooting down/scrambling intercepts against the planes on 9/11
 
Stiff_Cookie said:
Really? I remember seeing fighters flying over the towers after they collapsed. Also, how was NORAD supposed to identify the hyjacked jets from the hundreds of other jets in and around the capital area?

There were jets AFTER the event, yet no jets were scrambled to try and stop the other planes which were off route and had turned off their transponders. Planes were scrambled something like 13 times previously in 2001 to intercept planes which went off radar - why were they not on 9/11 when two planes had been flown into the trade centres?

They could have feasibly ordered all other planes to divert to a certain heading away from the city centre and targetted planes who disobeyed that command.

Also - as for them not being able to keep it a secret, it's called compartmentalisation. It worked fine with the Manhattan Project.


To me Operation Northwoods is a stark example to those who think the USA incapable of carrying out attacks on it's own soil... As they advocated setting off plastic explosive in US cities and blaming Cuba to enable them to go to war with Castro.

Have a read here:-

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1



Curio - do you have any links to the Wargames that were going on on 9/11?
 
Curio said:
The fighters got there way after the planes hit. They could have been there in plenty of time.

And as for how to identify which plane was which....are you kidding me? This isn't the dark ages you know :)

Seriously, go and do some reserach (which you clearly haven't) and then come back. If you still feel the same then fair enough - I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. It's just that you seem to be lacking on some of the details.

Curio - do you have any links to sites about the wargames going on on 9/11?
 
Al Vallario said:
As far as I'm aware that was down to a complete breakdown in communication. All the different departments didn't have protocols in place for communicating with each other, the planes passed air traffic control boundaries and the people on the ground had no idea what was going on in the air. Some thought it was a drill (wargames were indeed taking part that day), NORAD were informed too late and minutes after the first plane had hit the World Trade Center air traffic control were still instructing the fighter pilots to try and find the planes.

At least the Americans are now better equipped to deal with such situations now 9/11 has taken place...

That's not the case at all. It is standard operating procedure for air traffic controllers to report to their boss if a plane deviates significantly from it's plotted course, drops off radar or breaks off communication. If the plane cannot be raised on radio the ATC's boss then rings NORAD, who scramble a plane. Why was this protocol successfully followed plenty of other times in 2001, but somehow only broke down on 9/11?
 
Back
Top Bottom