Printable View
I don't suppose this is news to anyone?
But with the Iraq situation at a boil as to why we are over there, and a friend mentioning some video documentary he downloaded from Limewire, I did a search. This is not hard to find.
Whadya think? I mean - who would go to this length to kill people so they could justify retaliatory action - if that is what happened?
I wonder....
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...kimplosion.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
I think it's completely and totally false. And for the gullible, and conspiracy theorists.
Studies have been done as to why the towers came down as and when they did, and it had to do with how the structure was built, the force of the initial impact AND the temperature at which jet fuel burns, and the quantity of jet fuel present.
And if this had been done by someone to provoke war, don't you think they would have staged it to be obviously linked to Sadaam Hussein, instead of Al Queda, which are not at all the same entity?
In the aftermath, I recall mention of some attempts made to link Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaida. I don't recall that a case was successfully made, and then the discussion about WMD was started not long after. It was like they couldn't link Saddam to AQ, so started after him via another means.
I was alleging that just as the WMD were used as an excuse to go to war, that a homegrown plot to destroy the Towers was used in the same way.
Not that my memory is perfect at all...I just had found this and wondered what others thought.
Several years ago, I stumbled on a web sight on this conspiracy. It gave the accounts of some 14 or so people who worked in the underground part of one of the towers. They said they felt and heard an explosion under them, the elevator opened and a burning man came running out of it, they even had the mans name in the thing I read. This explosion was just minutes before the plane hit the tower. They tried and tried to tell their story to the news people but they didn't want to hear it. I wish I had copied and pasted it ever since but it was really a long, detailed account of what these people said they went through.
It always DID amaze me that they both fell within themselves and not off to one side or another taking other buildings with them.. (What were the odds of that happening twice?) I don't think that could ever be explained to me where it would sound logical to my brain.
""It always DID amaze me that they both fell within themselves and not off to one side or another taking other buildings with them.. (What were the odds of that happening twice?) I don't think that could ever be explained to me where it would sound logical to my brain.[/QUOTE]""
According to my brother in law who is a New York based Engineer, he explained to me in 1980 on a visit we both had to the WTC, that those two buildings were very heavily designed to take sideward movement.....it's because of very high winds at that height. They even had a sway factor engineered into their construction to compensate for those heavy winds.
A five metre sway factor, that if exceeded, would enable lifts etc etc to actually shut down.
The impact of those aircraft into those buildings may well have caused that sway factor to be exceeded, thus stopping the lifts from working.....but certainly not enough to move those building at the angle required to intiate a toppling momentum.
The heat generated by exploding fuel would have almost melted the structural components required to support the loads placed upon them from above....therefore, upper floors falling on lower ones (which were not designed to take a FALLING weight, but only dead and live loads), impacted to such a degree on those lower floors as to create a crushing action.....the rest is history.
Wombat
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
For all the conspiracy theorists, I think this one is a pretty good site challenging the "documentary" Loose Change.
My best friend's husband is an engineer in NY, and his company was in charge of the clean up of the twin towers, and he too said the same thing as Wombat's b-i-l.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
I have pictures that the press doesn't have! It is all very interesting - but scary, too!
I read that when the towers were built, they were built with asbestos material to help prevent fire damage. The asbestos was of course removed later due to the government requirement. The article explained that had the asbestos NOT been removed, the towers likely would not have collapsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
SO, perhaps the conspiracy goes back DECADES!!
:rolleyes:
Asbestos had been partially applied to the twin towers, but had not been completely installed due to the environmental issues.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html
Asbestos is only capable of withstanding heat to a certain degree. It wouldn't have made any difference if it was there or not.
The heat generated by exploding aircraft fuel would be beyond our imagination....probably would have just disintegrated everything in it's path, asbestos and all.
I'll go with Karen on this one....from the information I have received, and the discussions I've had with my brother in law....the conspiracy theory is out the door.
Wom