Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

Originally posted by Thug69
I watched a video a while back about the pentagon and 9/11 attacks and they interviewed the guy who owned the buildings and he said that they gave the word to "pull" one of the Wtc bulidings 7 hours later because of damage and to organize a controlled demolition it takes months now how could they pull it 7 hours later?

How many times do we have to go over this?

the term "pull" has a totaly different meaning to a firefighter than to a demolition contractor.

To a firefighter, to "pull" a building means to pull off and let it burn.

Isn't it true that the towers were designed to save weight and cost less to build inasmuch that they contained an inner vertical square framed structure connected to vertical spans spaced close together along the outer walls connected together buy gurders that were not covered with fireproof coating and connected by only a few bolts, and could the beams giving way because of the heat from the fire and the bolts breaking due to the stress between the inner and outer vertical spans at different times because of manufacturing tolerances account for this inconsistancy? I know very little beyond the basic construction of the towers and I am not an engineer, I make lost car keys. Just a thought.

Originally posted by HoonieSkoba
www.prisonplanet.com...


I'll admit that I didn't read the whole thing, but the following statement jumped out at me as odd:

"Eighty-one nations are represented among the World Trade Center�s dead - Israel is not one of these nations even though approximately 1200 of its citizens worked there."

hmmm...I found a September 11th Victims site that lists deaths by nationality. Nowhere near 81 nations represented (less than 40) and 2 Israeli citizens WERE included.

www.september11victims.com...


If I could find this hole in his article in 5 minutes of web surfing, I'm
skeptical about anything he has to say.

(BTW, I emailed him this finding - I'll let you know if he responds)

[edit on 9/24/2004 by HoonieSkoba]

Not only that, but the following

He responded in disbelief, and told me, "You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don't just implode like that; this was a demolition."

Is also just as stupid.

Structural engineers the world over have sudied the tower design over the past 30 years. were all of these people fooled into beliving that the design was something toally different? Were all of the pictures of the trusses being installed fake?

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
gurders that were not covered with fireproof coating

No they were coated with asbestos, one of the many concerns raised during the WTC dust scare in NYC.

There is so much info *head explodes* I am going to be up for days reading all of this

Please, don't sit there and read a few threads and form your opinon, this is far too important a subject to scoff at. If even a fragment of the alternatives presented on the WTC disaster are accurate then the implications of this are truly deserving of a serious investigation. You can swallow the official story if you like, but the official story is full of holes and I challenge any skeptic to debunk the information presented by myself and others here. PLEASE INVESTIGATE WTC. All of it. You can't sit there and quote a few engineers and toss this one to the curb. All I am asking of the skeptics in this matter is to read up on it, I think you will find yourself asking some questions...

Originally posted by twitchy
I challenge any skeptic to debunk the information presented by myself and others here.

That is what I am doing. The Randy Lavello article is so full of misinformation and out and out errors that it is totally non-credible.

It is hardly just a "few engineers," but I would guess that the entire engineering comunity would have to be in on this conspiracy.

I realize that you have made up your mind. Hell you probably made it up ten years ago that everything bad that happens in the world is the result of a government conspiracy.

Find me someone with a credible background in structural engineering who backs your assertions.





[edit on 25-9-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Thug69
I watched a video a while back about the pentagon and 9/11 attacks and they interviewed the guy who owned the buildings and he said that they gave the word to "pull" one of the Wtc bulidings 7 hours later because of damage and to organize a controlled demolition it takes months now how could they pull it 7 hours later?

How many times do we have to go over this?

the term "pull" has a totaly different meaning to a firefighter than to a demolition contractor.

To a firefighter, to "pull" a building means to pull off and let it burn.

Yeah, thats been covered already on this board, in a previous thread.. I recall someone going to the biggest Fire dept forum and asking a few firefighters..

HowardRoark said :
QuietSoul, Take some time to read this. It is a fairly good rundown of the prevailing collapse theories among structural engineers.

It is also quite damning of the design and structure of the towers. Well, hindsight is always 20/20.

Thanks for the excellent link, some real interesting stuff in there, gonna take a few to read the entire thing now, thanks!

Please, don't sit there and read a few threads and form your opinon, this is far too important a subject to scoff at. If even a fragment of the alternatives presented on the WTC disaster are accurate then the implications of this are truly deserving of a serious investigation. You can swallow the official story if you like, but the official story is full of holes and I challenge any skeptic to debunk the information presented by myself and others here. PLEASE INVESTIGATE WTC. All of it. You can't sit there and quote a few engineers and toss this one to the curb. All I am asking of the skeptics in this matter is to read up on it, I think you will find yourself asking some questions...

Amen to that, I'm still leaning both ways. I've read damning material that says No way, and damning material that says Way, so I'm still trying to peice it all together from the slew of info thats totally false misinformation or half-told explainations.

This is a good thread, lot of people busting out with some real material to sway you either way.. We need to keep this up and maybe someone may find some incriminating data.. Or the truth

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
gurders that were not covered with fireproof coating

No they were coated with asbestos, one of the many concerns raised during the WTC dust scare in NYC.

I'm not debunking you but I am just trying to understand the big picture here.

I saw on PBS that the gurders were not protected by the asbestos. I understand by watching Frontline they were inclosed and bare of any coating. Please let me know how you come to the conclusion the beams were coated. Maybe were on to something here. I mean if PBS Frontline thought that then maybe a cover up is possible.

HowardRoark said:
Find me someone with a credible background in structural engineering who backs your assertions.

That's what I'm looking for

But let me take another jab at your point of view. Say the government planned this great attack, it would be quite obvious that the members very very high in the government would know about such an idea. IF this were done by the US, it would not be something President Bush thought up with his lackies in the white house. It would be worked out strategicly with the very high military meeting going over every single possible outcome. Full out war? Mass panic? And, of course, the coverup.

Now if you went through all the trouble of gathering all these high officials, plan this attack, plan the coverup and plan the potential outcome, wouldnt you also recruit the best coverup feasibly possible? It's not completely unthinkable that your great engineers of the world were given a large amount of money or an oppurtunity to be a part of the "high up's" or dare I say NWO.

What they did not plan for however, is damn near everyone skeptical of the attack, pouring over pictures, watching movies, and self-analyzing the hundreds of pages of data out there.

I honestly think 'they' still think we're braindead. ;p

.. or

Or I'm reading into way more then I should. But neither you nor anyone on this board can honestly say that the present life on Earth hasn't changed DRAMATICALLY over 3 years. Several wars all over the world spurred up, countries in straight out uncontrollable genocide, terrorists pouring down on Afghan and Iraq, several countries demanding nuclear weapons and ignoring warnings, and the impending War over Taiwan.. hell, probably alot more conflicts I haven't researched well..

.. all after Sept. 11







[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]

The WTC pancaked down:

vincentdunn.com...

Lets try to curb a problem before it starts on yet another 9/11 thread..

Misinformation.

You want to know why it fell? Look for engineer articles. You want to know if the steel melted? Look for scientist data and charts. You want to know if their were bombs? Look for demolition experts.

All I'm saying is look for experts, and ignore the heresay and half-truths. We're trying to gather the facts here, not add more facts to it.

[edit on 9/25/2004 by QuietSoul]

Compares the WTC construction to the Empire State Buildings' construction.
Why the ESB would have held up under a hit by the 767.

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
gurders that were not covered with fireproof coating

No they were coated with asbestos, one of the many concerns raised during the WTC dust scare in NYC.

I'm not debunking you but I am just trying to understand the big picture here.

I saw on PBS that the gurders were not protected by the asbestos. I understand by watching Frontline they were inclosed and bare of any coating. Please let me know how you come to the conclusion the beams were coated. Maybe were on to something here. I mean if PBS Frontline thought that then maybe a cover up is possible.

Ok, first off you need to understand what the relation of abestos and fire proofing is. Spraying abestos on the beams isnt fireproofing. Abestos is used along WITH fire proofing to give the sprayed area "lift" (the bumpy surface the forms/dries when sprayed.

Read this link if you want to learn more about how fire proofing is used WITH abestos.. you'll get a general idea of how and why abestos was used.
www.marinechemist.com...

I'm not debunking your debunk here, I'm merely explaining why abestos was a problem when the building fell. Now regarding IF the beams were sprayed with the abestos/fire proof mix.. well, thats a good start to a conspiracy.

Were they sprayed at all in your PBS special? If so, maybe it wasnt fireproof but just abestos .. trying to save a few bucks on building making!

Or plan for an attack :p

okay...

www.architectureweek.com...

Still looks like a pancaking effect.

Originally posted by LL1
Compares the WTC construction to the Empire State Buildings' construction.
Why the ESB would have held up under a hit by the 767.

Actually, I just read your article and it has ALOT of good facts.. perhaps not proven, not sure.. but very good speculation..

I'll withdrawl my previous reply ;p

for the love of all that is Holy...


there were no bombs..... I don't care what the experts say and what science can or cannot prove...

no one knows exactly what would / could happen if a plane crashes into a buidling... no one...

there were no bombs and the buildings fell from being hit by airplanes

BOTTOM LINE.....

According to PBS, the beams were not covered with asbestos. According to them it was not considered to be needed to save cost. BTW, I consider the Public Broadcasting Service and Frontline to be more of an objective news source than any other US media.

Now the terrorists had degrees in architecture (master degree), I believe they knew exactly what they were doing. 11 of the 19 had degrees (plural) DEGREES!
They studied their mark carefully.

www.tms.org...

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
According to PBS, the beams were not covered with asbestos. According to them it was not considered to be needed to save cost. BTW, I consider the Public Broadcasting Service and Frontline to be more of an objective news source than any other US media.

Interesting..

After reading LL1's links about the construction and failure of the WTC from the engineers viewpoint, and reading what you posted about the fireproof its quite obvious why it fell.

I honestly think the engineers that built WTC never intended for it to hold up to a plane. They just said it would.

Ok, So now I'm leaning back to no-bombs.. but I still think something fishy is up with the whole attack..