I'm curious how many ATS users still believe the official story

I work at a major const company in NYC, and know several of the men who built the twin towers. The reason it looks like a controlled demo when they came down cuase it was SUPPOSED TO. Why would you build the tallest buildings int he wrold so they fell over sideways???? The way the towers were built was designed to amke them fall into themselves, to limit collateral damage. The towers were made to withstand hurricane force winds, and even a plane crashing into it (bomber into empire state building was reaosn 4 this), however when they were disgned planes this size, going these speeds did not exist. And the steel used in the buildings was of sub-grade, b/c it made sense economically. This is the reaosn the intense fires from the feul weakened the structure enough to collapse. The load bearing beams surrounded the towers, so when the planes hit they shifted the load fromt eh top floors onto the other beams that still existed. this, along with the fires, weakened them enough so they coudl no longer support the rest of the structure. Any information i just posted regarding the towers architecture and design are FACT, straight from the horses mouth (the men who built these buildings)

I posted this in another thread, but put it here to in hopes some reads it, maybe replies.

Originally posted by Essedarius
But the man had a net worth of about $30 million on 9/11. If you're worth $30 million, do you engineer the murder of 3,000 people and risk a legacy of treachery for yourself and your family...just to make MORE cash?

The reward doesn't trump the risk.

You might not engineer it, but you might let it happen so you can make even more money.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
I work at a major const company in NYC, and know several of the men who built the twin towers. The reason it looks like a controlled demo when they came down cuase it was SUPPOSED TO. Why would you build the tallest buildings int he wrold so they fell over sideways???? The way the towers were built was designed to amke them fall into themselves, to limit collateral damage. The towers were made to withstand hurricane force winds, and even a plane crashing into it (bomber into empire state building was reaosn 4 this), however when they were disgned planes this size, going these speeds did not exist. And the steel used in the buildings was of sub-grade, b/c it made sense economically. This is the reaosn the intense fires from the feul weakened the structure enough to collapse. The load bearing beams surrounded the towers, so when the planes hit they shifted the load fromt eh top floors onto the other beams that still existed. this, along with the fires, weakened them enough so they coudl no longer support the rest of the structure. Any information i just posted regarding the towers architecture and design are FACT, straight from the horses mouth (the men who built these buildings)

I posted this in another thread, but put it here to in hopes some reads it, maybe replies.

Could you please explain to me how the 47 steel columns that made up the core all failed at the same time?

They don't have to. If some of the steel columns fail, the weight is shifted onto the existing ones, one half of the building would simply not collapse. This adds loads that htey were not deisgned for, sicne they are now supporting the other half of the building in addition to there half. This will obviosuly weaken the colmuns, and you combine that, with subbar steel used and the intense fires, which AGAIN weaken them to the point they can longer support the additional weight, These comluns would fail, and the result would be the domino topple effect we've all seen at WTC

[edit on 29-3-2007 by intelligenTHEORY]

But wouldn't the building topple like a tree from the impact zone up?The south tower(I think) started to tilt then just disinigrated.Ifind that extemely odd.I found a web site that explains what I am trying to say.I'll find it and post it.Another member here by the name of Anok has been asking about the "tilt" for some time,with not much luck on any solid answers.I'll get back to you IntelligenTheory.Thanks for your response.

Okay heres a link to a page with what I am getting at.South tower tilt Give it a look,please and explain to me how this can happen wiyh a gravity collapse.Thanks for your time. edit:the video is not there no more,but there are pics from it in the link I provided.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by crowpruitt]

I believe terrorists got some planes and then crashed them into big things. That's not to say I wouldn't readily change my mind if there was real evidence into something else.

I think that is where some members of the Truth movement go wrong. They just throw all kinds of things out there and hang their hats on "an expert in the field" or a YouTube video and ANYONE who does not agree is a sheep, blind or just a disinfo agent. A whole lot of people WOULD change their minds if the evidence was there, it seems as though that fact is easy to forget for some. They would prefer to be rude and feel superior in pushing their beliefs onto others. That is not acceptable in other circles, so why should it be acceptable in this subject?

I read on and off in the 911 area on ATS and the reason I keep leaving is because of the way a number of people conduct themselves. If everyone just put their points across in a calm, respectful manner, then so many more people would be willing to just listen and then think about it. If you come across as rude then people will just switch off. Being polite doesn't cost you a penny

P.S. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, and I know not everyone in the Truth movement is like that, just as there are people on the "official" side of the line or are just as bad. Just a small rant for everyone to continue adding to a, if nothing else, interesting debate, without resorting to name calling and the like. This thread is a fine example of how to do it so far

I work at a major const company in NYC, and know several of the men who built the twin towers. The reason it looks like a controlled demo when they came down cuase it was SUPPOSED TO. Why would you build the tallest buildings int he wrold so they fell over sideways???? The way the towers were built was designed to amke them fall into themselves, to limit collateral damage. The towers were made to withstand hurricane force winds, and even a plane crashing into it (bomber into empire state building was reaosn 4 this), however when they were disgned planes this size, going these speeds did not exist. And the steel used in the buildings was of sub-grade, b/c it made sense economically. This is the reaosn the intense fires from the feul weakened the structure enough to collapse. The load bearing beams surrounded the towers, so when the planes hit they shifted the load fromt eh top floors onto the other beams that still existed. this, along with the fires, weakened them enough so they coudl no longer support the rest of the structure. Any information i just posted regarding the towers architecture and design are FACT, straight from the horses mouth (the men who built these buildings)

IF this is really the case why has is since been proven that fires from aviation fuel would not reach temperatures necessary to weaken steel beams? Also this scenario cannot apply to the collapse of WTC7 or can it?

First of all, I would say that if you do believe in the official story of 9/11, then you also believe in a conspiracy theory. By definition, 19 high-jackers crashing planes into buildings constitute a conspiracy. The question is who else was involved.

I believe in some of the official story, but there were obvious failures and a lot to the story that is left out. There were a lot of people that knew what was going to happen and it could have been prevented but the intelligence was not acted on. So my theory is LIHDTI, let it happen due to incompetence, but I am still in the process of investigating so I might change it as I come across more information.

I don’t think it was an inside job from the White House because like the official story that also has many holes. That is not to say they did not benefit from it. For example: we all heard about the Bin Laden family were friends of the Bush family and was allowed to leave the country on airliners when the rest of the country was grounded. Well if they knew in advance when the attack would happen, wouldn’t they have left earlier? If it was planned by the White House to start a war in Iraq, why didn’t they say the terrorists were from Iraq and not Saudi Arabia?

I think people knew in advance when it would happen because of the put options and warnings of traveling that day as well as the war games being scheduled on that day that provided the confusion and added to the incompetence. So this tells me people within the government or military knew when it was going to happen, but that does not mean everyone knew. I think that the reason for the slow start to the investigation was because there was a lot of blame for the failures to go around and people should have been held accountable, but no one has been yet.

The government and military are not one uniform entity and there are rogue elements within both. I think there is an indirect connection to the White House, but the plan did not come from there. The sad truth is they are good at covering their tracks and as with the assassination of JFK, we will probably never be able to prove it. The history books will be written according to the official story like other conspiracies in the past, but that doesn’t mean they are forgotten.

I also believe that some of the wacky conspiracy theories are being put out on purpose to distract and cause the curious to loose interest and from the sound of a couple of these posts it is working.

As far as I know, there has only been one apology made to the families for the failures on that day and that was Richard Clark in front of the 9/11 commission. This is hardly enough to satisfy the victims’ families and they have every right to expect more from their government.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
Here's some links
One engineering link

"Pancake Theory"

This about says it all "The best and most complete source of information on the towers is the official FEMA report, given at" but I will indulge you for 3 seconds on this.

Look at their "diagram" of the columns at the top of the page.... WRONG. All they do in this article is parrot FEMA. this is the OLD pancake, record spindle theory that has been thoroughly debunked o the point that not even the NIST uses it anymore.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
Architecture Week

"The Sagging Truss Theory"

This piece of crap simply repeats the ASCE claims... "sagging trusses... the photo, thermal and video evidence DO NOT support this. The ASCE did not even get to see BLUPRINTS without signing a GAG order and were working with the farce that is FEMA... JUNK.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
JOM article

"The Zipper/Angle Clip theory"

Ahh... the old angle clip zipper theory... All the "clips fail around each floor quickly but the core does not remain? More junk. Can you at least find some "engineers" that agree? So far you have three seperat theories in three articles... all of which have been backed away from by their respective authors.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
Assortment of links from Civil Engineer

"The Fireproofing Theory"

OOOHHHHHH... the "fireproofing theory"... Sorry, the NIST reported max temps were not hot enough to weaken the steel significatly with or without the fireproofing.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
Journal of Mechanical Engineering

"The Progressive Collapse Theory"

Bazant... His paper requires temps exceeding 800C not just locally, but over very large areas... Debunked by the NIST.

Bazant??? Do some googling...

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
If you read what real engineers have to say about this you might not be so inclined to go with the controlled demo theories.

The University of Michigan says I am a real engineer. I like you chep little backhand though.

NONE of your "engineers" agree... almost ALL of your articles were written in the week following 9/11 with NO EVIDENCE, BLUEPRINTS, THERMAL REPORTS, SEISMIC DATA, ETC.

The only thing they all have in common is that they are RIDDLED with ASSUMPTIONS, GUESSES, BACKWARDS "SCIENCE" and are JUNK.

Thanks... a "real engineer".

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
The only thing they all have in common is that they are RIDDLED with ASSUMPTIONS, GUESSES, BACKWARDS "SCIENCE" and are JUNK.

Wow Pootie. That was next level condescending, even for you.

I tell you what, I will concede the point that ALL these engineers that are trying to figure out these collapses are complete morons unfit to hold your diploma, and all you have to do is give one thing:

A plausible alternative.

Sure the collapses were odd.
Sure a lot of intelligent and honest engineers are having a hard time nailing down the exact physics.

But take a minute to really listen to the alternative:

A LEGION of special forces demolitions experts TIP-TOED into three OCCUPIED buildings and prepared the LARGEST, 2nd LARGEST, and 3rd LARGEST controlled demolitions in HISTORY in...what...THREE DAYS?

The "natural" collapse theories may not exactly hold water, but controlled demolition theories are gushing SIEVE of impossibilities.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job but i still dont buy into the whole controlled demo theory. That is just one facet of the CT. Just because it may or may have not been demoed, doesnt mean there are about 100 other holes in the offical story. Many people base their belief in the official story on rougue engineers research on the collapse, ignoring the other details of that day.

Originally posted by Essedarius
I tell you what, I will concede the point that ALL these engineers that are trying to figure out these collapses are complete morons unfit to hold your diploma, and all you have to do is give one thing:

A plausible alternative.

Wrong... they need to SUPPORT THEIR PUBLISHED WORKS. I have not published papers proclaiming to know how and why the towers fell... THEY HAVE. I need not provide ANY alternative. I believe in NO SPECIFIC THEORY except that the official stories are full of trash, errors, hidden algorithms, "tweaked" models", conflicts of interest, lack of physical evidence, lack of response.... blah, blah , blah. The burden of proof is not on me. They either need to PROVE THEIR THEORIES or RETRACT THEM, admit error and ask for a new investigation.

When is the MIT douche going to retract the "pancake theory"??? NEVER and we all know it did not and could not have happened that way. Even the NIST agrees.

These are your RESPECTED engineers? Ones who cannot admit mistakes? Ones who will not show their math, evidence or processes? They do not sound like scientists to me.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Essedarius
The "natural" collapse theories may not exactly hold water, but controlled demolition theories are gushing SIEVE of impossibilities.

It is up to the government (NIST, FEMA, 9/11 comission) to provide a story that "holds water".

CD has nothing to do with the problems in THEIR stories so stop playing a game and mixing the two as if they are one of only two possibilities. CD is simply an alternative provided by those who are denied access to any reasonable physical evidence and until that access is provided your lame duck arguments will sadly continue to "work".

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
I need not provide ANY alternative.

It's true. And if you stand resolutely, demanding action and refusing to take any, you know what's going to happen:

NOTHING.

It seems obvious to me that engineers are, for lack of a better word, stumped. It happens to everyone (you excluded, of course), and can be quite a disturbing event when it occurs smack dab in the field that you are supposed to be an expert in.

What we are seeing, in my humble opinion, is not a grand conspiracy to hide facts and not share research, but a very base and common reaction to an incredibly human emotion: embarrassment.

By retracting their previous statements, people would inevitably have to admit that they don't know how the hell it happened the way it did...and then they would be subjected to taunts from amateurs who could OBVIOUSLY figure out the way it happened if they just weren't so tired when they got home from work...

Now part of a constructive search for the truth might include people like you who are WAY smarter than

the MIT douche

proposing alternative theories that could be researched and confirmed.

Shouting from the cheap seats that THEY OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION...we know how far that is going to take you...because you're there...right now.

CD is simply an alternative provided by those who are denied access to any reasonable physical evidence and until that access is provided your lame duck arguments will sadly continue to "work".

Now I’m the bad guy?

Stick to the MIT douche…he’s way smarter than me.

Originally posted by Essedarius
It's true. And if you stand resolutely, demanding action and refusing to take any, you know what's going to happen:

NOTHING.

I am doing something... bring it up here, there and everywhere. People are actually waking up. Three years ago if you mentioned the errors in the 9/11 story people reacted differently than they do now. They would talk about NOVA or PM but not anymore.

Originally posted by Essedarius
It seems obvious to me that engineers are, for lack of a better word, stumped.

Than why would they publish their findings as FACT for the most part? NOVA, PM, NIST, FEMA, ASCE... All claiming FACT not "stumped".

Originally posted by Essedarius
By retracting their previous statements, people would inevitably have to admit that they don't know how the hell it happened the way it did...and then they would be subjected to taunts from amateurs...

... demanding a NEW investigation and a release of the evidence.

Originally posted by Essedarius
...

the MIT douche

proposing alternative theories that could be researched and confirmed.

He did not "propose" anything. He claimed to KNOW and PUBLISHED what happened as FACT... turns out he was wrong.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Shouting from the cheap seats that THEY OWE YOU AN EXPLANATION...we know how far that is going to take you...because you're there...right now.

No... we are making headway... believe what you will though.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Stick to the MIT douche…he’s way smarter than me.

No comment.

One more web site. This is the nova presentation that demonstrates the method of collaspe.

If your mind is open check it out.

Nova Slide Presentation with sound

If your mind is closed, it won't matter what you see.

BTW I'm also a registered engineer with a graduate degree. I'm not a structural engineer but I did take a number of structural engineering classes.

The CT people usually use facts like jet fuel burns at 800degrees F, not enought to weaken steel. The ignore the fact that once the contents of the building started burning the temp would have been much higher.

The people who did the above analysis had access to the plans. Watch the entire presentation and see if you're still convinced there was a different mechanism of failure and ultimately the collapse.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
One more web site. This is the nova presentation that demonstrates the method of collaspe.

If your mind is open check it out.

Nova Slide Presentation with sound

Ahhh... good old Nova...

If it is on PBS it must be true.

Originally posted by Pootie
I am doing something... bring it up here, there and everywhere.

By "there" and "everywhere" I assume you mean "PrisonPlanet.com" and "ConspiracyClub.com."

People are actually waking up.

All jokes aside, I would agree that people are beginning to listen more openly to alternative 9/11 theories. (I find the term "waking up" to be a little insulting...but that seems to be a favorite PR tactic of the "Truth Movement", so far be it from me...)

Than why would they publish their findings as FACT for the most part?

Because papers prefaced with "THE FOLLOWING IS TOTAL CRAP", traditionally, are not well received.

Originally posted by Essedarius
and then they would be subjected to taunts from amateurs...

... demanding a NEW investigation and a release of the evidence.

Maybe. But mostly calling them morons and "douchebags."

Originally posted by Essedarius
...

the MIT douche

proposing alternative theories that could be researched and confirmed.

He did not "propose" anything.

Please reread what I wrote. I was asking brilliant scholars like yourself to propose...not the MIT hygiene product.

... we are making headway... believe what you will though.

I sincerely hope you are...believe what you will though.

im sorry about your losses
but wasnt there a documental that sayd that the buildings should windstand a big plane crash without problem?still i dont think there was a detonation sabotage but still possible...
but can someone explain me the other theories couse i only know the official):