9/11 controlled demolition theory question

[Panzer Grenadier]

I have been reading on a lot of conspiracy sites about 9/11 and many of them claim that the twin towers were brought down by bombs presumably planted by whoever that site blames for the attack. (CIA, Mossad, Bush/Cheney Junta).

However it makes no sense to me why bombs would be planted to bring the WTC down, and also fly planes into them. What were the planes for? If the people involved in the 9/11 conspiracy could covertly and adequately bring down the WTC using conventional explosives, why would they go to the trouble of training/recruiting/ funding an additional team of men to crash airplanes into the WTC? You end up adding another element to your conspiracy which could go wrong.

I mean do you think the results of 9/11 would have been any different if Arab terrorists had planted truck bombs in the WTC and succeeded in collapsing the towers? I mean if you were trying to make a plausible conspiracy wouldn't this be way easier to blame on the arabs considering they had tried it before in 1993?

It just makes sense why you would carry out both arms of the attack if one could have done the job as well.

[Darth Wong]

I have been reading on a lot of conspiracy sites about 9/11 and many of them claim that the twin towers were brought down by bombs presumably planted by whoever that site blames for the attack. (CIA, Mossad, Bush/Cheney Junta).

Please tell me you did not support the authors of this garbage by actually paying for these books.

However it makes no sense to me why bombs would be planted to bring the WTC down, and also fly planes into them. What were the planes for? If the people involved in the 9/11 conspiracy could covertly and adequately bring down the WTC using conventional explosives, why would they go to the trouble of training/recruiting/ funding an additional team of men to crash airplanes into the WTC? You end up adding another element to your conspiracy which could go wrong.

The 9/11 attacks weren't that well-planned. People tend to exaggerate the intelligence of the plan because it succeeded, but it wasn't a particularly robust plan. It only worked because it was committed against people who were unprepared and complacent.

I mean do you think the results of 9/11 would have been any different if Arab terrorists had planted truck bombs in the WTC and succeeded in collapsing the towers? I mean if you were trying to make a plausible conspiracy wouldn't this be way easier to blame on the arabs considering they had tried it before in 1993?

Well, if they'd bombed it, then the building would have collapsed starting at the bottom instead of starting at the top. Also, I'd imagine there would have been less time to get people out. But I don't see what point there is in examining planning for this imaginary conspiracy; the nature of a conspiracy theory is to ignore a lot of human issues anyway.

[Hawkwings]

I have been reading on a lot of conspiracy sites about 9/11 and many of them claim that the twin towers were brought down by bombs presumably planted by whoever that site blames for the attack. (CIA, Mossad, Bush/Cheney Junta).

Please tell me you did not support the authors of this garbage by actually paying for these books.

"Conspiracy site" presumably refers to websites, which are typically free. Unless this is some sort of paid subscription, but then he would hardly spend lots of money to read "a lot of them" would he?

[Darwin]

*facepalm*

these theories are perpetuated by people who have no idea how much work goes into controlled demolition. The short form is: Controlled demolition requires a LOT of work. Main supports need to be weakened so the demolition will proceed just so. Explosives need to be carefully planted and timed. The building needs to be made unsafe for habitation, basically. Obviously, TEH EBIL GOBERMINT was able to do all of this in complete secret, while thousands of people worked and visited there every day without noticing, because despite being led and run by idiots, they magically become ninja-competent when killing their own citizens.

[PeZook]

*facepalm*

these theories are perpetuated by people who have no idea how much work goes into controlled demolition. The short form is: Controlled demolition requires a LOT of work. Main supports need to be weakened so the demolition will proceed just so. Explosives need to be carefully planted and timed. The building needs to be made unsafe for habitation, basically. Obviously, TEH EBIL GOBERMINT was able to do all of this in complete secret, while thousands of people worked and visited there every day without noticing, because despite being led and run by idiots, they magically become ninja-competent when killing their own citizens.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they have their own, special opinion on how things should look. It is based on their "gut feeling", of course, and as so is completely worthless.

I mean, you can pretty much instantly tell they have no idea what it actually takes to demolish a building like the WTC ; The collapse just superficially resembled a controlled demolition, and they only saw such operations on TV, so they make the only possible conclusion for a layman idiot: The planes didn't bring the buildings down. And, since real analysis bores them to tears (it includes maths and stuff), they won't bother with anything beyong looking over pictures frame-by-frame, with a conclusion already firmly planted in their minds.

You see such shit all the time, and with every conspiracy theory there is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

However it makes no sense to me why bombs would be planted to bring the WTC down, and also fly planes into them. What were the planes for? If the people involved in the 9/11 conspiracy could covertly and adequately bring down the WTC using conventional explosives, why would they go to the trouble of training/recruiting/ funding an additional team of men to crash airplanes into the WTC? You end up adding another element to your conspiracy which could go wrong.

In their minds the people of the US would see right through a demolition by itself, so they had to add the planes to cover the demolition, and to pick an enemy. Picking the enemy was the most important part.

I mean do you think the results of 9/11 would have been any different if Arab terrorists had planted truck bombs in the WTC and succeeded in collapsing the towers? I mean if you were trying to make a plausible conspiracy wouldn't this be way easier to blame on the arabs considering they had tried it before in 1993?

These people feed off one liners. They feel that the WTC towers should have withstood the attack because the designer said it was designed to withstand airliner impacts. They pretend that just because something is designed to work that way then it will work that way without fail.

Also, when you have a few people with a high level of education, such as physics, who say that the planes couldn't have brought the towers down then it only feeds the fire.

[Darwin]

They feel that the WTC towers should have withstood the attack because the designer said it was designed to withstand airliner impacts.

They withstood the airliner impacts beautifully.

It was the uncontrolled fires that did them in.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They feel that the WTC towers should have withstood the attack because the designer said it was designed to withstand airliner impacts.

They withstood the airliner impacts beautifully.

It was the uncontrolled fires that did them in.

Right, which is the flaw of that design. It took into consideration plane impacts, but not planes with fuel, nor the fires that would be started.

[Mari Wolfe]

Right, which is the flaw of that design. It took into consideration plane impacts, but not planes with fuel, nor the fires that would be started.

It was not a design flaw it was a design decision. The buildings were designed with a 30min fire resistance. So when the heat was still there after 30min they collapsed. So it was rather a flaw in planning that did not anticipate a situation where a hot fire would last over 30min without being extinguished or at least some form of attempt to reduce the temperature bing made.

[Broomstick]

The 9/11 attacks weren't that well-planned. People tend to exaggerate the intelligence of the plan because it succeeded, but it wasn't a particularly robust plan. It only worked because it was committed against people who were unprepared and complacent.

Also remember that 1/4 of the teams that we know about did not reach their target - it succeeded in part because of redundancy. For all we know there were several other teams that were delayed, stopped by the "ground all airplanes" order, or otherwise prevented from acting.

[ray245]

Isn't there a documentary regarding the collaspe of the world trade centre?

[FSTargetDrone]

Isn't there a documentary regarding the collaspe of the world trade centre?

There was one from PBS (Public Broadcasting Service):

TV Program Description
Original PBS Broadcast Date: September 5, 2006

Following up its Emmy Award-winning documentary, "Why the Towers Fell," NOVA probes the conclusions of the government's engineering investigation into the World Trade Center's collapse on 9/11, with updated analysis of the devastating attack and how subsequent knowledge gained will shape skyscrapers of the future. Yet is it practical or even possible to construct invincible buildings?

"Building on Ground Zero" features candid interviews with leading construction and safety experts, investigators, architects, and engineers—including Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the original World Trade Center and Shanghai's new World Financial Center, and Jake Pauls, occupants advocate and evacuation specialist. From the hallways of the newly erected World Trade Center 7 in New York, to China, where the world's tallest building is midway to completion, NOVA explores the complex challenges of building tall buildings in the wake of 9/11.

Previously, it was natural threats to the safety of tall buildings—earthquakes, hurricanes, and the relentless force of the wind—that had driven structural engineering codes. But with the threat of terrorism, determined attackers have targeted even the most secure structures, forcing engineers and architects to consider what was once unimaginable.

In the months after 9/11, NOVA followed a team of engineers tasked by FEMA to study the Twin Towers' collapse. Preliminary conclusions originally reported in "Why the Towers Fell" determined that the floors of the buildings may have "pancaked" down upon one another as their trusses failed. Now, with the benefit of years of additional investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has revealed that no structural element was to blame for the buildings' collapse.

Using vivid computer animations, NOVA takes viewers through a simulation of what the buildings endured in the 9/11 attacks. It turns out that fireproofing on the floor trusses was blown off by the impact of the jets, exposing the trusses to severe fire temperature. This caused the trusses to bow and eventually break the buildings' supporting columns, which then triggered the immediate collapse of the buildings. (See an audio slide show narrated by the chief NIST investigator.)

Forensic engineer Eugene Corley also details the chilling results of another critical engineering investigation, that of the bombing and destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Unlike the World Trade Center towers, which stood for 56 minutes (South Tower) and one hour 42 minutes (North Tower), the Murrah Building crumbled in a mere three seconds. In this worst-case scenario, known as a progressive collapse, there was simply no time for anyone to escape.

By standing as long as they did, the Twin Towers gave most people a chance to escape. (Hear one survivor's remarkable tale of escape from high in the South Tower.) So structurally they were very sound. But their ultimate collapse revealed fatal weaknesses that many tall buildings share. These include stairways that are too few and too narrow to accommodate crowds of evacuees, fireproofing materials that are easily dislodged and could leave steel exposed to dangerous levels of heat, and insufficient means by which firemen and other First Responders can reach the upper floors of a building in an emergency.

These issues and more have been addressed by NIST in a comprehensive report that recommends 30 safety revisions to American building codes. But as NOVA learns, these recommendations are not without controversy among builders or even among those in the emergency planning community. Code changes often come with significant added costs, swift evacuations of giant structures may not be possible, and the probability of future terrorism is difficult to quantify. Most experts concede that protecting buildings from airplane attacks like those that took down the Twin Towers is simply not practical. But many improvements can be made to a building's design, structural integrity, and evacuation systems that would better protect it from major fire or even some terrorist threats, and NOVA details the ways this can be done.

"Building on Ground Zero" takes viewers to two structures that exemplify bold advances in skyscraper safety and construction. In New York City, World Trade Center 7 has risen from the ashes as one of America's safest and "greenest" tall buildings. And in China, NOVA gets a tour from Leslie Robertson as he guides the construction of Shanghai's new World Financial Center, which upon completion will be the tallest building in the world. (Hear Robertson describe its unique design and safety features.)

Exclusive footage shows off the skyscraper's massive structural shell, "refuge floors" with extra fire protection, and additional elevators designed for use by emergency personnel. While Robertson is relieved that the NIST investigation found no flaw in his engineering of the World Trade Center, the horror of what happened to the Towers still haunts him to this day. In Shanghai, he is doing what many argue we all must do: take the lessons from Ground Zero, endorse innovation, and continue to reach for the sky.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Right, which is the flaw of that design. It took into consideration plane impacts, but not planes with fuel, nor the fires that would be started.

It was not a design flaw it was a design decision. The buildings were designed with a 30min fire resistance. So when the heat was still there after 30min they collapsed. So it was rather a flaw in planning that did not anticipate a situation where a hot fire would last over 30min without being extinguished or at least some form of attempt to reduce the temperature bing made.

Whatever. Let's not mince words here. It was a bad decision, and thus led to a weakness in the design to withstand large airliner impacts.

Furthermore, the fire resistant material was knocked off by the impact of the planes.

[FSTargetDrone]

Could some kind moderator please put the block of text in my previous post in a quote box? Sorry for the foul-up.

Anyway, here is an article from 1993 in the Seattle Times (following that very first attack):

Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

No one ever expected two planes to purposely hit the buildings.

Don't forget, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of the then-largest airliners in service, the Boeing 707 (but not its fuel load, as has been mentioned elsewhere):

Leslie Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.

"With the 707 however, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design," he told Horizon.

[Mange]

Leslie Robertson has also said that:

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

From here.
That is something the twoofers fails to understand. What disgusts me the most about the twoofers is that it's a bunch of people who knows nothing about architecture or engineering and who makes the same stupid claims over and over again (and Dr. Thermite Jones isn't any better) and who harasses survivors, family and witnesses (such as the woman who took the photograph of the smoke plume rising from the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville).

[PeZook]

That is something the twoofers fails to understand. What disgusts me the most about the twoofers is that it's a bunch of people who knows nothing about architecture or engineering and who makes the same stupid claims over and over again (and Dr. Thermite Jones isn't any better)

Truthers generally have an inflated ego, and think themselves better qualified to discuss controlled demolitions than structural engineers. It goes the same for every other conspiracy theorist, including apollo hoaxers and alien abductees. They shun math, don't want to listen to scientists, and oftentimes lack basic intellectual honesty in their mockery of an "investigation".

As for Dr. Jones, the truthers fail to realize that he doesn't actually support them! All he did was say "Hey, this doesn't look quite right to me" and urged to investigate further. Which the mechanics and engineering departments of his university promptly did, and called him an idiot (in softer words )

They also don't realize that a physicist who specializes in fusion isn't exactly an authority on structural collapse. It's like asking an MD about rocket engines. I suppose it's a mark of an idiot, that he thinks every PhD has to be equal to another.

[Mange]

That is something the twoofers fails to understand. What disgusts me the most about the twoofers is that it's a bunch of people who knows nothing about architecture or engineering and who makes the same stupid claims over and over again (and Dr. Thermite Jones isn't any better)

As for Dr. Jones, the truthers fail to realize that he doesn't actually support them! All he did was say "Hey, this doesn't look quite right to me" and urged to investigate further. Which the mechanics and engineering departments of his university promptly did, and called him an idiot (in softer words )

I don't quite agree on that. Dr. Jones co-funded Journal of 9/11 Studies which claims to be a "peer-reviewed" journal where Jones (and others) in several articles rejects the NIST findings (such as in this PDF article, as well as appearing on several conspiracy events (such as this conference in Boston on December 15 so I would say that he has taken a very active role on the CT scene.

They also don't realize that a physicist who specializes in fusion isn't exactly an authority on structural collapse. It's like asking an MD about rocket engines. I suppose it's a mark of an idiot, that he thinks every PhD has to be equal to another.

No, the twoofers fails to understand the concept of false authority.

[PeZook]

I don't quite agree on that. Dr. Jones co-funded Journal of 9/11 Studies which claims to be a "peer-reviewed" journal where Jones (and others) in several articles rejects the NIST findings (such as in this PDF article, as well as appearing on several conspiracy events (such as this conference in Boston on December 15 so I would say that he has taken a very active role on the CT scene.

Huh. I didn't know about that.

Well, I suppose that since cold fusion research stalled, he needs a new source of income

No, the twoofers fails to understand the concept of false authority.

Pretty much. They'd take a theologist's word if it agreed with them and the guy wrote "Dr." in front of his name.

[Mange]

Pretty much. They'd take a theologist's word if it agreed with them and the guy wrote "Dr." in front of his name.

Well, they have already done that. Dr. David Ray Griffin, professor of religion and theology, was a "fact" checker of Loose Change: Final Cut who was to ensure that:

...the final release will be absolutely watertight and immune to the debunking attempts that will inevitably follow.

From here.

[Darth Wong]

As for Dr. Jones, the truthers fail to realize that he doesn't actually support them! All he did was say "Hey, this doesn't look quite right to me" and urged to investigate further. Which the mechanics and engineering departments of his university promptly did, and called him an idiot (in softer words )

No, he went well beyond that. I read his paper, in which he came to rather concrete, specific conclusions about what happened at 9/11.

Also, his unrelated personal background is no excuse for his bullshit. Among other things, he claimed that large amounts of residual heat in the debris pile had no conceivable origin, despite the enormous gravitational potential energy released by the entire building's mass falling from great height. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for a physicist being unaware of the concept of gravitational potential energy, regardless of whether he specialized in fusion, astrophysics, or anything else. Either he is a raving incompetent or a dishonest charlatan.

[PeZook]

They have already done that. Dr. David Ray Griffin, professor of religion and theology, was a "fact" checker of Loose Change: Final Cut who was to ensure that:

Oh...

Shit...man, I didn't actually expect my hyperbole to be true

I guess you just can't overstate truthers, even for the purpose of ridicule.

No, he went well beyond that. I read his paper, in which he came to rather concrete, specific conclusions about what happened at 9/11.

Oh? Well, I only read about him when he was actual news. I guess I should've read his paper before I started spouting crap, though.

Also, his unrelated personal background is no excuse for his bullshit. Among other things, he claimed that large amounts of residual heat in the debris pile had no conceivable origin, despite the enormous gravitational potential energy released by the entire building's mass falling from great height. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for a physicist being unaware of the concept of gravitational potential energy, regardless of whether he specialized in fusion, astrophysics, or anything else. Either he is a raving incompetent or a dishonest charlatan.

Well, if you put it that way...then yeah. Not much of an authority at all, even in physics.

As I said, I guess now that cold fusion research grants dried up, he needed a new source of income. After all, with what Mange showed us above, Dr. Jones would have to an idiot to not realize truthers would lap up anything he wrote.

[chitoryu12]

However it makes no sense to me why bombs would be planted to bring the WTC down, and also fly planes into them. What were the planes for? If the people involved in the 9/11 conspiracy could covertly and adequately bring down the WTC using conventional explosives, why would they go to the trouble of training/recruiting/ funding an additional team of men to crash airplanes into the WTC? You end up adding another element to your conspiracy which could go wrong.

In their minds the people of the US would see right through a demolition by itself, so they had to add the planes to cover the demolition, and to pick an enemy. Picking the enemy was the most important part.

Some people also think that the planes were merely dressed-up missiles. One particular video I found a few months ago tried to compare the shot of one of the planes with an "actual" passenger jet, stating that there was an "unusual piece of metal" on the plane involved in 9/11. Long story short, there WAS no strange device in his comparison. Even after pausing and screwing around with my monitor, there was no unusual device on Terrorist Airlines.

He also indicated that before each plane hit there was a "flash" on the nose of the plane. There was indeed, but he cleverly ignored all possible explanations for a flash and focused on the ONE TRUE REASON: The nose of the plane exploded, therefore it was actually a cleverly disguised cruise missile.

[eyl]

Also, his unrelated personal background is no excuse for his bullshit. Among other things, he claimed that large amounts of residual heat in the debris pile had no conceivable origin, despite the enormous gravitational potential energy released by the entire building's mass falling from great height. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for a physicist being unaware of the concept of gravitational potential energy, regardless of whether he specialized in fusion, astrophysics, or anything else. Either he is a raving incompetent or a dishonest charlatan.

From what I understand (I haven't read the paper itself - I'm going by arguments with its supporters) its worse than that - he claimed the residual heat ruled out the "official account" of events, while ignoring that his thermite claimes don't explain them either.

Then again, if you really want wacky physics, try Judy Woods' "death beam" claims....

[CaptHawkeye]

Like i've said. A lot of this 9/11 conspiracy jargon seems to come from people who have absolutely nothing better to do. They are either unemployed losers, or hollowed out shells who feel their day to day lives are boring and need to be "spiced up", perhaps with some kind of larger than life workings in the background. I'd place them closer to Rabid Trekkies than Fundies. In the reasons as to WHY they practice Pseudo-Science that is.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, it bothers me to even hear such bullshit described as "theories", because people confuse those kinds of meaningless undefined "theories" with scientific theories, that have to follow a set of rules.

It's like creation "theory" which makes predictions already known to be totally false, or intelligent design "theory" which makes no specific predictions at all. 9/11 controlled demolition "theory" makes a number of predictions which can be easily established to be false. To continue calling it a "theory" in the scientific sense implies that it actually meets the base requirements, and must therefore be disproven through active work and acquisition of new data. But it does not.