[Split] 9/11 conspiracy theory

[flip]

I wanna know how ladder 10, first on the scene and located right at the WTC, encounters a man running out of the lobby, engulfed in flames with his "skin melting like wax." Or the other fireman that says he had to step over people completely burned, but still alive inside the lobby. There are at least 5 fireman that give eyewitness to explosions ground level.

[Djcjr]

I wanna know how ladder 10, first on the scene and located right at the WTC, encounters a man running out of the lobby, engulfed in flames with his "skin melting like wax." Or the other fireman that says he had to step over people completely burned, but still alive inside the lobby. There are at least 5 fireman that give eyewitness to explosions ground level.

Jet fuel traveled down the express elevator shaft(s) and exploded in the lobby.

[flip]

I think it's important to point out that we are talking about 2 different events here. The first, that I pointed out is right when the plane hit 90 stories up. Ladder 10 is basically across the street from the WTC. They arrive on scene to find a man running out of the lobby engulfed in flames and at least one woman completely burned, yet still living.

The second event is witnessed here and happens some time later, when the building actually collapsed.

[youtube]SNLa93Q_rvM[/youtube]

[Top Gun]

Have you really descended to this sort of conspiracy bull★■◆●, flip?

[flip]

This is probably the last time that I will respond to you, but to make things clear, I am just considering and listening to eyewitness testimony. I hope that doesn't upset your delicate nature too much. Although, I will say it's a hard pill to swallow, but, I have been in construction my whole life. If the core of that building was destroyed from the bottom, it would explain how it carried the rest down with it. I do find the firemen to be credible witnesses.

EDIT: I do think we can reliably believe that there were ground level explosions.

[Spidey]

Not according to every credible forensic scientist I ever heard from. That site was gone over by scientists from all across the planet, and no blast marks, explosive residue or any other evidence of “explosions” were ever found.

Those sounds...could have been any number of things from concrete cracking to steel snapping.

[vision]

...I am just considering and listening to eyewitness testimony.

You do understand that eyewitness testimony is of the weakest forms of evidence? It's sometimes rejected in courts because of it's uselessness. Doesn't matter if the eyewitness is a person of authority either because the issue revolves around human brains and how they work.

[flip]

True, I've heard that before, but that is usually eyewitness testimony many days after the fact. Not minutes after. I remain undecided about the whole thing, because first off, it would take an immense amount of cooperation to pull something like this off. On the other hand, maybe their all friggin Mason's. Who knows. I refuse to make my mind up over this.

[Krom]

I saw the towers fall myself on live TV along with millions of other Americans, so technically I'm also an eye witness of the collapse. The towers very clearly broke in the middle and then then upper portion fell down crushing the lower sections on the way down. Look at a controlled demolition of a tall building versus the collapse and it is incredibly easy to spot. In controlled demolitions basically the whole building begins falling as one whole piece (usually they time it so the center begins collapsing first making the majority of the debris falls inwards, but otherwise the whole building falls at once as a single unit). If you look at the various camera angles of the two towers collapsing you can clearly see the top directly above the burning sections beginning to fall over and downwards while the lower sections are still standing perfectly still. If bombs had been set off triggering a collapse at the ground floor, the collapse would have started at the ground floor as well, since it very clearly did not; you can conclude that there were no bombs or controlled demolition of the buildings and put any such conspiracy theories to rest.

[flip]

Yeah, I was watching it live too, but I wasn't actually in the building. I have found at least 15 people all saying the same thing. There were series of explosions, separated over time. The first seems to happened minutes from the time the plane hit the building. Fireman sees man engulfed in flames running out of the lobby, another steps over a woman charred but still breathing.

Later, there are several fireman in the lobby, preparing to go upstairs and they all testify to 3 explosions blowing the lobby down, and then the building falling on them. Here is another woman outside of the building that claims there was a ground level explosion with fireball, right before the building fell.

[youtube]38kEFdUPQyI[/youtube]


Considering the way those buildings were made, with a core through the middle and then an outside skin, if you pulled only the core from the bottom, as it fell from the top it would drag the outside skin down with it. Making it look like it fell from the top down when in reality, the inside core was compromised from the bottom.

[Krom]

In the very video you posted you can see the contents of the building spraying out in every direction during the collapse as the top third of the tower plows through the still standing lower floors. If the core of the building had already fallen away from a controlled demolition, why would all that stuff be getting thrown out of the sides instead of just falling straight down like it would in a controlled demolition started from the ground floor? As for the reported explosions and fireballs on the ground floor, would you be able to tell the difference between flaming debris falling down an express elevator shaft (something that definitely happened prior to the collapse) from an explosion in all that chaos? It is also worth noting that high explosives (which are required to perform a controlled demolition) do not produce a persistent fireball, and actually don't even produce visible flames for a long enough duration to capture without the assistance of a high speed camera.

What brought down the towers was most definitely the commercial jet full of fuel that was crashed into it and the subsequent fires, there were no explosives planted in the building by some elaborate government conspiracy that would be entirely impossible to cover up.

[Will Robinson]

Step back for a minute and ask yourself this:
What (or who's) purpose would it serve to make it look like the planes, that really DID hit the building, took them down.... by hiding the fact that planted explosives really took them down?

Unless I've missed some powerful answer to that question I think Occam's razor should be the guide for those forming theories of what took the buildings down.

I say that because the logistics of managing to fly planes into them and getting lucky based on the nature of the construction to do so much damage are relatively simple compared to what it would take to secretly plant charges in the right places, keep them hidden until explosion time and coordinate them to explode at the right time to cause the collapse of the buildings and yet appear to not have happened at all. For what purpose?

A relatively crude and simple plan becomes magnitudes more difficult to execute for no additional gain.

[flip]

Yeah, who knows. There's a lot of mystery surrounding this and a lot of information to acquire. It's in the past.

[vision]

Yeah, who knows. There's a lot of mystery surrounding this and a lot of information to acquire. It's in the past.

This isn't a "who knows" moment. The mechanics behind the fall of the towers is well known. It's only mysterious to conspiracy theorists who won't believe anything outside what they want to believe.

[flip]

Eh, I could say the same thing about you and your 'catch phrase'. I have spent many hours looking over this. I'm not convinced, in fact, I am a lot more persuaded by police, fire and other eyewitness testimony, aside from the fact I have eyes of my own. I have spent countless hours pouring over videos, seeing things that don't make sense to me, and making observations of my own. It was a mistake to even bring it up, but the whole thing pisses me off everytime I see it. I have an answer for every question that could be brought up here, and facts, hell even videos to support my thoughts, but the fact is, it is too damn ugly.

[Will Robinson]

I don't think this happened but if there were explosions at lobby level after the planes hit that are not the result of the fuel and damage upstairs then the most likely explanation would be they were set off to kill first responders, not to bring the towers down.
The people that did this were pushing their envelope of skills to the max just getting planes to hit the buildings. They didn't think they were going to actually take them down the way they did according to bin Ladin, that was just luck, perfect storm kind of stuff.

What does fit within their modus operandi and skill set is to plant secondary explosions at a bombing site to kill ambulance and police personnel....to up the terror level. So if they thought the buildings would stand there with gaping holes in the upper floors and survivors would be evacuating I could see them planning to have a car bomb or two at lobby level set to go off at the peak of fire and police activity.
That would make sense.

Hiding charges planted with extreme skill and engineering knowledge to explode undetected in a place that isn't that easy to hide that kind of work doesn't make sense especially with no added benefit for pulling off such a difficult task.

[flip]

Well, there's a way to simplify the whole process. First off, the building was hermetically sealed, so even if most of the jet fuel was burned in the initial blast, it would have been very hard for enough of it to travel that 90 floors and blow the whole lobby out. So, the first place to start would be to establish if there were explosions on the ground level, taking into account that there were still basement levels under that, so it wasn't the lower most level either. I can produce at least 20 eyewitnesses now, more really, that testify to having their legs broke, being thrown, the lobby falling on them, witnessing people engulfed in flames, and charred bodies in the lobby. I can produce as many videos showing the windows and even concrete sections of the walls blown out at ground level. So, let's cast every other thing aside, and see if we can establish if there were explosions ground level or not.

[Top Gun]

Stuff was blown out at ground level because there was flaming wreckage and jet fuel falling 90 ★■◆●ing floors into the lobby. Of course there were going to be blasts and flames down there...that's what happens when a bunch of heavy stuff that's on fire falls a very long way. The sort of mental contortions you have to twist yourself into in order to believe that anything covert or mysterious happened that day are astonishing. And at the end of the day, as Will pointed out, having some sort of controlled demolition event would have been completely idiotic, because two planes had already crashed into the buildings in the first place.

[callmeslick]

wow, is this thread careening off topic!

[Sergeant Thorne]

Hiding charges planted with extreme skill and engineering knowledge to explode undetected in a place that isn't that easy to hide that kind of work doesn't make sense especially with no added benefit for pulling off such a difficult task.

I don't think your incredulity is entirely called for, Will. It is possible that...

A) Someone higher up orchestrated the event by training and providing opportunity for would-be terrorists that believed they were acting for their own cause. So long as they were aware of the movements and plans of the terrorists, they could lay their own plans to augment the incident to their own ends. I'm just saying it's entirely conceivable. And if this were the case, perhaps Bin Laden was right in his estimation, but complete destruction of both buildings and building 7 better served the purposes of whoever may have been orchestrating behind the scenes.

It may be a dead-end, but I think I would start with looking for whoever was ultimately behind the drills going on at the time. I believe I would also check out the owner(s) of the two towers.

[flip]

Let's not try to veer off on very limited logic TG. That flaming wreckage and jet fuel had to pass 89 other floors to get there, and every other floor was left intact besides the lobby. Again, I would try to establish how many explosions and the timeline. Although very unlikely, your scenario only accounts for the first one.

[Top Gun]

Let's not try to veer off on very limited logic TG. That flaming wreckage and jet fuel had to pass 89 other floors to get there, and every other floor was left intact besides the lobby. Again, I would try to establish how many explosions and the timeline. Although very unlikely, your scenario only accounts for the first one.

...elevator shafts. Do I seriously need to explain this?

[Djcjr]

Well, there's a way to simplify the whole process. First off, the building was hermetically sealed, so even if most of the jet fuel was burned in the initial blast, it would have been very hard for enough of it to travel that 90 floors and blow the whole lobby out. So, the first place to start would be to establish if there were explosions on the ground level, taking into account that there were still basement levels under that, so it wasn't the lower most level either. I can produce at least 20 eyewitnesses now, more really, that testify to having their legs broke, being thrown, the lobby falling on them, witnessing people engulfed in flames, and charred bodies in the lobby. I can produce as many videos showing the windows and even concrete sections of the walls blown out at ground level. So, let's cast every other thing aside, and see if we can establish if there were explosions ground level or not.

It's true that the twin towers were designed to be hermetically sealed on a floor by floor level, but, a plane crash kinda ruins the air-tight seal.

As far as the lobby level explosions - I see no evidence of any "bombs" detonating in the lobby. In fact, the North Tower lobby was used as a base of operations after the first plane hit. Plus, people were evacuated through the lobby's upper walk-way to a near-by building. There's plenty of video of the lobby in the Naudet Brothers' documentary. There's broken glass, dust, and some debris. However, there's no signs of "walls blown out at ground level", and certainly no signs of structural damage sufficient to weaken the building. Even IF there were bombs, why not simply say, "Hey, the terrorists are using bombs now!", instead of wasting energy covering it up?

Video: (they enter the building around the 25 min mark).

Study the design of the buildings, Flip. It's quite easy to come to the conclusion that once the collapse initiated, there was nothing that could stop it. If you still have issues with something, I'll gladly discuss it with you. I just don't have the desire to go into a lot of detail about the 9/11 conspiracy any longer. Holographic planes (no planers), controlled demo (using bombs, thermite, super thermite), military planes, planes with missiles, space weapons, NUCLEAR WEAPONS (yes, you read that right), etc., etc., are all explanations used for "why" the buildings collapsed. Each version getting more and more complicated as years go by. It's a hopeless adventure trying to disprove/debunk most 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[Top Gun]

Holographic planes (no planers)

what

NUCLEAR WEAPONS (yes, you read that right)

WHAT

...you know maybe it wouldn't be a huge loss if an asteroid dropped on our heads tomorrow and took us all out.

[Will Robinson]

Hiding charges planted with extreme skill and engineering knowledge to explode undetected in a place that isn't that easy to hide that kind of work doesn't make sense especially with no added benefit for pulling off such a difficult task.

I don't think your incredulity is entirely called for, Will. It is possible that...

A) Someone higher up orchestrated the event by training and providing opportunity for would-be terrorists that believed they were acting for their own cause. So long as they were aware of the movements and plans of the terrorists, they could lay their own plans to augment the incident to their own ends. I'm just saying it's entirely conceivable. And if this were the case, perhaps Bin Laden was right in his estimation, but complete destruction of both buildings and building 7 better served the purposes of whoever may have been orchestrating behind the scenes.

It may be a dead-end, but I think I would start with looking for whoever was ultimately behind the drills going on at the time. I believe I would also check out the owner(s) of the two towers.

If someone wanted the two towers to go down in a staged terrorist attack, and wanted to use explosives to ensure complete destruction then they could have done that without going on for what, years ? to organize the suicide pilots as the way to blame al Queda.

They could simply let the 'terrorists' have used bombs! It isn't like that would be doubted. It is their weapon of choice and they had tried using bombs on the same target previously.

Instead of having to get some fundamentalists to join the suicide plot, learn to crash commercial aircraft, hijack planes, etc. etc.etc.... just blow the place up and leave some evidence to tie it to al Queda.

Why in the world would someone go to all the work to plant the right bombs in the right places, at which point you are guaranteed success, but then put the whole plan at the mercy of the noob hijacker's ability to successfully steal the planes and hit the towers with them?

Was there a similar hidden bomb component to the Pentagon target too? At the Whitehouse too? Or were those flights merely part of the cover story for the towers owners insurance fraud scheme so there was no need for explosives on the other targets?

Or the terrorists were acting on their own but someone found out and wanted to make sure the towers went down so they some how coordinated the bombs to go off with the terrorists attack?!?

It isn't that you can't come up with a way it could all be explained. Anything is possible.
Is it even remotely plausible though? It seems ridiculous to me.

[flip]

Again, I'm not trying to make sense of it yet, I am trying to establish certain facts before coming to any conclusions or motives at all. To find the truth, you have to let the facts speak. Is there or is there not any reason at all to believe there were multiple ground level explosions?

[Spidey]

No forensic evidence…

Dude every event of that kind of magnitude will leave evidence behind.

It’s just not possible to detonate that much explosives without someone finding out.

[flip]

Exactly. There is forensic evidence, and 2 sides to every story. For instance, pyroclastic clouds are only produced in the presence of great heat and energy. Take a look at all the cars and firetrucks that were around the WTC. They are completely burned, not by fire, but by the cloud itself, then take a look at the fact that fires burned at the bottom of that pile even 8 weeks later.

[Will Robinson]

Exactly. There is forensic evidence, and 2 sides to every story. For instance, pyroclastic clouds are only produced in the presence of great heat and energy. Take a look at all the cars and firetrucks that were around the WTC. They are completely burned, not by fire, but by the cloud itself, then take a look at the fact that fires burned at the bottom of that pile even 8 weeks later.

110 stories above ground. The initial excavation before building was 70 feet below ground.
50,000 people working in there on the average work day. 50,000 people create and surround themselves with a lot of stuff that burns!

So how much combustible material filled those holes when they came down?
How much explosive energy was expended down into the lower section when a jet aircraft had just dumped its load into the side upon impact and turned a big portion of the total mass into a very hot burning mess before gravity slammed that burning mass down into, and taking the 50 or 60 floors below it, compressing it down into that 70 foot deep crater the building sat upon?

The answers to those question may not be nearly as sexy as questions of conspiracy etc. but they do have substantially more substance to them than shadowy figures coordinating and piggy backing their hidden bomb attack onto a wild and crazy, here hold-my-beer-and-watch-this, Islami-Kazi attack!

But how much time and research have the conspiracy theorists invested in exploring the likely and mundane explanations of what happened in that immense transfer of energy and combustion compared to the Mission Impossible conspiracy scenario?

How many web sites and videos are dedicated to illustrating the simple science that applies to a building of that construction coming down under those circumstances?

I'm betting if most conspiracy theorists would seek out a devil's advocates explanation they would see the whole thing differently.

[Top Gun]

I used to have a link to a great article from Popular Mechanics debunking a whole list of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be accessible anymore.

[flip]

Well, up to this point I havn't made any accusations. I havn't claimed who may have put the explosives there. I have listened to many different fireman, policeman, people who came out of the lobby, all saying there were multiple explosions ground level. One policeman talks about several people he knows personally with broken legs and having to have reconstructive surgery on his face from the wall falling on him. I have watched several videos where I can hear the explosions myself. The cars and trucks that are burnt to a crisp were not in the building, they were not crushed, they were simply subject to the cloud coming off the collapse. I think there is more than enough cause to question if there were ground level explosions, which is the only assertion I've made so far. I have not even began to question WTC 7, which was an admitted demolition by Silverstein himself, and that building was wired in as little as 7 hours.

EDIT: If I were to speculate, I might say it was as simple as insurance fraud, after the fact.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Hiding charges planted with extreme skill and engineering knowledge to explode undetected in a place that isn't that easy to hide that kind of work doesn't make sense especially with no added benefit for pulling off such a difficult task.

I don't think your incredulity is entirely called for, Will. It is possible that...

A) Someone higher up orchestrated the event by training and providing opportunity for would-be terrorists that believed they were acting for their own cause. So long as they were aware of the movements and plans of the terrorists, they could lay their own plans to augment the incident to their own ends. I'm just saying it's entirely conceivable. And if this were the case, perhaps Bin Laden was right in his estimation, but complete destruction of both buildings and building 7 better served the purposes of whoever may have been orchestrating behind the scenes.

It may be a dead-end, but I think I would start with looking for whoever was ultimately behind the drills going on at the time. I believe I would also check out the owner(s) of the two towers.

If someone wanted the two towers to go down in a staged terrorist attack, and wanted to use explosives to ensure complete destruction then they could have done that without going on for what, years ? to organize the suicide pilots as the way to blame al Queda.

They could simply let the 'terrorists' have used bombs! It isn't like that would be doubted. It is their weapon of choice and they had tried using bombs on the same target previously.

Instead of having to get some fundamentalists to join the suicide plot, learn to crash commercial aircraft, hijack planes, etc. etc.etc.... just blow the place up and leave some evidence to tie it to al Queda.

Why in the world would someone go to all the work to plant the right bombs in the right places, at which point you are guaranteed success, but then put the whole plan at the mercy of the noob hijacker's ability to successfully steal the planes and hit the towers with them?

Was there a similar hidden bomb component to the Pentagon target too? At the Whitehouse too? Or were those flights merely part of the cover story for the towers owners insurance fraud scheme so there was no need for explosives on the other targets?

Or the terrorists were acting on their own but someone found out and wanted to make sure the towers went down so they some how coordinated the bombs to go off with the terrorists attack?!?

It isn't that you can't come up with a way it could all be explained. Anything is possible.
Is it even remotely plausible though? It seems ridiculous to me.

I hear what you're saying Will, but could the TSA have been created and expanded on if the flights had not been involved?

I think you're right that anything is possible, and it doesn't serve any good purpose to guess, and then build on guessing with more guesses, but the possibilities might caution us not to easily accept the simplest of explanations, and obviously the plausibility depends on how much complexity you're willing to allow for.

[flip]

I realize that mental conditioning is a very hard thing for people to overcome, but for the sake of fairness, this split would have more accurately been called "Were there ground level explosions on 9/11?"

[Foil]

I briefly considered, "[Split] Were the flames and damage on the lower floors of the Twin Towers on 9/11 caused by wreckage and fuel, or a conspiracy to pre-wire those floors with explosives?", but that was too long.

[Will Robinson]

I'm trying to consider the possibility there were ground level charges set and used but I stop when I realize there are no whistle blowers or reporters leaking info on the investigation that I'm convinced would be taking place if there was any credible evidence of that having happened.

If the evidence of the cloud of burning air/particles couldn't come from anything other than ground level explosions I think we would be hearing lots of reporting on it. Especially since Darth Cheney was in control of the government then and there is no shortage of conspiracy theories that it was the Bush team that covered it up.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I don't think anyone is giving these terrorist pilots the credit they are due--they didn't just hit a skyscraper with an airliner, they hit an elevator shaft with the airliner's fuselage!

[flip]

Yeah, a hermetically sealed elevator that allowed multiple ground level explosions :p

What about WTC 7 Will. The owner admitted from his own mouth that in a matter of hours, they wired that building and pulled it. That's pretty quick to procure the explosives, consult engineers and physically wire the building. Nobody's making a big issue over that. There's even an official story that contradicts the owner's very words.

[CobGobbler]

maybe there could be no recovery effort with 7 still standing? you're fooling with us right flip? there's no possible way you actually believe this nonsense?

[Will Robinson]

Yeah, a hermetically sealed elevator that allowed multiple ground level explosions :p

What about WTC 7 Will. The owner admitted from his own mouth that in a matter of hours, they wired that building and pulled it. That's pretty quick to procure the explosives, consult engineers and physically wire the building. Nobody's making a big issue over that. There's even an official story that contradicts the owner's very words.

Wasn't there a whole bunch of debunking about his use of the term " pull"?
As in he didn't use it the way a demolition company use the word to describe blowing things up but rather he mentioned the fire chief pulled everyone out...and later someone refered to the way they used steel cables to pull down parts of the wall section...
Those comments were used to accuse him of demolition-speak when in fact he wasn't talking demolition at all.

Is the claim that he "wired it" just another misrepresentation of someone mentioning the use of cables to pull the dangerous part down? I don't know but with the track record of the conspiracy nuts who seem to have taken his words WAY out of context I'd have to explore that possibility that it is more of the same.

And if not, is it not reasonable to see the difference between bringing a doomed building down in an emergency situation, in a hurry, instead of a precisely controlled demolition where the neighboring buildings aren't a pile of rubble. The latter requiring much more planning and the former could be accomplished by average guys with some explosives and no training...

And back to my stand back and think about the big picture method of examining things.
If you have knowledge of evidence of the owner blowing up a perfectly good building don't you thing the powerful insurance companies that underwrite those properties would have that knowledge? Wouldn't we have heard about insurance fraud charges?

[flip]

Well, considering the North and the South towers had just fallen, and the fact that WTC7 fell straight down into it's footprint, I'd figure 'pulled' to mean in the context of the ongoing events. Plus, your argument leaves no room. First, you argue that he didn't mean 'pull', as in demolition, but then you argue, but if he did that makes sense to. At the very least, you can argue that it fell with complete precision. I mean, the guy made a billion dollars off the collapse, and surely there was gonna be a question regarding demolitions, so his choice of the word at the moment was a poor one. I honestly think that when caught on the spot, he didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to wonder if it was 'pulled' or not. Maybe he did mean pull the people. Still doesn't explain all the ground level explosions being reported, several by people who sustained injuries when it exploded. The precision with which not only all of them fell, but in particular WTC7, which had no serious structure damage, only fire. Here's the video:

[youtube]AsJQKpnkZ10[/youtube]