Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Questions Twin Towers Collapse

Yes I believe he knew he was going to be President when they built the towers and told the contractors to make sure that they won't hold up if hit by 747's in the year 2001. Yup it's Bush's fault

LaSalle building?

The WTC structural columns were designed to have about 600% redundancy. After taking into account dead and live loads, including wind forces, you multiply this strength by 6. Planes on the other hand are not designed to fly into stationary objects. There is some redundancy in the structure, but not to the extent that a building has.

Aluminium used to build aeroplanes is 1/3 the density and strength of steel. Aluminium tends to be brittle and stiff. Meaning that when you stress it enough, it breaks like a biscuit. Those who do mountain biking would know this. When their aluminium bike breaks, the whole frame collapses. Steel on the other hand, is denser and malleable. So it tends to yield and bend a lot before it breaks.
No onne actually saw any yielding or buckling in the side of the building after the hit. It looked flat with mostly the cladding off.

That leaves the kerosene. Kerosene doesn't really burn that well frankly. Coupling with the fact that the fuel was splashed across like from a bucket and not focused. This was an open diffuse flame burning steel with most of its fireproofing intact. Typical flames like this go about only 500C, probably not enough to weaken steel much.



The collapse of WTC-1 and 2 was slightly messy. But you'd expect a building with columns weakened on one side to fall like a tree, instead of generally down, wouldn't you? WTC-7 on the other hand collapsed even neater onto its own footprint, barely touching the neighbouring towers.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture2.jpg



While that news article was of dubious origin, the so called 'official' explanation from the government can't be deemed a reliable source either.

I'm not making fun of you.

You make fun of yourself.

Denying facts that are a matter of public record because it doesn't fit your theory puts you squarely with the "flat earth"ers, the "earth is hollow"ers, and the "We never visisted the moon"ers.

No, I wouldn't expect a tree that was cut 2/3 of the way up to fall at all, at least not the bottom 2/3, but then again, a tree is not structured like a steel truss building, either.

Regardless, I've already shown that Tyler Durden was responsible and the airplanes were simply a cleverly crafted diversion. Finally, since people are always asking me if I know Tyler Durdan: I don't.

If you would like to take issue with the Federal response to the WTC (and Pentagon, and Shanksville), I suggest you will find a much richer vein to mine here but recommend you don a cap of tin-foil first (no, aluminum foil doesn't work at all, it must be tin).

My particular favourite is: Although the above referenced article makes no mention of the far more sinister plot to corrupt our precious bodily fluids which has received no federal investigation funding at all.

Alex Jones is crazy. He is responsible for that website. He has been on local cable access TV here in Austin for years and he will throw a spin on any topic. He is entertaining like watching a car wreck, but he is hard to take seriously when you seen him for years talking and ranting maniacally about the trivial crap he claims is the end of the world as we know it. He once ranted a whole hour about how a guy in a restroom looked at him wrong and how they almost got into a fight over it.

I thought it did survive a direct hit, they did not collapse instantly. That's what the "design" prevented. The planes hit, the buildings stayed up and didn't topple.


but....

Gallons and gallons of jet fuels kept burning weakening metal as it burned. THAT is supposedly what made the structure give way.


I really thought this was investigated and agreed upon.

I guess all it takes is one persons going "I don't understand" to bring up the idea of an alternate reality.

So... I don't understand how the earth can be round, wouldn't we fall off the bottom?

Pretty much. Which is actually still pretty impressive, when you think about the amount of force that must have had to be absorbed by the superstructure of the tower in the initial impact.




It's not a matter of not understanding. It's a specific variation of cognitive dissonance first observed in 1844 in what came to be known as "The Great Dissapointment". Basicly, it boils down to: When observable facts and preconcieved belief don't match, the observable facts are re-interperated - sometimes in very peculiar ways - to avoid rejection of belief.

totaly true, infact all tooooo true! BUSH SUXS HARRY MOKEY B***S, *hints to read the other thread about dumb boy george bush*

If I were Magnum, I think my next post would be "please stop agreeing with me".

As it is, I'm glad your on the other team in this debate.

Absolutely! Stop listening to the lies.

http://www.fixedearth.com/

Buildings are designed to both withstand kinetic damage as well as fire damage. Its something common in building codes throughout the world, even during those days when the towers were designed and built. If you owned a large office tower, would you expect it to be vulnerable to less than an hour of kerosene fueled fire? The fact that they fell symmetrically downwards makes it even more curious. The so called gallons and gallons of kerosene didn't burn that well, just judging from the thick black smoke alone. Its like when you put out a campfire. Its oxygen starved, fuel rich flames, at much lower temperatures that would compromise fire protected structural steel.

The supposedly agreed truth is easier for the layman to swallow than by those who are in the building and construction industry. But I guess 'the fire did it' is so much simpler to accept and allows one to get on to other more important things at that time. Like war, for example.

The burning temperature of jet fuel is kind of irrelevant; it would have been exhausted within the first few seconds. But not before it set everyting else on fire.

How hot does a building full of paper burn?

Yep you are right. Most of it blew up in the fireball and spilled everywhere when it hit and the residue could not have burnt much following that. But people seem to think theres a pool there to hold the gallons and gallons of fuel in a container.

Building full of paper burns similarly, like any diffuse flame. Thats what a normal building would be designed for to meet the local fire codes, typically fire rated to a minimum of 2 hours. Plus, steel being a good heat conductor, you'd have to cook a large amount of steel for quite a long time for it to weaken. And it sags slowly, not pop suddenly and throwing debris out the sides. There are numerous other steel building fires documented. Most of them keep the steel debris as evidence, and not ship them to china.

As the buildings fell, the floors directly below the falling floors would explode. These explosions were identical to what is typical of a controlled demolition......

The buildings were old and full of asbestos. The cost to bring them down was more than the value of the land with new structures. It's amazing insurance for terrorism could be found for these buildings. Insurance doesn't typically cover terrorism.......

The records stored there were destroyed without copy. Read into that what you will.......

The Government used this tragedy as a catalyst for a very unpopular "anti-terrorism" bill. Didn't the Nazis in Germany use a similar tactic?

I'm sick and that site made me dizzy. I hope these people don't reproduce.

Yes, as always, Kendra, you have put your finger on the most significant issue.

To me there were two glaring issues which were highly suspicious and which were never explained satisfactorily.

1. Why did building #7 fall?

2. How was it that a passport belonging to one of the highjackers not only survived the explosion and subsequent fire, but came to rest in a position where it could be discovered within a matter of hours, in a state so undamaged that it could be identified?

It might be that there are innocent answers to both of these questions, but they both need to be answered.

Bingo! I have a love-hate relationship with conspiracy theories, but this one is over the top. Check out infowars.com. Alex Jones has done a lot of digging, there. (Pardon the pun.)

PS: OK, posted before reading page 3's anti-Alex Jones comments. I agree that Jones is a sensationalist, but I have checked up on many of his "facts." They are credible enough, in my opinion, to warrant further investigation.

want a new one?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

I must point out one thing that strikes me as incongruent with the facts. notice this is cited from the OFFICIAL White House website, so again, my citations are at the top of the food chain. (I know, "why would you trust anything on that website?"

The first plane hitting the building was only captured by 1 camera. If was a handheld videotape, NOT a live video camera.

That means the camera that recorded the first plane hitting the building had to have the video tape ejected, and the tape run down physically in person to a broadcast position.

It is 100% impossible for that tape to have been delivered and broadcast prior to the second plane being broadcast live.

So Bush has at no less then 2 times claimed to have watched the first plane hit prior to walking in that classroom, where he was told on camera about the second plane as he pondered "what it meant for America to be under attack"

For those of us well versed in logic, there are only 2 possible scenarios that would allow Bush to make this statement.

#1) Bush Lied about the series of events of that day.

#2) Bush knew about it prior and watched the impact of the first plane live via special closed circuit feed. A feed no one but the president and his inner circle have every seen. (see also #1)

please, if anyone can tell me an option #3, I would LOVE to hear it

Option #3: The guy is a boob who can't remember what order he put his clothes on this morning and has a history of sticking to his story no matter how incorrect he later turns out to be.

The first plane hit at 8:46:40 a.m. exactly, as near a figure as anyone has. CNN began broadcasting live video coverage of the towers at 8:48. A great many people, myself included, watched the second strike live.

Try again.

That morning, I got to work after the first plane had hit but before the second. We were standing around the TV watching footage after the crash. Then the second plane hit, only at the time, I was so sure there couldn't be a second plane that I assumed it was footage of the first one striking. Your mind makes quick assumptions at times like those. It was a confusing morning, I don't read any more into it than that *shrug*

Those of you who are so quick to believe this was planned by the president... why? Why would he do that? What was the motivation and what was the goal? If you can't answer that, then believing these theories is just plain silly at best, or terribly cynical at worst.

this isn't about the 2nd strike

this is about Bush claiming to watch the mythical "1st plane strike"

explain that talking points boy!

the video of the first plane hitting was not available until a few hours after it happened

it was on tape and the tape had to be physically brought to a TV station and converted

Bush was in the classroom when the 2nd plane hit, so he would not have made the mistake you made regarding mistaking the 2nd plane for the 1st

why is Bush lying about watching the 1st plane hit PRIOR to walking into the classroom?

I am not accusing him of anything, I am just wondering why he repeatedly lied about it and what purpose could such a lie serve