28 views and counting and still no theories. C'mon all you armchair engineers on the sift. What gives? Seriously. All you guys that claim there is no funny business going on here. I'd like to hear some ideas.

Ya'all are way too quick to pass us who don't believe the official story off as "whack jobs", but entirely too slow to offer up any believable explanations as to exactly what happened here. And by here, I mean why didn't this building collapse to the side of the damage rather than in onto itself?

[edited due to obvious ignorant misconceptions of my intentions.]

"I posted this to strike up a logical discussion. Not a flame war, or a "you're a loony bin troofer" bullshit discussion. "

Lol. Like a typical truther claim: Complete bullshit.

"Ya'all are way too quick to pass us who don't believe the official story off as "whack jobs", but entirely too slow to offer up any believable explanations as to exactly what happened here. I'm still waiting."

*sigh* Still going with the: Nobodys giving explanations, crap? Again, bullshit. Explanations are being given. You're just being an ignorant little prick.

Lets face it.. You want believe (wrongly) Bush and co did it.. and nothing me, anyone else on the sift, or any expert says to you, will change that. The only reason you started this topic was to try and create a flame war. Meh, you've succeeded. Well done. Your first accomplishment in life?

You know what they call someone who does that? Follow the link to find out(credit goes to someone on a forum i go to, who I got the image idea from):
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1792/76522459ua9.jpg

>> ^dbalsdon:
"I posted this to strike up a logical discussion. Not a flame war, or a "you're a loony bin troofer" bullshit discussion. "
"Lol. Like a typical truther claim: Complete bullshit."
"Ya'all are way too quick to pass us who don't believe the official story off as "whack jobs", but entirely too slow to offer up any believable explanations as to exactly what happened here. I'm still waiting."
sigh Still going with the: Nobodys giving explanations, crap? Again, bullshit. Explanations are being given. You're just being an ignorant little prick.
Lets face it.. You want believe (wrongly) Bush and co did it.. and nothing me, anyone else on the sift, or any expert says to you, will change that. The only reason you started this topic was to try and create a flame war. Meh, you've succeeded. Well done. Your first accomplishment in life?
You know what they call someone who does that? Follow the link to find out(credit goes to someone on a forum i go to, who I got the image idea from):
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1792/76522459ua9.jpg


First: You have no inclination of my motivations for starting this topic, since you do not know me personally. Don't even try to think that you do, PAL. I'm not trolling. I was honestly looking to start a logical, cool headed discussion. And instead I got a presumptuous diatribe from a closed minded jackass that thinks he knows what I'm all about. Bravo! Thanks for living up to my expectations. I predicted it, and you made the grade!

Second: Don't tell me what I will, or will not believe. Unlike you my friend, I posses an open mind, and will reasonably consider any valid theory or evidence presented before me. What I see in this clip and what the official report said to me, do not match up, or make a lick of sense.

Additionally, I never have ONCE said anything about Bush and Co. doing or being behind ANYTHING. Instead, you ASSUMED that's what I was getting at and reacted. And we all know what happens when we assume right? The only thing I have ever said on this site is there are some shenanigans going on. PERIOD!

Third: Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. Only I know that. Believe me, if I wanted to start a flame war. That's exactly what I would have said I was doing.

Next time you choose to comment, why don't you at least know who, and WTF you are talking about before you type, ASSHOLE! Now take your jpeg and shove it up your self righteous ass! Nice bit of trolling yourself hypocrite! Next time you want to see an ignorant little prick, check the mirror. Or is that presumptuous little prick?

Here's a jpg of my own for you Einstein!

Sorry. Not seeing whatever it is thats raising your hackles.

>> ^dbalsdon:
sigh Still going with the: Nobodys giving explanations, crap? Again, bullshit. Explanations are being given. You're just being an ignorant little prick.

The new NIST report does not mention the molten steel beneath the wreckage, witnessed during rescue operations by FDNY who referred to it as "like a foundry." That molten steel remained hot for six weeks.

Also important to note: there is a subset amongst the "troofers" who feel there is not enough information to accuse anyone...but at the same time they believe there are valid questions (like the above) for which there are no satisfactory answers. Yet.

A majority of the jet fuel burned immediately (especially the right wing). *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, January 5th, 2009 10:19am PST - promote requested by Constitutional_Patriot.

Looks to me like a 767 airliner slammed into the side of a building.
Are you that blind ?

>> ^charliem:
Looks to me like a 767 airliner slammed into the side of a building.
Are you that blind ?


Did you read anything I said under the video or just decide to post something that does not contribute anything to the discussion on purpose?

It was carefully crafted to avoid spurring the nutjob portion of the troofers brains from exploding.

Theres nothing wrong with that image. A 767 jumbo jetliner slams into the corner of a building...why am I to be supprised when the impact has consequences on a wall that is directly connected to that which has just been slammed into ?

>> ^charliem:
It was carefully crafted to avoid spurring the nutjob portion of the troofers brains from exploding.
Theres nothing wrong with that image. A 767 jumbo jetliner slams into the corner of a building...why am I to be supprised when the impact has consequences on a wall that is directly connected to that which has just been slammed into ?


I don't think you get it, read what I wrote again. I know the jet hit the corner of the building, I'm not disputing that. In fact, that's my question...

You want to know what gives.....about a plane crashing into the side of a building, causing its eventual catastrophic failure, ending in the deaths of thousands of human lives ?

Have you been living in a cave ?

This was the work of a few seriously pissed off, well funded Saudis, with a strong belief in the afterlife classically foretold in the Koran.

They flew two 767 airlines into each tower, setting both on fire, and destroying key structural support elements within the towers core.

The design of the tower followed that any catastrophic failure of any section of the tower which would otherwise cause a topple, would in fact cause the tower to fall in its footprint to prevent an even larger catastrophe of 2, 110 floor sky-scrapers falling over sideways in the middle of downtown Manhattan.

There's nothing odd about it...theres plenty more footage online....

Are insults really necessary? Can't anyone make a comment without making it personal? I'm not attacking you, why do you feel the need to continually attack me personally?

And sorry, your explanation isn't convincing enough. We'll just forget the fact that all support on that side of the building was all but completely destroyed and still stand firm the building would have collapsed onto itself. It doesn't make sense that you can almost completely destroy one side of a building with a jet, yet it still comes down onto it's own footprint.

Its a fair question tbh.
Continually asking for a reason why the towers collapsed, 8 years after the fact, is a bit redundant.

Again, I'm not questioning WHY they collapsed. I'm questioning the manner in which this particular building collapsed. Time has no bearing on the matter. People still wonder how JFK was assassinated and it's been what, 40+ years?

NIST has a comprehensive report detailing how this particular structure collapsed, and how come others that have either been engulfed in flames for DAYS, OR also hit by a plane, did not collapse in the same manner.

It has to do with the way the floors were constructed around a central pillar.

Trusses linked to the outer frame, and the inner core with a few simple angle clips to hold and share the load, with no free-standing pillars like conventional towers. This gave the floors much much more open floor space than any other tower out there...with obvious advantages.

Take some of the clips out of one floor thats hooked into the outer shell, and you have to share the load of the floor on the rest of the clips.

Shock load the clips and you stress them to a point where they cant hold as much weight prior to a collapse as they used to.

Strip the fire-proofing material off the steel that was rated to handle fires much much hotter than jet fuel could possibly provide, expose said steel to a mix of noxious gasses (created by burning old office equipment) that destroyed basic bonds holding the alloys in the steel together and you turn said steel into iron...drastically lowering its strength potential.

Heat the iron up, she melts...more clips fail, floor pancakes onto one below it. The one below is shock loaded and snaps instantly.....domino effect ensues, tower collapses into its own footprint at close to free-fall.

And yes, concrete can vaporise if you provide enough force.

Other towers either hit by a plane, or had been exposed to much hotter fires for far longer, had drastically different internal designs. They had a series of cubes connecting to one another, essentially an intricate pattern of concrete covered steel beams criss-crossing their way through the entire structure.

Take one beam out (either by fire or collision)...big whoop, theres 300 others to do its job. Not so with twin towers, the clips holding the trusses were limited, and a significant portion of them on the central impact floor were taken out in the collision.

"The new NIST report does not mention the molten steel beneath the wreckage, "

Wrong(ish). The new one(which, as I believe, was about wtc 7, not 1 and 2) probably doesn't mention it... but NIST have mentioned the molten steel before:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Scroll down to question 13.

Oh, btw. Found that in a matter of seconds, using Google.

Now that's more like it. A bit more convincing than, "Shut up troofer." or, "it hit the building, what do you expect?"

So NIST is saying that there is no reason to even wonder about molten steel underneath the WTC because it's already been decided that it wasn't controlled demolition and the fires weren't hot enough to make molten steel.

Their theory for why it's there are fires burning within the pile after the collapse.

Interesting theory but that's not exactly convincing either. Seems unlikely office furniture could make molten steel after the admission that jet fuel cannot.

I sure as hell don't know exactly what happened. Some things do seem odd and I think the poster asked a decent question. If the corner was weakened why did the building fall nearly straight down and not to the side at least for a distance.

Don't see why everyone has to jump on the guy without trying to understand/learn from this.

FYI.. buildings that have been taken down by controlled demolition, don't leave molten steel

You might wanna read that section again.

"Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

You seem to be of the mindset, that the fire was immediately hot enough to melt the steel(which obviously it wasn't), yet it actually took quite a long period of time for the steel to become molten.

It's entirely feasable, unlike, say... the idea that a whole load of CD guys can rig three whole buildings with explosives, without a single person noticing.

>> ^manfromx:
So NIST is saying that there is no reason to even wonder about molten steel underneath the WTC because it's already been decided that it wasn't controlled demolition and the fires weren't hot enough to make molten steel.
Their theory for why it's there are fires burning within the pile after the collapse.
Interesting theory but that's not exactly convincing either. Seems unlikely office furniture could make molten steel after the admission that jet fuel cannot.
I sure as hell don't know exactly what happened. Some things do seem odd and I think the poster asked a decent question. If the corner was weakened why did the building fall nearly straight down and not to the side at least for a distance.
Don't see why everyone has to jump on the guy without trying to understand/learn from this.



Sulfurhexaflouride gas emitted from the burning of old office equipment containing sulfur based materials makes contact with hot steel, catalyzing the binding elements that keep the base alloys in tact (charcoal, iron, and other strengthening based additives), reducing hardened steel, into not so hardened steel, reducing its maximum heat threshold, and making jet fuel quite easy to melt the resultant material.

Down she comes.

Its a primary reason that decent office supplier manufacturers no longer use sulfur based materials...it doesnt react nicely to steel when its burned.

Some one needs to play more Jenga...

We're used to parts of building falling over; this happens because some outside wall supports are still holding shape as the center and other supports give way. The trade center towers were not normal buildings in many regards, with center supports and with such a massive, enormous scale complicating what to expect. Look how low the plane enters; the mass perched above the site of damage must have been extraordinary... like a Egyptian pyramid balanced on top of stilts... weaken all the stilts until you knock out some of the stilts on one side, that weight is gonna shatter the other stilts and fall straight down.

What did Bush gain from 9-11? This is the question every troofer should be asking.

My answer to them: not much. If it's a conspiracy it had no goals.

Despite the usual ravings of leftist lunatics, there's no police state. Government got bigger but under a Gore (or now Obama) that's gonna happen anyway. We seized no Iraqi oil and spent a lot of treasure and blood restoring Iraqis to power, leaving them the freedom to turn their backs on us.

We're still fighting rock to rock in Af-fag-istan when we should've flattened every last hill and mountain.

Bush didn't censor a single news source. He should've shut down the New York Slimes after they blabbed to the terrorists how we were tracking their funds on its front page. He didn't.

Bush executed no one at Gitmo and even spared "Jihad Johnny" Walker Lind, a spoiled American retard who shot at our troops.

Now Bush is gone and his near-polar opposite has the reigns. So much for "empire".

The government can't deliver the mail and troofers think a conspiracy that would involve not thousands but tens of thousands keeping silent was pulled off. Too much credit to government and not enough to common sense.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I don't think troofers are dumb; their willful resistance to the mountain of evidence debunking their theories, IS.

Moving this video to Duckman33's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^quantumushroom:
What did Bush gain from 9-11? This is the question every troofer should be asking.
My answer to them: not much. If it's a conspiracy it had no goals.
Despite the usual ravings of leftist lunatics, there's no police state. Government got bigger but under a Gore (or now Obama) that's gonna happen anyway. We seized no Iraqi oil and spent a lot of treasure and blood restoring Iraqis to power, leaving them the freedom to turn their backs on us.
We're still fighting rock to rock in Af-fag-istan when we should've flattened every last hill and mountain.
Bush didn't censor a single news source. He should've shut down the New York Slimes after they blabbed to the terrorists how we were tracking their funds on its front page. He didn't.
Bush executed no one at Gitmo and even spared "Jihad Johnny" Walker Lind, a spoiled American retard who shot at our troops.
Now Bush is gone and his near-polar opposite has the reigns. So much for "empire".
The government can't deliver the mail and troofers think a conspiracy that would involve not thousands but tens of thousands keeping silent was pulled off. Too much credit to government and not enough to common sense.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
I don't think troofers are dumb; their willful resistance to the mountain of evidence debunking their theories, IS.


Not entirely true.
As much as I despise troofers, bush and co. did gain from the incident.
+++++++ no-bid contracts for companies that they have massive shares in.

>> ^Duckman33:

Again, I'm not questioning WHY they collapsed. I'm questioning the manner in which this particular building collapsed. Time has no bearing on the matter. People still wonder how JFK was assassinated and it's been what, 40+ years?


The problem with JFK Assassination theories is that no one can come up with WHY those who were supposed to be involved would want to assassinate him. Not that it matters, it basically wastes peoples time while they go to conventions and discuss the JFK assassination instead of say participating in their democracy or trying to make life better for their community.

Also for the 9-11 Conspiracy theories I used to be into it big time. You ever wonder why no one has brought the question to an engineering journal...or architecture organization? Someone who can do some experiments and maybe use their expertise to help people answer this question. I posed that to a few Truthers once and they told me that the US Government must've gotten to them. That assumes that they're that good at keeping a secret with thousands of people involved and if they have that sort of reach we might as well just give up. If they have the power to control all those people...we've basically already lost. Which is why I don't believe it anymore...it just doesn't make sense to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What did Bush gain from 9-11? This is the question every troofer should be asking.
My answer to them: not much. If it's a conspiracy it had no goals.
Despite the usual ravings of leftist lunatics, there's no police state. Government got bigger but under a Gore (or now Obama) that's gonna happen anyway. We seized no Iraqi oil and spent a lot of treasure and blood restoring Iraqis to power, leaving them the freedom to turn their backs on us.
We're still fighting rock to rock in Af-fag-istan when we should've flattened every last hill and mountain.
Bush didn't censor a single news source. He should've shut down the New York Slimes after they blabbed to the terrorists how we were tracking their funds on its front page. He didn't.
Bush executed no one at Gitmo and even spared "Jihad Johnny" Walker Lind, a spoiled American retard who shot at our troops.
Now Bush is gone and his near-polar opposite has the reigns. So much for "empire".
The government can't deliver the mail and troofers think a conspiracy that would involve not thousands but tens of thousands keeping silent was pulled off. Too much credit to government and not enough to common sense.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
I don't think troofers are dumb; their willful resistance to the mountain of evidence debunking their theories, IS.


Not really that it had no goals or that they didn't have much to gain but for me it's that they had WAY too much to lose if it failed. Imagine if some people involved in this massive conspiracy came forward and this plot unraveled, there wouldn't be a Republican party anymore...their would be tons of public executions. Bush probably wouldn't even be tried people would murder him before he got to stand trial. There'd be a sort of outrage this country has never seen before. To me that's much to much to lose, especially considering they were going to invade Iraq anyways regardless if they had a 9-11 or not.

My laymans guess as to why it didn't tip is that the building is divided into floors, if more than one half of one floor collapsed, the entire floor will collapse almost instantly,(it would already have been weakened and possibly bent by the extra weight and the heat and explosion) and then you basically have 2/5ths of a WTC tower smacking into the floor below, causing instant collapse of that, and the next, and the next..

As for the conspiracy, I'll leave that to mister Occam and his razor. Most so-called truthers cant even mount a possible alternative,let alone a plausible one. If it wasnt terrorists in planes, then who? why? how? it all quickly becomes half-assed speculations leading nowhere, and the proof is only in the negative ie" The official story doesnt explain [insert random video/story/picture]" We desperately lack the actual evidence from the truthers, some actual thing that would implicate specific people, organizations, agencies, foreign governments, contractors or others. Apparantly, US officials cant even comment on Berlusconis partystyle without getting it leaked eventually, then how the fuck could they have orchestrated this massive, messy, live-on-TV shit that 9/11 was?

Fanatical islamists blow themselves up every fucking day in Baghdad and Kabul, and they've been at it for 9 years straight, before that they did it in Israel regularly, and on various embassies, ships, WTC. Why would 9/11 suddenly require some massive conspiracy?

How dare YOU sir! I'm an American! Asking questions is for communists! Move to Iran!

Freedom costs a buck-o-fiiiiiiiiiive...

I mean no offence to the OP, but if you don't know anything about the way the Towers were built and the reason for their eventual collapse then why do you think your opinion holds any weight? The official line, which is backed up by god knows how many engineers and demo experts seems plausible to me. Even if it did seem counterintuitive to me, I'd still just assume its because I am basically ignorant of how massive structures fall. Those towers aren't built out of Jenga blocks...

As for the whole conspiracy theory thing...Occam's Razer bro. I don't doubt the US govt has hid much from the public regarding 9/11, but I don't believe anybody could orchestrate the destruction of the twin towers to conveniently pin it on the Saudis, especially since the US did their damndest to swing the blame on Iraq. I can't see a motive, and I sure as hell can't see a means and I don't see any evidence. All I see is such a deep destrust of government. Simplest explanation wins.

>> ^Jinx:

I mean no offence to the OP, but if you don't know anything about the way the Towers were built and the reason for their eventual collapse then why do you think your opinion holds any weight? The official line, which is backed up by god knows how many engineers and demo experts seems plausible to me. Even if it did seem counterintuitive to me, I'd still just assume its because I am basically ignorant of how massive structures fall. Those towers aren't built out of Jenga blocks...
As for the whole conspiracy theory thing...Occam's Razer bro. I don't doubt the US govt has hid much from the public regarding 9/11, but I don't believe anybody could orchestrate the destruction of the twin towers to conveniently pin it on the Saudis, especially since the US did their damndest to swing the blame on Iraq. I can't see a motive, and I sure as hell can't see a means and I don't see any evidence. All I see is such a deep destrust of government. Simplest explanation wins.


From reading the thread, it apeared that he was unfamiliar with the details of the NIST report. It is counter intuitive that a building struck on the side would fall in its own footprint ( as any Jinga players would know), if one wasn't familiar with the finders in the report. I, too, didn't take the story on face value until I learned of the unique conditions of the towers. Wisdom comes from asking questions.

http://thetruthandlight.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/terrorist_nuke.jpg