TerrorStorm: Free movie

[Riverwind]

From other pics the fires are no

t at the top, they are about 1/3 of the way up. Any good video of WTC 1 and 2 on collapse show nothing hit

the top half of WTC 7.

The NIST analysis makes no mention of where the debris hit. I was the one who said it hit the top half and it appears to be a minor factual error which does not change the ultimate explaination: structural damage + uncontrolled fires == building collapse.

[Charles Anthony]

From the Popular Mechanics article...

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=5

If you think in terms of building codes, this National Institute of Standards and Technology account becomes the definition of ridiculous.

What Fire Marshal would approve of such construction??????

Either the building codes permit such outrageously dangerous construction or these reports of "tenants used to run emergency generators" are distractionary lies.

I believe they are lies. Otherwise, every single fire-fighter in New York would never go into a building of such absurd construction for fear of it imploding upon them. How ridiculous can these non-conspiracy-theories get?

[Riverwind]

What Fire Marshal would approve of such construction??????

Fire Marshals only care about likely risks. Debris failing from another building collapse + plus out of control fires were not considered 'likely risks'. Do you believe buildings should be designed to with stand meteor showers no matter what the cost?

Either the building codes permit such outrageously dangerous construction or these reports of "tenants used to run emergency generators" are distractionary lies.

Right. Methinks you doth protest a little too much to be serious....

[Michael Hardner]

Will check into that site some more.

That site does a good job of tracking down which conspiracy theories are still open, and which have an explanation.

[Charles Anthony]

Methinks you doth protest a little too much to be serious....

Not entirely.

To be as concise as possible, I do not believe that those three towers fell as a result of the two planes alone. The falls are toooooo perfect.

The immediate axial descent of the beacon-pole on the North Tower is spookie. It did not tip sideways.

I do not believe the American "government" was behind the attacks. However, like most democracies, there are countless bureaucrats and contractors on the payroll. It is possible for one employee of the American "government" to have been part of the plot. I will not rule it out. Does that mean the American "government" was behind the attacks? No. At least, not in any reasonable or useful sense.

The Western world experiences domestic horror everyday. If Timothy McVeigh could bomb to kill innocent civilians in his own country, I see no reason to rule out the planting of bombs in the towers as a back-up. Given the magnitude of evil of whoever masterminded the attacks, I do not think it is prudent to believe there are limits to such evil.

Given that those buildings housed many different businesses, looking beyond "government" for infiltrators is also reasonable. Anybody could have participated in the attacks from a ground level.

All of these brand-new post-2001 de-construction collapsing-building-design theories make me think that the easiest way to get from Montreal to Toronto might not include stops in Gander or London or Cairo or Sydney or Tokyo or L.A. or Vancouver along the way. It seems more likely that bombs were involved -- given that the attacks were not accidental and required a lot of planning anyway. Why not infiltrate and rig up the targets too???

What would Dr.Evil do if his plane-hijacking pawns get cold feet or physically failed to secure the cockpits and got captured??? Whoever masterminded those attacks was clever and exceedingly elusive. The Zacarias Moussaoui conviction is the best we can do and it is a dead-end.

[GostHacked]

Again even the NSIT is theorizing here with nothing difinitive. They say they really do not know what caused the collapse. Shrugging shoulders across the board. Tell you what, I'd love to see official origional blueprints of WTC 7.

Back up power is essential in skyscrapers. There would have been one or two back up generators in the basement of the building. The tenents themselves would not have individual generators. Possible the NYC Mayor Emergency bunker (in WTC 7) may have had that 'secondary generator with the feed from the basement'. but overall I think its all a best guess.

I do agree in more investigation.

[Michael Hardner]

I do agree in more investigation.

I concur. WTC 7 doesn't have a definitive answer yet.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I do agree in more investigation.

I concur. WTC 7 doesn't have a definitive answer yet.

I think there is an even bigger conspiracy at play here.

The democrats under Bill Clinton had this all planned before Bush came into office.

Before the inauguration, the wheels were set into motion with a master plan of undermining the Bush administration's long term goals in the Middle East.

The dem's KNEW that Bush et. al. would be looking to make some sweeping changes in the Middle east and the only way to ggrab power back would be to make the whole thing look like a conspiracy, which of course they would blame on the president who was in power DURING the attacks (ingenius).

[Riverwind]

To be as concise as possible, I do not believe that those three towers fell as a result of the two planes alone. The falls are toooooo perfect.

Why? Many important physical phenomena are counterintuitive to human beings. If you drop a penny and a brick from a tall building they will hit the ground at the same time. However, if you ask a 10 year old kid which will hit first they will likely pick the brick because a 10 year old has not been taught Newtonian physics and would answer based on their intuitive understanding of physics.

When it comes to collapsing buildings our intuitive understanding is based on what we observed playing with blocks when we were kids. If you build a tower with blocks it will never collapse into its footprint. However, steel frame buildings do not behave like stacks of blocks therefore is wrong to presume that there must something illogical about the near perfect collapse.

In fact I will turn the problem around and propose "Riverwind's Theory of Collapsing Buildings" which states:

"Buildings that collapse due to internal damage will fall into their own footprint unless acted on by an outside force during the collapse".

I cannot prove my theory with science but neither could Issac Netwon when he first proposed the theory of gravity. My theory, like Netwon's, is based entirely on scientific observation. And I challenge you prove my theory wrong by either providing a theoretical counter proof or producing at least one counter example. I don't think you will be able to do that which means my theory is a rational explanation for what we observed on 9/11.

You will likely object and claim that I should be responsible for proving my theory and not the other way around. My response is my theory is the most rational explanation for the observed experimental results and that it is the conspiracy theorists who are being unreasonable by insisting that other people prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the near perfect collapse was a natural consequence of a plane crash and an out of control fire.

[Charles Anthony]

Why?

-- because these were calculated attacks. They were deliberately and well-planned events.

We are not talking about an apple that happened to fall on somebody's head.

[Riverwind]

Why?

-- because these were calculated attacks. They were deliberately and well-planned events.

The only thing that was planned was the planes flying into the buildings. The complete collapse was a surprise to everyone involved.

[Charles Anthony]

The only thing that was planned was the planes flying into the buildings. The complete collapse was a surprise to everyone involved.

Everyone involved?

What do you know about the plans and the people involved that we do not know?

You are closing off discussion by insisting that the intentions and plans of the attackers are 100% known. That is assumption.

[Drea]

If building always fall into their own footprints why do we need demo crews?

Why all the regualtion when demolishing a building?

Why not just hit it with a wrecking ball once and watch it fall into it's own footprint?

No need for safety as the building will fall perfectly straight down.

Those demolition crews are hiring way too many employees just to make sure a building doesn't topple over and hit other buildings/people.

The building will naturally fall exactly in it's own footprint -- especially if you hit it with the wrecking ball on the top few floors.

No kidding! All buildings naturally fall into their own footprints. It's physics!

/end sarcasm.

[Riverwind]

Why not just hit it with a wrecking ball once and watch it fall into it's own footprint?

A wrecking ball is an outside force. Buildings only fall into their footprint when their internal supports are damaged.

Those demolition crews are hiring way too many employees just to make sure a building doesn't topple over and hit other buildings/people.

Falling into its footprint can still produce a lot of debris and potential for collateral damage.

No kidding! All buildings naturally fall into their own footprints. It's physics!

Can you prove that it is not true? Why should officials be expected to prove that every kooky conspirasy theory is not true? Shouldn't the conspirasy theorists be expected to prove that there theories are true?

[Drea]

Why not just hit it with a wrecking ball once and watch it fall into it's own footprint?

A wrecking ball is an outside force.

An airplane is also an outside source.

Buildings only fall into their footprint when their internal supports are damaged.

Yes, by explosives. Deliberately place explosives.

Those demolition crews are hiring way too many employees just to make sure a building doesn't topple over and hit other buildings/people.

Falling into its footprint can still produce a lot of debris and potential for collateral damage.

True.

No kidding! All buildings naturally fall into their own footprints. It's physics!

Can you prove that it is not true? Why should officials be expected to prove that every kooky conspirasy theory is not true?

I personally believe that the World Trade Centre was brought down by deliberately placed explosives. Many studies have been done and the truth will come out eventually. Regardless of all the kooky conspiracy theories out there -- one of them is the truth. The official version certainly isn't.

Maybe in a few years after the collapse of the American (and by default the Canadian one too) economy and the impeachment of GW we will finally know who was truly behind the attacks.

I for one, don't accept the "pap" being fed to us by the Bush Administration.

Americans are not stupid, they will get to the bottom of it and the truth will be known.

[Riverwind]

An airplane is also an outside source.

The plane did not cause the collapse. The buildings were still standing. It was the fires started by the plane that caused the collapse.

Buildings only fall into their footprint when their internal supports are damaged.

Yes, by explosives. Deliberately place explosives.

Or by fires weaking supports damaged by collision with a plane or falling debris.

I personally believe that the World Trade Centre was brought down by deliberately placed explosives. Many studies have been done and the truth will come out eventually. Regardless of all the kooky conspiracy theories out there -- one of them is the truth. The official version certainly isn't.

Frankly, I have looked at the science and actually know enough to understand most of it. I originally thought there was some merit to it because of the 'improbability' of symmetric collapse - then it occurred to me: why do I assume that it is 'improbable' for a building to collapse into its footprint? There is no science, no proof that buildings should do anything other than collapse into their footprint. This could be a classic example where everyone's intituitive understanding of physics is simply wrong (just like people assume that larger objects fall faster than smaller objects).

Americans are not stupid, they will get to the bottom of it and the truth will be known.

The truth is buildings naturally collapse into their footprint and eventually building scientists will be able to prove why.

[GostHacked]

I do agree in more investigation.

I concur. WTC 7 doesn't have a definitive answer yet.

I think there is an even bigger conspiracy at play here.

The democrats under Bill Clinton had this all planned before Bush came into office.

Before the inauguration, the wheels were set into motion with a master plan of undermining the Bush administration's long term goals in the Middle East.

The dem's KNEW that Bush et. al. would be looking to make some sweeping changes in the Middle east and the only way to ggrab power back would be to make the whole thing look like a conspiracy, which of course they would blame on the president who was in power DURING the attacks (ingenius).

They way I see it, is it does not matter if you are Democratic or Republican. Clinton was not running the show then, and Bush is not running the show now. The plans for the Middle East go back farther than that. The US has been gearing up for this for 20 or 30 years now. 9/11 just happened to accelerate (justify) the invasion of a country that had not made a threat to the US directly.

Drea

If building always fall into their own footprints why do we need demo crews?

Why all the regualtion when demolishing a building?

Why not just hit it with a wrecking ball once and watch it fall into it's own footprint?

No need for safety as the building will fall perfectly straight down.

Those demolition crews are hiring way too many employees just to make sure a building doesn't topple over and hit other buildings/people.

The building will naturally fall exactly in it's own footprint -- especially if you hit it with the wrecking ball on the top few floors.

Controlled Demolition was on the sceen at Ground Zero to bring down or 'pull' WTC 6. It was more damaged than WTC 7 and it still stood. Even with the gaping holes and fires that burned through it. Yet did not collapse.

So how about this. One plane each plus fires brought down 1 and 2.

Debris from 1 and 2 hit many other buildings. and because of tht 7 fell later on in the day.

6 had to be demolished since it was unsafe.

I'd say 6 which took much more massive damage from the debris compated to 7, by everything that I see, that building should have fell that day as well. Or am I missing something here?

[Riverwind]

I'd say 6 which took much more massive damage from the debris compated to 7, by everything that I see, that building should have fell that day as well. Or am I missing something here?

Yes you are. I made the assertion that buildings can collapse when subjected to structural damage and fires. That does not imply that buildings will _always_ collapse when subject to those conditions. The threshold necessary to trigger a collapse will depend very much on the design of a building which would explain why WTC6 would remain standing while buildings around it collapsed.

More importantly, I made the assertion that if a building starts to collapse because its internal supports are weakened then it will always fall into its footprint. The only way you can disprove that assertion is if you can find an example of the building that did not collapse into its footprint when subjected to similar conditions. The examples of buildings toppled by earthquakes do not apply because an earthquake is an external force - not an internal one.

[Led Boots]

If building always fall into their own footprints why do we need demo crews?

Why all the regualtion when demolishing a building?

The answer to this is really very simple. Most demos are not meant to free fall into their own footprint. (I do realize you were speaking tongue-in-cheek btw)

A few minutes of googlizing and I learned that when demolishing a high rise experts time the explosions so that the bottom fires first, then a sequenced series of charges at various levels of the building are initiated to weaken the structure to ensure the building does what the engineers planned. There is not one shred of evidence that this is what occurred to the WTC towers on that fateful day.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

I personally believe that the World Trade Centre was brought down by deliberately placed explosives. Many studies have been done and the truth will come out eventually. Regardless of all the kooky conspiracy theories out there -- one of them is the truth. The official version certainly isn't.

The number of demo experts with the experience necessary to handle this kind of job is fairly limited so if I were to ascribe to the belief that it was an inside job I would be interviewing these experts to determine there whereabouts from around June of 2001 to Sept 12 2001. If all have alibi’s that check out then your demo theory is that much weaker. (How come these conspiracy sites haven’t clued into that yet?)

The other thing that really bothers me about the “demo” theory is that hundreds (if not thousands?) of charges would have to be planted and wired. How could this not be noticed by the people who worked in the towers? Each charge would be wired in parallel, not in series so what about the miles and miles of wires running all over the place. Did nobody notice them?

BTW, I do think there is a conspiracy at work here. The only difference is that I believe it’s been perpetrated by the good folks at Alcan.

[Wilber]

GostHacked

To begin with the fighters were sent up at air traffic control's request to have a look at Stewart's aircraft to try to find out why it was not responding and off course, not to shoot it down. They followed until it ran out of fuel and crashed on its own.

Until 9/11 there had been no case of a civil airliner being hijacked and deliberately crashed with the intent of killing people on the ground. Civil aircraft are monitored and controlled by civil air traffic control, not the military. There is no reason or need for the military to even know why they were there unless they were somehow violating designated military airspace or unless the civil agency had notified them and requested their assistance. Bearing this in mind, you are assuming that someone would have had to get fighters airborne within minutes of being notified and within just a few more minutes make the decision to pull the trigger on airliners full of civilians without actually knowing what was going on. Also assuming they were notified in time to even get them there. That's a big stretch IMO.

Saying they had not thought of planes crashing into buildings is a bit naive. Or else we would not have beacons on tall structures for planes to actually see and avoid them. So if the possibility of an accident is there, (the reason for the beacons) it can be assumed that someone would purposly fly into them. I'd hope the intelligence services paid to protect us would already have taken this into account. OK not EVERYTHING can be considered, but something major like airliners into buildings, does not seem much of a stretch in the imagination.

Civil aircraft are monitored by civilians, and the military. the FAA has a direct link to the military/Pentagon officials and can ask for scrambled jets without much authorization. They do not need any kind of high end approval for these incidents. Since exercises were going on that day, regarding planes flying into buildings. you say it was not considered at all? (Also there were exercises going on in London during the transit bombings) The probability of exercises going on the same day as a terrorist attack (and it skyrockets even more once you take the London bombings into consideration) is way to high to consider a coincidence.

The military do not routinely monitor all civil air traffic, only that operating near or through restricted areas or entering US airspace from outside. There is no reason for them to monitor domestic airline traffic that is already under civil control unless requested to do so by the civil authorities. True the FAA does not need any high level approval to request the military's assistance but the next time you get on a commercial airliner you better hope they need some kind of high level approval before they shoot one down.

[Wilber]

(Also there were exercises going on in London during the transit bombings) The probability of exercises going on the same day as a terrorist attack (and it skyrockets even more once you take the London bombings into consideration) is way to high to consider a coincidence.

Are you saying the London bombings were also an inside job?

[kimmy]

I personally believe that the World Trade Centre was brought down by deliberately placed explosives. Many studies have been done and the truth will come out eventually. Regardless of all the kooky conspiracy theories out there -- one of them is the truth. The official version certainly isn't.

Maybe in a few years after the collapse of the American (and by default the Canadian one too) economy and the impeachment of GW we will finally know who was truly behind the attacks.

I for one, don't accept the "pap" being fed to us by the Bush Administration.

Americans are not stupid, they will get to the bottom of it and the truth will be known.

I love how you people have all this insight into what really happened, all of it based on "well, it's obvious," as if everybody has a frame of reference to judge what's normal when towers get struck by airplanes.

And how everybody who doesn't see it is "stupid".

"Many studies have been done" ...are you referring to the NIST report, studies by civil engineering departments at Northwestern and Edinburgh and Sydney, or MIT grad student research, all supporting the conclusion that loss of structural strength from fire led to the collapse? Are those guys all stupid because they can't see that "it's obvious" how things really happened?

Gosthacked earlier had some obvservations about how "it's obvious" that the rate of collapse of the buildings "proved" that the official story is false. I took a couple of minutes, and a sheet of scrap paper and a pocket calculator, and showed using basic highschool physics that the observational evidence people get from skydiving or dropping tennis balls off of their garage doesn't apply to the WTC collapse. But this kind of thinking is exactly what's underlying most of the objections from you "it's obvious" types.

-k

[PolyNewbie]

I have a degree in engineering and have also done some rough calculations on it. I believe the official version is a lie and that criminal element of US government did this. I think the case can be proven about five different ways using independent evidence.

[PolyNewbie]

I also think its obvious that the wtc collapse was done by CD by criminal elements of the US gov.

I figure that if you can't see this you must either (1) think you are in on it (2) be unbelievably stupid. It certainly doesn't require high school level physics to see the controlled demolition. You just ahve to watch wtc 7 collapse.

See 911 Mysteries: Part1: Demolition. Its better than terrorstorm on 911 and very extensive on evidence.

[Michael Hardner]

See 911 Mysteries: Part1: Demolition. Its better than terrorstorm on 911 and very extensive on evidence.

None of these documentaries can come close to providing the amount of information that a debate can. The dice is loaded on all of these films. If you go to a site like 911mths.com you can find lots of counter arguments that show that the conspiracy theories are extremely flawed.