BBC 911 conspiracy?

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:44

Dogoid said:
the two towers were specifically designed to withstand not 1 passenger plane crashing into it, but 5 from different angles at the same time.

not me who claims this , but the architect who designed the buildings.

You're saying the building was designed to withstand five 767s hitting the building simultaneously from different angles?

What utter ****.

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:46

Jokester said:
Actually, they were designed to withstand the impact of one jetliner, which they did actually withstand. Just they never considered the impact of the following fire.

Jokester

That's what I read too, from an architect's report incidentally. So it's strange where he's got that information from. Perhaps on the back of a beermat which had been scribbled down by a drunk?

Jokester · 5 Aug 2007 at 14:50

iCraig said:
That's what I read too, from an architect's report incidentally. So it's strange where he's got that information from. Perhaps on the back of a beermat which had been scribbled down by a drunk?

Maybe Jeb Bush told him about it whilst he was busy demolishing the other building.

Jokester

chaparral · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:01

What have they used the space for where the twin towers used to be ??

Malt_Vinegar · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:12

Moses99p said:
But the planes didn't knock the towers down did they, its was the kerosine burning at stupidly high temperatures.

Not possible, the steel in the buildings would need sustained temperatures of more than double the maximum temp of burning jet fuel, even in ideal conditions.

The fire in the WTC towers was not sustained, and not clean burning, infact the amount of smoke present suggests a very dirty fire, with poor temperatures. Meaning that the temperatures needed to make the steel lose its ability to hold up the building could not be reached.

Also, the fire was only part way up the building, how come the core steel structure in the whole building just dissapeared? This would not happen all the way down the building, even if the fire had been hot enough to melt the steel in ther affected area.

Also, have you seen the wreckage pictures of the steel from WTC. The main steel core has a series of perfect diagonal line cuts which ONLY occour when blasted with a precision exlosive charge used in demolition.

gillywibble · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:17

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:20

Why are you showing us where they cut the steel to aid movement of the debris? :confused:

Malt_Vinegar · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:21

Moses99p said:
Its not the main structure that got weaken terribly, more the individual floors. Then when those failed it just collapsed the whole thing.

And i haven't seen said photos so can't really comment, linky? And if they look cut they may have been after the event or in the subsequent search for survivors.

This would leave the main structure in-tact. Its designed to carry the weight of the building, its not going to suddenly stop holding the weight it has for years, if anything it would be stronger without the expect load!

Watch this video, it answers all these questions.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

gillywibble · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:22

iCraig said:
Why are you showing us where they cut the steel to aid movement of the debris?

Evidence?

Malt_Vinegar · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:23

Its the shape of the cut that is significant. - Watch the video.

chaparral · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:24

Malt_Vinegar said:
Watch this video, it answers all these questions.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Am downloading this now (535mb going be over 2 hours to download for me

)

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:26

Gillywibble said:
Evidence?

Evidence of what? That they cut the steel?

During clean-up operations like that, they always do stuff like that to stabilise the debris and to help move it later on.

You know the bridge that's recently collapsed in the US? You saw them doing it on the news in the background. It's not anything sinister.

Malt_Vinegar · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:26

Moses99p said:
yes, designed to hold a building. Not a building accelerating at ~9.8m/s/s, momentum is a powerful thing.

If you put an egg on a table the shell supports it, if you drop it from 1cm the shell fails. << best analogy ever ;D

Demolition experts would disagree

Nice analogy though!

gillywibble · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:27

iCraig said:
Evidence of what? That they cut the steel?

Sorry I thought you had proof that the steel was cut after the collapse. That is what is implied from your post.

iCraig · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:32

Gillywibble said:
Sorry I thought you had proof that the steel was cut after the collapse. That is what is implied from your post.

The steel is cut very well, it doesn't look like it was part of the structure that was apparently blew up with explosives.

You could always hunt through some aftermath footage of 9/11 and take a look at the crews beginning the clear up if you're not convinced. It's easier to watch bias documentaries though isn't it?

The other thing that doesn't make sense if that was done to bring the building down, surely they'd think, we better not, in case somebody spots the cuts?

Jokester · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:32

Moses99p said:
yes, designed to hold a building. Not a building accelerating at ~9.8m/s/s, momentum is a powerful thing.

If you put an egg on a table the shell supports it, if you drop it from 1cm the shell fails. << best analogy ever ;D

People seem to forget that, the top part of the building weighed tens of thousands of tonnes and approximately 3 floors were completed destroyed and didn't offer much of any resistance once it started dropping and after dropping 50 feet or however far it was the kinetic energy it had gained would have been massive.

Jokester

[DOD]Asprilla · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:34

I fail to see how anyone who has any experience of government, the military or any large organisation believes that this who thing was a put up job by the US Government.

It's simply not possible for them to pull if off successfully without too many people finding out and finding incontrovertible truth.

Oh, and as with most conspiracy theories for every point the theorists have with an expert to back them up I'm sure I can find an equally sure expert with the opposite opinion.

I'd back Occam's Razor in this situation. So many people saw it happen the way it's claimed that it probably did.

gillywibble · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:36

iCraig said:
You could always hunt through some aftermath footage of 9/11 and take a look at the crews beginning the clear up if you're not convinced.

Fair comment.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know whether it is normal to cut steel at an angle rather than straight in clean up operations?

[DOD]Asprilla · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:40

Gillywibble said:
Fair comment.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know whether it is normal to cut steel at an angle rather than straight in clean up operations?

Horses for courses, would depend upon the situation at the time; e.g. surrounding rubble or if you wanted it to fall in a certain direction.

2Thumbs · 5 Aug 2007 at 15:43

iCraig said:
It makes no sense to plough planes into them then does it?

If it was a cover-up to blame terrorists, just blow the buildings up and say terrorists infiltrated the building over a period of weeks, planted hidden explosives in the buildings' weak spots and then blew them up on the morning of 9/11.

Why do a song and dance faking hijackings and crashing planes into them when there's a much easier way. You're barking mad mate.

Not that I really want to get into this argument; but I think if it was a "controlled demolition" the planes were about theatrics/trying to get the publics attention before dropping the towers.

If they just hit the ground from explosions, the millions of eyes around the world wouldn't have seen it happen from all the camera's stuck on the WTC after the planes hit, thus not giving the desired effect of the willingness for the U.S to go to war.