9/11 - what happened?

What brought down the three towers?

  • Damage caused directly (for 1 & 2) and indirectly (for 7) by the impact of the plane

    Votes: 44 74.6%

  • Controlled demolition

    Votes: 15 25.4%
  • Total voters
    59
rockdrummer said:
Oh Geeze!.. Against my better judjement I feel compelled to point this out. There was no mention of the steel melting. Can you entertain the idea that the heat compromises the structural integrety thus causing the failure. All that is needed is enough heat to cause deflection to a point of failure. Can you dig it!!! Or perhaps you think this is another conspiracy perpetrated by the US government.
Click to expand...

"San Jose-based structural engineer John Coyle told CBS Station KPIX that the intense heat likely compromised the integrity of the steel that supported the connector ramp, causing it to melt...."

Eh, conspiracy.....????

Show me a steel/concrete structure where steel melted due to fire and collapsed...
 
Perhaps your definitions of "melting" are different.

It sounds like you're thinking about an ice cube melting in the microwave.

Rockdrummer refers to how heat can damage the structural integrity of metal to the degree that it becomes malleable. Kind of like how swords were made, back in medieval times. That kind of intense heat excites molecules, causes metal to expand and lose its rigidity.

I don't think we're talking about melting to the point that it becomes like mercury in a thermometer...
 
InTheGenes said:
Perhaps your definitions of "melting" are different.

It sounds like you're thinking about an ice cube melting in the microwave.

Rockdrummer refers to how heat can damage the structural integrity of metal to the degree that it becomes malleable. Kind of like how swords were made, back in medieval times. That kind of intense heat excites molecules, causes metal to expand and lose its rigidity.

I don't think we're talking about melting to the point that it becomes like mercury in a thermometer...
Click to expand...
Exactly! And if the heat from a fire can't compromise the structural integrety, then Mr Cloggy.. what is your theory??? What do you think happened?
 
I just love dropping by this thread for it's entertainment value! Lol!
 
xentar said:
..........Ever bother to read the whole actual unedited quote that isn't butchered by conspiracy theorists? Now you can!
Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...
Pay attention to the sentences that are bold.

All the other popular "quotes" you (and others) love to use and repeat over and over? Try finding the whole quote and you'll find out that almost every single one of them were taken out of context. That says a lot, doesn't it.
Click to expand...
...

Towers come down in free-fall speed.
Free-fall speed is ONLY possible when supporting structures are removed, not with part of the building in tact.
Supporting structures are easily removed using explosives,
Explosives can be seen as described by the firefighter,

I agree, that a building collapsing due to fire might have look the same EXCEPT that it would not come down in 10 seconds....

So, the collapse of the towers based on demolition is supported by the testimony of the firefighter.

BTW... XENTAR... Since you are interested to find out....

Do YOU have some other explanation the buildings took less than 10 seconds to fall on their footprint...???
 
Cloggy said:
...

Towers come down in free-fall speed.
Free-fall speed is ONLY possible when supporting structures are removed, not with part of the building in tact.
Supporting structures are easily removed using explosives,
Explosives can be seen as described by the firefighter,

I agree, that a building collapsing due to fire might have look the same EXCEPT that it would not come down in 10 seconds....

So, the collapse of the towers based on demolition is supported by the testimony of the firefighter.

BTW... XENTAR... Since you are interested to find out....

Do YOU have some other explanation the buildings took less than 10 seconds to fall on their footprint...???
Click to expand...

I hope that page had an impact on you, exposing the reality that the quotes being used by conspiracy theorists turned out they were being completely taken out of context.

As for the "free-falling" and "explosives must be use" argument, have a look at this video here:

South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church. - Google Video

If you can't see the sheer size of it all, and the inward buckling ...well...you're on your own here.
 
xentar said:
I hope that page had an impact on you, exposing the reality that the quotes being used by conspiracy theorists turned out they were being completely taken out of context.

As for the "free-falling" and "explosives must be use" argument, have a look at this video here:

South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church. - Google Video

If you can't see the sheer size of it all, and the inward buckling ...well...you're on your own here.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link.
 
rockdrummer said:
Still no answer to the question. Hmmm.... Interesting.
Click to expand...
You said ".....And if the heat from a fire can't compromise the structural integrety, then Mr Cloggy.. what is your theory??? What do you think happened?"

And I agree with that. Heat will compromise structural integrety.
I commented on the "fact" that the heat melted the steel.. which is nonsense...

As for the road. These structures are designed to carry downward forces. The explosion (giving a force oposite the designed forces it needs to old) and subsequent heat appearently was beyond the design limits.

BTW... regarding raging fires causing structures to collapse....
Cloggy said:
This article....
The February 13, 1975 North Tower Fire has been carefully hidden from you. Here are a few reports concerning it.


Building ** Date ** Fire Duration (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Trade Center North Tower ** February 13, 1975 ** 3 to 4
World Trade Center North Tower ** September 11, 2001 ** 1¾ (note 1)
World Trade Center South Tower ** September 11, 2001 ** 1 (note 1)
World Trade Center Seven ** September 11, 2001 ** (note 2)
1st Interstate Bank Building ** May 4-5, 1988 ** 3.5
Broadgate Phase 8 ** June 23rd, 1990 ** 4.5
1 New York Plaza Fire ** August 5, 1970 ** 6
One Meridian Plaza ** February 23-24, 1991 ** 19 (11 uncontrolled)

(note 1) The time after which the towers collapsed. Before September 11, 2001 no high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
(note 2) It is claimed that WTC Seven collapsed due to fire. Fire duation is unknown. Fire severity is unknown. Photos of small localized fires exist. No evidence of a large fire at WTC 7 exists. Though hundreds of photographers were taking photos of the ruins of the twin towers, none bothered to photograph the "raging" fire across the street (Vesey St) at World Trade Center Seven. I guess that a "raging" fire in a 47-story building, is such a commonplace occurrence in New York, that the photographers just ignored it, even though it was only a few hundred feet away from them. Just couldn't see a good story in it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
xentar said:
..........As for the "free-falling" and "explosives must be use" argument, have a look at this video here:

South Tower Falls, shot front of Trinity Church. - Google Video

If you can't see the sheer size of it all, and the inward buckling ...well...you're on your own here.
Click to expand...

You're not focusing...
I am not talking about HOW it collapsed. I am saying that it collapsed in a time that can only be explained by controlled demolition......
Find a shot where you can see the whole building collapse, and count the seconds.
Another hint... Debris ejected!! from the building is falling at the same speed as the buildings collapse... or as the official theory goes... "pancakes"....

Pancaking would have taken ideally 110 seconds... and there would be a big pile of debris....
No 110 seconds to fall, no big pile of floors !!! It was all blown to dust..

You have another explanation.... ?????

(Have a look here if you forgot 4th grade physics.)
___________________________________________________________________________
ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME !!!
 
Cloggy said:
You're not focusing...
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that video didn't turn on a lightbulb in your head. There's a reason why I showed you that video.

Instead I'll take the time explain.
Cloggy said:
I am not talking about HOW it collapsed. I am saying that it collapsed in a time that can only be explained by controlled demolition......

Find a shot where you can see the whole building collapse, and count the seconds.
Another hint... Debris ejected!! from the building is falling at the same speed as the buildings collapse... or as the official theory goes... "pancakes"....

Pancaking would have taken ideally 110 seconds... and there would be a big pile of debris....
No 110 seconds to fall, no big pile of floors !!! It was all blown to dust..

You have another explanation.... ?????

(Have a look here if you forgot 4th grade physics.)
Click to expand...
Do you know what you're doing wrong? You're comparing the twin towers to a typical demolition setup. You're acting like the twin towers imploded from the very top level of the building and went down all by it self.

Take another look at the video. Did a lightbulb go off yet? Do you finally see the huge upper tower in its sheer size crushing the weight of the heated floors? Yes, it's that upper part of the building that's crushing down the building.

In the manner of falling down, it is equivalent to a free fall BECAUSE something is pushing it down. Yes, its the behemoth top part of the undamaged building thats pancaking all of the floors beneath it. You say pancaking would ideally take 110 seconds, does that include the upper portion of the building? Are any of them the sheer size of the twin towers? (Are you forgetting how big that building is?)

Why do people keep dismissing this important part? Take away the that upper part of the building and you would have a serious case of demolition. Now put back that huge upper part of the tower and whaddya know, kinda puts everything into perspective doesn't it?

"Debris ejected" yeah, they have to go somewhere if the floors are pancaking.
"No building ever been brought down by fire" yeah, none of them were hit by a Boeing 767. This isn't your grandfather's little plane. Instead of going around in circles here, this is what I want you to do.

I've read all the websites you've already read. (really) I've watched all the videos they produced (including loose change). Why don't you give your self a chance to see the "other" side of the equation here. If anything, you'll expand your mind.

Start reading this page:
Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition
Feel free to explore the other pages on that site.
 
xentar said:
I'm surprised that video didn't turn on a lightbulb in your head. There's a reason why I showed you that video.

Instead I'll take the time explain.

Do you know what you're doing wrong? You're comparing the twin towers to a typical demolition setup. You're acting like the twin towers imploded from the very top level of the building and went down all by it self.

Take another look at the video. Did a lightbulb go off yet? Do you finally see the huge upper tower in its sheer size crushing the weight of the heated floors? Yes, it's that upper part of the building that's crushing down the building.

In the manner of falling down, it is equivalent to a free fall BECAUSE something is pushing it down. Yes, its the behemoth top part of the undamaged building thats pancaking all of the floors beneath it. You say pancaking would ideally take 110 seconds, does that include the upper portion of the building? Are any of them the sheer size of the twin towers? (Are you forgetting how big that building is?)

Why do people keep dismissing this important part? Take away the that upper part of the building and you would have a serious case of demolition. Now put back that huge upper part of the tower and whaddya know, kinda puts everything into perspective doesn't it?

"Debris ejected" yeah, they have to go somewhere if the floors are pancaking.
"No building ever been brought down by fire" yeah, none of them were hit by a Boeing 767. This isn't your grandfather's little plane. Instead of going around in circles here, this is what I want you to do.

I've read all the websites you've already read. (really) I've watched all the videos they produced (including loose change). Why don't you give your self a chance to see the "other" side of the equation here. If anything, you'll expand your mind.

Start reading this page:
Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition
Feel free to explore the other pages on that site.
Click to expand...
Been there done that. Good luck
 
xentar said:
..............
Do you know what you're doing wrong? You're comparing the twin towers to a typical demolition setup. You're acting like the twin towers imploded from the very top level of the building and went down all by it self.

Take another look at the video. Did a lightbulb go off yet? Do you finally see the huge upper tower in its sheer size crushing the weight of the heated floors? Yes, it's that upper part of the building that's crushing down the building.

In the manner of falling down, it is equivalent to a free fall BECAUSE something is pushing it down. Yes, its the behemoth top part of the undamaged building thats pancaking all of the floors beneath it. You say pancaking would ideally take 110 seconds, does that include the upper portion of the building? Are any of them the sheer size of the twin towers? (Are you forgetting how big that building is?)
A weight in free fall doesn't push. If it is pushing, it is because something is slowing it down, like parts of the structure that are still intact. That's why in a collapse, like the official suggestion, it would take MORE than 10 seconds... in the 100+ seconds... (And yes, that has been calculated..)
Click to expand...
Why do people keep dismissing this important part? Take away the that upper part of the building and you would have a serious case of demolition. Now put back that huge upper part of the tower and whaddya know, kinda puts everything into perspective doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. The top part of one of the towers breaks away and seems to fall by itself. It slides to the side and falls... that would eliminate any pressure onthe rest of the building.... so why would it collapse anywat. Everything below the 80th floor was still intact.... that is regarding the official version.
What the official version is ignoring the FACT that BEFORe the planes hit the towers, there were explosions on the lowest floors.... Footage of firefighters entering the foyer show destruction there.... from a plane that hit 90 floors up.... ????
Click to expand...
"Debris ejected" yeah, they have to go somewhere if the floors are pancaking.
"No building ever been brought down by fire" yeah, none of them were hit by a Boeing 767. This isn't your grandfather's little plane. Instead of going around in circles here, this is what I want you to do.
Pancaking... what happened with the 47 columns inthe middle. The official version conveniently forgot about these. The even showed an animation where the towers "pancaked" but... no centre-columns....
True, none were hit by a 767. Then again, the empire state building has been hit by a bomber-plane. I still stands.
And WTC-7 was not hit by a plane. Hardly hit by debris.... how did that come down..... again, free-falll.... better forget about that one.... (that's what they did in the 911-commission... just forgot about it..)
Click to expand...
I've read all the websites you've already read. (really) I've watched all the videos they produced (including loose change). Why don't you give your self a chance to see the "other" side of the equation here. If anything, you'll expand your mind.
You might have visited them, you haven't read them. You watched, but you did not notice.. I think you made your mind up before you started.
Click to expand...
Start reading this page:
Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition
Feel free to explore the other pages on that site.
Click to expand...
I have been there and found no satisfying explanation for the WTC's to have collapsed.....
What was their explanation for WTC-7?
The bioggest evidence for controlled demolition is actually silverstein... "Decided to pull it" which is a straighfroward term for controlled demolition... They demolished WTC-7 on purpose. And for it to be pulled down in such a short period, the charges had to have been planted far ahead in time...

I'll visit "debunking" again... see what's new..
 
Cloggy I'm seeing the same arguments being used over and over again. (Mine included) It's deja vu all over again.

I'm going to have to withdraw from doing any debating in this thread. Not because I can't, but because it's too time consuming and there's enough materials out there where we can form our own conclusions. I've already had my fair of fun doing this in another forum, but it does gets tiring. (and boring)

I will say however, there is a conspiracy nevertheless and there are a few lingering questions that warrants an answer. (Hello, Iraq war?)

And lets impeach Bush already.
 
Back
Top