Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

OK Im putting all bullshit politics aside cause I dont care...I really I just live life and enjoy it and have no time to figure out why. All I am stating is what I saw on CNN during the attack and what I saw on that Documentary about the firefighters on DVD...no websites, no physics people, nothing questionably false.

When I saw the towers collapsed after the words holy shit and oh my goodness I thought "wow, thankfully they came down like a controlled demolition" it was natural...those are the exact words I thought to myself and later said to my dad. Of course ignoring all this website stuff you guys are dissmissing I just said it was a good thing the buildings were designed to fall that way.

I also assumed the WTC-7 was just across the street and collapsed because of the collapse of the twin towers...whatever...I really ignored the second building.

Then I see the DVD documentary of the first firefighters to arrive at the tower...immediately when they arrive there is heavy damage to the main lobby and apparently someone on fire. Immediately what came to mind was "how could so much damage be done to the main lobby from an explosion 87 floors above it and how can someone catch fire 87 floors above and get down in about 2 minutes?".

I also listened to the peoples phone calls from the plane or the reanactments of them and I thought "hmm...cell phones dont work on plays at 30 thousand feet...what the ****?" Thats all I questioned and thats all objective right there.









Now what I really think...everything below this can be dismissed since I base it all after the incident.

As I watched the documentary I saw the explosions happen many floors below the point of the collapse...whatever I could be wrong.

I also knew about the inner columns of the building and after taking physics and chemistry knew that to melt those steel columns would take enormous amounts of heat. I also knew that the buildings columns were designed to handle heat caused by jet fuel...and that jet fuel does not burn at the required temperatures to melt all those beams. Not only that...but in order for the buildings to collapse the way they did, in a uniform free fall motion (which means that the floors didnt really fall ontop of eachother then collapse on top of the floors below em and repeat that) the 47 beams in the center and the 100 or so beams in the perimeter all had to melt/break at the exact same time. Also let me note that by law the buildings were built so that each and every floor can handle at least 3 times the weight above them. So the 80th floor out of 100 for example would have to handle the weight of at least 60 floors...not just the bare minumum of 20. So when the top of the tower collapsed onto whatever floor it did...it couldnt have caused the entire building to uniformly collapse.

Is it probable that 3 skyscrapers in the same area all broke a record for collapsing due to fires in the whole world? Especially in America where we have strict codes? Not even a 50 story building in Mexico collapsed when 30 of its 50 floors were completely engulfed in flames. Cmon....

What really happened I have no clue...why was it done the way it was...I have no clue nor does it matter...but you guys cant dismiss the fact that the cause of collapse given to us by the commision is improbable just because you cant think of a good reason why.

Maybe the terrorists did something much worse than hijacking 3 planes or much more elaborate than hijacking 3 planes and our government is trying to protect us from that truth because it may cause panic among us. I mean just look at the countries reaction to the simple explanation of the hijacking...we went ****ing crazy...who knows what would happen to us if another attack were to happen or if we were to find out it was worse that it really was.
 
Man, the 9/11 commission could have really used your layman's opinion and unsupported guesswork when conducting their investigation.

Why didn't you volunteer your services??

Unless... unless you are one of them!!
 
clarky003 said:
well someone close the thread please, its just turned into state my belief of why this is an impossibility , rather than objective analysis of the events around WTC 7 building.
Click to expand...

Bush forbid we exhibit any semblance of gorm ;)
 
Milkman12, thanks for the blast of sanity, this thread was in dire need of it.
 
BEAMS DONT HAVE TO MELT. THEY BECOME STRUCTURALLY WEAK, and they have HUGE weights of the rest of the stories above them bearing down. The explosion blasted off the fire retardent protection coating on the steel.
 
SAJ said:
CAPS DONT HAVE TO BE USED. We can hear you fine thanks.
Click to expand...

THEY SHOW THAT I AM SHOUTING...


but seriously, I know that. I didn't do it throughout the post <shrugs> Just the first portion.
 
Evil Conspiracy dude 1:
"Okay, so, we blow up WTC 1 and 2...then what?"
Evil Conspiracy dude 2:
"Well let's look here..WTC 3, 4, 5...7!"
Evil Conspiracy dude 1:
"What does WTC 7 have to do with it?"
Evil Conspiracy dude 2:
"It has to go! But we'll blow it up in the middle of the afternoon, hours after the other towers go down after the entire area has been completely abandoned."
Evil Conspiracy dude 1:
"..."
Evil Conspiracy dude 2:
"WTF you moron it doesn't have to make sense!"
Evil Conspiracy dude 1:
"Bah 'struth. Let's do this."
Evil Conspiracy dude 2:
"LEEEEEEEEEERRROOOOOOOOYYY JJEEENNKIIIIINSSSS!!!"
 
Then I see the DVD documentary of the first firefighters to arrive at the tower...immediately when they arrive there is heavy damage to the main lobby and apparently someone on fire. Immediately what came to mind was "how could so much damage be done to the main lobby from an explosion 87 floors above it and how can someone catch fire 87 floors above and get down in about 2 minutes?".
Click to expand...
Fire shot down the elevator shafts to the bottom floor, incinerating people down every floor. Watched a documentary about it, the firefighters turned the cameras away.
 
Some of you really need to read up on modern skyscrapers. The strength in the World Trade Center towers comes from the outer edge of the building. Not the complex of beams in the center.
 
You wanna know what really makes me the most skeptical about the 9/11 conspiracy theories? How these people keep claiming that the government even lied about what plane types hit the buildings. Thats such a load of bullshit...

that these people can talk about conspiracies, and totally ignore the phone calls that the passengers have had with people in their lives... that completely matched the situations that were going on.

The conspiracy theories that the planes werent even what they were said to be... makes it like those phone calls didn't exist, that somehow the people describing the new york skyline... "The water, the buildings... we're low, far too low"(not an exact quote) as they descend... was somehow bogus.

Makes me mad.
 
OK, here's something: sometimes the government lies.

Here's another thing: I don't believe they were lying about 9/11.
 
I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration, but, as well as a lot of other stuff that has been said, there's this: if the US government did it why would they bother with the planes? Plane-crashing is a pretty unconventional method as far as I'm aware. Terrorists use bombs, don't they? They could have blown the buildings and said the bombs were planted by terrorists.

I find it far more likely that they knew it was coming, let it happen but were not directly reponsible for it.

Look back in history, eh? What about 1930's ? when hitler put the reichstag on fire and blamed it on those RUSSIANS(terrorists) so then Germany INVADED russia..... and then launched campaigns into poland and France. (Afghanistan, then Iraq)
Click to expand...

Do you...err, know...anything about history? That's not what happened at all. Nobody is sure whether the Reichstag fire was a set-up (in all probability it was) but they blamed it on German communists and they didn't suddenly invade Russia right after that. o_O
 
Yep, it was actually blamed on a mentally disabled communist german

Then Germany made a treaty with Russia :p

And then invaded much later as part of Operation Barbarossa.

Just to clarify!

But by the way, MIT have disproved a well established fact. Please guys take notice of this
 
But if they are incorrect about that basic historical factoid, how do we know they're really scientific smartymen when it comes to structural engineering and high-temperature explosions??
 
DiSTuRbEd said:
Hey 15 year old, STFU.
Click to expand...
WTF?
Stop trying to use your older than me to put point to your case.
Age is irrelavant, should we all bow down and do what our torie masters say becuase there all like 80+? No, we do and treat other people regardless of age/sex/gender, to do so otherwise, in fact to use it in an arguemnt is pathetic. If you'd have said - Hey, Black person STFU, the forum would be up in arms, its not the same, but its still a comment based on arrogance.

I was saying to ennui how to merely enter a thread, and ridicule people as your sole argument, is just weak. On anyother thread, say a anti-war thread, if someone had come in and said, "Oh look its the communist hippies, go Flower Power!" They would probably been at least warned. Now this thread is a bit contreversaul, but the posters still deserve to be treated with respect. You can disagree but you must explain why and allow a structured debate to take place, instead of just adding an insult.

Solaris
 
1. What 'torie masters'? Last time I checked, labour were in government. :O

2. Actually, age is relevant. While race has no bearing on intelligence, age definitely does count for something, doesn't it? In fact, by stealing a joke from Red vs Blue, I can prove that you're stupid.

- Think back ten years. You were stupid ten years ago, right?
- Think forward ten years. When you look back, you will realise that you were stupid now.

3. Ennui apologised.
 
Sulkdodds said:
1. What 'torie masters'? Last time I checked, labour were in government. :O

2. Actually, age is relevant. While race has no bearing on intelligence, age definitely does count for something, doesn't it? In fact, by stealing a joke from Red vs Blue, I can prove that you're stupid.

- Think back ten years. You were stupid ten years ago, right?
- Think forward ten years. When you look back, you will realise that you were stupid now.

3. Ennui apologised.
Click to expand...

I fully accept it, but my problems with disturbed, who after my critisim of ennuis post. Said "Hey 15 year old! STFU"

Of Stern said to you hey 18-24 Year old, I'm older than you which makes me right, you wouldnt accept it. I don't think comments like that should be acceptable here.
 
How about you both shut the hell up and let the adults speak.
 
But I'm only 16! :eek:

Which means I have proved myself stupid, too. :E
 
Tr0n said:
Which is basically just you and Stern... ;)
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by adult... cause i'm 20. Legally an adult, and mature enough to act like one. Just... less so on these forums.
 
Back on topic.

Ok I am prepared to accept that it is possible but not very probable that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled explosion.
No I haven’t joined to tin helmet brigade; I base this possibility on these facts.

WTC 1 and 2 had planes slammed into them and collapsed, simple as that.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane but fires ignited after the planes hit the towers and was damaged by the towers collapsing. WTC 7 burned all day long until it finally collapsed late in the afternoon. When it collapsed it was empty and this collapse did not cause a single fatality (There are reports that a secret service person was inside, but I can’t really confirm this).

Therein lays the possibility, all be it slight that an order was given at ground level, to bring down an unsafe, blazing building.

The possibility that WTC 7 was demolished by explosive devises for safety reasons is only slight and on the balance of probability, it seems highly unlikely that the building could be rigged for demolition in such a short period of time and given the chaotic conditions.

Therefore if WTC 7 was, as is being argued brought down through a controlled explosion then it comes back to somebody rigging these devices prior to the planes hitting WTC 1 & 2.

This scenario falls into the crackpot conspiracies that people would wire up a skyscraper with explosives before the planes were even hijacked.

The one blatant fault in this scenario is why let the building stand all day before bringing it down?

With all the media attention at the time why wait before setting off your explosives? Would it not be better to bring down WTC 7 when the towers fell? The dust cloud would have been perfect cover for this to happen, why wait for it all to settle and start setting off explosives in WTC 7, in the full glare of the worlds media?

Whatever happened to WTC 7 on that dreadful day the simple fact is it was part of one of the worse crimes in modern history.

There is a slight possibility it was ordered to be brought down, but I doubt it very much.
 
The 'official' story for WTC 7 is it spontaniously collapsed due to fire. But so many people are in an uproar about it because its not atall consistant with fire's in steel built buildings, fire cant weaken steel anywhere near enough to cause a collapse, the building was delt minor exterior damage when the other builidings fell, hardly a scratch.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

all you have to do is compare it to buildings that have collapsed due to earth quakes and demolition,.. it's a perfect match for demolition through sheer obviousness of the way it falls. if youve seen steel buildings burn in the past, their skeleton always remains.

the hotel windsor, a modern steel framed building burned for 24 hours, all the steel core structure, and concrete filled flooring remained perfectly intact.

http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album5/img/04.jpg

http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album5/img/09.jpg

fire alone, cannot bring a steel building down , let alone in that fashion.

steel buildings are designed to support their weight even at well over half their weakness, its why there are so many steel support columns in place, steel is at half its weakness at 600 degrees C, fire doesnt get anywhere near that, jet fuel doesnt even burn anywhere near that.
 
clarky003 said:
the hotel windsor, a modern steel framed building burned for 24 hours, all the steel core structure, and concrete filled flooring remained perfectly intact.
Click to expand...

I blame the lack of planes with four times as much kinetic energy as the building was designed to withstand.
 
clarky003 said:
The 'official' story for WTC 7 is it spontaniously collapsed due to fire. But so many people are in an uproar about it because its not atall consistant with fire's in steel built buildings, fire cant weaken steel anywhere near enough to cause a collapse.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

all you have to do is compare it to buildings that have collapsed due to earth quakes and demolition,.. it's a perfect match for demolition through sheer obviousness of the way it falls. if youve seen steel buildings burn in the past, their skeleton always remains.

the hotel windsor, a modern steel framed building burned for 24 hours, all the steel core structure, and concrete filled flooring remained perfectly intact.

http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album5/img/04.jpg

http://gblx.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album5/img/09.jpg

fire alone, cannot bring a steel building down , let alone in that fashion.

steel buildings are designed to support their weight even at well over half their weakness, its why there are so many steel support columns in place, steel is at half its weakness at 600 degrees C, fire doesnt get anywhere near that, jet fuel doesnt even burn anywhere near that.
Click to expand...

OMG LOOK http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_northface.jpg Fires!!! in the building! WTF? how did they get there? if it was caused from falling debris on fire shouldn't it be more to the top? Oh and look how seperated they are! the falling debris suspiciously zapped the the inners of the building where they caught some peices of paper on fire in 2 different sections... and they were conviently placed for the terrorists in the 2 main support columns that somehow breaking the laws of science weakened the steel enough to cause the building that had "It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC." That sucks that all the evidence from recent crimes in NYC was destroyed.
 
I blame the lack of planes with four times as much kinetic energy as the building was designed to withstand.
Click to expand...

Im talking about the WTC 7 building alone im not trying to compare, even still the WTC 1 and 2 obsorbed that energy in a localised area of the structure, symmetrical damage, internal damage amount was not known, although its evident people where still alive up there on the floors the plane hit, it wasnt investigated.. they cleared the site away before any proper forensic teams could try to work on it.
 
Pauly said:
That sucks that all the evidence from recent crimes in NYC was destroyed.
Click to expand...

ZOMG MAFIA CONSPIRACY

Or even...ZOMBIE MASTER MAFIA :eek:
 
It also housed then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds.
 
Why'd they spend all that money on it if they were about to blow it up?
 
Sulkdodds said:
Why'd they spend all that money on it if they were about to blow it up?
Click to expand...
The question should be - with all that protection WHY did it collapse? They built it (IMO) for the control center of 9-11 Remember Insurancy policy? thats why.
 
In the theoretical case that the collapse of the towers was staged, planes flying into the WTC towers was the most effective way to ensure the whole country, and much of the world was watching it all unfold.
If the WTC towers just exploded out of the blue it wouldn't have the same effect as seeing them being hit by planes, then tumbleing down sometime later.

Horrifying thought that any government or other organization short of terrorists would do that to their own people for profit. I find it unlikely, but not immpossible that it's true.
 
Synthos said:
In the theoretical case that the collapse of the towers was staged, planes flying into the WTC towers was the most effective way to ensure the whole country, and much of the world was watching it all unfold.
If the WTC towers just exploded out of the blue it wouldn't have the same effect as seeing them being hit by planes, then tumbleing down sometime later.
Click to expand...
Thanks Synthos for your input... I couldn't agree more.
 
If the government had masterminded it it would have taken years of forward planning and why weren't there any whistleblowers?

All the planning would have to come together to produce the most brilliantly diabolic evil plan the world has ever know.
Now compare that to the government who doesn't seem to know their heads from their arse.

I think... they had the motive and possibly the immorality to do it...but I don't think they had the capability, in respect to secrecy.
 
Still no-one has disproven either TIMECUBE or the DANGER MEMO.

I guess they must be factual!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top