SkyscraperCity Forum banner

World Trade Center on 9-11

2M views 4K replies 255 participants last post by  luchkovtim 
#1 ·
So people like Kon133 can post 9-11 pics to their heart's content instead of on the THE MEGA WTC Picture Thread.
 
#232 ·
Probably dismantled, the damage was too severe. Keep in mind that there was damage elsewhere in the towers, not just on the impact/fire floors, most of it caused by jet fuel that was channeled through elevator and utility shafts

Although I'm sure people would have demanded that they be repaired or rebuilt had that scenario occurred. Repair would have probably been an option too.
 
#239 ·
Not forgetting the fact that the whole site was probably the the biggest crime scene in modern history. Forensics would probably still be picking through it all, along with the unimaginably grim task of removing bodies from all the affected areas.

I'm guessing if there was no safe way up to the higher floors, they would have to construct some sort of lift system (from relatively unaffected lower floors) up around the outside of the building to the affected areas.

In terms of demolishing the towers, again that would've been a very slow, gradual process. As we saw, a demolition would've caused a great deal of damage to neighbouring buildings (and that dust cloud). There would also be extensive damage to the basement levels which they might prefer to keep intact.
 
#242 ·
^^ i didn't imply you said the South Tower didn't lean, i am just acknowledging the fact that the tower did in fact lean. But that doesn't mean the North Tower didn't lean as well.
On 9/11 the South Tower got considerably more attention because the crash happened live, while very few people actually saw the crash on the North Tower and the ones that could've felt the lean and other assurances were trapped on the floors above the impact zone.
News report don't amount to a thing basically.
 
#243 ·
Again, I'm not just telling you what news reports said. I'm telling you what I saw in real time and in subsequent documentaries. The south tower definitely had a more pronounced lean to it after the attacks. I could see it. I couldn't see the lean in the north tower.

The second plane hit the south tower at a lower floor meaning more weight was bearng down on the weakend part of the building. The second plane hit the south tower at such an angle that it took out a corner of the south tower and two sides of the structure's load-bearing curtain wall. That is why it had a more noticeable lean, if you will, regardless of whether both buildings were leaning and were off center.

Now is where the argument started. You thought it was unusual that the north tower didn't fall sooner than the south tower. It might be unusual that both buildings stayed up as long as they did, but after all of the above, it's pretty obvious to me why the south tower fell first.
 
#251 · (Edited)
Tell me about it! Thank you! What if the same thing had happened even lower, say the 10th floor of the south tower? You would think it unusual that the north tower stayed up longer than the south tower? The south tower probably would have come down almost immediately.

The NIST came to a different conclusion from what I drew as to why they south tower collapsed first from what I read so far, but they do explain why the south tower collapsed first. Just scroll down to where I have bolded and underlined. I haven't been able to find where they say the weight of the floors above was a factor, but it still seems impossible to me that they wouldn't be. When I first saw the south tower collapse, it made perfectly good sense to me at that time that it collapsed first because the second plane hit lower on the south tower.

About the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

•Investigation Team Members
•Awarded Contracts
•Meetings and Presentations

GENESIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION

On August 21, 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.1 This WTC Investigation was then conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act, which was signed into law on October 1, 2002. A copy of the Public Law is included in AppendixA.

The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:

•To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster after terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers.
•To serve as the basis for:
•Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
•Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
•Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
•Improved public safety
The specific objectives were:

•Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
•Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;
•Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and
•Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.
APPROACH

To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.

Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials and in interpreting the results came from a large number of individuals and organizations, including The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its contractors and consultants; Silverstein Properties and its contractors and consultants; the City of New York and its departments; the manufacturers and fabricators of the building components; the companies that insured the WTC towers; the building tenants; the aircraft manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including survivors and family members; and the media.

The scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster led to the following approach:

•Accumulation of copious photographic and video material. With the assistance of the media, public agencies and individual photographers, NIST acquired and organized nearly 7,000segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 150 hours and nearly 7,000photographs representing at least 185 photographers. This guided the Investigation Team's efforts to determine the condition of the buildings following the aircraft impact, the evolution of the fires, and the subsequent deterioration of the structure.
•Establishment of the baseline performance of the WTC towers, i.e., estimating the expected performance of the towers under normal design loads and conditions. The baseline performance analysis also helped to estimate the ability of the towers to withstand the unexpected events of September 11, 2001. Establishing the baseline performance of the towers began with the compilation and analysis of the procedures and practices used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the structural, fire protection, and egress systems of the WTC towers. The additional components of the performance analysis were the standard fire resistance of the WTC truss-framed floor system, the quality and properties of the structural steels used in the towers, and the response of the WTC towers to the design gravity and wind loads.

•Simulations of the behavior of each tower on September 11, 2001, in four steps:

•The aircraft impact into the tower, the resulting distribution of aviation fuel, and the damage to the structure, partitions, thermal insulation materials, and building contents.

•The evolution of multi-floor fires.

•The heating and consequent weakening of the structural elements by the fires.

•The response of the damaged and heated building structure, and the progression of structural component failures leading to the initiation of the collapse of the towers.
For such complex structures and complex thermal and structural processes, each of these steps stretched the state of the technology and tested the limits of software tools and computer hardware. For example, the investigators advanced the state-of-the-art in the measurement of construction material properties and in structural finite element modeling. New modeling capability was developed for the mapping of fire-generated environmental temperatures onto the building structural components.

The output of the four-step simulations was subject to uncertainties in the as-built condition of the towers, the interior layout and furnishings, the aircraft impact, the internal damage to the towers (especially the thermal insulation for fire protection of the structural steel, which is colloquially referred to as fireproofing), the redistribution of the combustibles, and the response of the building structural components to the heat from the fires. To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving large fires and the heating of structural components, and formal statistical methods to identify influential parameters and quantify the variability in analysis results.

•Combination of the knowledge gained into probable collapse sequences for each tower,2 the identification of factors that contributed to the collapse, and a list of factors that could have improved building performance or otherwise mitigated the loss of life.

•Compilation of a list of findings that respond to the first three objectives and a list of recommendations that responds to the fourth objective.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.

•The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

•In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

•The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

•In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.

•NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Objective 2: Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response.

•Approximately 87 percent of the estimated 17,400 occupants of the towers, and 99 percent of those located below the impact floors, evacuated successfully. In WTC 1, where the aircraft destroyed all escape routes, 1,355 people were trapped in the upper floors when the building collapsed. One hundred seven people who were below the impact floors did not survive. Since the flow of people from the building had slowed considerably 20 min before the tower collapsed, the stairwell capacity was adequate to evacuate the occupants on that morning.

•In WTC 2, before the second aircraft strike, about 3,000 people got low enough in the building to escape by a combination of self-evacuation and use of elevators. The aircraft destroyed the operation of the elevators and the use of two of the three stairways. Eighteen people from above the impact zone found a passage through the damaged third stairway (Stairwell A) and escaped. The other 619people in or above the impact zone perished. Eleven people who were below the impact floors did not survive. As in WTC 1, shortly before collapse, the flow of people from the building had slowed considerably, indicating that the stairwell capacity was adequate that morning.

•About 6 percent of the survivors described themselves as mobility impaired, with recent injury and chronic illness being the most common causes; few, however, required a wheelchair. Among the 118 decedents below the aircraft impact floors, investigators identified seven who were mobility impaired, but were unable to determine the mobility capability of the remaining 111.

•A principal factor limiting the loss of life was that the buildings were one-third to one-half occupied at the time of the attacks. NIST estimated that if the towers had been fully occupied with 20,000occupants each, it would have taken just over 3 hours to evacuate the buildings and about 14,000people might have perished because the stairwell capacity would not have been sufficient to evacuate that many people in the available time. Egress capacity required by current building codes is determined by single floor calculations that are independent of building height and does not consider the time for full building evacuation.

•Due to the presence of assembly use spaces at the top of each tower (Windows on the World restaurant complex in WTC 1 and the Top of the World observation deck in WTC 2) that were designed to accommodate over 1,000 occupants per floor, the New York City Building Code would have required a minimum of four independent means of egress (stairs), one more than the three that were available in the buildings. Given the low occupancy level on September11,2001, NIST found that the issue of egress capacity from these places of assembly, or from elsewhere in the buildings, was not a significant factor on that day. It is conceivable that such a fourth stairwell, depending on its location and the effects of aircraft impact on its functional integrity, could have remained passable, allowing evacuation by an unknown number of additional occupants from above the floors of impact. If the buildings had been filled to their capacity with 20,000 occupants, the required fourth stairway would likely have mitigated the insufficient egress capacity for conducting a full building evacuation within the available time.

•Evacuation was assisted by participation in fire drills within the previous year by two-thirds of survivors and perhaps hindered by a Local Law that prevented employers from requiring occupants to practice using the stairways. The stairways were not easily navigated in some locations due to their design, which included "transfer hallways," where evacuees had to traverse from one stairway to another location where the stairs continued. Additionally, many occupants were unprepared for the physical challenge of full building evacuation.

•The functional integrity and survivability of the stairwells was affected by the separation of the stairwells and the structural integrity of stairwell enclosures. In the impact region of WTC 1, the stairwell separation was the smallest over the building height—clustered well within the building core—and all stairwells were destroyed by the aircraft impact. By contrast, the separation of stairwells in the impact region of WTC 2 was the largest over the building height—located along different boundaries of the building core—and one of three stairwells remained marginally passable after the aircraft impact. The shaft enclosures were fire rated but were not required to have structural integrity under typical accidental loads: there were numerous reports of stairwells obstructed by fallen debris from damaged enclosures.

•The active fire safety systems (sprinklers, smoke purge, fire alarms, and emergency occupant communications) were designed to meet or exceed current practice. However, with the exception of the evacuation announcements, they played no role in the safety of life on September 11 because the water supplies to the sprinklers were damaged by the aircraft impact. The smoke purge systems operated under the direction of the fire department after fires were not turned on, but they also would have been ineffective due to aircraft damage. The violence of the aircraft impact served as its own alarm. In WTC 2, contradictory public address announcements contributed to occupant confusion and some delay in occupants beginning to evacuate.

•For the approximately 1,000 emergency responders on the scene, this was the largest disaster they had even seen. Despite attempts by the responding agencies to work together and perform their own tasks, the extent of the incident was well beyond their capabilities. Communications were erratic due to the high number of calls and the inadequate performance of some of the gear. Even so, there was no way to digest, test for accuracy, and disseminate the vast amount of information being received. Their jobs were complicated by the loss of command centers in WTC 7 and then in the towers after WTC 2 collapsed. With nearly all elevator service disrupted and progress up the stairs taking about 2 min per floor, it would have taken hours for the responders to reach their destinations, assist survivors, and escape had the towers not collapsed.

Objective 3: Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

•Because of The Port Authority's establishment under a clause of the United States Constitution, its buildings were not subject to any state or local building regulations. The buildings were unlike any others previously built, both in their height and in their innovative structural features. Nevertheless, the actual design and approval process produced two buildings that generally were consistent with nearly all of the provisions of the New York City Building Code and other building codes of that time that were reviewed by NIST. The loads for which the buildings were designed exceeded the New York City code requirements. The quality of the structural steels was consistent with the building specifications. The departures from the building codes and standards identified by NIST did not have a significant effect on the outcome of September 11.

•For the floor systems, the fire rating and insulation thickness used on the floor trusses, which together with the concrete slab served as the main source of support for the floors, were of concern from the time of initial construction. NIST found no technical basis or test data on which the thermal protection of the steel was based. On September 11, 2001, the minimum specified thickness of the insulation was adequate to delay heating of the trusses; the amount of insulation dislodged by the aircraft impact, however, was sufficient to cause the structural steel to be heated to critical levels.

•Based on four standard fire resistance tests that were conducted under a range of insulation and test conditions, NIST found the fire rating of the floor system to vary between 3/4hour and 2hours; in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over 2 hours.

•The wind loads used for the WTC towers, which governed the structural design of the external columns and provided the baseline capacity of the structures to withstand abnormal events such as major fires or impact damage, significantly exceeded the requirements of the New York City Building Code and other building codes of the day that were reviewed by NIST. Two sets of wind load estimates for the towers obtained by independent commercial consultants in 2002, however, differed by as much as 40 percent. These estimates were based on wind tunnel tests conducted as part of insurance litigation unrelated to the Investigation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 NIST is a nonregulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The purpose of NIST investigations is to improve the safety and structural integrity of buildings in the United States, and the focus is on fact finding. NIST investigative teams are authorized to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life. NIST does not have the statutory authority to make findings of fault nor negligence by individuals or organizations. Further, no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a, as amended by P.L.107‑231).

2 The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
 
#253 · (Edited)
Please read my post prior to this one you just posted! It is now September 11th, EDT, and I will not discuss this any further!
 
#258 ·
NIST's investigation is full of holes and contradictions, i just don't regard it highly. But very well, i won't discuss this any further as well.
There is nothing worse than an unexplained disaster and that is why the people appointed to investigate how the twin towers collapsed were those at the top of their profession knowing full well that their work would be subject to professional scrutiny from all over the world. If anyone was going to find holes or cover-ups in the work of the official inquiry then it would be these professionals whose job it is to know how buildings work.

That the investigators have done a thorough job, I believe is proven by the fact that, despite the expected rash of conspiracy theories on the internet, there have been very few serious objections to the official story.
After 11 years!
 
#255 ·
Now let me get this right ? The WTC was built in the 60's, needs a bit of work ? so the owners ring George Bush and make a plan.......The Government had meetings with people from other countries that don't really like the Western World. They made a precise plan to hijack mulitple planes. At the same time set the WTC up for demolition.......hang in there.......now in unison and perfect timing these guys get the planes to fly into the towers and set of pre set explosives to demolish the WTC with collateral ( Please excuse this word as I feel so much angst and regret for the terrible loss of life ) damage. A bit later they decide to implode WTC 7 and have a site ( after clearing ) ready to maximise profit for redevelopment.
Listen.........there are nutters out there. The thing that gets me there are people out there who actually believe this crap !

I may have missed a few details but really 9/11 was tragic in every way.......I just wish those who believe in conspiracy realise the dramatic events of 9/11/01 would be incredibly more outlandish if your ideas were correct !
 
#257 ·
September 11th has to be one of the most discussed and argued about disasters in human history. The fact remains though that the people who will take the greatest interest in what happened to the World Trade Center will be the designers of tall buildings. These people have a duty to those who will live and work in the buildings they design and a professional reputation to uphold and they need to be able to reassure their clients that their buildings are as safe as reasonably practicable.

There is nothing worse than an unexplained disaster and that is why the people appointed to investigate how the twin towers collapsed were those at the top of their profession knowing full well that their work would be subject to professional scrutiny from all over the world. If anyone was going to find holes or cover-ups in the work of the official inquiry then it would be these professionals whose job it is to know how buildings work.

That the investigators have done a thorough job, I believe is proven by the fact that, despite the expected rash of conspiracy theories on the internet, there have been very few serious objections to the official story.
 
#259 ·
There's been plenty more than a "Few" serious objections and just because the media and the like won't give them notoriety, does not make their objections any less serious. And just the fact that there is any room for doubt and evidence to back up these doubts is quite enough to justify any behavior against the official report.

I, for one, don't like to take anyone's word for it but make my own conclusion about things using god's given logic and common sense and to me, there is nothing logical about a gigantic steel building dissipating and crumbling into itself like a sand castle, but hey to each it's own.
 
#260 ·
There's been plenty more than a "Few" serious objections and just because the media and the like won't give them notoriety, does not make their objections any less serious. And just the fact that there is any room for doubt and evidence to back up these doubts is quite enough to justify any behavior against the official report.

I, for one, don't like to take anyone's word for it but make my own conclusion about things using god's given logic and common sense and to me, there is nothing logical about a gigantic steel building dissipating and crumbling into itself like a sand castle, but hey to each it's own.
It's been explained to you in a way that makes perfectly good sense, but when you get an idea in your head, you're like a dog with a bone. You just won't let go, and there is just no sense in discussing this with you.
 
#262 ·
Beyond dragging the argument on, I'm just telling you why there is no sense in discussing this with you or dragging it on.
 
#264 ·
I find it ironic how they take bits and pieces from other people's quotes and use them out of context, or alter them completely, claiming to show the 'truth'

It's easy to see how it fell into itself. F=m*a, remember? That massive chunk of building, accelerating onto the floor below is gonna create huge energy, easily destroying the 4 inch bolts holding the building together.

Sorry for dragging this on...
 
#265 ·
It's easy to see how it fell into itself. F=m*a, remember? That massive chunk of building, accelerating onto the floor below is gonna create huge energy, easily destroying the 4 inch bolts holding the building together.
Pardon me while I complete this train of thought.

This then set off the chain reaction that is total progressive collapse, which increased in speed as the weight bearing down on the floors below became heavier and heavier.

"There’s no mystery, no great and shadowy cabal behind the force that brought the Twin Towers tumbling down. In fact, total progressive collapse, an engineering phenomenon, is to blame. First recognized in the late 1960s at Ronan Point, a 22-story apartment block in Newham, east London, where an 18th floor gas explosion obliterated a load-bearing wall, TPC triggered a partial collapse that brought an entire corner of the complex buckling to the ground."

http://motherboard.vice.com/2011/9/7/total-progressive-collapse-why-buildings-sometimes-crumble
 
#267 ·
Windows,

I think that the reason that you won't 'buy' the 'official' explanation has nothing to do with these so called 'professionals' who infest the internet. I think it has to do with a reluctance on your part to accept a fundamental truth about human existence.

All of us are going to die and all of the things that we build will eventually be destroyed - the old Latin saying 'sic transit gloria mundi' - how quickly fades the glory of the world.

I still find it difficult to get my head round the idea of those people on 9/11 who came to work as usual - probably thinking about some deal they were going to do, looking forward to retirement, wondering whether to ask that girl on reception for a date or facing another boring day - and then, just a few minutes later being in the terrible situation of having to decide between staying in a building and having to endure unbearable heat and smoke or making a terrifying leap from over a 1000' to certain death. But these things happen.

Just as you find it impossible to believe that a gigantic steel building known all over the world can come crashing to the ground, people found it impossible to believe that a US president as popular, charismatic and powerful as Kennedy, could be killed by some lonely misfit with a grudge against the world. That is why the conspiracy theories went on for decades.

I don't completely rule out the possibilities of alternative explanations for how the WTC towers collapsed but, I just haven't heard one that sounds at all plausible.
 
#268 ·
Don't get all philosophical on me now Martin, and like i said, i don't take anyone's word for it, i simply make out my own conclusions about things.
The fact that i don't buy that some terrorists from caves were able to plan an attack as complex as 9/11 without any type of interference from the government and military, which by the way, it's the most organized military in the world and go through with their plan without virtually a hiccup, is enough for me to remain very skeptical about this topic and it has absolutely nothing to do with me being "reluctant about the fundamental truth about human existence" which BTW sounds ridiculous. (no offense) :lol:
 
#278 ·
Don't get all philosophical on me now Martin, and like i said, i don't take anyone's word for it, i simply make out my own conclusions about things.
Windows, I admire your courage. Here you are exposing the folly of dupes like me who believe the official line that we are fed and showing us how your government is capable of committing mass murder of its citizens. I hope you have a plan in place for when you get that knock on the door at 3 in the morning.
 
#269 ·
^^ "terrorists from caves"
I can't believe you just said that. You do realize some hijackers had university educations?
It was really not that hard to hijack a plane which had its cockpit doors open for anyone to enter, while having four other guys threaten the passengers and plane with knives or (most likely fake) bombs.

There are reasons as to why no plane got intercepted, and they can be found on many different debunking sites.

If you take nobody's word for it, at least make sure you have all the facts...

Even though I, myself, was a truther at one point, I hate them to this day, because I discovered how badly they edit quotes, facts, and pictures and take them out of context to suit their agenda. And for what? To sell shirts and videos. It's all a scam.
 
#273 ·
WotW, if you don't believe in the story or you think there is more to it than that. Fine. That's understandable. But don't tell people something logical is not logical simply because you are unable to understand the logic behind it which is what you've been doing. That's all I take issue with.
 
#276 ·
Somebody suggested you had Windows of the World spelled wrong in your user name.

"The Window of the World is a theme park located in the western part of the city of Shenzhen in the People's Republic of China. It has about 130 reproductions of some of the most famous tourist attractions in the world squeezed into 48 hectares (118 acres). The 108 metre (354 ft) tall Eiffel Tower dominates the skyline and the sight of the Pyramids and the Taj Mahal all in proximity to each other are all part of the appeal of this theme park."

"Windows on the World was a complex of venues at the top floors (106th and 107th) of the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan that included a restaurant called Windows on the World, a smaller restaurant called Wild Blue, a bar called The Greatest Bar on Earth, and rooms for private functions."
 
#279 ·
I hope that people never get the idea that it is wrong to do anything other than accept the official explanation.

In the case of 9/11, I have never seen any convincing argument for a conspiracy and I would say the same about the death of Princess Diana, which was a favourite for conspiracy theorists in the days before 9/11.

However, governments and official organisations sometimes do indulge in conspiracies - mainly to cover up wrongdoing.

Here in the UK, just a few days ago, we had the release of the report into Hillsborough - the 1989 disaster when 96 Liverpool football club supporters were crushed to death due to overcrowding at a football stadium in Sheffield. The incident was officially blamed on the behaviour of the supporters themselves but it has now been revealed that some hundred police officers were instructed by their superiors to alter their official accounts of the disaster to hide the incompetence of the top brass and the fact that up to forty of the victims might have survived had the emergency services been better organised.

The extent of the cover up, which included false stories being fed to the press, was such that there were gasps in parliament when it was read out by the prime minister and the story even made it to the front page of the New York Times.

Then, in the USA, there was the infamous Watergate scandal which implicated the President directly and involved the top law enforcement and security organisations in the country.

However, generally, conspiracies such as this are reactive - senior individuals trying to limit the damage done by public knowledge of their wrongdoing or incompetence.

I can only think of one pro-active conspiracy that has come to light and that is the burning of the Reichstag - the German Parliament building in the 1930s. The police investigation identified a member of the Communist Party as the arsonist and the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler responded to public indignation by banning the communists from parliament - so tightening the grip of the Nazi Party on Germany.

It was long suspected that this was a put-up job but it took until the 1970s, I think, before it was finally proved.

The difference between that incident and 9/11 though is obvious. The Nazis were a ruthless political organisation prepared to do anything to further their cause and Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state where any newspaper editor who poked his nose too far into official affairs would probably suffer some unfortunate accident or just disappear.

I teased Windows of the World about the conspirators catching up with him but I doubt that he, or any other of the so-called 'truthers, has too much difficulty sleeping.

The other difference is the shear number of people who would have to be involved to ensure that this conspiracy went to plan - everyone from air traffic controllers to air defence commanders, WTC security staff etc etc. (and in some cases all of the people who took photos or videos of 9/11).

I have read accounts that implicate Mayor Guiliani and even the fire chiefs who sent their men into buildings knowing full well that they had been laced with explosives.

It does occur to me that surely one or two people amongst the hundreds (or thousands) that took part in this conspiracy would think that they hadn't joined the US government, air force, air traffic control, fire service etc to kill US citizens but then maybe I'm being naive.
 
Top