WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

reply to post by Saltarello


Sorry for mis-reading that post, Im not normally that stupid.

What terrorists? Those 19 of wich half are still alive? They say they had no clue, condy stated no one could envision that, yet there is that report with the towers and a plane, not to mention the 9/11 drills. You were not attacked, at least not by external forces. And no, YOU did not allow it to happen.

reply to post by Saltarello


Ok....just so we are clear on this....when I said "We" I meant "They" (My government) allowed it to happen. I mean....I thought a reader could get what I was really trying to convey but hey....there ya are ....all confused.

The US is very intelligent and they know exactly what they are doing, allowing, and not allowing. I get it and will not dumb down for anyone!

PEACE!

reply to post by Gando702


If your 'wife' is an architect, then my brother is the Pope. Both statements have the same level of believability. Child, please. Will you guys ever wise up?

Originally posted by Gando702

1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.

ahem...



He (WTC construction amanager) said multiple plane strikes... yes MULTIPLE

Originally posted by Calex1987
but yet there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed standing...it must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins? you say your wife is an architect.....well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless...

edit on 20-9-2011 by Calex1987 because: (no reason given)

But we have zero confirmation about it being molten steel. It was mostly likely aluminum.

About every year or so, I basically erase everything I concluded about the events of 9/11 and restart my investigation with a so called "blank slate". And each year that passes I become more and more convince that 9/11 was a false flag terror attack. Its gotten to the point where the official account of the events that occurred that day are so ridiculous that it makes me wonder how anyone with a halfway decent intellect would ever believe it.

Very smart men were behind these attacks. Men that use their intellect to attack your intellect. Do you know what sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory? 19 Arabs with box cutters took over 4 jets and evaded the most sophisticated defense network in the world while under the command of a guy living in a cave with a laptop and flew 2 jets into the WTC and managed to knock down 3 buildings while another jet was flown with amazing precision into the Pentagon.

If you believe the official account of 9/11, you are a deluded half-wit.


Cheers

reply to post by Gando702


For a former "truther" you don't have many posts racked up on ATS. Having scanned through your posting history, I see very little to support your claim. Actually, you seem more preoccupied with the prospect of alien visitation than 911.

Could you maybe direct us to some of your material that would be more typical of the work of a truther? It's just that I think your claim to have been a truther is pure BS.

Also, holding an architecture degree from ASU doesn't make you an expert on anything. ASU does not to the best of my knowledge, offer an architectural degree. They have BSDs in Landscape architecture and Architectural studies. These are NOT full Arch degrees, which usually take 5 years. I like how you say "holds" also.This implies to me that she is not a practising architect.

I don't know what prompted you to digress from aliens to 911, and create an OP that is devoid of facts and figures and which is nothing more than a veiled contradiction of the Truthers claims.

It's not hard to see the psychology you are trying to employ here.

You initially fraternise with the Truther, claiming to have been one and the same and describing the common practices you once shared.

Then comes the epiphany, the AHA moment, Eureka. You saw the light, all by yourself.

Next comes the self deprecation piece.Works brilliantly in stand-up doesn't it. It disarms the audience, suggesting to them "here is a guy who can self anayze, who can be his own harshest critic". Maybe he's on to something here.

Finally the bogus story about the informed bystander (replete with non-existant degree), who calmly and knowledgebly lets you work it out for yourself, before confirming the correctness of your radical new belief system with regards to 911.

Is this "used to be a Truther but was cured" tactic the new thing now. OSers trying to use reverse psychology.That is laughable. Whens the next thread starting

I'm calling you out as a fraud based on what I have seen so far.Feel free to prove me wrong as, unlike most OSers, I'm prepared to accept that I might be wrong.

Originally posted by Human0815
I share some Points with the Op. because the Inner-Core of the WTC was very, very small
compare to the Building.
(which wasn't big in the Basement either, only high!)

The Plane cut through the Building in a easy manner (because there was not much Resistance)
and destabilized everything,
the damaged and de-stablized Inner-Core get heated up with expansion of the Steel
and loosed the Stability, finally the Pancake-Effect happened!

But than it + WTC 7.got blown up because of Security Matters

S.& F. because of having Eggs in the Pantsu!

edit on 20-9-2011 by Human0815 because: (no reason given)

These towers were designed to survive the impact of planes even bigger than the ones that hit them. And to think that fire from paper burning was enough hot to weaken the beams to cause the collapse is laughable at best. And you can't include jet fuel because even that doesn't get hot enough and all of it went up in the fireball when the planes hit.

reply to post by Gando702


1. The building withstood the plane impact, it didn't collapse untilr an hour or so afterwards. Whether this was caused by the plane or by explosives, one thing is certain, the building did not collapse from impact. This is why the NIST report doesn't even factor the plane impact into the equation, because that obviously did not necessitate the collapse. It may have led to an eventual collapse, but it was not the final straw.

2. A 1000 degree Fahrenheit fire is not intense enough to weaken steel. Even if the impact zone steel was weakened, it's hard to imagine a giant fire ball racing down the elevator shaft with enough heat to weaken the entire steel of the building.

3. Stuff breaks, stuff usually doesn't get pulverized.

4.The match, like the jet fuel, burns quickly, and then dies out. The smoke was black, indicating a weak fire, which wouldn't explain the molten steel at the base of the tower.

5. If it collapsed due to an airplane impact, it's not a controlled collapse, it would be organic and chaotic.

reply to post by deadmessiah


"Do you know what sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory? 19 Arabs with box cutters took over 4 jets and evaded the most sophisticated defense network in the world while under the command of a guy living in a cave with a laptop and flew 2 jets into the WTC and managed to knock down 3 buildings while another jet was flown with amazing precision into the Pentagon".

Dude, which part of this is crazy? That 19 men hijacked four planes? The fact that they were Arabs, what difference does that make? Would you find it somehow more believable if it had been 21 Americans? What difference does it make where Osama bid Laden lived? Would you find it somehow less crazy if he had lived in a nice bungalow, or maybe a mansion? The fact that they managed to evade the defense network, okay, I'll grant you that's unusual, but it may be accounted for by the fact that a co-ordinated use of hijacked airplanes as weapons by suicide bombers had never really happened before.

I don't understand the whole "Are you trying to tell me that a bunch of A-rabs did this?" line that gets trotted out so much. It smacks of racism.

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.

I agree..which now begs the question, why did the pile continue to burn for months? Jet fuel does not burn for months either.

Houston we have a problem.

reply to post by buster2010

These towers were designed to survive the impact of planes even bigger than the ones that hit them. And to think that fire from paper burning was enough hot to weaken the beams to cause the collapse is laughable at best. And you can't include jet fuel because even that doesn't get hot enough and all of it went up in the fireball when the planes hit.

You would be correct if you had your facts right.

The building were NOT designed to survive bigger planes. In fact there was never any testing done to prove it could survive any plane hit. Plus it was a statement about a smaller 707. The designer ASSUMED that the design could withstand a 707 at slower speed.

Second there were NO floor beams or any HORIZONTAL beams just floor trusses. Trusses are made from much thinner steel. Thin steel heats up quickly.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Here is a question; how many controlled demolitions do you know of where the rubble burned for months afterwards? Controlled demolitions are used to remove old buildings and for the most part build a new one where the old ones stood. Builders don't want to wait months to start working on a new building for the fires to go out.

I agree..which now begs the question, why did the pile continue to burn for months? Jet fuel does not burn for months either.

Houston we have a problem.

Controlled demolition companies remove the contents of the building to be demolished. The towers had all of their content when they collapsed less what was expelled on impact.
The pile continued to burn because there was significant fuel in the rubble in the form of office furnishings and paper. In such an environment, they continued to burn as a damped fire while the rubble acted as insulation. Underground fires are common in the mining industry and are difficult to extinguish.

reply to post by filosophia

2. A 1000 degree Fahrenheit fire is not intense enough to weaken steel. Even if the impact zone steel was weakened, it's hard to imagine a giant fire ball racing down the elevator shaft with enough heat to weaken the entire steel of the building.

That's what happens when you make some brash statement without checking the facts.

Here shows that steel is well below 50% at 1000F.
But what do they know they are only engineers whos job it is to know little things like that.
Maybe all the steel engineers are in on it! Every one of them in the entire world is covering it up just so the conspiracy can still be hidden.

I guess all the NEW engineers are being given incorrect tables to design from in all the colledges around the world.

Either that or YOU are incorrect in your assumptions.

reply to post by Gando702


I understand your perspective. Here is my problem. I agree that Bldg 7 is a whole different ball of wax, so to speak. But I think it is preposterous to think that the planes hit, chaos insued, and someone somewhere decided to take advantage of the situation, and managed to rig it to blow - all on that day, in that time. There is no way. So some part of the decision making, planning and execution of the plan had to have occurred prior to the first plane's crash into the north tower in this train of logic. And that doesn't allow for the version of the incident we have been told.

For me, you can't resolve the bldg 7 issues with the facts as we have been given. That, in and of itself, should be enough to question, at the very least, who knew what and when, and what they did with that knowledge.

reply to post by Gando702


You are forgetting that this was all planned whether there was demolition involved or not because there were hints of 9/11 before it happened and the war that followed was proven to be about oil etc.
Funny how people forget this.

Now i'm no expert but how could the fire of done so much damage to the base of the tower when the fires were on the upper floors and the fire men said they ahd the fires under the control?

reply to post by Viking9019


So how did we get any oil by planning 911? How did anyone profit from oil due to 911.

I just don't see a money connection.

interesting stuff right here:
education.jlab.org...

just to help out with the whole steel melting issue.

reply to post by samkent


A chart wont really cut it, why not talk about the test ad underwriter labs that concluded that the heat effect was negligible?