9/11 nice, big and convincing document

[Determinado]

The amount of stories is really uncountable, there's also a lot of witnesses that state a lot of suspicious behavior before 9-11.

Just take a look at preparation
9-11 Research: WTC Security Gaps
The insider trading is also outragous, apparently there were some highly suspicious huge transactions before 9-11, that have somewhat minimized the economical loss (at least for certain people).
The whole stock exchange thing is propably the most intriguing, because you can check every detail about it at various sources.

So seriously, who blew up the towers then if all your paranoid, lame ass conspiracy theories are true? The US government? Whats their motive? Why would the US government kill off a few thousand of it's own people? Just to gain a few points of approval rating?

I honestly can't fathom how you can be so disrespectful to all the civilians and firefighters who died in those towers, and all the soldiers fighting in the middle east to prevent something like this from happening again. And all their families. What? Just because you "like to argue about these things?"

As I said in the opening post, I, nor other conspiracy discussers mean to insult/disrespect any friends/relatives of victims or the victims themselves. Just because it's a truely devastating event, does not mean that we should accept the truth as it is served by the government and media. In fact, we actually do an effort to uncover the truth, because we do not accept the loss of these innocent people. If someone kills a friend, you won't be happy if they put someone in jail for it. You'll be happy if they put the actual killer in jail.

Anyways, the main subject in conspiracy theories now is more how the attacks really happened and why those buildings actually collapsed. Fewer theories actually search for motives, linking them to suspicious stock exchange events and security events.
In a way I think people should actually respect conspiracy searchers, because what if they uncover the truth? Does it really not matter to you if Bin Laden or George Bush killed thousands of Americans? Of course it matters, whoever is responsible must be brought to justice. And going out there looking for somekind of Bin Laden guy whose connection has never been proven is just silly if no one agrees about the official story in the first place.

But once again, we search the truth, also if it hurts. I can understand that such a disaster is a touchy subject, but if you feel offended by it I suggest not to engage in the discussion and hear about it in the news should something be discovered and accepted.

[SpoonMan999]

This just isn't true. It's proven at p31 of the pdf, not just by the imagine but a lot more by the photograph of the WTC towers in construction.

Not every column is structural or even load bearing. I'm currently training to become a construction inspector and can tell you from my experience this part is completely accurate. From the design of the building the key structural supports only existed at the perimeter and core of the building.

The magnitude and effects of the fire are highly overrated.
First, because of the two towers collapsed in the entire same way. If jet fuel did it, how big are the changes the jet fuel spoiled in such a way the buildings collapsed in the same manner? We all saw that there was an explosion immediately after the plane vanished into the towers, so when did the fire start? Right then. Fire goes up. Jet fuel goes down. Do you think jet fuel will go faster down than it takes for the fire to spread through the fuel and light all the fuel? Because once the fuel is on fire, why would it still be able to spread to the lobby before it burned up?

Buildings catch fire and the fire spreads from floor to floor without jet fuel all the time. Paper, cloth, desks, etc... all flamable. And all it takes is one piece of debris to fall down an elevator shaft to catch lower floors on fire.

And most interesting is the fact people say the fire did most of it. That's just not true; the article states an example of the Windsor building in Madrid. It burned for 2 full days, go to p26 to see the result: It didn't collapse and most of it was still standing. Moreover: In this building some of the top floor also collapsed onto lower floors, but never such thing as the 'pancaketheory' was witnessed here.

Buildings are built differently, very rarely will you find two structures that are exactly the same (That aren't track homes). In this building you refer to it probably had a different design and a different level of fire protection. Also, the fireproofing probably wasn't blown off by a huge jet.

I don't know really, I don't know what kind of fire proofing they use on steel. I do know however, that only the fire proofing can be torn appart on the spot of impact, not above and not below.

Fire proofing used on buildings like this is typically a foam that is sprayed on and allowed to harden. They have different ratings, like one hour which takes one hour to burn through.

Don't know what you mean with this? If it's important please rephrase?

In the stair wells it was determined, in the investigation that followed, that the fireproofing was inadequate.

If such great pressure is coming from above, don't you think the huge structure that was coming down would have chosen the easiest way, the one of least resistance? It would have at least bend a bit, but it really didn't. And it went just that way with the other tower. And it went just that way with WTC7, and as you know, you can't say there was huge amounts of pressure coming from above there.

No, it's called inertia. When an object gains a great amount of momentum it will take an equal or greater force to stop it. That means, not only the same weight but the same amount of force caused from the collapse would have to be matched by the lower portion of the building. They collapsed inward because of the support system I mentioned in the previous thread. Also, the air being pushed out, causing the plumes, was finding the fastest way out by exiting through the windows.

There never has been coverage about WTC7 while no one is really saying blowing up WTC7 was a bad thing. As far as I know, there were no victims there at all. Simply admitting that this building was demolished for safety reasons or something would have made the situations look a lot more clear.
And diesel tanks? That would have been very clearly if it were indeed those that exploded. It would have been a big explosion, blowing off walls or parts of the building. WTC7 was undoubtly controlled demolition. It would be too much coincidence that 3 buildings collapse in the same way when no buildings have ever done this in history before, except for controlled demolition.

Now you're just going off of assumption. It burned for quite a while and fire fighters actually stopped fighting the blaze because the owner told them to just let it go. There were no people in there to be rescued and he didn't want the fire fighters to risk their lives to save a building. So, it eventually collapsed, of course the debree falling from the other buildings didn't help it's structural integrity.

[Determinado]

Not every column is structural or even load bearing. I'm currently training to become a construction inspector and can tell you from my experience this part is completely accurate. From the design of the building the key structural supports only existed at the perimeter and core of the building.

And so in each tower, and the WTC7 (which also collapsed straight down), the perimeter and core were damaged 1) Sufficiently for collapse 2) exactly the same.
Just looking at picture that zoom in a great deal shows that the plane did not penetrate as deep as would be required for that.
And also, you can't talk about the core as if it's just one single column. There are several load bearing columns, typically spread out for more stability, and you won't simply tell me that none of them wouldn't push the upper part to fall sideways, at least a bit.
Also the momentum is only in action when the upper part is already falling, the moment I describe is when it starts falling in the very beginning, at this moment at least one of the important columns must still be giving enough force and be connected to the upper part to make the building pull more on one side than the other side.

Griffin notes that the Commission Report even ignored the existence of the 47 steel core columns: “The outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch wide steel columns… These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.” [179]

Buildings catch fire and the fire spreads from floor to floor without jet fuel all the time. Paper, cloth, desks, etc... all flamable. And all it takes is one piece of debris to fall down an elevator shaft to catch lower floors on fire.

The 9/11 commission report states:
Chapter 9 takes up the notion that severe damage to the 77th floor, 22nd (security office) floor, the lobby, and B4 level of the North Tower was due to a “fireball” from airplane impact. [174]
Chapter 9 notes that by 9:58 a.m., the battalion chief [Orio Palmer] had reached the 78th floor on stairwell A of the South Tower; he reported that it looked open to the 79th floor, well into the impact zone. [175] This is a reference to the so called “lost tape” which verified that members of the fire department reached the scene of the crash zone of the South tower, which was NOT a blazing inferno, and thought they had things under control. [176]

Buildings are built differently, very rarely will you find two structures that are exactly the same (That aren't track homes). In this building you refer to it probably had a different design and a different level of fire protection. Also, the fireproofing probably wasn't blown off by a huge jet.

The twin towers are the same, the WTC7 and the towers aren't the same. However whatever caused either building to collapse was not the same. Yes, it were planes, but you can't say they crashed at exactly the same spot, doing exactly the same damage and causing the exact same collapse.

Fire proofing used on buildings like this is typically a foam that is sprayed on and allowed to harden. They have different ratings, like one hour which takes one hour to burn through.

Thanks, interesting. So this means that columns that were not hit by the plane, or parts that weren't hit on a column, would still have this fire proofing? Correct me if I'm wrong of course, I'm just logically thinking now with the information you gave.

Also, the air being pushed out, causing the plumes, was finding the fastest way out by exiting through the windows.

More interesting is the great amounts of debris being blown very far away horizontally. Best thing to look at is the incredible damage dealt to nearby structure and parts of the towers literally launched into them. Also there's little problem with the plumes; if the pancake theory is true, then the columns would either stand, or the plumes would only escape the moment we can actually see a huge cloud of dust and debris escaping as well because of the floors falling into eachother. In other words: they wouldn't be visible.

So, it eventually collapsed, of course the debree falling from the other buildings didn't help it's structural integrity.

You can drop lots and lots of stuff on a building, put it on fire, launch rockets on them, but really it wouldn't collapse straight down then.

Paragraph 2.2.3 contains interesting information, describing some things I said in this reply and more, about damage in the basement levels, explosions in the basement levels and fires at places that weren't expected to be on fire. Also paragraph 5.4.1 contains a statement that the fire was under control at crash spot.

Further in that paragraph there's some additional yet very interesting information. As you read in the above parts, no one expected the towers to collapse, and firefighters could only get out at the very last moment, or not even get out in time. Did no one expect it?

Griffin notes the statement made by former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani to the commission:

“We were operating out of there [the Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of WTC-7] when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.” [181] Griffin continues: “This is a remarkable statement. There was no publicly available reason to believe that the Twin Towers were going to collapse……The firemen going up the stairs in the South Tower certainly did not think it was about to collapse… Should the Commission not have asked Giuliani some questions about this statement, such as: Who told him the towers were about to collapse. The Commission’s report makes no mention of Giuliani’s statement.” [182] This is all the more interesting considering that EMT Richard Zarrillo, in a World Trade Center Task Force interview given on Oct 25 2001, stated that The Office of Emergency Management had prior knowledge of the tower Collapses: “OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out”

Oh man, I would just love to know what really happened that day. It must have been pure terror for the people in and around there, and the people who had relatives or friends in there. Although this is a huge act of terror, we shouldn't forget that terrorist attacks happen daily in Iraq.
No one can live there without fearing their life every single second.

[SpoonMan999]

Ok, let me go into more detail on the support system of the tower.

The columns on the outside of the tower were pretty much obliterated on the one side where the plane crashed. The supports in the building are designed so that in a case like this the load will be transfered to the core supports, because if it remained on the outside the building would fall to the side and probably kill a lot more people. When it transfered to the center it took a little while but the flames had weakened the steel enough to where the center couldn't hold it anymore, hence why you see it falling inward being that it was designed to collapse this way. The impact of the air craft knocked enough of the fire proofing off to weaken enough beams for those upper floors to come down. Also, they didn't fall compltely symmetrically.

As for the fire spreading, I don't know much about structural fires so I can't comment on that.

[Determinado]

that doesn't take away that more than 75% of the outer column were still standing though. They were made to carry up to 20x what they were carrying before anything hit the towers. And even if that is not true, you could assume that they could AT LEAST withold 5x what they were carrying before impact.

||=========
||OOOOOOO||
||OOO
||OOO
||OOOOOOO||
||=========


Okay this may look kind of silly, but don't tell me that if those columns ( || and = ) are still standing the structure would collapse. Apparently the building was made to carry the weight on the outer columns, which kind of makes it even more unbelievable.

[SpoonMan999]

that doesn't take away that more than 75% of the outer column were still standing though. They were made to carry up to 20x what they were carrying before anything hit the towers. And even if that is not true, you could assume that they could AT LEAST withold 5x what they were carrying before impact.

||=========
||OOOOOOO||
||OOO
||OOO
||OOOOOOO||
||=========


Okay this may look kind of silly, but don't tell me that if those columns ( || and = ) are still standing the structure would collapse. Apparently the building was made to carry the weight on the outer columns, which kind of makes it even more unbelievable.

Again, not all of those were load bearing, and again you fail to site sources. Other than an article that also failts to site sources.

[Determinado]

That's because one of the main reasons I believe those planes could not have caused the buildings to collapse, is the fact that there are no sources of buildings that have ever collapsed in that way. Being:
1) Straightdown
2) Collapsed by fire caused by fuel
3) Almost everything converted into dust
4) Leaving pools of molten metal behind

About building 7:
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Mention how confident he is:
Alternative theories..are...really...none of them have been found to be credible

The animation makes no sense at all, we see at left and right side (apparently at the same time even) floors start to fall and 'pull' the middle part with them. Well then take a look at the beginning of the video; another building going STRAIGHT down. Man, can't be more straight than that.

[pureblud]

Conspiracy, was planned and executed by the American government.
Bush is, and always be a tool.
May he be assassinated before he causes anymore harm.

[SpoonMan999]

God I hate idiotic posts in intelligent threads. Can I become a super mod again so I can just delete posts like this?

It'd be awfully hard to keep so many people quiet about such a huge event. It's like the whole Deep Throat thing...

[Mathalamus]

whats deep throat?

[Pamela]

Any document can be a comprehensive and convincing tool,if put together well.The*facts* are not...because someone writes a document,doesn't make it factual.

I think this entire thread is ridiculous and will waste no further time even checking here.

[Nethran]

I made something for this thread!

[hellsing293]

whats deep throat?

HAHAHAHAHA!!

Seriously though, I think it's natural to search for the truth. Misguided, maybe. Don't blame Determinado (appropriate name by the way) for thinking about it from a different point of view. However, he should consider the verity in other arguments as well.

Personally, I believe it was terrorists. There are children in those countries that say a pledge everyday wishing for Americans to die. America is the richest nation in the world; ofcourse everybody hates us. I wouldn't put much past religious extremists.

Anyways, if the government did plan the event, then why? I doubt for popularity and approval rating--granted 9/11 happened shortly after a presidential impeachment and a president elected with a minority popular vote. I feel that if the government did do it, then there must have been a very pressing reason to do so unless I see EXTREMELY compelling evidence that the government had large gains (fiscally etc.) from 9/11. All 9/11 has done was enter us into a war that has cost $100 billions of dollars. Just think about it, what would the government hold in more importance than $100 billions of dollars?

[Pamela]

The key phraze being"Just think about it"
*Cheers Hellsing! A +rep for joo!

[Determinado]

Well hellsing - i know it's been a while but it's been a busy time in my life - the governments money isn't the money of the elite that runs it. They aren't losing $100 billion, they're spending it... in other words, someone else is making profit from it.
What was so pressing to enter world war 1, ww2, vietnam? Just like Prescott Bush was financially involved a lot in ww2 and the nazi regime, George Bush is financially involved with the war in Afghanistan and propably more important Iraq.
Money is a dirty trick of mankind, and ever since the goldstandard was whistled goodbye we're floating somewhere in mid-air. Because money as we know it has no value of its own at all; there is nothing to back it up. In the EU the value of M3 is 9000 billion euros. The actual money, available to withdraw from the bank and keep in your pocket is 650 billion euros. And those 650 billion euros of bank notes and coins, are worth simply nothing. If it's not backed up by something, if suddenly no one accepts it anymore like at the end of the 80s in Russia, then money won't buy you anything anymore. This is the scandal of the federal reserve, which should really be a governmental tool instead of a private company. And the cause of the collapsing dollar, and perhaps a very important factor for the current financial crisis.