911 Conspiracy?

[Testosterone boy]

Walter E. Davis, PhD

13) How was it possible for the World Trade Center’s two towers to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes. The official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no credibly scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could have melted the steel girders. This is especially true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it directly. Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building. The South Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned demolition. Based upon scientific evidences, photos and videos of the event, and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is highly unlikely that the Towers collapsed because of burning jet fuel rather than demolition.

i ask you for one experts opinion on the collapse of TWC and you give me umpteen pages of a conspiracy plot. and in the whole thing there is this one reference.

this guy with the PhD you pasted here is just someone who wrote a paper using other sources, he is not an expert on the collapsing of the buildings.

1. both buildings did not fall smoothly straight down like he stated, the top portion above the impact of tower two is clearly seen toppling over. CLEARLY SEEN.

2. he mentions the architects and engineers, he is clearly taking there comments out of context and putting spin on it. the architects and engineers did say it wasnt the actual fall but a combonation, the impact, heat and design.

3. noone to my knowledge has said the steel melted.

one last bit of info for you. someone mentioned that even if the jet fuel burned at its most efficient manner(around 1600degrees) that it would have only waekened the steel approx. 50%. another factor in weakening steel is the amount of time it is subject to by heat.

like i said, i think your are just reading material that has a very biased slant to it, read what engineers(from MIT and other respect universities are saying).

and one last thing about the fire, the south tower which was struck last fell first, guess what, they have found that the fire retardant used on the girders were about half that of the north tower.

as far as the rest of the article i will post on it and copy a link of buddy28 and my debate.

but for the last time can you please find an engineers report for me that backs up any of your points. otherwise this is useless.

Who cares who the engineers work for?

Siverstein said that bldg 7 was a pull. The collapse of bldg 7 was virtually identical to the main towers.

Bldg 7...........headquarters for the investigation into wrongdoings by Worldcom/Bush and Citicorp/Bush. Amazing.

 

[spongebob]

1) The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11 attacks before hand, including the fact that commercial jets were to be used as bombs; they also knew the approximate dates and possible targets but were called off their investigations. Western intelligence had been aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as early as 1995. The plan was known as "Project Bojinka." It was known to both the CIA and FBI and was described in court documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC).

Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but did nothing to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent. However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut short their investigations into the attacks and those involved. Agents were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized information pertaining to their investigations. Some field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.

As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt all warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning also came from came from several others sources as well. Recently (May 25, 2002), CBS revealed that President Bush had been warned in an intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial planes for a domestic attack in the US.

3) Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor the President of the United States acted according to well established emergency protocols. Acting Joint Chief of Staff General Richard B. Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane. So he went ahead with his meeting. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff?

The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m., did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense, also at the Pentagon, about the other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? After he was notified, why did he go to the war room?

Zacarias Moussaouri was arrested after his flight trainers at the Minnesota flight school, Pan Am International Flight Academy, reported highly suspicious behavior. He was greatly unqualified; he wanted to learn to fly a 747 but wasn’t interested in takeoffs or landings; he was traveling on a French passport, said he was from France, but could not speak French. When
contacted, the French said he was a suspected terrorist connected to Al-Qaeda. However, a special counter terrorism panel of the FBI and CIA reviewed the case and dismissed it.

9) Why were the FBI called off its investigation of Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Moreover, why were the FBI Agents ordered to curtail their investigation of these attacks on October 10, 2001? The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as saying, "The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we’re not trying to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be in the process of filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to go public.

im only addressing a few of theses that i can recall quickly off the top of my head.

1. this plan involved commercial airliners with explosives on board being blown up across the atlantic and he mention the CIA headquarters in langly, nothing elese, i believe it was something like 7 planes or so. it is documented, please look it up. it was not the plans of 9-11.

2. all intel reports from allies were recieved and unknown to you at the time and what the writter is not telling you is that we were at hieghtened security after each warning. the second point is that it is also documented that al-queda put out "test information" to see how we would respond. in other words they knew they were being monitored and how they were being monitored.

3. i guess donald rumsfield and others werent in on the conspiracy, or VPcheney, condeleeza rice, both at the respected offices and intended targets of jets. and guess what, i guess someone forgot to tell john p. oniel, the main point man at the FBI intensely investigating UBL, because unfortunately he went to work after recently retiring for TWC on aug the 23rd. he died on 9-11. but you probably already knew that.

4. about zacarias moussouri, they tried to get a search warrant but were denied by a federal judge, that was only a couple of weeks prior to 9-11. the case was not dropped.

5. and please explain what he refers to when he says investigations were called off. im almost sure what i think he means but i would like for you to explain it to me.

this piece is also very contradicting in alot of ways. one minute it says all agents knew of and when the attacks were going to take place then it complains about agents being called off investigations and threatened.

next time before you cut and paste please follow up on what the writer is saying. and thats my main point, i dont think you do that, you just read what they write and say, "yep that sounds like it fits".

 

[spongebob]

Who cares who the engineers work for?

Siverstein said that bldg 7 was a pull. The collapse of bldg 7 was virtually identical to the main towers.

Bldg 7...........headquarters for the investigation into wrongdoings by Worldcom/Bush and Citicorp/Bush. Amazing.

what a relieve, im glad you didnt post a 20 page essay that really has very little to do with this thread topic.

it just says he has a PhD, i doubt he is an engineer. and if you follow the conversation. you'll understand why im saying that. wazzup has repeatedly stated many experts and egineers have said it was a controlled demo. but he gets that from alex's material;.i asked him to give the actual experts. what i think alex does is take peoples comments out of context and uses them for his arguement. and wazzup has not provided me with anything.

and i am specifically talking about the twin towers.

as far as wtc7, i read he said "pull it" and then he said" we watched it fall", meaning it possibly fell on its own.

i watched the video and i noticed the very top collapsing first.

 

[buddy28]

the clips were not strong enough for 1. and intial impact from a jet airliner,

This is misinformation. The WTC was designed specifically to withstand the impact of a 707.

2. an estimated 10,000 gallons of jet fuel,

More misinformation. 1) The 10,000 gallons is how much the airliners were estimated to be carrying for their intra-continental flight right before they impacted the towers. A good part of their fuel spontaneously ignited OUTSIDE the towers as we all astonishely witnessed in a MASSIVE fire ball. Any article that claims roughly 10,000 gallons of fuel was deposited inside each tower, is flat out wrong as a considerable amount of fuel combusted outside of the towers.

3. more than 1 floor on them. it was a combination of factors that caused the collapse.

What sources say each floor was designed only to hold it's own weight plus that of its occupants? What is their source? Do they have access to the WTC structural diagrams or are they just speculating due to the inferred legitimate structural failure evidenced from the collapse?

The problem with all official WTC collapse theories is they rely on circular logic to prove the structural failure. The WTC collapsed, so a structural failure must have occurred. And since a structural failure occurred, the WTC collapsed! Eureka!!

I can't offer any alternative explanation as to what occurred because I don't know.

But there are significant pieces of evidence that contradict the official events. The first being the seismic spikes. The second being the first person accounts of multiple 'explosions' and 'bombs' (using their own words) occurring in parts of the WTC entirely removed from the impact site - in some cases 50-100 floors away. Even in the basement! Then there's the pools of molten steel in the sub basement that were created from 'carpet' and office material that allegedly jettisoned down the elevator shafts to the sub floors whereupon it caught fire and smoldered in an oxygen deprived environment creating and sustaining temperatures hot enough to liquefy steel for over a month! Uh.. ok. And we can't forget the testimony of first responding fire fighters to the 77 and 78th floor claiming no large fires existed that we're supposed to write off as 'human error' because it doesn't jive with the official explanation.

And we're not even touching on the engineered fail safes implemented in the WTC design to withstand a 707 collision with the towers - a commercial airliner that’s only slightly smaller then the 767's. Nor has anyone been granted access to the WTC plans that delineate the structural specifications of the towers so we could theoretically recreate the conditions under which the towers were subject too and confirm, with structural parameters outlined in the blueprints, whether or not the towers should have failed given the circumstances.

Those plans have been kept from the public under the guise of national security considerations even though the towers have been leveled for over a 2 years and the associated documents represent no more than the equivilant of historical artifacts.

It's all been speculation and circular logic up to this point.

 

[Testosterone boy]

I would be more interested in counter arguments to the theory that the WTC was a pull if they didn't ship the evidence to China!!!

 

[spongebob]

Like I said in my original post, WTC collapse theories (both conspiratorial and 'official') are all speculative in nature so I don't know much about it nor am I endorsing any one theory over another. My perspective is one of skepticism with the 'official' collapse theory because of contradicting evidence. So I am approaching our discussion more as a exchange of possible ideas as to what might or might not have occurred rather than trying to definitively prove one theory over another.

I know what you're referring too. The new American online edition wrote an article refuting the misinformation surrounding the 2-signal 1-bomb 'evidence' proving only one explosive. They extensively quoted Dr. Brown's findings reported during a local Oklahoma radio station interview (interview date, station and interviewer specific), in which Dr Brown said his comments were taken out of context and that information from the Omniplex seismological institute led him to believe multiple bombs exploded at Murrah building.

i knew i could count on someone to actually research the info. i respect that although you and i have disagreed on alot of issues concerning the whole 9-11 event. your points on the siesmic data of TWC is taken and im just now looking at alot of it right now. it is interesting.

here is some of the material ive referred to.
http://www.okcbombing.org/News Articles/missile_murrah.htm
about the missile.

and i believe this is the link for the two waves one bomb data interpretations.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosholzer.html

im getting sleepy but im going to do more reading on TWC collapse for right now. this is taking up alot of time like our last go around and im in the middle of a full remodel at the house.

 

[spongebob]

This is misinformation. The WTC was designed specifically to withstand the impact of a 707.

More misinformation. 1) The 10,000 gallons is how much the airliners were estimated to be carrying for their intra-continental flight right before they impacted the towers. A good part of their fuel spontaneously ignited OUTSIDE the towers as we all astonishely witnessed in a MASSIVE fire ball. Any article that claims roughly 10,000 gallons of fuel was deposited inside each tower, is flat out wrong as a considerable amount of fuel combusted outside of the towers.

What sources say each floor was designed only to hold it's own weight plus that of its occupants? What is their source? Do they have access to the WTC structural diagrams or are they just speculating due to the inferred legitimate structural failure evidenced from the collapse?

Then there's the pools of molten steel in the sub basement that were created from 'carpet' and office material that allegedly jettisoned down the elevator shafts to the sub floors whereupon it caught fire and smoldered in an oxygen deprived environment creating and sustaining temperatures hot enough to liquefy steel for over a month!

And we're not even touching on the engineered fail safes implemented in the WTC design to withstand a 707 collision with the towers - a commercial airliner that’s only slightly smaller then the 767's.

.

1. buddy im referring to a clip taking a direct hit from the jet, im sorry but they were NOT desiegned for that, yes the structure as a whole was designed for lateral movements of that force. and then the remaining clips for that floor sustained damage from heat and the pulling(deflections) of the joises and columns. i found a very interesting article that they are intensly looking into the fire retardant used when built. they are saying it was insuffecient by almost 50% or more. tower 2 had less than tower one, it fell first although was hit second.

2. tower one was almost a direct hit. it was tower two that took a side hit that created the fireball. but by taking that side hit it sustained more damage to the perimenter because it took out columns on two sides. the perimenter is where the clips are attaching the joises to the columns. as a side note it is estimated that the fuel burned for nine minutes.

3. i will find my links to the engineers that have stated one or two floors is more than enough to bring down the next. each floor had 4 inch concrete slabs of 1 acrea approx.

4. im not going to argue how the molten steel happened, the only thing i know is that the fire intensity alone is not the only factor, time is also i believe.

5. again, it could have been 140mi/hr hurricane, that is lateral movements your are referring to when the designers state it was designed for a hit from a 707. it doesnt factor in fire.

 

[spongebob]

and would someone please explain why tower two clearly is toppling over at the upper floors above impact at the time of collapse. not a controlled detonation.

 

[spongebob]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

here he explains there really is no other way for a building to come down other than collapsing in itself. especially TWC because of the enormous mass and weight, gravitational forces make it fall that way. but he's just an engineer at MIT.

 

[spongebob]

here is just some info if anybody is interested.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html