Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

investigate 9/11

1000 replies

BeetrootsResolution · 30/12/2006 12:39

My uncle sent me this and thought it was an appropriate time to share it with you

The Truth?

OP posts:
ludaloo · 31/12/2006 10:49

MB....
I think this theory is a bit far fetched...
There are bound to be thousands of different theories on this. Especially as once one conspiricy theory has been allowed to be investigated more will be invented etc.
I find it very hard to believe that the government could of coordinated such a very well planned attack...such as remote contolled aircraft...gassing people...killing thier own pilots etc etc.

They actually have documented evidence that the government were alerted by terrorists that these attacks were going to take place. I'm not sure of the details but for some reason these appeared to of been overlooked!

It is much more likely, the government knew..and then rigged the second building with explosives. Tower 7 (is that its name) the second tower...wasn't even hit by a plane...yet it fell down hours after the first one. If you look at the clips of it falling on You Tube and such places...it falls down dead straight...all in one go...no leaning...straight down..
It would not of taken too much planning on the governments behalf to let the terroists plane hit...then set off a series of explosives....no one would be any the wiser in all the caioss would they!

But it is only a theory...if you choose to believe it or not is your decision. It is upsetting to hear accusations on this scale...but there is definately something odd.

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 10:50

A quick google would show me that he is a physist, who got his Phd in 1972, but he retired 'amid controversy' about his controled demolition work.

Now this would seem that either....a. his peers disagreed with him about the quality of his work.

Or b. The CIA was out to get him.

I'm going with a. personaly

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 10:52

sorry but I have to do this

would have not 'of'!

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 10:53

ludulo, a fucking great big plane did hit the second tower. I've seen the pictires. What you are thinking about the the much smaller building that was demolished later in the day, because it had been significan'tly damaged by the initial disaster, and was in danger of falling down. It was safter to do a controled demolition.

This is how this cobblers starts. people half remember stuff, and it gets passed on lkike chinese wispers. This is no-ones fault, just himan nature. It doesn't make it right tho

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 10:56

link to a picture that shows the second tower being hit......this took me 30seconds to find on the net

JanH · 31/12/2006 10:59

ludaloo means the third tower, the smaller one.

OK, how about multiple failures to scramble and intercept?

and another bit about the effect of heat on steel in a minute (which I have lost temporarily.)

It's not just that they fell, mb, but that they fell so incredibly neatly - no toppling at all.

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:01

FFS ... I saw the pictures of the second plane hitting on live (well probably a couple seconds delayed as it was beamed around the world) TV when they were still speculating that the first plane was just a tragic accident.

Have caught up on this thread and have to say you're doing a sterling job, mb, but feel very that anything rational you point out is just being ignored. I'm amazed you're still trying tbh, as I can't see that you're going to disuade those who passionately want to believe in a conspiracy regardless of any fact or real evidence

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:02

(Oh, and PS... how much are those tickets to the Titanic in your back garden going for? )

JanH · 31/12/2006 11:03

WTC 7 - 47 storeys - collapsed, not demolished.

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:04

Why would they topple? That would imply force pushing sideways, surely?

They fell "neatly" (if that amount of debris and smoke can be called neat) collapsed because the motion and energy of the top floors collapsing was downwards.

ludaloo · 31/12/2006 11:04

No..sorry MB...I meant the centre 7 building... Not the two main towers..they were hit..Oh I'm gonna have to go wake dh up now...he knows what they are all called.
Anyway...this building was not a controlled demolition by the government.

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 11:04

I think that's right Jan. One tower falling so neatly might just be believable but they both fell in such a controlled manner that I think folk are bound to query it?

I mean, if the planes had entered each building at precisely the same level and angle etc, but they didn't.

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 11:05

there didn't seem to be any pancake layering visible either, but I may be wrong on that score!

ludaloo · 31/12/2006 11:10

I'm not disagreeing with you MB....I'm very sceptical about the whole thing...you make some very very valid points. I am just saying that I don't think it is as black and white as that.
There are some very dodgy curcumstances which need to be investigated.

(thanks JanH...sorry I got the building names mixed up...)

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:11

Did anyone actually read the info mb provided earlier?! this page has a whole load of stuff about the science behind WHY the WTC towers collapsed

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 11:12

jan. because the buildings were not just heated, they had also had a significan't anount of their structure removed when a large fast object hit it. It had alredy absorbed a huge amount of energy, something that it was not really designed to do.

In addition the heating would not be even, or symetrical.....avation fules would have been vaporied, and the gas would have flown, prdominamtly into things like conduits and passage ways....since it couldn't enter solids.

I'm not an expert, I'm a biologist, not a physist, but I can pick holes in this stuff. And if I can, you can bet your bottom dollar that the real experts can do so much more.

And the basic thing is this, why on earth would the government 'rig' a plane flying into it, why dot just blow it up and say terrorists did it? After all they had tried just this once before?

It is a facical over egging of the cake, just begging for someone to prove that they did it.

The first maxim of warfare is KISS. keep it simple, stupid.

Why on earth fly a plane in, and 'pretend' it did it, when it would have so much easier to just blow the place up.

There is no logic to that argument, no reason for doing it. all supposition.

JanH · 31/12/2006 11:13

These are serious fires in skyscrapers which didn't fall at all.

Those towers weren't ripped into by a plane full of fuel near the top of the tower - I can see how that possibly makes a difference - but if the steel reinforcements had been melted by the heat so near the top of the tower, you'd think the top part would topple, or at least lean a bit before collapsing.

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:16

"FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film."

bettythebuilder · 31/12/2006 11:16

I've read the whole thread, last night and today, and I'm firmly in Martianbishops camp on this one.

If the US govt planned to set off a controlled demolition of the WTC following the plane strikes, could they not have initiated a decent evacuation to get most people out, then claimed it as a coup for American organization over the dastardly terrorists?

They'd still have had an 'excuse' to invade any country they could remotely link to the attacks.

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 11:19

THe hot avation fuel may well have penetrated into the heart of the building, causing effects distant for the impact. Now I can't prove this, but I do know that hot gases expant and flow and more. This is why you can smell a fart on the other side of the room from where it was dropped!

ludaloo · 31/12/2006 11:19

MB......absolutely 100 % with you on that....
Why go to the expense of flying a plane into a building...well 2 planes into two buildings!
Why not just blow them up and say the terrorists did it.....

I believe that bit was probably terrorists....but the WTC 7 ...it wasn't blown up for safety reasons by the government MB...it just fell down....hours later...

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:21

"FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottomapproximately 10 storiesabout 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factorsalong with the building's unusual constructionwere enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

bettythebuilder · 31/12/2006 11:22

And then of course there is the bloomin obvious pointed out by mb - why bother with planes? Just bomb it - the WTC were attacked earlier, weren't they? in the 80s?

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 11:23

My mistake. Well, guess what buildings do fall down when dameged. So now we have two different consiracies. The twin towers fell down too fast....must be the CIA, WTC7 fell down too late....must be the CIA. Please? What sense is there in this?

JanH · 31/12/2006 11:24

mb, I'm honestly not ignoring your sensible explanations, it's just that there is such a lot to think about that what passes for my mind keeps shooting off in different directions.

I feel so sad about that fireman on the 78th floor of 2 (not 1, I got that wrong earlier, 1 was hit higher up) who had got all the way up there and found 2 fires he believed could be contained, shortly before it went down.

Blowing the buildings up wouldn't have netted billions in insurance (and in any case, they wouldn't have been allowed, they'd have had to take them down from the top, wouldn't they?)

Piece here completely dismissing the drone planes theory (but interestingly it says the hole in the side of WTC1 matched the shape of a 767)

RubberDuck, I read the Popular Mechanics thing - quite a few of the theories set up to shoot down there are dismissed on the 9-11 research site as straw men.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread