What IF there were explosives in the 9/11 towers?

Corpfox

Corpfox

Active Member
I'm sorry if I brought up a senstive topic for so long but I was really convinced that there was a conspiracy from the government.

I watched a biography, or is it a documentary, ah which ever, and I'm really convinced that the terrorist that "used" the planes to take down the towers would not fall down.

Showed a lot of hard evidence that there were demo charges in the building and where set off like a "pan-cake"; 1 floor after another.

Even the people inside the building said they heard explosions in the building, 1 guy said he heard explosions from the sub-basement, explosions below the tower!?

When the towers fell down, there was another building, a 3rd building that fell down as well, and no plane got hit from it, very supsicious.

Also, all the steel, that made the towers, it said the FBI took all of it and brought it back to China, why would they do that?



Would you agree what I've said, or think its blashphemy, if so, why would it be?

I'll try to find a link or a reference of the bio or documentary I saw it from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/tower-explosions.htm
http://www.911revisited.com/
 
Last edited:
If you dont mind some language now and then you can see this thread and the information they posted.

In the end it is 50/50 untill the government releases several key items (ie the tapes overlooking the highway wehre the plane flew through) to certain suspicious parts, we will just keep arguing for ages.
 
I have never looked into this, yet looking at some of your guys' links it does make me a little skeptical. I would have to say though. the problem with all the links is that it doesn't give the opposite side the chance to defend themselves.
 
I think the people suggesting this are conspiring to create a false conspiracy. Suggesting that this was the result of some government conspiracy, in my opinion, is insane. It's probably funded my Michael Moore.

Hey, what if the Japanese never really bombed Pearl Harbor. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think the sounds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete snapping would sound like a series of explosions. To be perfectly honest, no one every really had data on the collapse of such structures before 9/11.
 
I have to agree with Taliesin. The fireproofing in on the weightbearing beams and pillars was blown off when the planes collided with the buildings, this was demonstrated on a TV show I saw on the first aniversary of 9/11. Then, after the fireproofing was blown away, the fire could heat the metal up and force it to lose its rigidity thus, making the buildings collapse.

Saying that there were bombs in those buildings is ludicrous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warning. Long, angry post to follow.......

A few points of interest for the topic:

1) Fireproofing. Sure, Some of it was damaged from the impact and whatnot. However, anyone that works in Fire Safety will know that Firewalls and Fire Proofing/Fire Retarding rarely works. The problem with firewalls is that contractors (electricians, plumbers, etc) will poke big holes thru the wall to run pipes, wires, etc. While this is an acceptable practice, they are supposed to fill the extra gap with a heat/flame retardant filler. This rarely happens.

Further, fire retardant material only works when it is applied properly. COMPLETELY. meaning that 100% of any surface must be coated to recommended thickness. If the beam is supposed to have 1" of coating, and somewhere there is only 1/4", than the coating will fail much earlier than it's supposed to. If there is a small spot on the top that wasn't coated because it was hard to get to, it will fail. Further, if someone was running pipes/wires/etc *after* the coating was applied, and damaged the final coating, it becomes ineffective without repairs.

More on that note - Many of the materials used for fireproofing are meant to not exceed temperatures that could be achieved by "room and contents". Jet fuel burns MUCH hotter than Class A Combustibles.

2) The structure. I watched an interview with one of the guys that designed the towers. They were constructed in such a way that they could take the impact of an aircraft....at the time that the towers were built. We now have larger, heavier, faster planes that will do significantly more damage for obvious reasons.

In the same interview, the architect said that the building collapsed just as it was designed. Most skyscapers are built so that should they fail, they will basically implode upon themselves, reducing the chance that a 1000' building will topple sideways.

As for why it crumbled the way that it did...one floor than the next? Anyone that studies construction/collapse can tell you that if the top floor falls in, it exerts more pressure on the next floor down that it was intended to hold...causing it to fail. The subsequent failure of that floor causes a cascading failure of each floor below it as the materials fall.

And finally, I'll address one of the most complete posts from the Gentoo forums. I'll address it in parts as the original author asks many questions, each with their own explanation.

World Trade Center: Why did the towers collapse totally after burning for such a short time?
Click to expand...

Again, Jet fuel burns much hotter than the materials were protected against. The architect speculated that the jet fuel got into the elevator shafts, which was supposed to be the strongest portion of the building. Take out the strong parts.... and well, you get the idea.

Again numerous explosions were heard and reported on nation wide TV, but the official version still claims that the towers fell because of the fire burning in the top floors. How come these explosions aren't mentioned anymore?
Click to expand...
Perhaps because they weren't bombs? Elevators were suspended hundreds of feet in the air by UNPROTECTED steel cables. I'm guessing that several of them burned free and fell 40,50, 60 stories before crashing into the sub-basements. The fires were burning in the top floors. When the structural supports gave way at the top, the force caused a pancake collapse. When I started in the fire service, I was required to take a 36-hour fire class to become a firefighter. Even at that point, I was well aware of what/how/why a "pancake collapse" is and occurs.

The lobby and the first couple of floors were devestated right after the planes hit the towers. Why would windows brake and why would panels fall off the wall in the lobby when the plaine hit the top floors?
Click to expand...
The ventilation and elevator shafts provide a direct outlet for the sudden pressure change in the upper floors. The increase in pressure will release through the simplest means (taking the path of least resistance). High density glass provides more resistance than a sliding aluminum and steel door. Elevator door blown off at the top, pressure follows down, blows the door off at the bottom.

Firefighters made it up to were the fire was burning and thought that they had a chance of putting it out. If these floors would have been a blazing inferno, which would be necessary to bring the towers done (assuming it is possible at all), do you think the firefighters would have thought to be able to fight it?
Click to expand...

This is the hardest point for me to address. Not because I think that they thought..... but because as a fellow firefighter, I don't want to think that my "brothers" were too stupid to think about what they were doing before they did it. 343 Firefighters died that day because year after year, they put themselves in harm's way, just to laugh at fate and walk away from fire after fire, in which they should have been seriously injured or killed. We firefighters get to a point at which many have developed a god complex. We're indestructable. We can do anything. We can't be stopped. Those guys lived for the thrill of doing the impossible.

Now, go back a step further. At a point LONG before the towers fell, the chiefs outside figured out "hey this is a bad deal, we can't win" and ordered an evacuation. Due to communication problems (lack of radios, poor reception inside the building{the towers themselves had the radio repeaters on the top floors, which were knocked out in the impacts.}) The guys inside never got the evacuation orders.

As for "do you think the firefighters would have thought to be able to fight it?" I can't tell you that I think they could have put the fire out. I watched on TV as the events unfolded... I thought to myself "man, they're crazy. They'll never get that put out." But I can tell you, 100% certain, that they tried... that I would have too. Despite the odds.

I've been in much smaller buildings that were engulfed in flames, trying to knock out a fire that was threatening to destroy people's lives. I was there trying to save what I could of their belongings. Now you take that a step to the larger scale - can I help save (potentially) thousands of lives? You bet that every firefighter there was gonna try, no matter the cost.

I know I'm probably overly passionate about this topic for some silly reasons. ... but it almost feels like an insult that some crackpot comes up with a theory that our government planted bombs to kill thousands of people, then come up with silly reasons why it happened.

Seriously folks, find someone with an education (in physics, science, construction, etc) that can explain to me why they think a bomb did this. I've got my degree in fire science, which includes physics, construction, mathematics... and I think the bomb theory is a joke.
 
Last edited:
Nicely put Durruck. Honestly I think that some people have started the "government conspiricy" because they want to reflect the blame for what happened back to the U.S. and make us look bad for starting the war on terror...
 
I think some of you are being closed minded about things. Before viewing the videos, I thought it would be outrageous to blame our government on the 9/11 tragedy. Now, I think it's definitely possible. I don't have a set view either way, I just think it could be possible.

How do you explain the missing plane in front of the pentagon, and the missing video tape from the gas station across the street? How to you explain other OLDER buildings burning hotter and longer and they sustain minimal damage compared to the twin towers. The steel beams in the twin towers were designed to withstand MUCH hotter temperatures than jet fuel.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that fire proofing does not mean FIRE PROOF.

The fireproofing in the towers, or on structural steel in general, is only good for a certain amount of time. Also, the fires in the towers didn't have to be hot enough to actually melt steel, only hot enough for the steel to lose its structural integrity.
 
Goose62 said:
I think some of you are being closed minded about things. Before viewing the videos, I thought it would be outrageous to blame our government on the 9/11 tragedy. Now, I think it's definitely possible. I don't have a set view either way, I just think it could be possible.

How do you explain the missing plane in front of the pentagon, and the missing video tape from the gas station across the street? How to you explain other OLDER buildings burning hotter and longer and they sustain minimal damage compared to the twin towers. The steel beams in the twin towers were designed to withstand MUCH hotter temperatures than jet fuel.
Click to expand...

I don't feel I'm being closed-minded. I'm being logical. I'm using my education to find that I just don't believe what they're offering.

The missing plane in front of the pentagon? The video clearly shows scraps littering the lawn of the Pentagon. Let me ask you this. If you take a Pepsi can and smash it into the Pentagon at ~500mph, do you expect to find the whole thing intact? I would hope not. The force exerted upon the can on impact would demolish it. one of the still taken from that video *clearly* show a landing gear laying up against the building. I wonder how those got there?

The tape across the street is actually an interesting problem. The feds (FBI, I believe, but could be mistaken) did go and take the tape. The problem lays that they don't *own* the tape, they just have rights to confiscate it as evidence. They don't have any legal grounds to show it to the public. They can, however, use it in court trials. So there are a select group of American citizens that have seen the contents of that tape, at Moussa-what's-his-face's trial.

And Dark Virtue has nailed it. They were designed to take some heat. The fireproofing actually makes them fire resiliant (there is no such thing as truely fireproof). It wasn't *just* the fire that caused enough damage to crumble the towers. The buildings both took incredible lateral hits, likely causing a twisting of the towers. Add the twisted core, cantileaver construction-style, and a blazing inferno of jet fuel, and several other factors, and you get a collapse.

As for "the steel was designed to withstand higher temperatures" bit... steel is steel. Yes, there are some variants in the processing that give some parts high tensile strength, or slightly higher heat resiliance, but that video also gives you some bad data. It talks about how the beams are 12" by 12" boxes (or some number like that - I don't recall the actual dimensions), but it fails to mention that those are not solid slabs of 12"x12" steel columns. Those are *hollow* 12x12 columns, split-moulded and welded. Basically, they come in 2 pieces...each looks like a big "C", then are welded together. Welds are some of the first places to fail when they come under atypical loads (sheering or tensile forces are extremely hard on them...)

If you want to read a decent guide that takes the narration, and breaks it down, statement by statement, please read this. I will warn you that the language is off-color at times. There are also points where the notator does not clearly address issues, but simply questions the relevance of the statements provided.

For example, several people at the towers that morning were interviewed. Several said they heard explosions, things that sounded like bombs going off, etc. That does not give identifiable evidence to the existance of a bomb, just an explosion that could otherwise be explained. Usually by something that makes more sense. (One of the janitors heard an explosion when the first tower was struck. He thought it was another electrial service areas catching fire...it sounded like other times that there were fires there.) If you've never seen or heard a transformer explode, you'd be suprised. It's rather impressive...loud and bright.

I'm not saying that there couldn't have been bombs. There just isn't anything that leads me to believe that there were. The evidence is shaky, at best, and their witnesses and "experts" don't lead me to believe anything. Interviewing a guy from U.L.'s water quality division doesn't tell me anything about structural steel. I'm sorry, that's just too big of a jump for me. Further, anyone that would bring such a rediculous bit of information forward as evidence that there were bombs will find themselves at the top of my illogical list.
 
Last edited:
And what about the bricks turning into heavy dust?

I would know how to make a brick turn into dust, blow it up!

And the towers is an big office, pretty much, how does an big office building have enough explosives to make a huge flame?

Also, why did World Trade Center Building 7 fall down when no planes touch it? You even said the towers are made so that they don't collapse sideways, Durruck.


And, Maddmedic profile says he's in Minnesota.
 
Last edited:
Well so far everyone has posted speculation about why it could or could not have happened. I have looked into this subject for several years now. Ill attempt to post some links to sites that should be helpful in drawing your own conclusions.

Please note that I give you these links only because they involve said subject. The whole "views expressed in this website are not all mine" does apply here. While I may or may not agree with what is there, that is not up for discussion. Just read and take from it what you will. There are lots and lots of theories out there as to who did or didnt do 9/11. If you want to discuss those, I'd be happy to entertain them via PM. Anyways here are some links. Mods, if you dont want these links posted here please tell me and Ill make them available via PM. As far as I know these website are all "clean" and dont have any vulgarity in them or things like that.

9/11 Prior Knowledge Archive <--- Pretty comprehensive list of all things 9/11 related.

For those of you who are skpetical, remember to keep an open mind. Not everything is what it seems. :)
 
Corpfox said:
And what about the bricks turning into heavy dust?

I would know how to make a brick turn into dust, blow it up!

And the towers is an big office, pretty much, how does an big office building have enough explosives to make a huge flame?

Also, why did World Trade Center Building 7 fall down when no planes touch it? You even said the towers are made so that they don't collapse sideways, Durruck.


And, Maddmedic profile says he's in Minnesota.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to figure out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me...but anyway.

Bricks: There weren't bricks in the WTC buildings. There was structural steel, connectors, etc. There were large slabs of glass and marble for the exterior covers. The "dust" you saw is most likely drywall, ceiling tiles, dirt from ventilation ducts, etc. (ever look deep inside of your furnace ducts? yuck)

Flame: Three phrases will represent most of the fire you saw. "Jet Fuel" "Class A Combustibles" and "Class B Combustibles". Jet fuel is obvious. Class A Combustibles are the desks, books, papers, copiers, carpet, trash cans, etc. Class B combustibles are things like cleaning fluids, elevator grease (you'd be suprised how big of a vat is at the bottom of each elevator shaft. The container in the basement of my building is a 30-gallon tank...and we only have 3 floors. Some of the elevators in that building didn't go all the way to the bottom. There were several elevator shafts that only went 20-30 floors, and people working on the 90th floor would have to ride 2 or 3 elevators to get to work.

Building 7: I don't know all the specifics, but from what little I've read about that structure, there were several factors to lead to the collapse of B7. The Towers didn't collapse straight sideways, but that doesn't mean that there was no lateral collapse. There was debris scattered for several city blocks. Some debris did fall onto B7. All of the buildings in the area were very heavily damaged, but B7 took the largest hit from the falling towers.

Second, there were supposedly fuel tanks that were inside the building that ruptured. I don't know the specifics on this, I just remember reading about it. Lastly, Seizmigrahps(sp?) also revealed ground tremors equivolant to an earthquake registering between 1 and 2 on the Reicter(sp?) scale.

Two things here. First is a commonly quoted reference from the intial investigation.
In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the United States (FEMA) released a report on the collapse. [3] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was due primarily to fires on multiple stories caused by debris from the other two towers, and not to the actual impact damage of 1 WTC and 2 WTC as they collapsed. The report noted that, prior to this collapse, there was no record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building such as 7 WTC.

The report did not reach final conclusions, outlining a number of issues needing to be explored with respect to the cause of the collapse. Specifically, FEMA made these findings:

“Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” (Chapter 5, pg 31.)
Click to expand...

From furhter investigations by MULTIPLE engineering, construction, etc agencies.
NIST has released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, a large 10-story gash existed on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[5] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors. [5]
Click to expand...

Both of my annotated quotes come from Wikipedia
 
Durruck said:
The missing plane in front of the pentagon? The video clearly shows scraps littering the lawn of the Pentagon. Let me ask you this. If you take a Pepsi can and smash it into the Pentagon at ~500mph, do you expect to find the whole thing intact? I would hope not. The force exerted upon the can on impact would demolish it. one of the still taken from that video *clearly* show a landing gear laying up against the building. I wonder how those got there?
Click to expand...
What I meant by missing plane is not that there wasn't any plane parts there, it's that a 757 supposedly hit the pentagon and all you see is little scraps and a wheel. Last time I checked, 757's were not made out of pepsi cans. Even if the 757 hit the building and completely shattered, I would think the pentagon would sustain MUCH more damage than what it did. If planes supposedly took down the twin towers, you would think that if one flew into the side of the pentagon, it would do a little more damage then what's seen.

The tape across the street is actually an interesting problem. The feds (FBI, I believe, but could be mistaken) did go and take the tape. The problem lays that they don't *own* the tape, they just have rights to confiscate it as evidence. They don't have any legal grounds to show it to the public. They can, however, use it in court trials. So there are a select group of American citizens that have seen the contents of that tape, at Moussa-what's-his-face's trial.
Click to expand...
In other words, you have no answer for this? If there was unmistakable evidence that a 757 flew into the pentagon, why wouldn't they release the tape to prove all these conspiracy theories wrong? Now-a-days, it's fairly easy to manipulate video tapes.

And Dark Virtue has nailed it. They were designed to take some heat. The fireproofing actually makes them fire resiliant (there is no such thing as truely fireproof). It wasn't *just* the fire that caused enough damage to crumble the towers. The buildings both took incredible lateral hits, likely causing a twisting of the towers. Add the twisted core, cantileaver construction-style, and a blazing inferno of jet fuel, and several other factors, and you get a collapse.
Click to expand...
I understand everything you have said, but looking at different fires across the world, venezuela/madrid, those fires lasted longer and the steel beams were still intact. Even so, let's say the buildings did collapse because of the fire, why would it fall like it had no resistance on it's way down, and why would it fall in a straight line down? If the steel beams were damaged where the planes entered, you'd think there'd be less resistance at those places, so the top of the buildings would topple over towards the entrance points.

I'm not saying that there couldn't have been bombs. There just isn't anything that leads me to believe that there were. The evidence is shaky, at best, and their witnesses and "experts" don't lead me to believe anything. Interviewing a guy from U.L.'s water quality division doesn't tell me anything about structural steel. I'm sorry, that's just too big of a jump for me. Further, anyone that would bring such a rediculous bit of information forward as evidence that there were bombs will find themselves at the top of my illogical list.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself here; "I'm not saying there couldn't have been bombs." - "anyone that would bring such a rediculous bit of information forward as evidence that there were bombs will find themselves at the top of my illogical list"

The freefall concept is logical enough for me to at least have an open mind about the possibility that there could have been bombs in the buildings to collapse them both in a controlled manner. WTC 7 is just stupid ... no steel enforced building in history has ever fallen because of a fire, 3 fell on 9/11.
 
What I meant by missing plane is not that there wasn't any plane parts there, it's that a 757 supposedly hit the pentagon and all you see is little scraps and a wheel. Last time I checked, 757's were not made out of pepsi cans. Even if the 757 hit the building and completely shattered, I would think the pentagon would sustain MUCH more damage than what it did. If planes supposedly took down the twin towers, you would think that if one flew into the side of the pentagon, it would do a little more damage then what's seen.
Click to expand...

I knowfora 100% fact that a planeslammed into the side of the pentagon.. I lost a couple good friends that day, one of them found crushed beneath the destroyed tire of the 757.

You also have to remember something about the pentagon. It is a military installation and as such is built to withstnad a bomb hitting it. There is a lot of extra work that is always going on to improve the buildings structural integrity. So if the damage didn't sdhow as much. That is why.
 
Sure its perfectly plausable for the third WTC building to collapse.

When the twin towers fell they must have created a lot of vibration that woulda simulated a earth quake. Milllions of tons of building falling hundreds of feet would create a lot of vibration enough to make a building collapse near by.

When demolition teams destroy buildings to put up new ones, sometimes structures near by will have damage or collapse due to the things falling and vibration of the building(s) falling. Not to mention windows breaking all around from the vibration (believe it or not, glass windows have a lot to do with integrity of the structure) and when they are blown out, it can weaken the structure.

I'm no expert on building integrity or an engineer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top