Remembering 9/11 - 20 years on

Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
10,176
Location
Sussex
Do not waste your time debating with people who consume conspiracy on this one would be my advice. It’s a fruitless debate of “yea but”

Its sound advice Housey. Sometimes it’s difficult not to bite when dealing with such magnitudes of lunacy.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,128
This is clearly nonsense. The jets are captured on camera and were witnessed by hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses. How this is some how ‘dodgy’ is beyond me. The intensity of the fires caused the demolition, the floors weakened and the sheer weight of the structure made the buildings come down. Frankly it’s amazing that the buildings withstood the hit from a a fully laden 767 so well in the first place.

They should have withstood them better - possibly sub-standard work in the first place or sub-standard maintenance contributed to them coming down (as has unfortunately been a story in the US and building collapses). IIRC buildings like this are designed around a failure mode into their own footprint but still a bit odd they all came down in such a fashion but we don't exactly have a lot of similar events to go on as to how often that would happen if you re-ran similar circumstances.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
10,176
Location
Sussex
They should have withstood them better - possibly sub-standard work in the first place or sub-standard maintenance contributed to them coming down (as has unfortunately been a story in the US and building collapses). IIRC buildings like this are designed around a failure mode into their own footprint but still a bit odd they all came down in such a fashion but we don't exactly have a lot of similar events to go on as to how often that would happen if you re-ran similar circumstances.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

The problem was the tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. No one imagined during the design that such a plane would be launched in to the buildings at speed, fully laden.

It must be near impossible to make a building totally failure proof. If you hit something with enough force, or burn it with such intensity for long enough, ultimately it will come down. It’s just a structure ultimately - admittedly one with a very big footprint, so not small at all. But we are talking about a 767 with 90,000 gallons of fuel, and a weight of well over 100,000 kg at 400+ mph.
 

jcr

jcr

Associate
Joined
29 May 2011
Posts
1,816
Location
southampton
https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html


It must be near impossible to make a building totally failure proof. If you hit something with enough force, or burn it with such intensity for long enough, ultimately it will come down. It’s just a structure ultimately - admittedly one with a very big footprint, so not small at all. But we are talking about a 767 with 90,000 gallons of fuel, and a weight of well over 100,000 kg at 400+ mph.
there werent any 747's or thousands of gallons of fuel in building 7
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
10,176
Location
Sussex
there werent any 747's or thousands of gallons of fuel in building 7

That’s true, but there was a heck of a lot of debris, and fires that raged for hours. The damage weakened some of the main supports which eventually gave way. Firefighters evacuated the building because they could see it was structurally compromised and was continuing to deteriorate until it’s collapse.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,918
Location
Northern England
That’s true, but there was a heck of a lot of debris, and fires that raged for hours. Firefighters evacuated the building because they could see it was structurally compromised and was continuing to deteriorate until it’s collapse.

They didn't just rage for hours, they were completely uncontrolled.
Bigger fish to fry at that point!
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posts
7,376
That’s true, but there was a heck of a lot of debris, and fires that raged for hours. The damage weakened some of the main supports which eventually gave way. Firefighters evacuated the building because they could see it was structurally compromised and was continuing to deteriorate until it’s collapse.

you do realize that the two towers were the first buildings to collapse in history from a burning building. And also Trade Centre 7 was "pulled" after the planes hit.

Its been a setup, and so obvious that it is the case.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Jul 2021
Posts
160
Location
Warwickshire
you do realize that the two towers were the first buildings to collapse in history from a burning building. And also Trade Centre 7 was "pulled" after the planes hit.

Its been a setup, and so obvious that it is the case.
I don't believe it was a setup, on what purpose? It is entirely plausible that the buildings collapsed. The reason it looked like a controlled demolition is because the structural steel was Compromised and with the weight of the upper floors,etc coming down on top of destroying the lower floors. It was the first skyscraper to collapse from fire and still remains the only megastructure to have collapsed from fire to this day, it is not the first building to have collapsed from fire.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
10,176
Location
Sussex
Too many open questions for the conspiracy brigade to answer.

What if the planes never made it? Would they just have blown the buildings up anyway? Where were the explosives? How come no one ever saw any explosives anywhere? You ever seen a rigged building? People were working in those offices. Was Osama on the pay roll as well, he was in on it alongside the US ‘government’? The plane hits and yet somehow all this explosives remain intact on the exact floors where the plane hits, as that’s where the collapse began (you can see it on film).

Just the concept alone is laughable - there’s so many cogs turning, variables, open points.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Jul 2021
Posts
160
Location
Warwickshire
I was only around 10 at the time, I remember coming back from school and seeing my parents watching it on the TV and remember thinking that it was a demolition program and were demolishing tower blocks, however it soon became apparent that wasn't the case. I still remember a clip on the news where an upset lady was being filmed frantically trying to phone someone who was believed to be inside the tower. I remember thinking even at that age it was in poor taste to film it.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posts
7,376
Well, to start, the man who owned the trade centers and building 7, admitted on TV that the controlled demolition (pulled) was done because "the building was compromised and dangerous", but how could they control demolition the building a few hours after the planes hit? as a controlled demolition takes weeks to prepare and execute..hmm??
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
10,176
Location
Sussex
Well, to start, the man who owned the trade centers and building 7, admitted on TV that the controlled demolition (pulled) was done because "the building was compromised and dangerous", but how could they control demolition the building a few hours after the planes hit? as a controlled demolition takes weeks to prepare and execute..hmm??

Been debunked time and time again. If the theory is based purely the use of certain words, it’s effectively baseless, because there is no other evidence to support it. This also makes the suggestion that the firefighters or their commanders were also involved. Laughable.

‘In the PBS documentary America Rebuilds,which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled, contradicting theorists' allegation that "pull" was used in a demolition-related sense’.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,128
To be fair there is a difference between the work involved to do a professional, properly prepared controlled demolition and the bare minimum to rig a building to bring it down if you don't care for the consequences.

Although there is a lot against an intentional rigging it isn't completely unfeasible - there were several empty floors, no one ever questions or gives much thought to workers coming and going, etc.

Not to say that happened but it isn't completely outside of feasible.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2002
Posts
10,176
Location
Sussex
Which floors were empty? The buildings can be seen collapsing in to the floors that were hit by the planes. People were working on those floors.
 
Back
Top Bottom