I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

surely when building tall buildings would u not want a way to bring them down in a compact space personally i would design that into the building for safety , Imagen how much destruction buildings of this size would cause if they fell over sideways instead of right down.

For example WTC falling sideways would probably kill 2-3x more people than one falling right down.

>> ^westy:

surely when building tall buildings would u not want a way to bring them down in a compact space personally i would design that into the building for safety , Imagen how much destruction buildings of this size would cause if they fell over sideways instead of right down.
For example WTC falling sideways would probably kill 2-3x more people than one falling right down.


Yeah but the extra energy added to propel that shit sideways would account for the extra harm done. If the structure just gives out its all coming straight down every time.

Why is this in lies?

true westy ... designing for the worst case scenario would involve controlling all the variables... ut the buildings werent designed to fail at all, much less designed to fail in a specific manner which then happened to play out... but if the building wasnt as fireproof/structurally sound as it SHOULD have been...

its hard to judge the theoretical results vs the actual results... obviously the building fell down... would it have fallen down as easily in other scenarios? thats scary too, although out of control fires are destructive.


consider the building in spain that burned almost to its frame without collapsing..i read the steel frame was wrapped in concrete, and that should have made the steel even hotter than WT7.. but Windsor didnt fall ... so... it pays to know your building materials and have contingency and a little luck..

maybe the WT7 building was just built poorly and no one knew, like maybe the project was being ripped off by the .. i dunno, sopranos (mob)? theres always more than meets the eye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA

Looks to me like building 7 starts to collapse from the corner where damage was reported and photographed. Controversy?

What about the several supposed surveilance cams that would have picked up the plane crashing against the pentagon? Why is that still not on the open. We only have the 1 shitty video from the pentagon gate.

So 9/11 Truthers here?

>> ^Duckman33:

I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?


Third steel structure to collapse from fire? And I thought the other two collapsed due to a plane crashing on them...

Not me... I was just wondering about those videos. I find it fishy, but not enough to make me go "bush did it"

>> ^Mandtis:

>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

Third steel structure to collapse from fire? And I thought the other two collapsed due to a plane crashing on them...


Yes, the official story is that the fire from the jet fuel caused the steel girders to soften, which in turn caused the buildings to collapse. [Edit] If I remember correctly, the designer of the WTC buildings is on record stating the buildings were designed to take not one, but two impacts from similar sized jets carrying virtually the same amount of jet fuel as the jets that hit the WTC 1 & 2 without causing the buildings to collapse.

This incident was considered an "Act of God" and not covered by your insurance policy. Sorry.

This post was a toss-up between This one already published here on Videosift (7.5 Mil+ views in 3 days on YouTube is not too shabby), and another video of over 7 people in the demolitions industry being interviewed one after another all lending insights towards a consensus in opinion-that people's minds may be partly cloudy concerning what they think they think happened on that day. "Truthers" maybe, but cry foul at a reasonable call for more disclosure?
Why? It's more information needed to form a reasonable conclusion. More the better.

Yes. Fire caused that. Really. The tell-tale central kink. Then down she goes at near free-fall speed right into her footprint.

I can't believe there are still people bringing this crap up.

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.
2. The towers were all designed to collapse downward in case of catastrophic failure. That is a design priority for skyscrapers, and has been for decades.
3. WTC7 was seriously damaged by the collapse of WTC1, which also started fires across a number of floors. The damage to the water system caused by the collapse of the larger towers allowed the fires to burn out of control for almost seven hours.

The structural damage to WTC7 plus the uncontrolled fires caused a progressive collapse. That means that several internal collapses occurred before there simply wasn't enough structure left to hold up the building. You can see the penultimate collapse right there in the videos, when one of the penthouse structures goes down into the building. It is likely that several internal collapses happened before we see that.

I'm not saying people should forget about what happened. I'm not even saying we should stop trying to figure out exactly what happened. It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

Two of the tallest structures ever built by man collapsed amidst dozens of other massive structures. It's amazing they didn't take more with them.

So you're claiming a monopoly on reasonable explanations? If the explanations would stand to reason, then why does it take FOIA lawsuits to obtain video? Why is any information about the building collapses withheld at all? I'm not a supporter of many alternative theories, but I know that the first version of history never survives.
>> ^MaxWilder:

It's just these wacko conspiracy theorists that seem to be making up their own facts and ignoring perfectly reasonable explanations that piss me off.

Look closely...you can see Dick Cheney fleeing the scene of a dynamite plunger. KOO KOO!

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

>> ^Duckman33:

I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/reflectingpoollinks.htm

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:

1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


I enjoy the dissenting viewpoints for 9/11. Most of them are probably wild accusations, but that doesn't make the official 9/11 commission's report the open-and-shut gospel. What I find interesting is the amount of varying opinions from that day, and I think that deserves our attention. I'm not sure I buy the official story, but that doesn't mean I believe Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11.

It's not like government hasn't ever lied to us. Gulf of Tonkin incident took the US into Vietnam, remember?

1. War? Which means profits. Investing in improbable insurance to cover the buildings? I simply do not know, but smarter men than me probably could come up with some reasons.
2. Some physicists claim the explosions are visible during the collapse, as concrete is blown outwardly and reduced to dust.
3. Exactly the kind of question that should be asked. I did watch some people interviewed who work in the building say the security was on hiatus for that month while a construction crew moved in a week or so before the incident.
4. Meh. Not sure even if this was an "inside job" if they'd want that to happen.

I find the whole debate fascinating!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


lol although there are defintly mental conspircy things holographic planes and totaly weard shit there are a whole bunch of things that everyone would want and agree with , it seems the ultra conservatives and people who made money out of 911 benofit the most out of verbaly atacking truthers.

evan if a % of truthers come out with stupid shit i think the vast majority of people actually have legitimate questions which Evan outside of 911 would serve well to be anserd/investigated.

The 911 official report has sections missing and dosent realy shine a light on blatant governmental faileors.

the other weird stuff like how american government wont admit they shot the other plane down ,I guess if they admited to that it puts more questions on there reluctance inactivity to shoot down th eplanes that hit WTC and pentagon.

What i really dont understand is the truthers that make shit up or focus on details that could never be proven disproven and dont realy serve any benofit to know the ansers to.

In the end ultimetly bush administration/ whoever funds them and who ever owns us government right now will pritty much do whatever the fuck they want it seems that some "truthers" think some how knowing the full story behind 911 will fix politics result in those responsible going to jail in the end evan if a photograph was found with bush presing a button that said blow up wtc nothing would happen.

there are loads of strange things with the London bombings as well , but if annything what the terrorist atacks go to show is that we cannot realy do annything to stop them , and its actualy a realy low risk to be killed in one , if for example 4k people died every year from terrorism that still way way way less people that get run over by cars. If you spent evan a fraction of the war money used to fight terrorisum on car safty then u wud save more people do more good in the world , i mean evan put that money into clean water forest restoration, redusing malaria . thats whats obsurd about the situation

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


1.what is to gain from it?
this is the question that really stood out to me.
my friend.look up "false flag operations".
read bryzenski's "the grand chessboard" or chalmers johnson "blowback" and naomi klein's "shock doctrine" for more insight in to what might be gained from any fear-inducing crisis situation.
why?
because governments lie...thats why.
this is not my opinion but historical pattern.

as for the rest of your inquiry,i tend to agree with you and is one of the reasons i am not a "truther" but to suggest that somehow asking questions of a seriously flawed "conspiracy theory" put forth by the american government somehow makes people "dumb-fucks",is dis-ingenuine at best.because just as many 9/11 truther theories fail under scrutiny,so does the version put forth by our government.

so lets keep asking those questions and understand that the government is not our buddy,our pal or our friend and governments lie.

4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?

People were collateral damage

What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther". Sorry to inform you "dumb fucks", but I do have a right to my opinion as much as you do. As others have already said, I don't buy 100% into the whole truther thing. Never thought Bush was behind this, simply because he's too God damn stupid to pull anything of this magnitude off. He's lucky if he can tie his own fucking shoes by himself! But there are too many inconsistencies in the official story to make it believable. There's nothing wrong with questioning things that don't add up. Don't know why you guys get so worked up about it but it's funny.

@Drachen_Jager I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.

Yes, you could post those links. I might actually pay attention to the content, unlike you. You'd apparently prefer to believe what you want in a vacuum of contrary thinking. Which is fine, it's your right, but don't expect people's opinions of you to improve.

>> ^Duckman33:

What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther". Sorry to inform you "dumb fucks", but I do have a right to my opinion as much as you do. As others have already said, I don't buy 100% into the whole truther thing. Never thought Bush was behind this, simply because he's too God damn stupid to pull anything of this magnitude off. He's lucky if he can tie his own fucking shoes by himself! But there are too many inconsistencies in the official story to make it believable. There's nothing wrong with questioning things that don't add up. Don't know why you guys get so worked up about it but it's funny.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.

The other helicopter footage had the same BULLSHIT title. This isn't new footage. I'm not sure why "FOIA" means it is new or was hidden or somehow meaningful. This is clips of the same WTC7 footage.

FOIA=Freedom Of Information Act
>> ^joedirt:

The other helicopter footage had the same BULLSHIT title. This isn't new footage. I'm not sure why "FOIA" means it is new or was hidden or somehow meaningful. This is clips of the same WTC7 footage.

LOL.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yes, you could post those links. I might actually pay attention to the content, unlike you. You'd apparently prefer to believe what you want in a vacuum of contrary thinking. Which is fine, it's your right, but don't expect people's opinions of you to improve.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/FOIA-Lawsuits-Cause-Release-of-New-WTC7-Collapse-Video?loadcomm=1#comment-1166922'>^Duckman33</a>:<br />
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther". Sorry to inform you "dumb fucks", but I do have a right to my opinion as much as you do. As others have already said, I don't buy 100% into the whole truther thing. Never thought Bush was behind this, simply because he's too God damn stupid to pull anything of this magnitude off. He's lucky if he can tie his own fucking shoes by himself! But there are too many inconsistencies in the official story to make it believable. There's nothing wrong with questioning things that don't add up. Don't know why you guys get so worked up about it but it's funny. <br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager</a> I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.<br></em>


No I don't prefer to think what I want. I prefer to think about what I have already read and watched on the subject. And I have read and watched a lot on both sides. For some reason you all assume I haven't because I still ask questions. I guess asking questions is not allowed.... Sorry, from now on I'll be a good little robot and keep my mouth shut.

There are many expert opinions on both sides of this subject. Everything from architects and engineers to firefighters. Who's to say which side's opinions are right and which are wrong? Why do you and the others here assume the links you provide to me are the end all truth of the discussion because it follows your line of thinking? Or that I haven't already read them? Much like when I watch the news on TV, or read news articles on the internet, I don't assume the information I read or watch is 100% accurate or correct. But I do give info on both sides my consideration.

Since you mentioned it, here's a link for you read away.

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

See, the problem is, this subject isn't cut and dry by any means. There's alot more to this than just WTC 1, 2 and 7. But that's what all "debunkers" always seem to focus on. And that's what you guys think I/we only focus on, because I/we make comments about them on these sifts. However, there's a lot to the official story that doesn't add up. One thing I can think of off hand is the fact that the Government still refuses to release surveillance footage of the Pentagon "attack". That is suspect, and only serves to raise questions. There was a lawsuit placed just to get what little footage has been released so far. The question has already been asked once. Why does it take a lawsuit to get this footage released if there's nothing to hide? The fact that all the material from the WTC site was rushed off to China to be recycled before anyone could analyze it is suspect as well, and only serves to raise questions. I'm sorry if it's so hard for you to accept we are being lied to, or at least not being told the entire story. However, as other have mentioned. The sad reality is it's not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. Sadam having Weapons of Mass Destruction comes to mind....

What was to gain from this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/transactions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

Kill a bunch of people?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/index.html

These links aren't meant to be taken as gospel truth, rather something to think about.

The other two questions are harder to answer. Hence why the whole controlled demolition theory is a hard sell. That doesn't mean people shouldn't still ask questions. In all reality the bottom line is, until someone can build an exact duplicate of WTC 1 & 2, and can then smash jets into them, people can theorize all they want but we will never really know for sure why the buildings collapsed. Good thing for us that isn't the only thing fishy about this.

BTW, I could care less about your or anyone else's opinion of me. I don't know you, or anyone else on this site personally and even if I did, I still wouldn't give two shits what you think. This isn't High School, nor is it a popularity contest. My friends all think I'm nuts, so what? That doesn't change who I am as a person. They understand this and are still my friends. At least they listen to me with an open mind. I got over worrying about what other people think about me when I was 16. Perhaps you should do the same.

[Edit] P.S. No-one has yet to provide the odds of this happening, despite the evidence already produced. Which was my original question.

@Duckman33 There is no such thing of odds when discussing single-case events.

Also, what is fishy about classifying footage of our national security epicenter being successfully attacked?

"I'm asking questions." -Eric Cartman

>> ^bmacs27:

@Duckman33 There is no such thing of odds when discussing single-case events.
Also, what is fishy about classifying footage of our national security epicenter being successfully attacked?
"I'm asking questions." -Eric Cartman


Ok... so there's absolutely no possible way on earth to figure out the probability of that occurring then? Sorry, not a math wiz myself. Or even a novice for that matter.

What's so classified about a well known and documented event? Are you seriously trying to say the footage of the "jet" smashing into the Pentagon should be classified? What possible "National Security" secrets could it reveal that needs to be hidden from the general public?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?



From your link "Debunking 9/11":

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time."

This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

Also:
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

And:
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

See also: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

@duckman

If you cannot see the problems there I don't hold a lot of hope for you.

In essence, all you're saying is the engineers who built it thought it probably could withstand the impact, and maybe the fire.

Well the engineers who built the Tacoma narrows bridge assumed it would not fall down on it's own. When it did collapse it was the first time a bridge had collapsed due to harmonics and wind shear. I guess it was a government conspiracy because the engineers hadn't planned for it to fall down that way?

Are you trying to say it was the first time engineers have been wrong?

>> ^MaxWilder:

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.also when the constructions of WTC started in 1960's, the largest plane was something like 727, if not even smaller, and that's what the designed were accounting for. A logical situation for a plane hitting such tall buildings would a plane lost in the fog coming down for landing..
757 is a much larger plane, fueled for cross-continent flight, and smashed into WTC going much faster than it would normally fly at such height.

Would it not be logical for the engineers and planners to account for evolution of design and make the building able to withstand something bigger/heavier ? as if they thought " well, guess our planes are not going to get any bigger, might as well settle "

I am not following this thread, just seen what you wrote and dont believe that.

just my two bits.

@mxxcon

>> ^BoneRemake:

Would it not be logical for the engineers and planners to account for evolution of design and make the building able to withstand something bigger/heavier ? as if they thought " well, guess our planes are not going to get any bigger, might as well settle "
I am not following this thread, just seen what you wrote and dont believe that.
just my two bits.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/mxxcon" title="member since April 27th, 2009" class="profilelink">mxxcon


this is based on what i saw during interviews with the original designers and architects. the only previous accounts of a plane hitting a building was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash so they based their designs on situations like that

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@duckman
If you cannot see the problems there I don't hold a lot of hope for you.
In essence, all you're saying is the engineers who built it thought it probably could withstand the impact, and maybe the fire.
Well the engineers who built the Tacoma narrows bridge assumed it would not fall down on it's own. When it did collapse it was the first time a bridge had collapsed due to harmonics and wind shear. I guess it was a government conspiracy because the engineers hadn't planned for it to fall down that way?
Are you trying to say it was the first time engineers have been wrong?


Yes, that it. The facts are wrong, so are the Engineers that designed the towers, and you are right. End of story. ROTFL. By the way I'm not saying anything, the text I posted speaks for itself. The text says nothing about maybes. They tested for these scenarios. Quit making things up, like the site you referred me to, it sounds desperate. The link you provided me outright lies about the jet's size, speed, and fuel capacity and you have the balls to refute the statements on the site I provide with no proof to back up your claims? LOL That's rich. So you're going to actually sit there and say they are wrong? I didn't know you were an expert in building skyscrapers. Oh that's right. this is the internet. We can claim to have any degrees and knowledge we want here...

Additionally, comparing a bridge that was built in 1940 to skyscraper built in the 70's is a joke. Try harder.

Once again you are under the assumption I give a rat's ass about your opinion of me. I say again I don't. So please stop making such statements.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^MaxWilder:
1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.also when the constructions of WTC started in 1960's, the largest plane was something like 727, if not even smaller, and that's what the designed were accounting for. A logical situation for a plane hitting such tall buildings would a plane lost in the fog coming down for landing..
757 is a much larger plane, fueled for cross-continent flight, and smashed into WTC going much faster than it would normally fly at such height.


As I posted above and you seemed to ignore. This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

And:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

So did the demo charges go off before or after it started collapsing in on itself?

@Duckman33

Are you serious? That quote says the building would withstand the collision. The buildings did withstand the collisions. How is that supporting your argument? You can't just throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks, pick a cogent argument or there's no point in even trying to debate.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@Duckman33
Are you serious? That quote says the building would withstand the collision. The buildings did withstand the collisions. How is that supporting your argument? You can't just throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks, pick a cogent argument or there's no point in even trying to debate.


"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

Yup. that's exactly what it says.... No mention of jet fuel or the fires from it whatsoever. Again, you're right and they are wrong

@Drachen_Jager I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.

Yeah Drachen_jager was being unfair by referring to actual facts. Everyone knows you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true...

It doesn't appear that anybody has even tried to answer MarineGunrock's first question either:
1)What is there to gain from it?

Not from the attacks, but from rigging all 3 towers for controlled demolition, and then crashing planes into just two of them instead?

Every single motive from any truther I've ever heard would be much BETTER accomplished with just one or the other. If you've already rigged the buildings for demolition, just go ahead and trigger them and blame the terrorists. It's not even the first time terrorists tried to take out the buildings. Arranging to hijack the planes only brings more mouths into the conspiracy and more room for things to go wrong or for people to talk.

>> ^bcglorf:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.
Yeah Drachen_jager was being unfair by referring to actual facts. Everyone knows you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true...
It doesn't appear that anybody has even tried to answer MarineGunrock's first question either:
1)What is there to gain from it?
Not from the attacks, but from rigging all 3 towers for controlled demolition, and then crashing planes into just two of them instead?
Every single motive from any truther I've ever heard would be much BETTER accomplished with just one or the other. If you've already rigged the buildings for demolition, just go ahead and trigger them and blame the terrorists. It's not even the first time terrorists tried to take out the buildings. Arranging to hijack the planes only brings more mouths into the conspiracy and more room for things to go wrong or for people to talk.


Nope! no-one addressed his first question at all. And we've already determined that whatever evidence you guys provide is 100% truth and accurate and any links provided to the contrary are false and unbelievable. You guys are right 100% of the time.

What was to gain from this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/transactions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

[Edit] Which actual facts are you referring to? The ones that are incorrect about the size, speed, and fuel capacity of the jets of that time for instance?

Oh god, this shit again?

It's been 10 fucking years of this idiocy. Here is what happened:

19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, smashed two of them into the WTC towers, one into the Pentagon, and one landed in a field in Pennsylvania.

If you believe anything other than that, you're fucking retarded bigtime.

Nope! no-one addressed his first question at all.

Provide a single answer for why the planes where needed if the explosives were already planted. NOBODY gave a motive for that, none of your links gives a motive for it either.

we've already determined that whatever evidence you guys provide is 100% truth and accurate and any links provided to the contrary are false and unbelievable.

No, we've explained WHY our sources were more reliable. You and previously swapped scientific journal analysis of WTC dust. I said mine was better because the scientists in mine collected their own samples, directly and analyzed them immediately. Meanwhile yours collected their dust be making a public request years after my report was already published, and then just took the word of the individuals that the dust was authenticate. They then further, arbitrarily, chose to only analyze the privately submitted samples that had strange looking red chips in them.

So yes, I consider the paper I cited much more reliable than yours. The difference is I've explained specifically why, meanwhile you seem to have no interest in figuring out why the two reports contradict one another.

1)Money. Lots and lots of money. See Iraq/Afghanistan. War is a racket.
2)If you look closely at the first shot in this particular video you can clearly see them. Pause the video at 0.17
3)You might want to look into who the residents of WT7 were. That's a very easy question to answer.
4)Small amounts of collateral damage are enough to wake the sleeping giant. Plus the trade centre building had just been re-insured.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?

>> ^bcglorf:

Nope! no-one addressed his first question at all.
Provide a single answer for why the planes where needed if the explosives were already planted. NOBODY gave a motive for that, none of your links gives a motive for it either.
we've already determined that whatever evidence you guys provide is 100% truth and accurate and any links provided to the contrary are false and unbelievable.
No, we've explained WHY our sources were more reliable. You and previously swapped scientific journal analysis of WTC dust. I said mine was better because the scientists in mine collected their own samples, directly and analyzed them immediately. Meanwhile yours collected their dust be making a public request years after my report was already published, and then just took the word of the individuals that the dust was authenticate. They then further, arbitrarily, chose to only analyze the privately submitted samples that had strange looking red chips in them.
So yes, I consider the paper I cited much more reliable than yours. The difference is I've explained specifically why, meanwhile you seem to have no interest in figuring out why the two reports contradict one another.


We aren't discussing dust in this conversation... Nor am I discussing whether the WTC 1&2 buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition. I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact. He's saying they were wrong, or their testing was inaccurate, or they are only referring to the actual collisions and not the fires that ensued after the collision, which is incorrect. They most certainly do address that issue. Meaning I don't buy the whole "jet fuel caused the collapse" Theory 100%.

You never answered my question: Which actual facts are you referring to? The ones that are incorrect about the size, speed, and fuel capacity of the jets of that time for instance? Those actual facts?

I didn't take the time to continue reading after that since that wasn't actual facts or truthful. I'm sure there's more items on his site based on "actual facts" http://www.debunking911.com/ that are incorrect as well as they cite no references to their "debunking" information at all. At least the site I provide gives references to where they get their information.

I also think you are reading more into his first question than there is. He asked what was to gain from this. He did not specify what was to gain from smashing jets into the building and rigging it with explosives. You are putting words into his mouth.

I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.

Some questions, since I always manage to completely misunderstand waht you believe your saying:

Most importantly, do you trust the honesty and competence of the engineers who published those tests?
I for one do.

Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?

Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?

The deeper story of the references you've given is that the engineers behind them have new evidence since the attacks. Primarily that the buildings collapsed hours after being hit by airliners. They have accepted a re-analysis of their initial tests and agree with the conclusion. That the combination of the initial crash striping the fireproofing and the following fires could collapse the towers, a condition they did not test for in their initial analysis you referenced.

And the number one question still stands:

Where is the profit in crashing the planes into the buildings, that wasn't already equally profitable by simple controlled demolition.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?



Really? Again:

Statements by Engineers

"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Wow a few months before. Yup that discredits his entire statement. I better disregard it entirely. And perhaps since he's dead it would be kind of hard to make any further statements on the subject.

Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?

Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.


Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.


And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm... Also how did Demartini say ANYTHING after the attacks He's DEAD! He DIED in 9/11!!

As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.


He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.

But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?

You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.

Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.

ALL of these videos are shot from the same direction.

The other side of the building (the side facing the twin towers) had many floors on fire (note the smoke @1:15) and a huge chunk of the bottom couple of floors gone.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.
But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?
You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.
Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.


Why would he go on record stating one thing then suddenly change his mind years later? Why state tests were done considering a full fuel load, then all of a sudden he says "...then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered."

And why would you say they only tested at landing speeds (180MPH) when the quote I posted clearly states 600MPH. Which is it? Was it landing speed 180MPH, or what he said years earlier 600MPH? It certainly can't be both. Why would he also state the the difference between 12,000 gallons of gas and 12,980 gallons of gas enormous? That's far from enormous.

You are right. Now everything he has said is suspect and not to be believed. Disregard every post I have posted with his quotes in them now. And I'll do the same with yours. Thanks.

@bcglorf
conspiracy theories have a tendency to grow exponentially in order to keep itself viable in a persons desire to keep it alive.
so i will let you and duckman continue your discussion concerning the reasons/logic/science behind the fall of the towers.i am no structural engineer and do not hold a doctorate in physics but i think it a worthy debate,it's just not one i am that interested in.i tend to be of the school of "though they may have prepared for a jet to hit...they fell anyways".
however...
i see you have posted..multiple times..that noone has answered the question of "whats to gain"?
now THIS is the area i do have great interest in and i did (among others) answer that question you stated nobody answered.
lets remember that the version that the american government gave to us was..in itself..a conspiracy theory and it is a flimsy one at that.
but ...for the sake of argument..lets put that aside and begin with the assertion that the american government version is correct and not riddled with fallacies.
whats to gain?
the power to capitalize on the collective fear and rage of a country to push through unpleasant and unpopular legislation.
do i need to hold you hand and walk you through the shitstorm of half truths and blatant lies beginning in sept 2001 to march 2003?
i do not expect you to know about:
the lusitania
reichstchag
gulf of tonkin
(though you should)
but you were THERE for those years where our own government looked us all in the face and bold faced LIED.
and we are still there.
over 1,000,000 dead.
tens of thousands disfigured and maimed.
millions more displaced.
we even moved it into another country and are planning on a third.
iran is next (read the grand chessboard.bryzenski called this in 1999 to the letter).
what is to GAIN?
is that question even serious?
if so you have not been paying attention my friend.
billions...possibly TRILLIONS..is what is to gain.
not for you of course..nor i..but for those who would subjugate and pervert the grief of a nation in order to expand its control over resources on other shores.
why?
because governments lie..THATS why!
so i dont accept my governments version of the "why".it does not hold up to scrutiny and as evidenced by the last 8 years makes their version even more suspect.
did the towers fall?
yes.
by planes crashing into them?
looks like but there are those who disagree and many of them have compelling arguments.so i say keep arguing.keep debating and asking the questions.
so go right ahead duckman and keep asking those questions my friend.
did terrorists enact the most elaborate attack ever?
possibly they did.
was it because they "hate us for our freedom"?
using volumptuous's terminology:no..thats fucking retarded.
the reasons are diverse as they are far more understandable than that inane statement of "they hate is for our freedom".
while we can learn the "why" fairly easily,the HOW is where i get skeptical and is where my incredulity comes in because our governments version is just....weak.
too many variables and supposed professionals having a collective and simultaneous "duh" moment.
still possible, though unlikely.

i guess it comes down to trusting the government.
maybe you do and if thats the case we will not come to an understanding nor an agreement concerning this because i do NOT trust my government.
power only wished to consolidate its power and to garner even MORE power,be they king,tyrant or dictator and yes..a government can be grouped in the same category.
i state this again:this is not opinion but historical patterns over the centuries.

there ya go bcglorf.
your question has been answered.

^Enoch
I'm following duckman's recommendation and ignoring all his posts referencing the engineers that certified the buildings, which I think has pretty much rebutted everything he said that I care to comment on.

I'm afraid you didn't answer my question though. You answered where the profit was in the 9/11 attacks. I asked where the profit was in adding a hidden controlled demolition to the plane attacks on the towers? Alternately, where is the profit in adding the planes to the controlled demolition?

Every answer you or several others have offered all apply to the attacks period, regardless of method. Anyone wanting the gains you list could have much more easily skipped the planes or the explosives, and saved themselves enormous unneeded risk of discovery as well.

then you misunderstood my answer.
ii was not attempting to conclude nor answer the impetus of possible conspiracy of either terrorists of muslim origin or a homegrown attack from within our own government.
i left that to you and duckman to argue.
my conclusion can be based on either scenario with the exact same outcome.
and in the context of those scenarios:
1.muslim attack by plane destroying the towers=government uses this time of fear and grief to enact the never-ending and vague "war on terror".
2.a government planned attack on its own people by demolition.using planes as a cover.which in turn the government uses this time of fear and grief to enact said "war on terror".

now this is where the argument and debate resides but the outcome is always the same.
along with the 'profit" and "gain" question.

maybe i am misunderstanding your question but history has shown that governments/kings and dictators have gone to elaborate lengths to confuse and exploit times of fear and grief to punch through unpleasant legislation.
lets remember that even by 2005 35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11 even though by that time the evidence clearly indicated that was not the case.
again i refer to history as my guide.

>> ^enoch:

then you misunderstood my answer.
ii was not attempting to conclude nor answer the impetus of possible conspiracy of either terrorists of muslim origin or a homegrown attack from within our own government.
i left that to you and duckman to argue.
my conclusion can be based on either scenario with the exact same outcome.
and in the context of those scenarios:
1.muslim attack by plane destroying the towers=government uses this time of fear and grief to enact the never-ending and vague "war on terror".
2.a government planned attack on its own people by demolition.using planes as a cover.which in turn the government uses this time of fear and grief to enact said "war on terror".
now this is where the argument and debate resides but the outcome is always the same.
along with the 'profit" and "gain" question.
maybe i am misunderstanding your question but history has shown that governments/kings and dictators have gone to elaborate lengths to confuse and exploit times of fear and grief to punch through unpleasant legislation.
lets remember that even by 2005 35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11 even though by that time the evidence clearly indicated that was not the case.
again i refer to history as my guide.


I think I understand your answer just fine, it just doesn't seem you were trying to answer my main question... Let me try and phrase it again and explain it more clearly.

I'm not asking why an inside entity would want to make the attacks, or where their profit in it would be. I repeat, that is not what I'm asking.

I am asking why any entity would choose the METHOD that the conspiracy crowd is proposing. I am asking where is the profit in pre-planting explosives in all three buildings AND later hijacking planes and crashing them into the same buildings? Where is the profit in that method?

I can't see any benefit, reason or rational explanation for why any entity would benefit from pursuing both causes. It is not a situation where one can act as 'insurance' against the other. They both can accomplish the goal all alone, and pursuing both just doubles the costs and risks of exposure or being caught.


35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11
I don't wanna perpetuate a tangent, but you may want to choose more specific language. Iraq wasn't directly responsible or even aware of planning for 9/11. Saddam did however actively support terrorists, including offering safe haven to the man that mixed the chemicals for the 1st WTC bombings, and al qaeda linked extermists interested in killing the Kurds. Not coincidentally those extremists are now Al Qaeda's arm in Iraq.