9/11

[EvilPie]

I'm not an engineer but here's my explanation as to why the various building mentioned collapsed.



Building 1

A plane flew into it.



Building 2

A plane flew into it.



Building 7

Building 1, big building, much mess when it came down, building 7 pretty close.
Building 2, big building, much mess when it came down, building 7 pretty close.

I think Richard wanted an explanation as to why they came straight down as well.

This was mainly due to gravity.

[dik9]

I shall just go back to my room under the stairs and rock uncontrollably

[thetank]

It should really not be too much of a mystery to anyone how journalists on 9/11 several blocks away under pressure to deliver instantaneous updates on the developing, far from standard, situation could make mistakes.

"Building on fire, collapse imminent" has been conflated with "building already collapsed" somewhere along the chaotic chain of communication. This is not evidence of anything really.

Even if it was it doesn't really make sense. If the bad dudes have laid charges to bring down building 7 then why tell the Beeb? Or are the Beeb working with the bad guys and they just fucked up the timing of their script? Really?

If you took all the footage from that day from all the news channels and examined it I'm sure you'd find hundreds of errors. Consiracy theorists have picked on the ones that they feel support their theory and run with them. Very similar story with the footage of eye witness accounts. Confused and frightened people giving all manner of conflicting accounts. They pick the ones who tell a story that they feel supports their story.

[thetank]

I propose an experiment.

First we build a tower the same size as tower 1 or 2 of the trade centre out of the same materials. We invite all the conspiracy theorists to come on down and have a look around with sniffy dogs to check we haven't hidden any charges anywhere. When they're happy with this, we move them into the bottom few floors of the tower and sling a large passenger aircraft into somewhere near the top.

If they're happy to stay inside for 2 hours then I'll happily hear all they have to say about 9/11 when they come out.

[rex008]

The best response to WTC7 questions is here. That's the official US government investigation report, took 3 years to report on the towers, then another 3 years to do WTC7. Obviously if you're a nutter then it's all lies, but it gives pretty decent explanation for most things, like, why there were no working sprinklers on the lower 20 floors, why it collapsed as it did, etc The only kind of open question I have there is that even they admit the fire shouldn't really have brought it down, but they pretty much admit to a design flaw in the building (without actually saying that directly), in that the rather long floor struts were more vulnerable to thermal expansion failure than they should have been.

They give a very good description of why it fell the way it did. The inside went before the outside, basically, so on all those videos where the penthouse visibly falls into the building, then there are "explosions" then it comes down very fast, that was basically the inside collapsing (noisily), and then the shell went. Entirely believable, frankly.

I haven't actually read the report itself, but the summary and the FAQ pages make pretty decent reading.

tank, the planes were almost irrelevant to the towers. It was the jet-fuel fire that done for them. They survived the plane impacts amazingly well. They were built to survive a 225kph hurricane, a jet hitting them is piffling in comparison.

Oh, and some of the nuttier nutters don't think they were even planes that hit the towers. Missiles dressed up as planes, or something. There is even a guy who apparently thinks the phone calls made from the 4th airliner were faked. Utterly utterly bonkers.

[highmile]

I propose an experiment.

First we build a tower the same size as tower 1 or 2 of the trade centre out of the same materials. We invite all the conspiracy theorists to come on down and have a look around with sniffy dogs to check we haven't hidden any charges anywhere. When they're happy with this, we move them into the bottom few floors of the tower and sling a large passenger aircraft into somewhere near the top.

If they're happy to stay inside for 2 hours then I'll happily hear all they have to say about 9/11 when they come out.

You really are a muppet.

[Robert HM]

I propose an experiment.

First we build a tower the same size as tower 1 or 2 of the trade centre out of the same materials. We invite all the conspiracy theorists to come on down and have a look around with sniffy dogs to check we haven't hidden any charges anywhere. When they're happy with this, we move them into the bottom few floors of the tower and sling a large passenger aircraft into somewhere near the top.

If they're happy to stay inside for 2 hours then I'll happily hear all they have to say about 9/11 when they come out.

You really are a muppet.

But a darn fine muppet. Don't change Thomas.

[thetank]

tank, the planes were almost irrelevant to the towers.

Confident there's some sort of a causal link.

[smashedagain]

tank, the planes were almost irrelevant to the towers.

Confident there's some sort of a causal link.

Yeah just imagine  you are sat at your desk when all the paperwork in your in tray starts going everywhere just as the  rolls Royce engine passes 3 feet above your head.

[rex008]

tank, the planes were almost irrelevant to the towers.

Confident there's some sort of a causal link.

Yes, well, obviously. Just saying that if the subsequent fires hadn't happened, they wouldn't have collapsed. Just been left with holes in. But then a plane impact without fire being involved is somewhat unlikely I suppose.

[thetank]

Re. Highmile

There are many people who speak with great confidence about the temperature at which aviation fuel burns at and the temperature which is needed to melt steel and how therefore the only possible way the towers could have imploded is if there were charges set. My flight of fancy would be to explore the real extent of this confidence.

Some people may think I wasn't being entirely serious but more fool them. You saw the truth and stood in lone opposition to my inhumane and impractical proposal. I now see the error of my ways. God bless you.

[Royal Flush]

<3 Tank

[George2Loose]

<3 Tank

[boldie]

<3 Tank

[rex008]

Re. Highmile

There are many people who speak with great confidence about the temperature at which aviation fuel burns at and the temperature which is needed to melt steel and how therefore the only possible way the towers could have imploded is if there were charges set. My flight of fancy would be to explore the real extent of this confidence.

Some people may think I wasn't being entirely serious but more fool them. You saw the truth and stood in lone opposition to my inhumane and impractical proposal. I now see the error of my ways. God bless you.

The problem with this, is that even if you got people to do this, and they spent years with sniffer dogs & detectors making sure you hadn't planted anything, when the tower does fall down on top of them, they'll still be saying (briefly) that you managed to sneak some explosives in somehow. It's simply become a matter of faith for some people - no matter how much opposing evidence they see, or total lack of corroborating evidence that they show, they'll still believe what they believe. The fact that makes them pretty much identical to the fundamentalist nutters who drove the planes into the towers in the first place (who a lot of them believe never existed) is rather unfortunate irony.