9/11 Conspiracy Theory - NOT! How to Demolish a Building

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Toro, Sep 5, 2007.

  1. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,705
    Thanks Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,030
    My favourite 9/11 conspiracy theory is that it was blown up by thermite. Or is it termites? I can never remember.

    Anyways, for anyone who is interested, here is how to destroy a building.


    Wow, that sure sounds like a lot of work. It must have taken months to tour the WTC, load up the explosives and take out the support structures. All without any of the 50,000 people who work there knowing.


    Amazing, isn't it!

    Those guys in New Jersey sure are stoopid. What took them three years took the Bush-linked government experts in the CIA/FBI/NSA/NHL 10 seconds!


    Don't believe any of this nonsense about "support structures" needing to be taken out. That's just gobbledeegook designed to confuse you about what really happened on 9/11.

    Actually, it was the termites that quietly ate away the support structure of the two buildings. Termites don't eat steel, you say? Yes they do. The CIA has been developing Supertermites for just this event.

    Oh, wait, was it thermite?

    The easiest way to take out the support structures is to hire some scary looking foreigners to fly planes into the buildings.

    Or holograms.

    What about thermite? Hello?

    Thermite!

    The people writing this piece are morons.

    They probably worked for Popular Mechanics. I heard on the Internet that the author is best friends with a guy who he takes the subway with whose wife knows another woman who has a maid who is sisters with a dog walker of a rich guy who kennels his dogs with the Bushes. Or was it cats? I can never remember.

    Well, that explains the first WTC bombing in 1993. Bush, even though he had just been elected governor of Texas, already knew he'd be President seven years hence - see, he had already bee chosen by the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati - was attempting to take out the structural support of the WTC by planting a van bomb in the garage of the WTC.

    Or maybe it was a hologram!

    Think about it!

    Well, I'd go on, but I'm bored now.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    anyone looking at the collapse of building 7 can see it for what it is a controlled demolition ,3 buildings in one day the first steel buildings ever to collapse due to fire all in one day all falling at free fall speed all falling neatly into there own footprint...impossible

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt9kU9VZ-f8[/ame]
    ok thats you tube

    bbc advanced knowledge of wtc collapse

    made this vid with all the evidence included

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD9XpRQRH6E[/ame]
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Yes yes, Cheney and Bush planned it all and have kept it secret for years, but damn they can not keep secret the plans to attack Iran can they?
     
  4. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Obviously, they should have just steered a hurricane into New York City like they did for New Orleans!
     
  5. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,705
    Thanks Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,030
    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
     
  6. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    your conspiracy theory that bin laden and a handful of men took down three towers somehow got NORAD to stand down is the theory that makes no sense
    and can not be substantiated wheres the flight recorders the black boxes confessions any DNA how about you prove your theory instead of your unfounded belief groups of people cant keep secrets




    frontline: the man who knew | PBSFBI Special Agent John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. But to people at FBI headquarters he was too much of a maverick and they stopped ...
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ - 16k -





    THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION

    On the 11th September, 2001, three steel framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per hour).

    On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out anything at all, are close to zero.

    It should be emphasized that World Trade Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Although the WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the collapses of WTCs One and Two.


    THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
    THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767

    Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

    The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
    The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

    The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
    The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

    The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
    The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

    The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
    The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

    The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
    The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

    So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

    In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
    = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
    = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
    = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
    = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

    From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

    In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

    So what can be said about the actual impacts?

    The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
    The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
    = 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
    = 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

    This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

    The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
    = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
    = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

    This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

    Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.


    THE "TRUSS THEORY" IS LUDICROUS

    The truss theory is the absurd belief that the only support (between the central core and the perimeter wall) for the concrete floor slabs, was lightweight trusses. It was invented to explain away what were obviously demolitions and has become the "official" dogma. The central core, perimeter wall and the mythical trusses are all introduced in the next section. There you will find out their dimensions, their numbers and their supposed usage. After reading the rest of this article you should return to this section and (with improved understanding) read it again.

    According to the "official" story, there is no significant lateral support for the walls (against wind loading) between the ground and top floors. This is like a bridge with a 1,300 foot span between supports. Even though the tube structure of the perimeter wall was designed for maximum rigidity (within the given weight specifications) the 1,300 foot span between supporting pillars, meant that even this very rigid design would sag in the midsection under wind loading, just like a bridge with such a span. In a typical steel framed building the span between pillars is only 12 feet (one floor) and such a problem does not arise.

    The World Trade Center towers were like huge sails in the wind. These sails had to be able to resist the 140 mile per hour winds of a hurricane. Such hurricane force winds exerted a large (some 6000 tons) lateral force on the building. This lateral force is called the wind loading (or force of the wind) on the building. According to the "official" story, the only possible intermediate support comes from the flimsy trusses and the lightweight concrete floors. The WTC was designed to survive a 45 pounds per square foot, wind loading. This translates to a 12 x 207 x 45/2000 = 56 ton force on each of the floor segments. What this 56 ton force on each floor segment means, is that if one was to lay the World Trade Center on its side and use the pull of gravity as a substitute for the push of the wind, then each of the 110 floors would need to be loaded with a 56 ton block of steel (so the entire wall would have to support 110 such blocks of steel, that is, 110 x 56 = 6160 tons in total).

    The fact that the tubular structure of the walls is very rigid, does not stop the central core from needing to bend when the walls bend. This means that the walls have to transmit the full force of the wind to the core, so that the core will flex to the same extent as the walls (this is obvious, otherwise if the walls flex while the core does not, the floor slabs would, by definition, be crushed). Again, it is important to note that the rigidity of the walls does not protect the central core from the full force of the wind, what it does, is it limits the distance that the walls (and hence the whole structure) can bend. The more rigid the design the less it tilts in the wind.

    In strong winds the midsection of the windward wall will be pushed several feet towards the core. In a typical steel framed building of WTC type design, heavy steel beams transmit the wind loading to the core, which then bends together with the walls. However, in the WTC (as described in the "truss theory") the trusses and floor slabs are too weak to transmit this force to the core without buckling, so the core will stay in its original position as the wall advances to it. This will crush the trusses and floor slabs, leading to the collapse of many floors. Since this did not occur during the 30 years in which the buildings stood, we must assume that the "official" story is false. To see how utterly ridiculous the "official" story is, lets calculate the lateral loading (wind loading) that each one of these trusses was expected to resist. Consider, a one floor segment. Here, we have 30 trusses and a slab of concrete supporting 56 tons. That is about 2 tons per truss and piece of slab. If you balanced a 2 ton block of steel on top of one of these flimsy 60 foot long trusses and (a 60 foot long by 6 foot 8 inches wide by 4 inches thick) slab of concrete, we all know what would happen - the truss and slab would buckle and collapse.

    Another point to consider, is that if the walls alone handle lateral loading, then the pressure on the windward wall must be transmitted via the corners to the remaining walls (this transmission of loading to the other walls is what gave the WTC its rigidity) but corners are far too weak to handle this task alone.

    Although the "truss theory" is ludicrous, it has been pushed by many "experts". It should be noted that it is inconceivable that these experts did not know that it was false.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,705
    Thanks Received:
    11,045
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,030
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Still no explanation of how all those explosives were slipped in to the three buildings and planted, and all the extensive preperations were made to control the demolition of the buildings was accomplished with no one the wiser. Thousands of people every day passed through those buildings, working and visiting. Yet no one noticed a thing. No one saw the explosives, no one saw the pillars cut up. Explosives would have had to be planned not just on the lowest levels but on higher levels too. Yet we have no evidence of any explosions except those caused by the aircraft hitting the buildings. And in the case of 7 NO evidence of explosions at all.

    Still no explanation of who REALLY hijacked the aircraft. No explanation of where the two aircraft that supposedly never crashed went, what happened to crew and passengers and the aircraft themselves.

    No explanation of what type of missile was used against the Pentagon, no proof any missiles were missing from any inventories, no evidence of aircraft being where they were not supposed to be to fire said missile.

    No explanation of how all the people needed to accomplish all these tasks have been kept silent all these years. Not even one "leak" Further we have the Ludicrous claim that not only was the President and his staff involved but that the Mayor of New York and his staff also were involved. That every Agency involved in investigating this act were involved including all the personnel assigned to said investigations. That organizations outside the Government were involved and aided in the "cover up" again all this with no "leak" for all these years.

    Ohh and I forgot, all the air traffic controllers, their supervisors, the US Military, the US Air National Guard and the US Air Force, all involved with not one single "leak" ever.

    I can sure see how all that is believable.:eusa_wall:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    actually i posted a article on the unprecedented power downs at wtc prior to 911 and eyewitness testimony of const activity's and loud noise coming from the inner core prior to 911 and i have already stated that a real investigation and release of with held evidence such as aircraft parts and surveillance tapes of whatever hit the pentagon witness protection with witnesses testifying under oath and penalty of treason , most of the claims you attribute to me are not mine
    Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
    and Government Officials Question
    the 9/11 Commission Report
    Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements.

    Listed below are statements by more than 110 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.



    Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
    Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

    It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

    There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

    I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

    The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

    The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

    .More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."


    Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.


    Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."





    YouTube - The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part I
    9/11 CONSPIRACY: FBI whistleblowers are obstructed, silenced ...
    9 min -
    [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRAxnsay58[/ame]


    YouTube - The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part II
    Whistle Blower Robert Horton: Boston Tea Party For 911 Truth ...
    8 min -
    [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjEddVpRj7o[/ame]
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Yet no explanation as to where the plane went, what happened to the crew, why no traffic controller saw it fly away. No evidence of a secret base, no evidence of troops and personnel assigned to said secret base, no secret murder ground or prison for the missing passengers and crew, no explanation of what happened to the aircraft. No explanation how all these things happened and how no one has talked about them since.

    Another of your Conspiracy theories has the Mayor of New York City KNOWING not to go to Building 7 , not because it was damaged but because it was to be destroyed. Meaning he and at least a portion of his staff were aware ahead of time what was going to secretly happen. They may not be YOUR words, but you repeat them here as if you believe them.

    Another of your Conspiracy theories holds that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania. I ask again, where did the plane go? Where did the crew and passengers go? Why did no traffic controller see the plane fly away? Why is there no evidence of a secret base with all the personnel required to run it, its airfield and tower, its support personnel, its troops to guard or kill the passengers and crew? What happened to the actual aircraft? You keep posting this theory, so you must believe it, even if it is not "your own words".

    As to power outages and construction, why did none of the personnel assigned to maintenance and security at the 2 buildings see nothing? Or are they in on the plot? Why would they go to work in a building being loaded with explosives for destruction?

    Why did no one in building 7 see this "construction"? And as for the claim no debris from the towers hit the building that is simply false.
     

Share This Page