WTC 11/9/2001 - conspiracy or not?

[Slug]

Moderator's note:

This topic originated as a side discussion in this thread, and was spun off into its own topic to avoid the original one being derailed any further.

 

[Tempusfugit]

Buildings don't fall into their footprint from damage half way up. The controlled demolition business would be a lot easier if this were the case.

Oh, and if the "cretins" want to get us, there are much easier ways than building and launching a nuke..

 

[Bob Maxey]

There weren't specific defenses against that.

And that's not the whole story. Buildings don't fall into their footprint from damage half way up. The controlled demolition business would be a lot easier if this were the case.

Oh, and if the "cretins" want to get us, there are much easier ways than building and launching a nuke..

So . . . do I e-smell an "inside job" conspiracy theory about the Twin Towers?

And for the record, Bob knows about the demolition business. Especially the explosives end. Just saying . . .

And yes, I recognize that there are easier ways to cause us harm. Duh!

Bob

 

[Tempusfugit]

So . . . do I e-smell an "inside job" conspiracy theory about the Twin Towers?

And for the record, Bob knows about the demolition business. Especially the explosives end. Just saying . . .

And yes, I recognize that there are easier ways to cause us harm. Duh!

Bob

Maybe

Then you know to have a building fall into its footprint, the support columns(47 of them? been a while) need to be drilled, wrapped in primacord, filled with c4, etc, and even then buildings with 1/100th the structural integrity still don't fall right every time after months of planning and wiring explosives.

Or here. The bottom 30 floors were holding themselves just fine, plus all the weight above, why would the top go through them, instead of tipping over? The initial crash left over half the structural columns intact top to bottom, and those too, magically fell into themselves.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Maybe

Then you know to have a building fall into its footprint, the support columns(47 of them? been a while) need to be drilled, wrapped in primacord, filled with c4, etc, and even then buildings with 1/100th the structural integrity still don't fall right every time after months of planning and wiring explosives.

Or here. The bottom 30 floors were holding themselves just fine, plus all the weight above, why would the top go through them, instead of tipping over? The initial crash left over half the structural columns intact top to bottom, and those too, magically fell into themselves.

the combination of the way the towers were built, planning regulations (buildings MUST pankcake, not topple..) and the roaring fire was of high enough temperature to weaken supports, would be a decent explanation

 

[Tempusfugit]

the combination of the way the towers were built,

You mean the way it was built with airliner strikes in mind? Oh ya.

planning regulations (buildings MUST pankcake, not topple..)

Well its weird that even after weakening columns and planting explosives in every support and load bearing wall, on much more squat buildings(footprint/height) for controlled demotion, they still topple occasionally.

and the roaring fire was of high enough temperature to weaken supports, would be a decent explanation

A roaring fire can weaken steel, yes(doesn't explain the molten steel found at ground zero, that's another story though). Play it through in your head. Less than half were "weakened" on one side over half way up. How does that pancake and not topple?

 

[ElasticNinja]

You mean the way it was built with airliner strikes in mind? Oh ya.

unlike most buildings they had main supports externally - big difference

Well its weird that even after weakening columns and planting explosives in every support and load bearing wall, on much more squat buildings(footprint/height) for controlled demotion, they still topple occasionally.

in cities with these laws?

A roaring fire can weaken steel, yes(doesn't explain the molten steel found at ground zero, that's another story though). Play it through in your head. Less than half were "weakened" on one side over half way up. How does that pancake and not topple?

because the fire spread quickly

 

[Bob Maxey]

and where would those Iranian karzies who nuked Israel go?
unless they have a massive underground Bunker system

If they become truly fanatical, bunkers will not be needed because they are willing die for their cause. It would be suicide to attack Israel, because they know one possible outcome: no more Iran. If they reach a point where they absolutely believe that Israel must be wiped away, you really think they care about dying?

They know what will happen and I have a feeling that they will not attack with nuclear weapons because I am not convinced that deep down inside the leaders want death. They want others to die, certainly, but the leaders want to live.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

A roaring fire can weaken steel, yes(doesn't explain the molten steel found at ground zero, that's another story though). Play it through in your head. Less than half were "weakened" on one side over half way up. How does that pancake and not topple?

Not a surprise to find molten steel at the site.

Let me tell you this one simple fact: freaky things happen when airliners filled with fuel crash into big towers. Unfortunately, every odd and peculiar thing some wacky conspiracy theorist finds that is not immediately explained, is suspect. And a logical explanation is often dismissed as a cover up.

As for steel beams and fire, remember that the beams are often under stress. Hold a paper clip in a flame. Let it just sit there until red. It will not usually melt. Now grasp it with pliers, heat it up, and see just how little effort it takes to bend it.

Stop thinking that what happened was an inside job and stop looking for evidence to prove it was some god dam plot. You will find the lies and perhaps believe them because they seem logical, and you will be sad.

Bob

 

[Tempusfugit]

Keep the discussion on-topic please, fellas.

It is on topic, people irrationally distrust Iranians because they're from the middle east, and because of 9/11, every country in the middle east is labeled as extremist jihadist terrorists.

But I'll leave this one be after this just the same.

Not a surprise to find molten steel at the site.

Let me tell you this one simple fact: freaky things happen when airliners filled with fuel crash into big towers. Unfortunately, every odd and peculiar thing some wacky conspiracy theorist finds that is not immediately explained, is suspect. And a logical explanation is often dismissed as a cover up.

Freaky things like hydrocarbon fuels burning hotter than they've ever been recorded to in any lab, or any situation? Ya steel gets weaker, it doesn't turn into a puddle of MOLTEN metal, until it reaches its, wait for it, MELTING point.

As for steel beams and fire, remember that the beams are often under stress. Hold a paper clip in a flame. Let it just sit there until red. It will not usually melt. Now grasp it with pliers, heat it up, and see just how little effort it takes to bend it.

Ya that's why the weakened side would topple, and the rest of the INTERNAL(not external) supports would have been pulled OVER with it, not straight down into themselves(at free fall speeds mind you)

Stop thinking that what happened was an inside job and stop looking for evidence to prove it was some god dam plot. You will find the lies and perhaps believe them because they seem logical, and you will be sad.

Ya, its crazy to think it was a plot.. I mean what did they have to gain besides rewriting the constitution because of it?

 

[Slug]

It is on topic

No it wasn't. The topic was "Iran trying to buy nuclear missile parts". The off-topic posts have been moved to a new thread. Please carry on the discussion of the WTC atrocity here.

 

[Tempusfugit]

haha now it looks like bob started it

 

[Slug]

Fify

 

[Bob Maxey]

haha now it looks like bob started it

Guilty.

So lets discuss it. Why do so many people think it was an "inside job?"

Popular Science Magazine has done much research into this idea. So far, everything the conspiracy theorists say can be debunked. I'll say it again, strange things happen when planes filled with fuel crash into buildings.

So, what compelling facts or ideas tell you it was not just the planes that brought the towers down, but something far more sinister?

And should I say you do not know what you are talking about, that comment apples to the layperson. Fact is, I know about the chemistry, but Bob is not an expert of wiring a building for a controlled demolition.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

Fify

Fify? Clarify please Fifi=Fifty/Fifty?

Bob

 

[Tempusfugit]

Oh god, peace out.. That pop sci article was crap, so was the history channel special.. If that's what you're bringing to the table, think what you want.

and its fixed it for you

 

[shawheim_a]

for all you guys who dont believe it was an inside job, watch a movie called Loose Change. it made me look at the whole thing totally different.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Freaky things like hydrocarbon fuels burning hotter than they've ever been recorded to in any lab, or any situation? Ya steel gets weaker, it doesn't turn into a puddle of MOLTEN metal, until it reaches its, wait for it, MELTING point.



Ya that's why the weakened side would topple, and the rest of the INTERNAL(not external) supports would have been pulled OVER with it, not straight down into themselves(at free fall speeds mind you)



Ya, its crazy to think it was a plot.. I mean what did they have to gain besides rewriting the constitution because of it?

Consider this: there are many paradoxes in chemistry and physics. For example, it has been observed that in certain circumstances, warm water freezes faster than colder water.

So, perhaps if what you say is true, there is a rational explanation for it. I know that certain common metals like aluminum can be added to a metals that lower the metal's melting point. Perhaps it is something like that?

Consider something I have first-hand experience with, Wood's Alloy or Wood's Metal. It is made from bismuth, lead, tin, and cadmium. Alone, none of these metals will melt in hot water. Combined, they do ment in hot water.

Bob

 

[Bob Maxey]

for all you guys who dont believe it was an inside job, watch a movie called Loose Change. it made me look at the whole thing totally different.

However, and to be fair, research those that have debunked that film. When you do, and if you are honest, you might discount Loose Change.

Loose Change 2nd Edition Viewer Guide

Bob

 

[Tempusfugit]

Consider this: there are many paradoxes in chemistry and physics. For example, it has been observed that in certain circumstances, warm water freezes faster than colder water.

Which circumstances would that be?

So, perhaps if what you say is true, there is a rational explanation for it. I know that certain common metals like aluminum can be added to a metals that lower the metal's melting point. Perhaps it is something like that?

Consider something I have first-hand experience with, Wood's Alloy or Wood's Metal. It is made from bismuth, lead, tin, and cadmium. Alone, none of these metals will melt in hot water. Combined, they do ment in hot water.

Bob

Perhaps, but its not. The exact steel used in the WTC(for this very reason) has a melting point well above what any hydrocarbon fuel can burn at.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Oh god, peace out.. That pop sci article was crap, so was the history channel special.. If that's what you're bringing to the table, think what you want.

and its fixed it for you

OK, why? Specifics please. Or do you really not care about the truth?

Bob

 

[shawheim_a]

just because you googled loose change and hot linked something from your findings doesnt mean you are right. have you watched it? i have. both movies. im just saying you never know whats up.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Which circumstances would that be?

Perhaps, but its not. The exact steel used in the WTC(for this very reason) has a melting point well above what any hydrocarbon fuel can burn at.

The physics is complete; what actually happens to steel beams in big fires is well known and your bone of contention has been picked clean by people who know. What you describe is not part of a serious physics discussion because it is misleading. I'll trust those that know because it is their job to know.

Also, where is this so called melted and puddled metal?

A few random quotes:

"Conspiracy theorists love to quote retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, who said "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire." But they conveniently omit the second half of his sentence: "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"But for the conspiracy theory to work, you have to dismiss any statements made by any official or independent agency, because they could all be part of the conspiracy. The only figures considered reliable are those which differ significantly from official reports. Even expert Rosie O'Donnell told us "It's the first time in history that fire has melted steel."

Go here: The Twin Towers: Fire Melting Steel

Unfortunately, the science matters very little as long as there are folks that selectively choose the science that is readily falsified with a clever turn of phrase, to convince a largely unsophisticated public that it must be the government and a big, fat cover-up.

Bob

 

[Tempusfugit]

"Conspiracy theorists love to quote retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, who said "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire." But they conveniently omit the second half of his sentence: "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"But for the conspiracy theory to work, you have to dismiss any statements made by any official or independent agency, because they could all be part of the conspiracy. The only figures considered reliable are those which differ significantly from official reports. Even expert Rosie O'Donnell told us "It's the first time in history that fire has melted steel."

lol. This is my problem with the popular mechanics article and every attempt to debunk. You take ONE claim, and debunk that ONE, and it automatically debunks everything.. More than one person claimed to have seen molten steel, AND there are pictures.

And when that doesn't work, use plan 2, blame it on Rosie.. Ya I've heard it all before Bob... Have a good one...

You still didn't answer, when does warm water freeze faster?

 

[Bob Maxey]

just because you googled loose change and hot linked something from your findings doesnt mean you are right. have you watched it? i have. both movies. im just saying you never know whats up.

Yes, I have watched it. I watched three of the four versions of the film, actually. I know that Jason Bermas is affiliated with Alex Jones. And if you believe Alex Jones, you need to rethink a few things.

And I have read many reports and articles that debunked it; I know at least one person that was to be interviewed for the original version was dropped because he is a smart and reasonable architect and refused to agree with the premise of the film.

It is simply not worth considering unless you are of the mind that if it is in a movie, it must be right.

Bob