So why would Silverstein say “Let’s pull it?”
video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 0306101329
(btw, MT, that one is 23 seconds)
The twin towers were built using a specific design, I forget the name of it, which relies on some central posts to keep the whole thing up. Once the main links are weakened the whole structure will collapse. Like a house of cards. Those towers fell cos of the way they designed them and cos aeroplanes flew into them. Nothing more to see folks. Ask a builder, they will tell you there ain’t no mystery there at all. The very fact that they fell in the way that they did points to there being NO bombs.
But I’m still not sure how that other building collapsed later that day… Building 5 or 6 , summat like that.
[quote=“TomHill”]The twin towers were built using a specific design, I forget the name of it, which relies on some central posts to keep the whole thing up. Once the main links are weakened the whole structure will collapse. Like a house of cards. Those towers fell cos of the way they designed them and cos aeroplanes flew into them. Nothing more to see folks. Ask a builder, they will tell you there ain’t no mystery there at all. The very fact that they fell in the way that they did points to there being NO bombs.
But I’m still not sure how that other building collapsed later that day… Building 5 or 6 , summat like that.[/quote]
Have you watched the vid Tom?
They were specifically designed to withstand an aircraft impact. A fully laden 707, which was the largest at the time. Even if one came down, doesn’t it seem odd that they both came down?
Nah. Gimme a minute or two…
[quote=“Truant”][quote=“TomHill”]The twin towers were built using a specific design, I forget the name of it, which relies on some central posts to keep the whole thing up. Once the main links are weakened the whole structure will collapse. Like a house of cards. Those towers fell cos of the way they designed them and cos aeroplanes flew into them. Nothing more to see folks. Ask a builder, they will tell you there ain’t no mystery there at all. The very fact that they fell in the way that they did points to there being NO bombs.
But I’m still not sure how that other building collapsed later that day… Building 5 or 6 , summat like that.[/quote]
Have you watched the vid Tom?
They were specifically designed to withstand an aircraft impact. A fully laden 707, which was the largest at the time. Even if one came down, doesn’t it seem odd that they both came down?[/quote]
I haven’t watched the full vid yet, but I will. In the meantime, engineers can play with their little sliderules and computer stimulations and claim it was designed to withstand impact from a fully laden 707, but such an occurrence had never happened before, as far as I know, so all their homework was purely speculative and, in any event, their conclusion was obviously wrong. Engineers (like all experts) have been wrong before and they’ll be wrong again, especially about predicting extraordinary events for which there is no precedent.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”][quote=“Truant”][quote=“TomHill”]The twin towers were built using a specific design, I forget the name of it, which relies on some central posts to keep the whole thing up. Once the main links are weakened the whole structure will collapse. Like a house of cards. Those towers fell cos of the way they designed them and cos aeroplanes flew into them. Nothing more to see folks. Ask a builder, they will tell you there ain’t no mystery there at all. The very fact that they fell in the way that they did points to there being NO bombs.
But I’m still not sure how that other building collapsed later that day… Building 5 or 6 , summat like that.[/quote]
Have you watched the vid Tom?
They were specifically designed to withstand an aircraft impact. A fully laden 707, which was the largest at the time. Even if one came down, doesn’t it seem odd that they both came down?[/quote]
I haven’t watched the full vid yet, but I will. In the meantime, engineers can play with their little sliderules and computer stimulations and claim it was designed to withstand impact from a fully laden 707, but such an occurrence had never happened before, as far as I know, so all their homework was purely speculative and, in any event, their conclusion was obviously wrong. Engineers (like all experts) have been wrong before and they’ll be wrong again, especially about predicting extraordinary events for which there is no precedent.[/quote]
I completely understand, and as an engineer myself, appreciate this view.
Building 7 is a tough one to explain however…
Exactly, The Titanic was unsinkable, the Heindenberg was undownable, and that wobbly bridge was unblownoverable… until the unthinkable happened.
What I am saying is that it was always gonna fall like it did. It’s design determined the way it fell. No-one knew if it would withstand a plane flying into it or not. Evidently it woudn’t. Imagine if it had toppled sideways!
Ok I saw the video, and whilst being emotive, it did little to confirm that only a bomb could have caused the buildings to collapse in the way that they did. Whilst I belive the US government capable of cover-ups (i.e. that they gave good jobs to family members. And why not in the US of A? It happens the world over.) and of mis-treating the public ( re-opening lower Manhattan too early (It happened in Hiroshima. People never learn)), I do not believe it capable of allowing the deaths of so many citizens. The video points to this being a cost reducing exercise and nothing more. Much more doubtful is their argument than mine. (Nice grammar there!) How much will the liberty tower cost? Who the heck would want to move into sych a high profile building?
Al Qaeda terrorists flew two planes into two buildings, which then collapsed. Mystery solved.
Building 7 however, wtf???
A plane did crash into the Empire State building.
So what does the “War on terror” in Iraq have to do with 9/11 then?
So what does the “War on terror” in Iraq have to do with 9/11 then?[/quote]
You think they blew the towers up themselves to justify going into Iraq? And that they way those towers fell is in some way indicative of this scheme. I see where you are coming from, but I couldn’t believe that myself.
I’d favour the line that post 9/11 Bush took it upon himself to blame Iraq.
So what does the “War on terror” in Iraq have to do with 9/11 then?[/quote]
You think they blew the towers up themselves to justify going into Iraq? And that they way those towers fell is in some way indicative of this scheme. I see where you are coming from, but I couldn’t believe that myself. [/quote]
I’m not saying that at all. I feel there are some interesting points in the video that do cast doubt and raise some interesting questions.
But the interesting thing is the US says it was Al Qaeda who was responsible for 9/11 not Saddam Hussain, or Iraq. Is Saddam on trial now for having anything to do with 9/11?
So what does the “War on terror” in Iraq have to do with 9/11 then?[/quote]
You think they blew the towers up themselves to justify going into Iraq? And that they way those towers fell is in some way indicative of this scheme. I see where you are coming from, but I couldn’t believe that myself. [/quote]
I’m not saying that at all. I feel there are some interesting points in the video that do cast doubt and raise some interesting questions.
But the interesting thing is the US says it was Al Qaeda who was responsible for 9/11 not Saddam Hussain, or Iraq. Is Saddam on trial now for having anything to do with 9/11?[/quote]
Sorry mate, I mis-understood. I thought you were pointing to a link. Bush used the WOMD smokescreen to go into Iraq. I bet he thought he’d find proof once they got in there. Saddam is on trial for being a high profile murderous bastard, but of course, he’s not the only one out there. Bush totally underestimated the fact that a Ji-had, by definition, includes fighting out the occupating forces. He was hoping this would all be done with, then he could move on and topple the next regime ruling murderous bastard. But he can’t move forwards cos Iraq has been such a f£ck up. And it’s probably good that he learned the lesson now, (don’t p£ss people off) before he stumbled blindly into Darfur, or wherever, and f£cked that up to.
Interesting that the refugees in Darfur are being protected by Rwandan peacekeepers. Go U.N. Go!
wait until FS jumps in and start quoting your every words…
then,and only then,you’ll know you’ve been IPed
[quote=“dablindfrog”]wait until FS jumps in and start quoting your every words…
then,and only then,you’ll know you’ve been IPed[/quote]
Bring it on. I havent said anything I ‘made up.’
If the planes hit only the corners of the building, then why did the whole building fall straight down and not at least at the angle of the missing chunk first? Why did the building come straight down and not to the side since the impact was not even? Why did the 2nd tower hit come down before the 1st hit tower? Why did the site resemble a demolition site (steel and concrete reduced to nothing) and not one where a building collapses due to impact or fire (with beams still intact)?
Are you going to tell me that they have developed technology that causes concrete and steel to melt upon structure failure?
I find it extremely hard to believe that buildings as tall as the Twin Towers, upon being impacted on only one side or corner, could collapse almost perfectly symmetrically, almost right on their footprints.
I find it disturbing that you would actually believe that the Empire State building, despite being built with technology half a century older than the Twin Towers, is better equipped to withstand plane crashes and massive fires.
I guess they just don’t make them like they used to. 
For a change, it does feel good to read the analysis of an expert (and not “some kind of demolition hobbyist”): A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
They didn’t hit the corners. They ploughed right through the entire buildings, crashing through all of the exterior and interior walls, massive missiles weighing god knows how many tons, flying at several hundred miles per hours, fully laden with explosive jet fuel which they spewed through the entire several floors of the building that were taken out in an instant, causing a massive fireball that blew out ever more of the interior and led to millions of gallons of burning fuel rapidly flowing down through the entire building, causing the internal structure to be gutted in minutes, so it could no longer support the massive weight and collapsed straight down, in the direction that gravity generally pulls large objects that are no longer able to support themselves.
See above. Gravity pulls objects straight down, not to the side. They didn’t collapse from the impact of the jets, but from having their internal structure and strength gutted from within.
Because that’s the way it happened. Different buildings, different planes, different impacts, different circumstances, but the events as shown live on TV, while mind-boggling, appeared totally credible and convincing to me. Do you believe a jumbo jet completely full of fuel crashing through a building at high speed and exploding deep in the interior of the building, releasing its entire cargo of explosive jet fuel, so fast and high in the building that rescuers couldn’t possibly launch a realistic effort to combat the flames, would NOT bring down the building? To me, that would be a truly miraculous event that I’d have trouble believing?
Sure, no problem: it’s called a massive exploding fireball of jet fuel.
They weren’t impacted on only one side or corner. Watch the videos I linked above. Teh jets ploughed right through the buildings deep into the center within.
Different buildings, different situations, not a valid comparison. The Empire state building was hit by a smaller plane, which was not full of fuel and was trying to avoid it. The towers were hit by massive missiles full of fuel that were intentionally directed straight at them at the highest possible speed to cause the greatest possible damage. I don’t find the different results at all surprising.
SO, Imamiou, since you are so sceptical, what do you believe? That the US government intentionally blew up the buildings full of people in order to prepare for urban renewal? Isn’t that a little more far-fetched?