Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[negadave]

Figure it out dude.Do what you want. I'm not trying to force anybody to think anything, but if i disagree with you i'm not gonna tell you to go die in a fire.

[Joe]

Here's my take:

These 9-11 conspiracy people need to fucking die in a fire.

It's getting pretty fucking hot in here....

[negadave]

Here's my take:

These 9-11 conspiracy people need to fucking die in a fire.

It's getting pretty fucking hot in here....

Sniff Sniff... Do you guys smell something burning??

[Beckster]

hitfan:

[LeNeve]

I would actually like to see this debate continue, with intelligence. No personal attacks, just opinions from everyone. Because honestly, I am still undecided on this one.

[Brampton]

All I know is, some arabs flew planes into the buildings, and a lot of innocent people died

Truthfully the politics behind this are extremely murky, and its possible that we will never know what happened.

What is the end game, US is trying to secure the worlds oil supply. And haven't "caught" the "person" responsible.

[Pete Nice]

There is no way that anyone will ever really now the truth unless one of us becomes president and gets that secret book full of secrets for presidents eyes only.

Honest LEE. I see it as very unlikely the government was involved. Did they fuck it up? probably, but I doubt the government was behind it.

I think it was simply as it appears, Arab extremists hijacked some planes and ran them into high value targets which did even more damage than they thought it would.

I don't think the terrorists ever though the towers would collapse, but I also do not think that the CIA rigged C4 on the beams to make it collapse either.

Like I said before, you can rig the information either way to make it look good or bad.

[Brampton]

There is no way that anyone will ever really now the truth unless one of us becomes president and gets that secret book full of secrets for presidents eyes only.

Honest LEE. I see it as very unlikely the government was involved. Did they fuck it up? probably, but I doubt the government was behind it.

I think it was simply as it appears, Arab extremists hijacked some planes and ran them into high value targets which did even more damage than they thought it would.

I don't think the terrorists ever though the towers would collapse, but I also do not think that the CIA rigged C4 on the beams to make it collapse either.

Like I said before, you can rig the information either way to make it look good or bad.

:high5:

[ap bikini team]

There is no way that anyone will ever really now the truth unless one of us becomes president and gets that secret book full of secrets for presidents eyes only.

Honest LEE. I see it as very unlikely the government was involved. Did they fuck it up? probably, but I doubt the government was behind it.

I think it was simply as it appears, Arab extremists hijacked some planes and ran them into high value targets which did even more damage than they thought it would.

I don't think the terrorists ever though the towers would collapse, but I also do not think that the CIA rigged C4 on the beams to make it collapse either.

Like I said before, you can rig the information either way to make it look good or bad.

I agree with you on this. I think it could have been avoided if the courts and government fucked them on budgets and regulations, giving them what amounted to 2 cups on a string for surveillance. But it takes a very twisted and extremely paranoid person to believe that in the age of information that we are in, with so many ways to leak and pull information, that this could have been kept a secret for this long. The guy in my 7-11 is a Truther. He claims that there were explosives on the plane, or that the building blew up before the plane hit, etc etc. Any evidence can be doctored or twisted.

When it all comes down to it, if you're looking for a conspiracy, your mind will find one.

[negadave]

I agree with you on this. I think it could have been avoided if the courts and government fucked them on budgets and regulations, giving them what amounted to 2 cups on a string for surveillance. But it takes a very twisted and extremely paranoid person to believe that in the age of information that we are in, with so many ways to leak and pull information, that this could have been kept a secret for this long. The guy in my 7-11 is a Truther. He claims that there were explosives on the plane, or that the building blew up before the plane hit, etc etc. Any evidence can be doctored or twisted.

When it all comes down to it, if you're looking for a conspiracy, your mind will find one.[/quote]

I'm skeptical about everything to begin with. I watch america's funniest home videos and alot of them i'm like," Why would they be filming this?" It's totally fake. The Pants on the ground song, when simon says "i have a feeling this is not the last we'll here of this song" next thing you know it's everywhere. I think they set that up. That's just how i am.

If you guys want to keep going on with this it could take forever.

I think the guys running around with 911 t-shirts and megaphones are assholes. There are alot of things that seem off though about the whole thing.

I think alot of the people who are so quick to dissmiss everything have never really taken a look at things from an unbiased perspective.

This could go on forever.........
I have a bunch of questions. Paul, if your saying they had no budget for survallence, i gotta ask you to watch that PBS Frontline link i posted and see if you still feel the same way.

There's audio of fdny in the towers saying ther's multiple explosions going off.

The towers and building 7 are the first steel framed buildings in history to fail due to fire

The plane that hit the penegon disentigrated exept for a few small pieces, but they were able to identify 184 of 186 passengers.

Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees, the steel in the towers was rated to withstand 3000 degree temps for hours before failure. They said the fire weakened the steel and that's why the towers fell.

like the picture i posted before says, no plane hit building 7

Then it all leads to tighter survailence of american citizens and we go to irac, when afhganistan was supposed to be the country the terrorists were located.

Maybe i'm being extremely twisted and parinoid. :poke: If you guys could explain some of that stuff to me maybe i'll change my mind.

[ap bikini team]

This could go on forever.........
I have a bunch of questions. Paul, if your saying they had no budget for surveillance, i gotta ask you to watch that PBS Frontline link i posted and see if you still feel the same way.

There's audio of fdny in the towers saying there's multiple explosions going off.

The towers and building 7 are the first steel framed buildings in history to fail due to fire

Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees, the steel in the towers was rated to withstand 3000 degree temps for hours before failure. They said the fire weakened the steel and that's why the towers fell.

Then it all leads to tighter surveillance of American citizens and we go to Iraq, when Afghanistan was supposed to be the country the terrorists were located.

Maybe i'm being extremely twisted and paranoid. :poke: If you guys could explain some of that stuff to me maybe i'll change my mind.

I never said I had all the answers. However, there are several on there that do have answers.

We went to Iraq AFTER we want to Afghanistan. We never actually left the country during the Iraq war, just had less men on the ground, and got a hell of a lot less press. Whether the world is better with Sadam Hussein is another argument.

Changes in thermal laying, escaping pockets of air, can all cause "explosions" or the feelings of explosions. Talking to Ben, whether you like him or not, is insightful. He's been in buildings when those issues have happened, whether a true explosion, or the compression and decompression of gasses burning in a building, the sudden release of energy can do it. So when firefighters heard explosions, I have no doubt they did. However, you didn't hear them say, "I hear explosions, it must be C4 charges).

I believe that a 360,000 lbs plane going nearly 600 miles per hour probably had just as much to do with bringing down a building, as the fire did. Just doing the math without doing exact figures, that equates to 200 million pounds of force (F=ma, however, used quick math with pounds and mph, for a more accurate number you'd have to convert both to the metric system, but the numbers are similar). That kind of impact will do quite a bit of damage. Also, the buildings didn't drop similar to how buildings implode (how many truthers claim it happened) because there were no successive explosions on various levels. It came down from the very top first, and fell on top of itself stressing out the beams and bringing the rest of the building down. Debris was scattered for miles. An implosion explosion similar to how the conspiracy states would have a more controlled explosion.
The melting point of steel is only 2500 degrees (no steel is rated that high. Pure iron has a melting point of 2750, steel is an iron alloy and any mixture will have a lower melt point). However it becomes soft and malleable at just over 2000 degrees, NOT 3000. So if the fires were burning and warping steel, how could something softened to that degree hold up a building anymore? It doesn't. It falls.

And that also doesn't take into consideration the type of building the towers were. They weren't the tube in tube style construction (meaning ALL the load bearing beams are in the center of the building, not dispersed through a web system like many modern buildings are. Once the center support (without concrete reinforcement or any real fire proofing) falls, the rest of the building falls.

To that effect, a building near the area could be damaged by debris. Being on the same block, there is a greater chance of rupturing a gas main, thus triggering the "mystery" fire that brought down building 7. With all the commotion with the evacuation of the main 2 towers, a fire in that building could fester and fume for hours without anyone noticing it... or it could be the 6000 gallons of oil being stored on premises.

SO you can ignore truth and continue to separate each fact, because each fact on it's own can be showed to have a flaw, but when you combine the facts and treat them as a whole, it's fairly easy to see that it was a tragedy and not some government plan to gain more control over the US.

Have a read if you want.
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
You'll also see that several other buildings have failed because of fires, including the original McCormick building in Chicago.

Hope that clears things up.

[Pete Nice]

Good reads by both Dave and Paul. I think Paul's post is the far more feasible theory though, it is more fact based. But there is always that little inkling in the back of my mind that leads me to believe the truthers have something.

[Chip]

I work in the steel construction industry, and you know the saying, "some people see the glass half full, other's see it half empty", well, engineers look at it and say the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. They design everything to the minimum requirements. And when they say the buildings were designed to withstand the force equal to a plane of that size hitting the building, that's true. But then after that, the steel that didn't get blown away by the plane is now being weakened by the fire. And once one level fails, the steel under it isn't going to be strong enough to stop it. And the floors were made with trusses, not normal beams, those are already pretty flimsy to begin with.

I'm no huge expert on it all, but when I see people who know nothing about steel contruction commenting on it, and saying there is no way a plane could bring the buildings down, I get kinda annoyed.

[negadave]

Also, the buildings didn't drop similar to how buildings implode (how many truthers claim it happened) because there were no successive explosions on various levels. It came down from the very top first, and fell on top of itself stressing out the beams and bringing the rest of the building down. Debris was scattered for miles. An implosion explosion similar to how the conspiracy states would have a more controlled explosion.

Hope that clears things up.

I found a paper written by a guy with a B.S. in physics that says that can't happen.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... OfWTC1.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Summary

"The fact that the roof line of the upper section of the
North Tower continued to accelerate downward through the
collision with the lower section of the building indicates
that the upper section could not have been acting as a pile
driver. As long as the roof line was accelerating downward,
the upper block, exerted a force less than its own static
weight on the lower section of the building. Any accretion
of material into the upper block would have acted as an
inertial brake, reducing the force of interaction even further.
The undamaged lower section of the building was built to
support several times the weight of the material above it,
but whether or not we take the safety factor into account,
the reduced force exerted by the falling mass could not have
been what caused the violent destruction of the building seen
in numerous videos. The persistent acceleration of the top
section of the building is strong confirmation that some other
source of energy was used to remove the structure below it,
allowing the upper block to fall with little resistance.
Having assumed the existence of an indestructible falling
block, with or without accretion, we have demonstrated that,
given the observed acceleration, such a block could not
possibly have destroyed the lower section of the building.
When we turn to the video evidence we see that even the
hypothesized existence of a persistent upper block is a
fiction. Videos show that the section of the building above
the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate.
It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of
destruction of the lower section of the building. Once the
roof line descends into the debris cloud there is no further
evidence even of its continued existence. Whether or not it
was completely destroyed early in the collapse is a moot point.
We have shown that even if it continued to exist intact,
it could not have played a significant role in the destruction
of the building. A small section of a structure, consisting of
a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger
lower section of same structure by gravity alone."

[Quote]

The melting point of steel is only 2500 degrees (no steel is rated that high. Pure iron has a melting point of 2750, steel is an iron alloy and any mixture will have a lower melt point). However it becomes soft and malleable at just over 2000 degrees, NOT 3000. So if the fires were burning and warping steel, how could something softened to that degree hold up a building anymore? It doesn't. It falls. [Quote]

The fundamental problem with the jet-fuel-melting-steel explanation is that its premise contradicts the laws of physics. No amount of ‘ “aviation fluid” ’ burning in the open flames of a building fire could even begin to melt steel. 1535ºCelsius/2750F is the melting point of structural steel, whereas 825ºCelsius/1517F is around the maximum temperature attainable with hydrocarbon-fueled fires without systematic pre-heating or pressurization of the air.

[LeNeve]

Good reads by both Dave and Paul. I think Paul's post is the far more feasible theory though, it is more fact based. But there is always that little inkling in the back of my mind that leads me to believe the truthers have something.

Agree. I love a good debate.

I also feel about the same as you about the whole thing Pete.