911 Eyewitness

[Barbarossa]

I remember the thread. I think originally the fantastic claim was that the buildings were wired with explosives during construction, because they knew they'd have a devil of a job bringing them down any other way.

[Tempestv]

I have also heard the claim that all 757's and 767's were wired to be flown by remote control that could not be overriden by the pilot in order to stop hyjackings, and the fact that it was these two types of aircraft that were involved meant that there were never suicide hyjackers on the airplane- either terrorists hacked the system and flew the planes into the buildings, and the goverment created the idea of the hyjackers so that they didn't have to say that all 757's and 767's could be electronicly hyjacked, or that the goverment themselves did it, and created the hyjacker claim for obvious reasons.

BTW, if what Barbarossa said was true, then all the stuff they were going on about in the film about helicoptors goes out the window- they wouldn't need them. the claim could be checked by looking at the cost to build the buildings- all those blasting charges would cost a shitload of money

[j2k4]

Herewith, quoted with permission obtained from the original author-me.

Originally Posted by GepperRankins
i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives...

i'd like to see someone dispute this though

Alright.

I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately...because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such the one evinced above.

That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.

My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.

Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:

The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.

The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.

The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.

In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.

The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.

Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.

I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...

And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.

[Tempestv]

Herewith, quoted with permission obtained from the original author-me.

Originally Posted by GepperRankins
i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives...

i'd like to see someone dispute this though

Alright.

I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately...because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such the one evinced above.

That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.

My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.

Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:

The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.

The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.

The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.

In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.

The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.

Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.

I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...

And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.

very true

weakening a section and causing the weight above it to crush the rest of the building is exactly how professional demolition crews implode buildings such as this. that is why the buildings fell so perfectly, they literally were imploded the same as St pats hospital that I saw go down and walked around in before they knocked it down. the only difference is that in the WTC, the weakening came from the hot fire and damage from the impact, not hundreds or thousands of sticks of dinamite.

[j2k4]

Yes; it is actually quite simple and easily understood-perhaps that is it's weakness, eh?

It isn't complicated enough to suit even your garden-variety conspiracy theorist...

[lynx]

I think that one thing which fuels the conspiracy idea is that although the area around the impact site may have been weakened by fire (even though theoretically jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough), there is no way that the floors below the impact site could have been significantly affected.

Consequently people would expect each floor to provide some resistance to the movement of the debris collapsing on them from above, but this does not appear to have happened. I think there are 2 obvious questions raised by this.

• Are the expectations reasonable?
• If they are, would the amount of resistance be sufficient to be detectable?

I'm not a structural engineer so I don't have the answers to those questions, but others obviously do. If the answer to either question is no, one would think that someone would have come forward and said so. The fact that no-one appears to have done so only adds to the suspicion that there has been a conspiracy.

[Tempestv]

(even though theoretically jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough),

it is true that burning kerosine can't get steel hot enough to melt, however the heat can weaken it untill it no longer will hold up the weight above it. I have seen video where they built a building so that one half was steel framing and the other half was wood framing and furnished it like a house, then lit it on fire. the steel side collapsed very quickly, while the wood side charred over, but did not collapse. the heat was nowhere near what kerosene burns at, so it was cooler than the fires at WTC, but the heat was enough to compromise the steel and it fell.

[Tempestv]

I once attacked this theory on a conspericy forum, right after my post, the mods closed the thread. I guess when you tear apart their ideas, it gets them mad.

[Skillian]

Weren't there also reports of molten steel found at the site, even after a few days?

I'm sure that helped to fuel the conspiracy theories.

[Filliz]

Anybody ever read this thread in alt.prophecies.nostradamus on usenet.

Now that is an interesting read.

I never remember this making the news here but does anyone here know what happened witth this?