The unexpected fall of the towers: Did you see it coming?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Interesting little quote about the World Trade Towers...
"if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down."

Again this statement, you seem to think proves it was a natural collapse, is based on what? What does this person know to be able to make a claim like that? There is no precedence for it to happen, and it goes against all known physics. I prefer to base my opinions on what is known, not what someone else says. Just like you whoever made that statement has never met Newton, or if he has he didn't understand him.

Or maybe the story is just BS? Do you know this guy? Can you verify the person really said that?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Interesting little quote about the World Trade Towers...
"if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down."

Again this statement, you seem to think proves it was a natural collapse, is based on what? What does this person know to be able to make a claim like that? There is no precedence for it to happen, and it goes against all known physics. I prefer to base my opinions on what is known, not what someone else says. Just like you whoever made that statement has never met Newton, or if he has he didn't understand him.

Or maybe the story is just BS? Do you know this guy? Can you verify the person really said that?

Now where did I say it proves a natural collapse? I said it was an interesting quote. Funny you mention the physics aspect, because there are more credible individuals who would disagree with your statement that it "goes against all known physics" than there is that would agree with you. As I said before, google search the individual...you will find that he most likely knew a little bit about fire and how it affected construction materials. Of course, it was his firm belief that only a fire would cause a collapse...let alone an incident in which an airliner slammed into the building at high speed.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


FYI, just did google that quote and the first two responses were worldnetdaily and Fox news.

Reading on, you learn that Levine was the owner of an asbestos insulation firm and NYC banned his product in 1971, when--amazing coincidence--his asbestos insulation had been sprayed up to the 64th floor.

This guy lost a huge contract--two of the world's biggest buildings--and went around griping with that tired old line for the rest of his days.

Amazing foreknowledge and brilliant engineering acumen, or some guy pissed at having lost a huge wad of dough?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Now where did I say it proves a natural collapse?

So what other conclusion comes from the statement you posted, other than you thought it proves that fire would collapse the towers?
The quote isn't interesting unless you think it has some merit in supporting the claims you blindly support. I'm not stupid swampy and you're very predictable.

Funny you mention the physics aspect, because there are more credible individuals who would disagree with your statement that it "goes against all known physics" than there is that would agree with you.

OK here we go again, how many times now have I asked for this explanation of the lack of resistance you keep claiming credible individuals have? Where is it? You make a lot of claims swampy but run when asked to back up your claims. I don't care how credible you think these individuals are, if what they're saying doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense. There is no explanation for it, the de-bunkers think it doesn't matter. That just proves you don't understand the physics involved and are simply parroting what you've been told by 'credible individuals' [sic].

Blindly excepting what you're told because you think it comes from a 'credible individual' is a huge mistake for anyone to make, and then to spread what you yourself have not verified is stupid beyond belief imo.

OK here we go again, how many times now have I asked for this explanation of the lack of resistance you keep claiming credible individuals have? Where is it?

I have posted, many times, the information you are requesting. However, you are like Ultima, since no one came to you on 9/11, took you by the hand and showed you the crash sites in person, you will never accept anything I post.

That just proves you don't understand the physics involved and are simply parroting what you've been told by 'credible individuals'

You're right, MIT is full of morons who dont know the first thing about engineering.

how many times now have I asked for this explanation of the lack of resistance

And this shows just how little you understand of what happened that day.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

No, but the towers are still the only two to have fully fueled airliners crash into them and WTC 7 is still the only high rise to have another high rise crash into it.

Even the official version of the story shows that the collapse was not the direct result of the planes. The impact did not knock down the buildings, and the jet fuel had expired within ten minutes of intitial impact. So now we are back to the original question, seeing that the planes really had nothing to do with the actual collapse. "Were these the only buildings that ever suffered fire damage without being protected by asbestos fireproofing?" Which you have answered for yourself already.

And the second part of your statement is outright false. I suggest you do some research. Buildings have fallen onto eachother many times around the globe. Most often during earthquakes, but sometimes buildings have fallen onto other buildings as the result of poor construction. Then there is the WTC itself. 7 was not the only building to have the Towers fall on it that day.


[edit on 3/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

More lies from swampy. You have NOT answered my question. No one has.
I've actually yet to see one of your posts that say anything at all but wild assumptions parroted from official sources or unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources.

So you say I have little understanding of what happened that day? And you came to this conclusion how? We can go on all day with these silly comments.

I know as much about what happened that day as you do, so yes you're right I don't know what happened that day. But I'm smart enough to be able to tell from many sources of visual evidence, and a knowledge of basic physics and how to apply it, what didn't happen that day. And what didn't happen that day is fire and plane impacts caused a global collapse of 3 steel framed buildings.

If you can prove to me that a steel framed building can globally collapse from an impact that doesn't cause major structural failure and has fires on less than 20% of it's floors inside an hour then I'll concede. I'm telling you right now you won't be able to do it, whether you actually try or wave it away with excuses. Anyone can easily test your hypothesis in a lab. A few simple experiments can tell you how steel acts under heat and stress. I think you'd be very surprised what you find. Or maybe not, I'm giving you the benefit of doubt as to whether you're legit....

www.whatreallyhappened.com... check this out . i posted on another topic on 9/11 . and im just saying that beeing a welder (come on all other welders and cutters wake up you know as well as i theres no way an open flame of uncontrolled burning kerosene can even remotely effect the structural integrity of a 4 inch box beam rated at 90,000 psi steeal hell for that matter i dought it could even effect a 6010/6011/7018/ welding rod if u know what i mean! ) If an open kerosene flame caused structural damage then none of us could ever boil water on the stove or bake cookies as if what they say is true our pots and pans would melt . and for it to do damage 46 beams 4 inches thick from 900 feet away and melt them to slag at a perfect 45 deg angle in under 15 seconds ,WOW that is some badd ass jet fuel ,looks like all demo crews will be out of a job ,cause all we need to do is go down to the local gas station to destroy buildings .jsut my 2 pennies O by the way scroll down to the fireman on the radio and realy look at the photo

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

reply to post by plasmacutter


You do realize that on the link you posted...the second picture down is NOT fireman looking into a molten hot area...as they lead you to believe. They are illuminated by a high intensity light while searching for victims. If you watch the actual video of that scene you would see. That is just a still from it.
here: www.youtube.com...

Start around 2:00 or so...you will see your footage.

Now granted, there were areas there that were super heated...but that photo was just put thee for dramatic effect. It had nothing to do with molten anything....just looking for victims.

reply to post by jedimiller


No I didn't see it coming. I wasn't researching conspiracy theories at that point.

I thought it was a joke when I saw it on tv. I was completely flabbergasted that something like that could happen. I was in shock.

I lived about 40 miles from the city at that point, and several classmates were called to the office. I know of several people (at least one on a personal level) who perished on that day. Some people know a lot more. The firefighters were arguably the worst hit.

The way I dealt with the shock was to laugh at it. I honestly didn't know what to think. The attack spun my world upside down.

The US hadn't been attacked since WW2 and even then, it wasn't the mainland US.

I almost joined the Marines to fight "over there" for some idiotic reason. I'm glad I dropped out of ROTC as I may be dead now.

It took me a few years to get over the shock, and around 2004 I started researching the events.

I found several inconsistencies with the official report, eyewitness reports, and videos of that day.

Ever since I've been trying to find out the truth.

The thousands who died on 9/11 and the thousands who have died afterwards (US, Afghani, and Iraqi) deserve JUSTICE.

Originally posted by jedimiller

Didn't actually think that the towers would fall.

We know that many people with knowledge of buildings and structural engineering were quite fearful that they would collapse.

And then, what a coincidence that BOTH of them fell, one after the other. I found that weird.

It's not really weird, though. The physics and circumstances were the same for both buildings.

if it was really a breaking point in the structure, then the towers wouldn't come down immediately like they did. Obiviously, to anyone of any intelligence the way the towers came down depended only on explosives and NOT planes hitting them.

I don't know why you would make that claim since it is virtually unanimous to those intelligent and qualified people why the towers collapsed and that explosives neither were needed nor any evidence found for them.

The point of the story? Surprised to see them both fall down in such a vertically correct way. As it was planned. Who did it? Well, if you read my other threads you know where I stand. But I don't want to make this thread about WHO; but about the chance of both of them falling after getting hit by small planes. Discuss.

It has been discussed endlessly for six years. Except for a small minority of people who are unwilling to deal with the evidence in its entirety, the causes of the collapses are well understood, accepted, and reaffirmed. And it had absolutely nothing to do with explosives or "controlled demolition."

These kinds of questions lead me to look at who is the OP...

I would NOT like to admit it even if I did, which I did not, because if and I am only saying 'if' OP, I had the ability to have foreseen the event before it happened , then wouldn't I be at risk NOW for future covert events and wouldnt that place me and my family in harms way?

Think about it. After all this is a conspiracy site...

reply to post by biggie smalls


The US 'has' been hit before, remember? I can recall Oklahoma City Bombing. And this was not the first attempt to take down the twin towers, just the first successful attempts. I do not have the worlds best memory, but I am certain there are many more examples large and small.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Unexpected? Not to everybody.

Interesting little quote about the World Trade Towers

"if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down."

Herbert Levine, inventor of spray on wet asbestos fireproofing (of which only one tower had asbestos fireproofing, and then only about half of it was covered).

Yeah, the inventor of spray on asbestos fireproofing doesn't have a biased interest in saying this. OK.

Originally posted by jthomas

We know that many people with knowledge of buildings and structural engineering were quite fearful that they would collapse.

This is interesting. I wonder why they would have felt this way, as the firemen only reached the floor immediately below the impact damage, so there was no verification of the extent of damage caused by the impacts. The only evidence to base that decision upon would be from below the impacts. What damage from below the impact zones indicated an eventual collapse? From what I've read of the NIST report so far, all the evidence of collapse initiation is from the impact zones and above.

It seems the collapse prediction came from the Office of Emergency Management, but I can't find any thing more about their reasoning which led to this conclusion. Was their prediction just mere speculation, intuition or did they know something we don't know about? Was this just a worst case scenario thrown out there to be safe?

Is there anyplace I can go to find out more about OEM's prediction (the who, when and why)?

Conspiracy or not. It was unexpected for the towers to fall the way they did. there is absolutely NO WAY that heat from the plane fuels damaged the steel structure such a way to make it collapse with such ease.

I still believe in the idea that someone placed explosives on certain floors and had this planned out very, very well. Anyone with common sense would understand this, educated or not.

reply to post by antar


I never said it was the first "terrorist" attack on this country. I didn't expect the towers to fall, not in a million years. That's so far-fetched I still can't believe it.

I know people who died that day. Their families have been in shock for 7 years now.

Do we tell them a group of Islamic extremists pulled off 9/11 and call it a day, or do we actually research the inconsistencies and find out the truth?

We owe it to the people who died that day and the people who have died as a result of US imperialist actions (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) to find out exactly what happened.