National Geographic has a fascinating simulation of why the US World Trade Center towers collapsed after the planes hit them on September 11 2001.
It’s part of a program investigating “science and conspiracy”. Basically, it’s because the fuel in the (nearly-full) tanks caught fire, which weakened the columns, which bent slightly, which meant that the roof – and other floors- fell in.
We know that from the real-life example, of course. But it’s interesting to see it demonstrated here. Not, of course, that this will satisfy the wingnuts who think it was a conspiracy. Their loss.
But sometimes this is what engineering is about: figuring out why things happen after the event. (Other videos on the National Geographic site ask whether controlled demolition could have done the same job, and whether the hijacked planes were replaced by planes carrying explosives.)
Charles Arthur at the Guardian.
Update from Phillis: Now all you have to work out is why building 7 fell down entirely of it’s own accord and was announced on the BBC 15 minutes before it actually happened. For us I think this may offer up some explanations as to a possible cause – however there are plenty more instances that need some good explaining. We have offered this video up as a resource for debate due to it’s growing popularity and it in no ways represents our views. If there are structural engineers out there that can pick this apart / back this up then please do.
"
LOL @ The blog post twist!
Mark
Will we ever know the truth about 911?
I believe what happened actually did happen the way we’re supposed to believe it happened (if that makes sense) but the number of people I know who are certain something has been covered up is astounding! I think it’s one of those things that any amount of ‘evidence from either side will not dispel their beliefs.
There’s amateur film footage of building 7 on fire from one side. It seems that TV camera footage only shows the sides that look like nothing was happening. How it caught fire is another question.
Watched this documentory in full, it actually angered me to see the conspiracy theorists ignoring some really catastrophically obvious points.
I always explain 9/11 conspiracies in the same way. Take watergate, a few people couldn’t keep their mouth shut. Or in the UK, we know that one of our MP’s bought a porno flick and it makes headlines… how on earth could America keep the tens of thousands of people quiet that would be required to cover a conspiracy up?
Good Video, you really post some good stuff Derren. I don’t really watch the T.V. programs of yours because I am not into illusion, but everything you do seems to have a real basis in ration and reason.
The KGB thing you posted the other day?, some of that was proper B.S. and some of it was genuinely interesting. How much of this stuff do you post yourself? I cannot imagine you have too much time to do watch internet T.V.
Whoever is posting it .. Bravo..
Whatever about the Twin Towers… The Pentagon “attack” is the one that looks fishy to me but hey, I’m just another wingnut dealing with my loss.
Have you seen “Loose Change” ?
There are a lot of other idea’s and opinions to consider within that documentary-film-thingy.
The molten metal imaged by satellite is funny thing.
very interesting
A ’scientific simulation’ of such a complex event doesn’t ‘debunk’ anything. It’s simply too complex. Here’s the real answer as to why the 2 towers fell: NO ONE KNOWS. It’s unknowable. The only certainty surrounding the collapse is this; anyone who says they ‘know what happened’ is incorrect. There are simply too many complexities, inconsistencies and unanswered questions. Given the inadequate investigation of the event, it is unlikely we will ever know what happened. For me, all possibilities remain on the table, despite ’scientific evidence’ such as the garbage presented in this video, and anyone who adheres to one theory like it is the truth (conspiracy wingnut or ignorant sheep) is completely dismissed as someone who lacks independent questioning ability (a.k.a common sense).
I am happy that many conspiricies can be debunked and I believe that in the case of 9/11 most of the conspiricies are not true. However, there is a danger also in the belief that all conspiricies are the work of wingnuts as we know from experience that real conspiricies do happen. Examples range from attempts by governments to mislead their own assemblies and the voters, to large corporate frauds. Coverups too are common and we should protect the whistleblowers who risk a great deal bringing these public interest stories to our notice. With regard to 9/11 and the Anthrax attack that happened a few weeks after I believe that there is more still to come out. I always look to who benefits from these things as a possible lead to a conspiracy and there are many who did. The Truth will come out
I am a recent graduate at Purdue University. You can read more about the simulation here: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
To quote the National Geographic page:
“Conspiracy theorists say jet fuel fires couldn’t have brought down the towers — but a simulation of the impact proves otherwise”
Really? I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone question how the destruction was caused. And in many ways, it’s irrelevant – even if the towers had remained standing, many, many hundreds would still have been killed. The reverberation of the events would hardly have been any less.
The only conspiracy theories I’ve ever heard about revolve around the complicity of the US government / federal organisations, which can’t be analysed by engineering.
Yes proof using cartoons.,really.! why can we not have a serious debate ?
And why the name calling? Wingnuts? how absurd and childish. For any casual observer there are many questions left unanswered. Why has the Japanese parliament been recently investigating 911? Are they all wingnuts? and why haven’t you heard about it?
If there is such a simple answer then let us hear it. Don’t insult us using mickey mouse. Let us see the photos of the impact at the pentagon.Explain why there was molten steel under the towers for 1 month.why are traces of nano thermite found in the dust? Why was there no plane found at the pentagon or in Penn? Why was bush’s brother in charge of security at both the WTC and dulles ? Why is it wrong to ask questions
why is it wrong to ask questions? why is it wrong
I don\’t agree with conspiracy theories & I look for scientific explanations. Having read (most of) your book I can see the same sort of healthy skepticism there.
All the same we have to be skeptical about some science too. Obviously civil engineers have to know their job otherwise these buildings wouldn\’t stay upright in the first place.
And yes they ought to be pretty good at constructing models of various stresses on buildings.
I just wonder if its possible these models could be equally flawed. Its not the usual sort of calculation they do, and there are enough odd factors: like the 1st simulation with the fluid filled aluminium cans. If these first assumptions are wrong, the rest of their calculations will ALL be wrong.
Discuss
The tower 7 ‘conspiracy’ with the BBC involved was explained by the BBC in a documentary a few months ago. They took witness statements and made reconstructions to prove how it happened, they also found their archive footage of the broadcast mistake.
I had to look twice but it really DOES say Welcome to Purdue University – home of the boilermakers
There’s no mystery in why WTC7 fell down. Anyone who thinks so is ignorant of evidence and facts. You don’t need to go any further than http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm to find the truth. It’s worth reading the whole article if you can find time.
Because Derren asked it to, duh! :p
Oy, what´s engineering if you don´t take Psychology into account in these cases?
Oooh, hang on “figuring out why things happen after the event.” So I’m assuming this is referring to the fantastic 4 ‘Events’ that Derren’s showing on C4 and we’ve got to do some more thinking? Relating to the competition? Or just in general? Argh! 7:30 is waaay to early for this.
Don’t bait the wingnuts! They just don’t get sarcasm & next thing you know there’ll be pages of inane witterings about nano-thermite, cruise missiles and the supposed freefall collapse…
The last couple are easy ones and come up on debunker lists – 7 was hit by a 20+ storey burning section of one of the towers on its way down. It’s a surprise it was still standing at all after that, and no shock that it collapsed as a result. As for the BBC, if that’s the case, it’s no surprise given the confusion of the moment and all the conflicting reports. Not unusual at all.
I had an editor whose husband was heavily into his 9/11 conspiracy theories. Fascinating, if only for the sheer volume of publicly available information you have to ignore to believe them…
Yeah…right
So, is that last part true or are you adding fuel to the fire dear boy? Probaby the latter.
Now, we can all go out and claim the truth of it ‘cos someone we trust in your case, barely and withing very controlled limits) told us it was a fact.
Love the showsbut thought the lottery explanation was the weakest so far.
I did a CPO course and on the anti terrorism section they explained how the towers fell and its quite simple, I don’t know why conspiricy still ignore the facts! Confrimation bias I suppose.
The plane hits and as you said the structure weakens, a floor collapses, the weight of that floor makes the below floor collapse and so on lik dominos. Its designed this way so if theres a problem with the building it falls down instead of to the side, sos not to crush any surrounding buildings
I love how they matched the style to the Loose Change documentary (including moody sounding voice over and dark music)!
Not that I’m a conspiracy nut or anything, but controlled demolition makes a lot more sense in my book…
apparently the film ‘world trade centre’ is good. Also there’s a photo going round from time to time on email fwds with supposedly a photo taken a week before the twin towers of 2 aeroplane shadows over the towers and no planes. Probably just done on photoshop but still.
Very interesting but as I have a real phobia of planes crashing down from the sky, I actually found this uncomfortable to watch.
LC x
Derren I’m amazed that you of all people would buy into unscientific thinking. Free-fall acceleration among many other easily verified measurements completely rule out the possibility of the buildings having collapse without the use of explosives.
What Derren is hinting at is that 911 was actually one of his illusions. It did not happen at all. We’ve all been hypnotized over the TV. The video contained subliminal messages that convinced everyone that they saw a plane hit the twin towers – actually it was a rotating pencil.
Come to think of it. Put a longer beard on Derren, some make-up on his skin and a tea towel round his head and you have Bin Laden…..now there’s a conspiracy….
Yeh, you guys know how to twist us don’t you? Keep it up you evil bastards! Personally, I think if there was nowt fishy going on, the US would show us all the footage we needed to see. Like Derren, they are masters of misdirection.
I am an engineer, I agree with many part of the video they do make engineering sence
however
the only question I find relavent, is why did two110 story buildings, that has had one side signifigantly weakened, fall perfectly?
The buildings fell only a matter of meters from where they were built.
As an engineer, the fall was art work.
Sorry, what a load of bs. The guy knows he’s talking appendages as well. Watch out, mate, you’re next for the old ‘death by midnight canoe trip’ which seems to be the preferred method of bumping off. Better get that ’suicide’ note written now.
My peppered arse this is what happened.
- Care to offer up an alternative? – Phillis
Sounds not all without logic. I myself do find it astonishing that the coloms would bend so fast due to the heat though. I’d say it was only the top that actually would have happened to, not the whole construction.
In the documentary they made on the event you hear the firemen in the building talking about the cracks in the walls; they were already worried about that, also the ones on the other side of the walkietalkie who confirmed.
The impact of a plane on high speed will cause movement in the tower and as far as I’ve heard towers always move a little.
If experts can not figure it out (I myself still would not see the metal construction that heated up as the only cause, more a combination of several factors in a building construction).
7 got demolished I recall (safety).
I can’t fathom how people when presented with expert opinion and often fact still find someway to decide the sensible course of action is to disbelieve it and instead go with some crackpot conspiracy idea.
I guess some people just need to believe in something more to add some spice to their lives.
The problem is that these people will never believe what they are told as counter evidence. It will always be a cover up.
I guess the most confusing thing is why they choose to happily believe what they are told by the conspiracy theorists and don’t question that with the same passion…
- Good point however a conspiracy THEORY is still a theory which needs evidence to back it up. If the evidence seems to be there then they have a valid argument. If they don’t then it is just a conspiracy (e.g ALL Jewish owned companies moved out the week before – untrue, might have been one and they had gone bust anyway). Just to keep you all informed on the debate
– Phillis
Now all you have to work out is why building 7 fell down entirely of it’s own accord and was announced on the BBC 15 minutes before it actually happened…!
Is spent three hours researching ^^that setence^^ last night and still couldn’t come up with a conclusion to how or why they said it.
If this was a conspiracy it’s just gonna have to stay that way lol
Mark
Yup Phillis, they did it for the insurance money on the white elephant of a building (they also own the smaller one which mysteriously fell), they needed a common enemy of the sheeple and that common enemy has tons of oil, surprise surfuffigprise. Where’s the photo of the Pentagon plane – there’s barely a scratch on the bleedin’ lawn? Where are any other steel-framed buildings which have evaporated? Too much evidence is missing. Just show me the photies and I will gladly back down. I didn’t want to believe what I was seeing and reading. I was shocked to my core. But I researched for weeks and I’ve since researched for weeks – for myself, for my writing – and it just does not add up. And that stinks of cover-up.
‘The buildings fell only a matter of meters from where they were built.
As an engineer, the fall was art work’
Hundreds of metres that is…
Compare aerial shots of the area before and after – the wreckage occupies a far greater area than the towers ever did.
One of the more fascinating/disturbing features of the conspiracy theorists is that they’ll happily propagate easily disprovable lies while claiming to be on the side of the truth. As well as the myth of a perfect demolition, there’s the myth the buildings collapsed at freefall speed (timing any footage of the collapses disproves this as will observing all the falling wreckage overtaking the central collapse), the idea that WTC 7 was undamaged and that the damage to the Pentagon wasn’t consistent with it being hit by an aircraft.
Why do you think Blair got all devout on us when he departed? Because he knows what he did. He knows what he had no choice but to take part in. And that is his way of hoping something will forgive him, cos he can’t forgive himself.
I’m a bloody old cynic I know. I question.
And if I knew what was gonna happen with the banks years ago, then the banks and the government damned well knew. We have been bled dry by those really in charge of the world. The ever-spreading web of monied families.
Yeh, I know. A real old cynic.
As Morrissey says ‘There are some bad people on the rise… There are some bad, bad people on the rise’.
Zat wingnut enough for you Phillis?
http://www.blip.tv/file/306082/
Before you jump in and shout “wingnut!” like the twat in the Guardian, do please watch this.
Watch all of it.
It’s a lecture by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. There are no mad claims about reptiles, Jews, and holograms. Just scientific explanations for the collapses that are far more credible those offered in the National Geographic video posted at the top of this page. There are aspects of the official story that are not only implausible but scientifically impossible.
Well, I think its safe to say it was definitely hit by a plane. I never thought there were any explosives, but I did see Zeitgeist, which showed some of the supporting beams to have been cut strangely. I haven’t watched the whole video yet, so is this in there?
And Mister AkaSomethingElse, the Pentagon thing is probably the most suspicious of all. There is absolutely no wreckage of a plane, no even a bit of wing that came off before the impact. Curious eh?
‘And Mister AkaSomethingElse, the Pentagon thing is probably the most suspicious of all. There is absolutely no wreckage of a plane, no even a bit of wing that came off before the impact. Curious eh?’
That would indeed be curious. But it’s not true. I’d recommend http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 as one place to see pictures of the wreckage, but really I think anyone who’s interested should search out the evidence for themselves though rather than take any links provided here at face value.
And as for Atta’s passport surviving?!!!? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! My big fat jaxxy.
What’s this gotta do with tonight? Hmmm.
Bomber, there was wreckage found at the Pentagon…Zeitgeist was disproven, watch Chris White on youtube. The towers fell because the burning fuel damaged the structural integrity of the building thus causing the support beams to SAG then eventually fail. Conspiracy theorists are quick to say there is more going on behind the scenes so to speak…why is it that we cant just accept and must turn to the most absurd and mind boggling theories? It’s like people that believe in the supernatural…what is a simple explanation must be twisted into a belief that the afterlife is trying to contact us…
@Andy – Also, remember that not all authority figures are to be trusted all the time. For example, politicians and lawyers. Quintessentially the people we should be able to trust most and naturally the people we trust the least.
It\’s also very difficult to trust an authority figure when they hold all the cards and won\’t let you take a look at them. A lot of details went unreleased in 9/11 and naturally that meant people had to piece together what they could find out and work out what fits. As the governments tend to protect their own interests it\’s often easier to trust someone who has simply done a load of ground work by themselves off their own back – they have less of a vested interest in covering anything that would be seen as damaging (assuming something damaging exists).
I’ll keep this short and sweet: if you think 9/11 was carried out by cavemen with boxcutters, you are mentally challenged.
- Please people let’s keep this mature! – We’re open to ALL sides of the debate here – respect peoples opinions in the complex matter. There’s no evidence for building 7 falling down that is rather fishy, but at the same time to suggest the Bush administration could pull this off and there be NO whistleblowers is also far fetched – bring your evidence to the debate and we will not censor anyone with an opinion backed up by sound evidence. – Phillis
Recommended reading:
Finally, an Apology from the National Geographic Channel
by Kevin R. Ryan
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NationalGeographicApology.html
Exchange of Emails (March 2009) with Robert Erickson,
Producer of the National Geographic Special on 9/11
by Steven Jones
http://911review.com/articles/jones/NGC_Emails.html
National Geographic Does 9/11:
Another Icon Debased in Service of the Big Lie
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/index.html
And yes, a plane hit the Pentagon, but 9/11 was likely a false flag.
Q: “Wouldn’t the orchestration of the attack by insiders have necessitated the involvement of large numbers of people?”
Find out why less than 20 could have pulled it off:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/faq/conspiracy.html#numbers
I’ve always found the WTC 7 collapse more interesting than the towers themselves. And even more interesting than that, the demolition of WTC 4 which hardly anyone seems to talk about, especially considering all the gold that was stored there and doesn’t seem to have been properly accounted for.
If you want a good conspiracy yarn read up on the Reichstag fire and then put the possible conspiracy stories about 9-11 in context. However wacky they sound, they’re definitely worth more research.
Hello, my name is Larry Silverstein I would like to take out an insurance policy on the twin towers against a possible terrorist attack within the next few days.
Is it me or does anyone not recall Larry saying the following:
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. ”
Video here >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Isnt this the initial pancake theory that was sold to people from the beginning when doubts started coming in? Judging by all the graphics the Purdue people had a lot of money on this project – I wonder where the funding came from?
I still seem to remember interviews from the engineers who designed the buildings saying that they were designed to withstand just such an impact, so to me this seems like just another way to get the ‘paranoid public’ to bend their mind in the US governments point of view.
Oh yes, and building 7 also came down apparently due to “uncontrolled fires”. What a coincidence.
And how did the jetliner aimed at the Pentagon evaporate into thin air? Due to fire again?
Sounds to me like somebody was just burning off a lot of evidence…
@Philis re: Whistleblowers – Feel free to Google… Richard Andrew Grove, Sibel Edmonds, Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, Indira Singh, Stanley Hilton, Special Agent Robert Wright, David Schippers, Randy Glass, David MacMichael, Delmart Edward Vreeland, Michael Springman, and a bunch of others you’ll find in lists of varying reliability across Teh Interwebs. I make no assumptions about who was responsible or complicit in the 9/11 attacks, but there is certainly a lot more to it than we’re ever going to be allowed to know.
@RH Ill Sadly, the most “absurd and mind boggling theories” so far have been the utterly implausible official explanations (well, aside from the clearly insane, though from a scientific point of view, pancake theory is on a par with Icke, Shayler, reptiles and holograms!)
Three points::
1. Assuming the pancake theory were correct, the simple fact is that vertical steel columns that had not been touched with any fire (i.e. the bottom 40 or so floors at the very least) would not collapse on themselves, they would be still standing. Perhaps bent, but not gone entirely.
2. What is the pentagon but a massive bullseye? Why would a reportedly inept pilot, rather than go for the center, pull a rapid 270deg turn and crash into the one part of the building that was undergoing renovation?
3. There were dozens of wargames going on all on the same day, which is why NORAD didn’t intercept the planes.
All of these add up to at the very least that the govt. knew it was going to happen and let it happen. Whether they made it happen or not, we will never know.
Nuff said.
tsk tsk tsk, derren I can\’t believe I\’ve had to waste my first comment on the only thing I\’ve disagreed with you on. I assumed you would never be one to add credence to some one elses grand illusion. Even using the loaded \’conspiracy\’ word.
I was in DC sept 11, I watched what hit the pentagon, and I was on site as the first barrackades where set up. I am a diplomats kid so I\’ve been on more airplanes than most well travelled people so I know what planes look like/sound like. I was also not alone. If you would like to know what I saw just ask.
Or if your happy to watch \’footage\’ and programs (that all have been paid for somehow, and have producers etc) that\’s fine but you know yourself how the televised medium can be twisted.
still won\’t stop me worshippin the brown though.
sept 11 is as obvious a cringworthy load of bullshit as all of the times derren tried to slip in hetro comments
C\’mon we all know there\’s so much we can learn about the power of mass manipulation in the modern world by studying what happened that day. There are even some great lessons in how to use the net if you look at everything that\’s developed since.
WT7 – they were given a poor report/hearsay in all the confusion during the day. It was a mistake, and merely co-incidence that it fell down later.
I really do doubt that, of all the government organisations and others that could have been ‘in’ on any conspiracy, that the BBC were at the centre and privy to this information. ITS THE BBC! Honestly, ridiculous. I think that’s where the theory really falls down.
Next thing we know it’ll be Channel 5 that killed John Paul II!
Here’s an expose on the conspiracy movement and the type of nasty things they do to people who don’t agree with their theories http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/stop-the-war-coalition-conspiracy-groups-distraction-at-best-antisemitic-at-worst/6208/
Super thermite is the only plausible explanation. If you want to know why building 7 came down, listen to what a real expert says at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
Danny Jowenko has demolished more buildings than any of the so called “experts” at Popular Mechanics has had hot dinners. If he says it was a controlled demolition, it was a controlled demolition … end of.
I watched the show and realised that it was subliminal for the museum visitors because there are concenntric circles all around it the railings, the wall behind the picture.Also for the people that where there her eyes and in her eyes there where two bits of light which looked alot like the picture
kayy, saw that aswell. did you notice her eye’s dilating?dyou think that was because she was thinking or was that something they tried to make happen to ‘draw’ two circles one inside the other with her pupils.
As someone said earlier, conspiracies DO sometimes happen: Watergate, Irangate, the coup against Allende in Chile, etc; they cannot be dismissed a priori without proper evaluation of the evidence. As a scientist with a PhD in applied maths / engineering, I am well aware of the need to consider all possible hypotheses to assess their likelihoods and prior probabilities. I’ve seen several debunking documentaries and websites. Unfortunately, they are not strong on evidence concerning the collapse of the towers. The main argument always seems to be that ‘conspiracy theorists are wingnuts’. Proper examination of all the evidence points overwhelmingly to controlled demolition as the best explanation.
@Philis – probably best to edit the original post to credit the article to Charles Arthur at the Guardian. Not for copyright reasons, you understand, but just because the blog post currently gives the impression that you or Derren wrote it, which would be fine otherwise, but its author comes across as a bit of a bellend.
- Done. The Guardian usually don’t have a rep for dreadful journalism so it’s a valid news source to quote. I’ve updated our stance on this issue – we do feel it is an important one and is something we’re quite informed about – but we should play devils advocate if people are going to debate the issue. – thanks – Phillis
p.s. The clip at the top from the NatGeo documentary seems heavy on graphics and computer game reconstructions, but light on actual scientific facts, (although the sexy voiceover manages to repeat the word “science” several times in the space of a couple of minutes). Editorial control and majority ownership of the National Geographic TV channel belongs to Murdoch’s News Corp, not to the magazine, so I’m inclined not to believe a word they say these days.
Reminds me of the “science bit” in this Jennifer Aniston L’Oreal ad – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz4AiiN0mVQ
Wait, which wingnuts are you referring to? Right, or left? Because Obama’s not investigating it either. Maybe, just maybe, people question the official story because it’s an obvious lie and not because of some political agenda.
This propaganda piece tells me nothing because I know what I saw with my own eyes. They show nothing of the actual collapse. This is what would have happened if their theory was correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUhu9vhZwYz
How do they explain the pools of molten metal under the rubble pile that burned for 3 months? Guess it was A LOT of jet fuel…
Here, go learn from some architects and engineers who aren’t government-funded to support the official story: http://www.ae911truth.org/
sorry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUhu9vhZwY
Just to clarify my earlier comment, I do not subscribe to some of the wilder claims surrounding the events of 9/11. There is no evidence to support Jewish plots, reptilian cabals, holographic planes or suchlike. Perhaps the towers are still standing and Derren Brown just hypnotised everyone into believing they were destroyed, but even that seems unlikely
. However, the controlled demolition theory of how the towers fell is the ONLY one consistent with all the evidence. The official ‘pancake theory’ collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. However, millions of people (many of whom berate the 9/11 ‘truthers’) still believe that the world was created in 7 days by a supreme deity: another theory which has no evidence to support it.
Weakened the collumns? But doesn’t the official report (and pictures from ground zero) say that they were melted? Melted, not softened. The temperature required to melt these beams is much greater than the temperature which jet fuel burns at. I think a lot of people wasted 2 years of their lives coming up with this, or else there were some very wealthy people pushing the report. Just saying…
not the most interesting of thoughts a jet killing innocents seems like the kind of thing you wouldn’t want to know is it just me or a heavy jet full of fuel would knock down any building
But Carol, no “heavy jet full of fuel” hit building 7, yet it still collapsed. To believe the official fairy tale, we have to believe that in the entire history of the world, only three steel framed buildings have ever collapsed due to fire, and all of them did so on the same day and in the same place – including the one which was not hit by any plane.
If 9/11 was down to bin Laden and his gang, why all the secrecy? Why won’t the US Government answer so many key questions? Why are they still refusing to release so many photos from the Pentagon’s CCTV cameras? Why did it take freedom of information requests and court orders to get them to release the few photos they did? This has nothing to do with national security. They are hiding the truth to protect the guilty.
AkaSomethingElse says:
“‘The buildings fell only a matter of meters from where they were built.
As an engineer, the fall was art work’
Hundreds of metres that is…
Compare aerial shots of the area before and after – the wreckage occupies a far greater area than the towers ever did.”
ok, as an engineer would even gladly prove myself wrong, if it means getting it right
lets take it back to the eveidence
this is a photo of the aftermath:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial3.html
this is it before
http://www.preyerplanning.com/images/newyorkpics/wtcmissing/wtc03before.jpg
and a map of the area
http://www.preyerplanning.com/images/newyorkpics/wtcmissing/wtcdamagemapbyname.gif
continued in next coment
continued to AkaSomethingElse
the photo of the aftermath shows you the state of debris. looking at it you can see the main bulk of the
building (i.e. the heavy structure of steel) does not cross the road. however lighter parts of the building like the plastering, windows etc fly everywhere and can be seen on roofs of and damaging buildings near by (it just fell 415m). This happens see next video.
next here is a video of another building demolishion
http://www.911hardfacts.com/video/video_17_southwark_towers.mov
this is a video of the towers before collase
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2524287/wtc_missile_strike_explosives_inside_twin_towers_on_911/
continued in next coment
continued reply to AkaSomethingElse
in the video of the demolition you can see flashing a good time before the main build falls
these are weakeners there are not meant to take the building down only allow it to fall,
when you build large structures like this you leave no chance of collapse by over designing it, so that if one collum fails only a small bit of the sturcture fails.
next see the final blows in the demolishion, in this case they look like puffs of smoke from the side (remind you of anything?)
the towers and 7 were the first skyscapers to collapse from fire
now I given you a point of veiw (with no fact) based on what I know, not an “easily disprovable lie”.
the buildings fell this we know,
however we will never know the truth, as Derren might put it, it could be a trick.
I might be just another nut, but a nut that’s familiar with Newton’s first law of motion: ‘Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it’.
The trajectory of the falling towers changes, the only way this can happen is if forces are being applied, ie the towers’ fall is being controlled.
And as for the fuel burning and weakening the structure, please… The fuel explodes on contact, hence the fireballs when the planes crashed. There is a picture of someone standing in the hole one of the planes created minutes after it crashed, how did they survive the inferno?
“Please people let’s keep this mature! – We’re open to ALL sides of the debate here – respect peoples opinions in the complex matter.”
Wow. And in your blog writing was : “Not, of course, that this will satisfy the wingnuts who think it was a conspiracy. ”
Very mature and certainly respectful on other peoples opinions.
Pretty double faced, I would say.
- some people just don’t get it do they. Ah well we’ll get there one day people!
– phillis
A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse.
Now thats suspect!!!!
That’s right. The near indestructible black box flight recorder didn’t survive but Mohammed Atta’s passport did, enabling the FBI to conveniently “find” it and announce to the world that this “proves” it was Islamic terrorists.
Maybe they should start making the black boxes out of this amazing passport paper.
They must think people are completely brain dead if they seriously expect that stunt to be believed. But sadly they are right because, amazingly, many do believe it.