Buildings don't fall down just because they're on fire pt911

Status
Not open for further replies.
I heard this mad theory.

A group of militant Islamic terrorist planned to commit a terrorist attack on America soil. The plan was hijack some planes and target various American landmarks and buildings. Two of these hijacked planes crashed straight into the World Trade Towers. The towers collapsed due to 2 big f***ing Boeing 757 crashing into them and causing all kinds of unimaginable damage. A group called Al-Qaeda calmed responsibility.

TBH I can all back this theory up with eye witness reports and facts.
 


ProfessionalMackem said:
Not going disagree with pretty much all that but I will say that what you posted and I posted can still be both true.

The bold bit. I agree wholeheartedly that it's not guaranteed to collapse properly due to fire. Id go further and say that's why we've never one in the past or since. Fire just doesn't bring down buildings in that fashion.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the structural failure would need to be so that the failure occurred allowing the upper floors to directly drop their weight perpendicular to the ground for a collapse on to itself. Whilst it is unlikely to ever occur by design (pre-planning for demolition), it is entirely possible that the central "heat" of the fire was concentrated towards the centre of both buildings due to the additional fuel on the planes. It would certainly be coincidental that both buildings achieved a similar fall on to themselves - whilst they did not directly fall on to their "footprint", they were both quite close (neither did a full topple). However, proving that as more than just coincidence would need details that may not even be available following the collapse, as the exact point of failure would need to be known along with the thermal effect on the directly surrounding materials.
 
Jardin said:
Agreed, the structural failure would need to be so that the failure occurred allowing the upper floors to directly drop their weight perpendicular to the ground for a collapse on to itself. Whilst it is unlikely to ever occur by design (pre-planning for demolition), it is entirely possible that the central "heat" of the fire was concentrated towards the centre of both buildings due to the additional fuel on the planes. It would certainly be coincidental that both buildings achieved a similar fall on to themselves - whilst they did not directly fall on to their "footprint", they were both quite close (neither did a full topple). However, proving that as more than just coincidence would need detailsA collapse could not be guaranteed as opposed to a topple so it would not be suitable that may not even be available following the collapse, as the exact point of failure would need to be known along with the thermal effect on the directly surrounding materials.
Click to expand...

That has been proposed, the fuel down the lift shafts. Primarily due to explosions in the basement and lobbies of the towers and the damage it caused. But some scientists have ruled it out because of a number of reasons. Firstly from the damage seen to central core. It was so dense no fire could have led to its total destruction. It's not like we saw any remants in the wreakage either. Another reason is the burning off of most of the fuel on impact. Another reason being the temperatures if the fires observed that day with black smoke.

Lastly. All these coincidences occurred that day. How many of these coincidences do we have to see until probability says we should think something is suss?
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
That has been proposed, the fuel down the lift shafts. Primarily due to explosions in the basement and lobbies of the towers and the damage it caused. But some scientists have ruled it out because of a number of reasons. Firstly from the damage seen to central core. It was so dense no fire could have led to its total destruction. It's not like we saw any remants in the wreakage either. Another reason is the burning off of most of the fuel on impact. Another reason being the temperatures if the fires observed that day with black smoke.

Lastly. All these coincidences occurred that day. How many of these coincidences do we have to see until probability says we should think something is suss?
Click to expand...
What's your theory then marra
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Not going disagree with pretty much all that but I will say that what you posted and I posted can still be both true.

The bold bit. I agree wholeheartedly that it's not guaranteed to collapse properly due to fire. Id go further and say that's why we've never one in the past or since. Fire just doesn't bring down buildings in that fashion.
Click to expand...
What about the building in the op?
 
kp10 said:
What's your theory then marra
Click to expand...

Big question. One I will get back to you on. I'm at work at the moment. It would help if you want clarification on any oddities that occurred that day. So I know where to start. It's a massive subject.

One thing I can say is whatever happened that day wasn't like what the official story tells us.
 
Question for truthers as this is clearly a 911 conspiracy thread.

If the powers that be were willing to orchestrate such a massive and damaging terrorist atrocity, why would they give a shit about the towers falling within their own footprint? I mean, in for a penny in for a pound once you get above a certain level.

Anyway, If they wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan because of oil, the military industrial complex or whatever, surely it would have been far easier to have a large number of small scale attacks or high profile assassinations to justify this?

I would find a conspiracy of that scale far more believable as it would be less damaging and less likely to be exposed whilst having the same outcome.

I can get my head around the justification for 911 conspiracy theories. Well I can, it is simpler to think that there is a hand on the tiller than the truth that a small group of individuals can change the course of human history because of their wacky ideologies and beliefs.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
That has been proposed, the fuel down the lift shafts. Primarily due to explosions in the basement and lobbies of the towers and the damage it caused. But some scientists have ruled it out because of a number of reasons. Firstly from the damage seen to central core. It was so dense no fire could have led to its total destruction. It's not like we saw any remants in the wreakage either. Another reason is the burning off of most of the fuel on impact. Another reason being the temperatures if the fires observed that day with black smoke.

Lastly. All these coincidences occurred that day. How many of these coincidences do we have to see until probability says we should think something is suss?
Click to expand...

I think the key word there is "some". Other scientists disagree. Unfortunately, given the massive damage to such a large structure it is near impossible to build a clear picture of where fuel went, what temperatures it reached whilst burning, whether any other existing "fuels" were simultaneously ignited, what damage would be expected (as the internal temperatures at the time are unknown), which structural parts failed first. It is certainly not something which could be definitively proved one way or the other following the event as their are too many variables. However, known physical principles are able to explain every element of the scenario to some degree, so there is not enough mystery element for me to wonder if it wasn't just as it appeared. It should also be noted that whilst both buildings fell in a similar manner, they were also struck by a similar object with similar combustibility and spread factors, so the end result being similar doesn't become as strange.

I can in no way vouch that it wasn't staged, that it wasn't explosives, planned or anything similar, but certainly I have not seen any element of the disaster which is not reasonably explained with known and proved scientific principles (that I am aware of!!!!).
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Big question. One I will get back to you on. I'm at work at the moment. It would help if you want clarification on any oddities that occurred that day. So I know where to start. It's a massive subject.

One thing I can say is whatever happened that day wasn't like what the official story tells us.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the buildings fell because they were hit by planes, fires in the building (from fuel, among other things) caused steel beams to weaken (beams which had already been damaged by the initial plane impact) and eventually fail. As soon as a few failed, the loads placed upon the remaining columns from the upper floors exceeds the capacity, so the remaining columns also fail. Columns on lower floors are now having to take the moving (collapsing) load of the upper floors and can't sustain that level of loading, and progressively fail.

I'm familiar with most of the theories about what happened, but it's my opinion that they can be explained
 
double maxim said:
Question for truthers as this is clearly a 911 conspiracy thread.

If the powers that be were willing to orchestrate such a massive and damaging terrorist atrocity, why would they give a shit about the towers falling within their own footprint? I mean, in for a penny in for a pound once you get above a certain level.

Anyway, If they wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan because of oil, the military industrial complex or whatever, surely it would have been far easier to have a large number of small scale attacks or high profile assassinations to justify this?

I would find a conspiracy of that scale far more believable as it would be less damaging and less likely to be exposed whilst having the same outcome.

I can get my head around the justification for 911 conspiracy theories. Well I can, it is simpler to think that there is a hand on the tiller than the truth that a small group of individuals can change the course of human history because of their wacky ideologies and beliefs.
Click to expand...

Some good questions which I have pondered over

First question.
Put simply mate. It's money. We had a good discussion on this in the last thread about Larry silverstein. Follow the money.

Here's a good vid on it mate.

Second question. This one is tougher to answer as you have to try and put yourself in their minds. I will try though. Right. One relatively big attack is better than smaller ones is down to a few reasons. First of all they needed a big paradym shift in human consciousness to getaway with eroding so many liberties and freedoms in a short space of time eg patriot act. To get away with making new departments to drain even more money from populace like department of homeland security etc. They detailed this all in the pnac document.

Your last sentence I don't agree with mate. Nee way these rag tag operation from a cave could've pulled off this job......without help.
 
I still like the way they perfected remote controlling planes into the towers, but then instead if doing the same at the pentagon they just lobbed a missile at it. Risky that mind, could've blown the whole thing. Luckily not one person saw said missile, phew.
 
dangermows said:
I still like the way they perfected remote controlling planes into the towers, but then instead if doing the same at the pentagon they just lobbed a missile at it. Risky that mind, could've blown the whole thing. Luckily not one person saw said missile, phew.
Click to expand...

It is no surprise that they didn't see the missile. It would have been painted in camouflage if it was a planned operation ;) :lol:
 
Jardin said:
I think the key word there is "some". Other scientists disagree. Unfortunately, given the massive damage to such a large structure it is near impossible to build a clear picture of where fuel went, what temperatures it reached whilst burning, whether any other existing "fuels" were simultaneously ignited, what damage would be expected (as the internal temperatures at the time are unknown), which structural parts failed first. It is certainly not something which could be definitively proved one way or the other following the event as their are too many variables. However, known physical principles are able to explain every element of the scenario to some degree, so there is not enough mystery element for me to wonder if it wasn't just as it appeared. It should also be noted that whilst both buildings fell in a similar manner, they were also struck by a similar object with similar combustibility and spread factors, so the end result being similar doesn't become as strange.

I can in no way vouch that it wasn't staged, that it wasn't explosives, planned or anything similar, but certainly I have not seen any element of the disaster which is not reasonably explained with known and proved scientific principles (that I am aware of!!!!).
Click to expand...

If you fancy reading some journals on the subject try a few of these mate.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/J911S/articles/
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Your last sentence I don't agree with mate. Nee way these rag tag operation from a cave could've pulled off this job......without help.
Click to expand...
The hijackers lived in the States, learned to fly there, etc etc, having been inspired by what they learned in Afghanistan. I think these "caves" you keep banging on about are a bit mythical.
 
Feel free to pop over there and speak the the survivors of the day (a lot of whom now work at the various 9/11 memorial centres dotted around the vicinity) and tell them it fell in its own footprint. there's a lot of construction going on and they still find pieces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top