9/11 Third Tower Mystery 'Solved'

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Twisting and falling to one side simply will not happen with a building of that weight that is built the way it was. Like other people said, this isn't a Jenga tower, its a massive building that weighs many many tons.

The way the building was built if you take out one support structure the other collapse under the weight. So the side structure was damaged by the debris. Then the inside structures eventually became warped due to fire. The building then collapsed.

For the record the building did not entirely collapse in a controlled fashion. It severely damaged other buildings around it.

"When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building is not salvageable. As of August 2007, Fiterman Hall is undergoing deconstruction.[51] The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east façade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion."

I know its wikipedia, but the sources it links are pretty solid.

In my construction experience everything is built with a safety factor of 7 which would mean 7 columns would have to fail with only 1 remaining to cause the building to come down. I'm not sure if this is used with building loads but it still boggles my mind that heat could do this damage. As for the weight of the building being the cause for the implosion like result, I'm sure demolish experts will find this interesting as they will no longer have to take care with blasting each column at the same time to get a good result.
Maybe you're an engineer and can explain this weight factor better but just to state it as fact doesn't convince me. I've helped build a large number of structural steel buildings and taken down a few which is far scarier because of the unpredictability, just my take on this.

Here's an engineer and a PHD in chemistry who disagree with you but I think this will just result in our chasing our tails with no final conclusion but I like to question and not to accept spoon fed solutions just because they are convenient and the 9/11 event has too many questions from beginning to end.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...impossible.pdf

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wor...as-impossible/

As for the collateral damage to the other buildings, demolitions aren't perfect, that's why the surrounding areas are cleared.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by driveway

Oh, and United 93 was shot down. There is no way I believe the passengers 'wrested control' of the airplane back and that it crashed in the struggle. Uh uh, no way. That plane was shot down by US warplanes and the government built a cover-story.

United 93 was the last plane of the 4 that day in the air. People on board called people on the ground using their cell phones and the seat back phones. The other planes had already hit their targets. It was clear that this plane was headed for a similar fate (White House seems likely). The passengers attempted to seize control of the plane back but the hijackers flew it into the ground before they could. The phone calls placed prove the attempted pit raid was going to happen. "the black box for the flight records the struggle onboard preceding the plane’s crash." Link. There was no fighter jets in the air before the crash, in fact the shoot down order was signed by Bush until after the flight 93 was already down. There is no evidence that the plane was shot down.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

OMG they got to Burninator, how much did it take for you to sell your soul.

I use to be on the side of the conspiracy theorists actually. Those jive loose change videos make a compelling case until you actually start looking into the real facts and see that the whole conspiracy talk is a bunch of complete nonsense.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Wouldn't someone have come clean by now if there was an actual conspiracy? How hard is it to cover something this massive up? It would be next to impossible I would think, to have the sheer number of people on board a plan like this.

Nope this is the greatest conspiracy ever masterminded and it was blown wide open by some nerd in his basement who can splice youtube clips together. They were so close!

You are right though. A conspiracy of this magnitude would literally involve thousands of people from all over the country. People from the government, airline industry, military, ordinary citizens, firefighters, police, that dog with the shifty eyes. I mean the government can't even hide a blowjob. Yet the most incompetent government was able to pull this off. Yet no whistle blowers. Not-a-one. It's just not even in the realm of being possible.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I use to be on the side of the conspiracy theorists actually. Those jive loose change videos make a compelling case until you actually start looking into the real facts and see that the whole conspiracy talk is a bunch of complete nonsense.

For the record, I really enjoyed your post about how the buildings collapsed with the pictures and links. I wish more posts were like that. Going to PM a Mod about positive skill here in a second...

[Vulcan]

Good posts Burninator.

CaptainCrunch, I don't think many here buy into the conspiracy theory that the government took an active part in 9/11 but I wouldn't put it past them that they purposely looked the other way. Explanations of incompetency only go so far with known liars.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Here's an engineer and a PHD in chemistry who disagree with you but I think this will just result in our chasing our tails with no final conclusion but I like to question and not to accept spoon fed solutions just because they are convenient and the 9/11 event has too many questions from beginning to end.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...impossible.pdf

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wor...as-impossible/

As for the collateral damage to the other buildings, demolitions aren't perfect, that's why the surrounding areas are cleared.

A PHD in chemistry and a Mechanical Engineer? I don't want to make an ad hominem attack, but they are out of their field of expertise. Besides they are only focusing on one aspect of the collapse. It ain't that simple.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.
...
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
...
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Link.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I use to be on the side of the conspiracy theorists actually.

I don't know if I was ever really onside, but I was wide-open to the suggestion that there was something fishy going on. I still don't trust the people at the top.

This Tower 7, in particular. It just looks exactly like a controlled demolition. It was perfect. But, what the hell do I know about an "uncontrolled demolition". Why can't it look like that? What do I know about any demolition? Nothing. Neither do 99.9% of us.

We've seen them on the Discovery Channel and suddenly we are experts. I know that's what convinced me. "It looks like one of them things on TV". So what? That was all I had to go on.

I saw a documentary on the towers collapsing. They talked to a forlorn architect of the building and he was pretty convincing when explaining exactly what happened and why.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

For the record, I really enjoyed your post about how the buildings collapsed with the pictures and links. I wish more posts were like that. Going to PM a Mod about positive skill here in a second...

Appreciated. I think a lot of believe in the conspiracy of 9/11 stems from people wanting big explanations for big events. Events like 9/11 and the JFK assassination make people feel vulnerable. It's scary thinking that 19 people can essentially bring down one of the super powers of the world and change everything, or that one lone nut can take down the president of that country.

Some good stuff to watch or read is:

Popular Mechanics article

The accompanying book

Skeptic magazines eSkeptic article on the conspiracy

History channel had a good show on the conspiracy (it's probably on youtube)

National Geographic had a really good two part show about the events leading up to the attack.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The 9-11 attacks were the first in a series of events designed and executed by the Bush Administration for the specific purpose of conditioning (brainwashing) the American public for the eventual (and illegal) invasion of Iran. For Oil.

You forgot your green.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I will take the side of the debate that offers the best reasoning for why things happened, so I'll have to wait until the official report is released to the public. I'm not a fan of the US government coming up with the official story, but it's the closest thing we're going to get to it anytime soon.

However, I would just like to point out that the U.S. government has been guilty of 'false flag' operations in the past, such as Operation Ajax, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, and to a lesser extent Operation Northwoods regarding Cuba. These, among others, lead me to question the legitimacy of government explanations.

Those operations would have been much, much easier to keep under wraps. The scope of this thing was so enormous they would have had to have so many people in the know that its not even funny. With all the whistle blowing that has come out of that administration over the last 5 years or so we would've heard something significant about it.

For the record, I side on the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident in case anyone wants to discount my opinion as a kool-aid drinker.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

And American's wonder why the rest of the world hates them.

Oh, does the rest of the world hate me because I was born 70 miles south of the 49th? Do you hate me because I am an American?

Nice.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by driveway

Oh, and United 93 was shot down. There is no way I believe the passengers 'wrested control' of the airplane back and that it crashed in the struggle. Uh uh, no way. That plane was shot down by US warplanes and the government built a cover-story.

Why is it impossible? And if they did shoot it down, why did they need a cover story? That's exactly what SHOULD have been done!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Good posts Burninator.

CaptainCrunch, I don't think many here buy into the conspiracy theory that the government took an active part in 9/11 but I wouldn't put it past them that they purposely looked the other way. Explanations of incompetency only go so far with known liars.

Thanks.

In my opinion I blame the lack of preparedness for attack was the ignorance of the middle east extremists and the middle east in general. Heck I'll admit that I am quite ignorant about the middle east. Like others had said hindsight is 20/20. But with the Clinton and Bush administration the concern for middle east extremists intelligence was lacking to say the least. I mean Al-Quada attacked the World Center before!

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Oh, does the rest of the world hate me because I was born 70 miles south of the 49th? Do you hate me because I am an American?

Nice.

As said in the post, if you are the type to not question anything, live an entirely self-serving and gluttonous existence, and somehow still feel the need to dictate the tone to the world...yes.

But thats off topic.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

In my construction experience everything is built with a safety factor of 7 which would mean 7 columns would have to fail with only 1 remaining to cause the building to come down. I'm not sure if this is used with building loads but it still boggles my mind that heat could do this damage. As for the weight of the building being the cause for the implosion like result, I'm sure demolish experts will find this interesting as they will no longer have to take care with blasting each column at the same time to get a good result.
Maybe you're an engineer and can explain this weight factor better but just to state it as fact doesn't convince me. I've helped build a large number of structural steel buildings and taken down a few which is far scarier because of the unpredictability, just my take on this.

Here's an engineer and a PHD in chemistry who disagree with you but I think this will just result in our chasing our tails with no final conclusion but I like to question and not to accept spoon fed solutions just because they are convenient and the 9/11 event has too many questions from beginning to end.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...impossible.pdf

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wor...as-impossible/

As for the collateral damage to the other buildings, demolitions aren't perfect, that's why the surrounding areas are cleared.

The whole point of my post was that it was not a demolition like fall. In a controlled demolition YOU DO NOT take out surrounding buildings. Tower 7 took out two surrounding buildings. One had so much damage it was no salvageable and later destroyed. The other suffered major damage.

Just because the building did not fall over to the side like a bunch of Jenga block does not mean it was a controlled demolition. So basically my point is that in demolisions they will have to continue blasting in order to avoid taking out surrounding buildings as tower 7 did.

Please Reread Burninator's post (which btw is excellent), and it will explain why the building fell in the way it did.

[McMack]

I think what the War in Iraq has proven is that there is no need to come up with some comic book type consipracy theory to justify American military action when you can just drum up false charges of a nuclear weapons program and not really have to break a sweat. Plus, other than in a comic book, where are you going to find the hundreds of people who are so evil that they are willing to commit such a heinous act of treason and evil doing against their own countrymen?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Regarding United 93, it is possible it was shot down given that a crashed plane simply doesn't disintegrate into the ground as was the case in Shanksville, but I wouldn't put it past the passengers to wrest control of the plane - the hijackers, despite all of their planning, could easily have panicked and made mistakes so much that the whole thing spiraled out of control. All it takes is a few brave passengers, and I believe guys like Todd Beamer and others really did try and do something about it. There is too much evidence to suggest otherwise.

I've seen this several times on this board over the last 7 years. Absolutely false. The wreckage at Shanksville was comparable to United Flight 585 which crashed in a city park in Colorado Springs, Colorado on March 3, 1991. The plane basically hit the earth in a vertical dive and was obliterated.

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml

There was a similar crash in Pittsburgh, PA in September of 1994. Again, very small debris field with obliterated airplane. Both of these crashes were determined to be caused by rudder jams.

http://whyfiles.org/027plane_crash/rudder1.html

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

As said in the post, if you are the type to not question anything, live an entirely self-serving and gluttonous existence, and somehow still feel the need to dictate the tone to the world...yes.

But thats off topic.

No, that's not what you said. You said the world hates Americans.....you didn't say they only hated the stupid ones.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know if I was ever really onside, but I was wide-open to the suggestion that there was something fishy going on. I still don't trust the people at the top.

This Tower 7, in particular. It just looks exactly like a controlled demolition. It was perfect. But, what the hell do I know about an "uncontrolled demolition". Why can't it look like that? What do I know about any demolition? Nothing. Neither do 99.9% of us.

We've seen them on the Discovery Channel and suddenly we are experts. I know that's what convinced me. "It looks like one of them things on TV". So what? That was all I had to go on.

I saw a documentary on the towers collapsing. They talked to a forlorn architect of the building and he was pretty convincing when explaining exactly what happened and why.

I can't say I was ever skeptical of the WTC 7 collapse (didn't get much talk back then). I had a lot more questions about the Pentagon. But when I started looking into it, things that the conspiracy camp said didn't match up well with the facts. I remember one video that said something to the effect of "there are no pictures of plane parts at the pentagon crash site". Well it wasn't hard to find pictures of plane parts at the pentagon crash site. From there things just started to unravel for the conspiracy side.

Also I find it interesting that the focus is on WTC 7 now. The conspiracy talk started with the towers, then it was the pentagon, then flight 93, and now WTC 7. I figure it's because as the investigations and facts start piling up the conspiracy pushers have no choice but to go down the list.