Ray

Of course we have ....

Silly Sod

I hate conspiracy theorists - boring paranoid spotty nerds who live in their parents basements collecting every episode of the X-Files on blue ray to replace every episode they already had on DVD. Non the less, especially regarding 9/11, the amount of demolition experts and former CIA black op's agents etc etc who have provided evidence that both towers were demolished, after the initial attacks, in a controlled demolition, along with Building 7 which apparently collapsed perfectly in onto itself because of flying debris from the Towers raises eyebrows around the world if not questions.
Plus, nobody is suggesting politicians, but the security services. Can you imagine GDubya trying to tie his own shoelace much less orchestrate something like this? Naa, I'm with you on that one.

elfman

evidence?
give over, ill-informed speculation, more like.

Silly Sod

Apparently, according to the people who designed the building,
the towers were specifically designed to withstand an aeroplane flying into them after a military plane went off course in the 40's and flew into the empire state building.
But I am no expert, just curious as to others opinions based on the information at hand. Try this if you haven't already seen it. The (half) truth is out there ha ha

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003

AdobePinon

Yes, a much smaller plane with much less fuel.

Silly Sod

Very true but non the less the official line is that the buildings collapsed due to heat from the fires rather than the impact. They collapsed something like 90 minutes after the impact in apprx 9 seconds in what appeared to experts a controlled demolition as I have mentioned. A building with a steel frame is cited in the film 9/11 mysteries in, I think, south America, that burned for 19 hours and still the frame stood the next day. Nothing else was left but the frame survived and it was a weaker structure than the WTC.

I am kind of playing devils advocate here of course but watch the movie and see what you think. Of course they may well all be crackpots but it makes you think. Also you can't beat a good doco when there is nowt on telly lol.

Jerseygirl

That was a tiny little plane...it was half hanging out of the ESB. The towers were built to withstand impact of planes in use in the late 60's early 70's.

Silly Sod

According to the architects who designed them they were built to withstand a Boeing 707 'hitting the building at any location' - so not atiny little place really, and the planes that hit the towers we must remember were not fully fuelled as they had been in the air for around an hour before being diverted to NYC.

Roadster280

Folks, I've been away from BE for a while, so my apologies for putting my size 11's in (12's here).

If a Boeing 767 hits anything at 500mph, with a 75% fuel load, the target is in a world of trouble. Exactly as happened. Does anybody with sanity really think that this was some kind of stunt on the part of the US government? It beggars belief.

The July bombings of last year. Much as there are problems in the UK, I think it highly unlikely that a self-perpetrated "mini 9/11" would be seen as a goer by anybody but the most unstable of people. Typically, they don't get into positions of responsibility.

While I may be cynical in my old age, I've been round the block enough time to think "bollocks".

Oh how I missed BE!

elfman

I think you mean engineers, surely. Architects make buildings look nice, engineers make sure they stand up (or not).

indeed - but I think the designers only really considered the primary effects of the plane's impact on the building's structural integrity (i.e. whether or not the plane would sever or damage any critical structural elements) - not the secondary effects of the crash, i.e. raging jet fuel fires and their detrimental effects on structural members that have had their fire protection dislodged by the impact.

Sally

It's too scary to think it might be a conspiracy - but I'm sure that some degree of fear in the population is useful to any government.

Silly Sod

As I said, playing devils advocate here based on the documentaries I have recently watched. Crazy as it sounds, and it does sound crazy, without watching the doco's you are not armed with all of the info. The films are not made up of loony net nerds, they comprise leading politicians, scientists, secret service people, demolition experts and historians. That said, regarding the above - what caused building 7 to collapse like an old council tower block? Apparently it was flying debris that cause it to hit the ground in 7 seconds while barely scratching any of the surrounding buildings. Fly debris?

Watch the documentary, can't hurt if you have an hour spare and if nothing else it makes for some good arguments on BE ha ha - love it here too

paddingtongreen

We did all this some months ago, in TIO. I remember posting all sorts of data on strength reduction of structural steel with rising temperature, IP was posting data as well.

paddingtongreen

We hashed it out here: http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...ghlight=9%2F11

Silly Sod

Whoops, sorry about that then ha ha. Well, it is time for me to collapse like an old council tower block and get some shut eye. Have a good good evening BE folk and see you all tomorrow bright eyed and bushy tailed.