I didn't...

*snugs tin foil hat*

http://www.wtc7.net/index.html

quote Text from first page: Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

Poor planing on the governments side = more fuel for the conspiracy theorists.

I'm pretty sure there is enough proof on this one to not be considered a theory anymore.

Hypothesis?

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: I'm pretty sure there is enough proof on this one to not be considered a theory anymore.

"Never mistake incompetence...."

What incompetence? Did you guys ever see the interview with the guy who was in the building? How about pictures of surrounding buildings that were closer, sustained more damage and didn't fall? I don't have a hypothesis on why someone would do this or why so many people involved would stay quiet but I think it's fair to say that a few random fires don't drop a building straight down. More information is available, I'm not going to repeat it, it's easy to find. Netflix has a couple videos even.

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: What incompetence? Did you guys ever see the interview with the guy who was in the building? How about pictures of surrounding buildings that were closer, sustained more damage and didn't fall? I don't have a hypothesis on why someone would do this or why so many people involved would stay quiet but I think it's fair to say that a few random fires don't drop a building straight down. More information is available, I'm not going to repeat it, it's easy to find. Netflix has a couple videos even.

7 was the one where Silverstein said he told the firemen to "pull it" right?

(SARCASM) Had Obama been prez 9/11 would not have happened. (/SARCASM)

Of course steel buildings have fallen due to fire. Why do you think the first 2 WTC towers fell? They weren't knocked down. The intense fires cause primarily from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel, causing it to collapse. As the top floors collapsed, the lower floors couldn't carry the weight and collapsed as well. It's not a conspiracy, it's physics.

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: It's not a conspiracy, it's physics.

A conspiracy is only as stong as it's weakest link.

While I'm all for questioning the authorities, and that's a good thng too, after all, it keeps them honest to a degree, with the horrific events of that terrible day, 3 buildings going down covering the entire city with debris, you would think that someone somewhere would have known something, said somethiing, discovered a piece of primer cord, a detonator, some trace elements of explosives in the debris.

The bigger the secret, the harder it is to keep it.

I don't know how anyone / everyone involved could keep a secret that big, the emotional guilt would be so overwhelming.

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: Of course steel buildings have fallen due to fire. Why do you think the first 2 WTC towers fell? They weren't knocked down. The intense fires cause primarily from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel, causing it to collapse. As the top floors collapsed, the lower floors couldn't carry the weight and collapsed as well. It's not a conspiracy, it's physics.

Partially. The aircraft impact also severely weakened the structure, so the remaining steel only had to be heated enough to soften a bit before the uneven load forced a collapse.

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: Why do you think the first 2 WTC towers fell?

I don't know... but someday I'd like to be made aware of the actual reason.

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: The intense fires cause primarily from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel, causing it to collapse. As the top floors collapsed, the lower floors couldn't carry the weight and collapsed as well.

How would that increase the weight on the lower floors?

If anything, the top floors would weigh less with a raging fire going on.

From what I remember, the fire actually melted the supports causing the initial collapse, then the pressure of that caused the secondary collapse. Make sense Patrick?

Burning fuel generates a lot of heat. Here a fuel truck spilled and melted the road.

quote Originally posted by BlackEmrald: From what I remember, the fire actually melted the supports causing the initial collapse, then the pressure of that caused the secondary collapse. Make sense Patrick?

Admitedly I don't know how these buildings are constructed.

Are the supports for each floor independant of every other floor?

What are the supports attached to... a central core, or to a network of load bearing apparati?

Are the supports not "overbuilt" to withstand strutural damage/failure elsewhere?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Partially. The aircraft impact also severely weakened the structure, so the remaining steel only had to be heated enough to soften a bit before the uneven load forced a collapse.

The impact also blew away the fire retardant that helped protect the steel from the fire. Those buildings were built with truss construction, from what I read, they gave away on the ends where they were connected, the intense fire had compromised the strength of the connection with the inner and outer walls.

In the case of WTC #7, our friend User00013170 earlier posted a picture of aluminum foil, and that actually is the key to why WTC #7 went down. The Discovery Channel did a documentary showing that aluminum as it burns, gives off hydrogen gas. The scientists theroize that the uncontrolled fires from the auxilarry power generators created massive pockets of hydrogen gas (from aluminum burning) so with the weakened steel and the resulting explosions caused the collapse.

The supports are essentially rings of steel columns around the perimeter and core of the building. They were physically cut when the planes hit the buildings. Fire weakened the others and the shift in weight plus the heat exceeded the other column's ability to support the floors above and it collapsed. Once it collapsed at the point of impact, the weight of the top section slamming into lower floors caused each floor to collapse below.

Yes, buildings are "overbuilt" to withstand expected failure modes. It's built in to the safety factor when the structure was designed. If you have a safety factor of 10, then a floor that needs to hold 1000lbs per square inch will be designed to hold 10,000 psi. You also have to remember that the stronger you build something, the more expensive it is. On a project that large, you're talking HUGE money. So you design to a factor of safety that takes into account any failure mode you anticipate.

The great irony of engineering is that you don't design the best thing you can. You design the worst thing you can that still meets all the requirements. Anything extra is wasted money and the building contract goes to someone else. Example - how many people buy Harbour Freight tools instead of Snap On?

The pessimist says the glass is half empty.
The optimist says the glass is half full.
The engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Now if you really want to have fun with conspiracy theories, search YouTube for "sandy hook actors" and "sandy hook exposed." Have fun with that.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-26-2013).]

Formula88, thanks for the info.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Now if you really want to have fun with conspiracy theories, search YouTube for "sandy hook actors" and "sandy hook exposed." Have fun with that.

It's not that I suspect that there's a conspiracy behind every event, but it's just that there has been a ton of conflicting info released and discussed over the last decade regarding why those buildings actually went down... including of course WTC Building 7 which had no plane fly into it.

WTC 7 wasn't untouched as some people seem to ignore. There is so much documentation on it that a person can only actively ignore it.

But I have a sister who's friend worked there and for the prior 3 months there were construction crews going through the building drilling tons of holes and pulling something in them. Just before the it fell, there were lots of "wires" running through the office spaces and people had to step over them. Next thing they know, two planes hit 1 and 2 causing 7 to fall down from the debris and fires - wasting all of that work.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The optimist says the glass is half full. The engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

The goth says it doesn't matter as it will just get spilled anyway.
The realist says its pee and isn't going to drink it in the first place.

( and its never 1/2 empty, as the 1/2 that doesn't have water, is full of air.. )

quote Originally posted by Patrick: . . . . Are the supports not "overbuilt" to withstand strutural damage/failure elsewhere?

That is called "redundant Structures" and is, you might imagine, very difficult to implement in a reaql building. It is being developed now as a design methodology, but is not yet used frequently. WTC towers were, obviously, not designed as redundant structures. Even if they had been, with the level of damage sustained, and the length of time and severity of the fires, it's doubtful any building could have survived.

The towers stood long enough for all people who could to escape. That's the best you could hope for in a complete disaster scenario such as this.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Formula88, thanks for the info. It's not that I suspect that there's a conspiracy behind every event, but it's just that there has been a ton of conflicting info released and discussed over the last decade regarding why those buildings actually went down... including of course WTC Building 7 which had no plane fly into it.

Keep in mind what kind of seismic impact and debris flying about at high speed from the twin towns collapsing. Drop a rock from 1400 feet and it'll hit the ground pretty hard. Now drop something the size of the two WTC 1 and 2.

quote Originally posted by BlackEmrald: From what I remember, the fire actually melted the supports causing the initial collapse, then the pressure of that caused the secondary collapse. Make sense Patrick?

Your memory is suspect. Evidently, you can't remember that you already posted this just a few seconds prior.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Keep in mind what kind of seismic impact and debris flying about at high speed from the twin towns collapsing. Drop a rock from 1400 feet and it'll hit the ground pretty hard. Now drop something the size of the two WTC 1 and 2.

Looking at your last diagram, it's interesting to note that WTC 5 and 6 actually shielded WTC 7 from the collapse of towers 1 and 2, yet WTC 7 was the only other building to "pancake" in the manner that towers 1 and 2 did.

Seriously, it's not difficult to understand why many people believe that some sort of shenanigans might've taken place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tr0TZa3WeI Unfortunately, I think he's passed away but you can see the story of the man who was in building 7. I'm sure iit won't change the mind of the convinced but it's interesting stuff regardless.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Seriously, it's not difficult to understand why many people believe that some sort of shenanigans might've taken place.

Not at all, even most the people here with the tinfoil jokes would see something is off if they would actually think about it.

One would have to be a complete fool to belive the "official" story as told by the government

Patrick do most Canadians belive 9-11 conspiracys or the US governments story?

All I'm going to say is would of bought this collapse much better had it at least partially fell over... It collapsed straight down like a pancake... You see no 2 steel beams are EXACTLY identical.. Both are rated to hold 100 tones lets say.. One can actually handle 125 tones and the other can somehow handle 175 tones. (just making up numbers...) as the floors are collapsing, odds are that one side of the building will be slightly stronger or loaded differently than the other. This would cause more resistance on one side and the building would then naturally tip over to the weakest side..

Take a look at buildings collapsing die to earthquakes, fires etc.. They all collapse at the weakest point of the building..

Then you got the one in a million odds that every beam in that tower was identical or that furniture and walls were all lined up in such a way that the floors were all evenly supported and collapsed straight down... (keep in mind that each floor had different wall configurations... But for two building to do the exact same thing in the same day and were struck at 2 different places and had the weight of an airliner sticking out the side??

Just saying... seems weird to me..

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tr0TZa3WeI Unfortunately, I think he's passed away but you can see the story of the man who was in building 7. I'm sure iit won't change the mind of the convinced but it's interesting stuff regardless.

Yes, that was quite interesting.

quote Originally posted by 85sliverGT: Patrick do most Canadians belive 9-11 conspiracys or the US governments story?

I'm in no position to answer that. I can only speak for one Canadian.

Some people (of any nationality) readily accept the "official" word... whether it's believable or not. Others wish to dig a little deeper.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Seriously, it's not difficult to understand why many people believe that some sort of shenanigans might've taken place.

Yes, but i personally believe it was a combination the unimaginable events and a government botching some things after. Not some grand conspiracy.

Many people cant handle the simplicity of what really happened, much like with JFK.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Many people cant handle the simplicity of what really happened, much like with JFK.

What, like Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone was responsible for the killing of President John Kennedy?

quote Originally posted by Patrick: What, like Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone was responsible for the killing of President John Kennedy?

quote Originally posted by Patrick: What, like Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone was responsible for the killing of President John Kennedy?

quote Originally posted by Patrick:

Zero evidence. At one time I believe there was a conspiracy too until I noticed that the "compelling" evidence was in fact one author quoting another quoting another and when you follow the circle it leads back to the same person that originally made it up. I still have the dozens of books, videos, etc. all packed away for my grand-kids so they can see how these charlatans lied and created a myth. They speculate to the point of absurdity. My favorite was the SS guy accidentally shooting Kennedy. Now that book took balls. The next one was the "marksman" claiming there was no way Oswald could have pulled off those shots in that amount of time right after the guy just beat Oswald's time by .2s. I guess he was assuming no one would rewind the tape and check. He proved Oswald could do it. Badge Man is pareidolia. Woody Harrelson's dad wasn't one of the assassins. Did Johnson, the mob and others want Kennedy dead? It's very possible but that doesn't mean they did it and there is no credible evidence anyone associated with them did. Just speculation. Garrison might have had a little something but he was wound up in his desire for it to be true. Clay Shaw was innocent.

No doubt some of these people ACTUALLY believe there was a conspiracy but none have come up with anything that is even remotely convincing. They anomaly hunt and that is all and sell books and when sales tapper off, they find some other anomaly to bury in 250 pages of rehash.

If there is something actually new and not just rehashed BS, I'd love to hear it.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-27-2013).]

quote Originally posted by TK: I still have the dozens of books, videos, etc. all packed away for my grand-kids so they can how these charlatans lied and created a myth.

Without even looking at your collection of "evidence", they'll just figure that grandpa was a kook.