Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

More 9/11 conspiracy!

  1. Jun 14, 2005 #1
    This has been floating on the net for the last couple of days and it does prove to be intriguing. This will definitely be an affirmation for the conspiracy theorists out there because it is coming from a from a pretty interesting source.

    It gets even better, here is the link to the Lew Rockwell post:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html [Broken]

    This article elaborates on his position.

    Thoughts, speculations, anyone????
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 14, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This makes absolutely no sense
    Attack by what government? Are they implying that the US government had airplanes fly into both WTC towers to cover up a planned implosion of both buildings? :rolleyes: Or the terrorists just happened to fly airplanes into the buildings on the day the government planned to implode the buildings?

    Even if the buildings were imploded (which from watching the videos of the towers and other intentional implosions, doesn't seem likely, I have never seen a building implode where the detonations were not clearly visible from the outside of the building) why would it implicate the government? Those weren't government buildings, thousands of people had free access to those buildings every day.
  4. Jun 14, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah yes, more non-engineers (in this case, an economist) with conclusive proof that the building had to have been brought down by a controlled demolition!

    Its not, "a credible source now believes the WTC was a conspiracy", its "a credible source how now fallen for the idea that the WTC was a conspiracy". This reminds me of when the AP picked up on a city trying to ban water and were also fooled.

    And on a more engineering approach to the rhetoric... who on earth thinks "Ok we just need to make sure the WTC collapses... lets put explosives on a mere 3 floors!". Of course, if they REALLY wanted to make a conspiracy out of it... why not do exactly what someone did the first time? A bomb at the base of the building... I mean itd be so much easier to topple the building with controlled explosions at the bottom then around the 80th floor.
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2005
  5. Jun 14, 2005 #4
    That would seem to be one implication. Depending on who you listen to, there are many who seem to think that this was an "Operation Northwoods" type of event. Do you think that there could possibly be organizations that would instigate this for profit, power, etc.? Personally, I wouldn't put anything past anyone if the stakes were high enough.

    There certainly some 'oddities' surrounding the whole event. For example, why did NORAD stand down that day? Who profited from shorting the airline stocks? What happened to that investigation? Why was most of the forensic evidence destroyed,i.e. apparently most of the steel from the wreckage was sent off for smelting shorlty after? How does JP-8 melt steel on a building designed to handle the impact of an airliner? Considering the story we were feed and what has transpired since, I have doubts about what happened. IMHO, this administration has no credibility and why should I believe what I was told about 9/11. Unfortunately I am in no position to thoroughly analyze the evidence and come to a conclusion that I would consider reliable and acceptable.

    Well if engineers is what you want then here is a site that claims to be german engineers:


    Not to say engineers are all knowing, hell I have seen quite a few screw up a lot of things!

    He does propose an interesting conjecture on which is the more realistic and I think it does merit some inquiry. In light of the fact that this administration has no credibility and anything that they have said in the past does deserve to be scrutinized, I say so be it, let the debate and discourse ensue!
  6. Jun 14, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That website has absolutely no credibility in my books. Its a home internet users website! If there was a real group of engineers who could actually come up with something like this, it would be on a real website and it woudlnt claim that a freaken US unmaned military aircraft took out the WTC.

    Unfortunately, you seem to allow your bias to blind the necessary intellect requird to realize these people are nuts. Many websites (and threads in this forum for that matter) have the information that will hopefully make you realize the truth to this matter. But to hopefully make you realize that you have been fooled, let me ask you something. What exactly do you mean by "norad stood down" and what exactly does tha tmean to this? WHY is what NORAD is doing at all relavant? And remember, dont let your bias force you into ASSUMING anything means anything else (thats the basis for most conspiracies, your forced to assume something which makes u think ohhh, this is why this happened which means its the truth!)

    And what in teh world is this?

    This quote is from a few very small pictures presented as proof "The bush administration is lieing to you". Look at the third line.... look at it and tell me that this must be a scientifically derived website of complete credibility.
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2005
  7. Jun 14, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    They didn't, that was already addressed in another conspiracy thread.

    I think this is a ridiculous waste of time and money. Exactly what groups trying to hurt the US would want. There just is no evidence to support any of this.
  8. Jun 14, 2005 #7
    Why do you think I modified my statement with "claims to be german engineers"? I really do not not know if they are or not. Besides, who ever said engineers were born web gurus? Just because one has an engineering degree does not automatically make one a good web page designer!

    Now let's get to your bias, OK. It is obvious that you are dead set against any of these conspiracy theories, which I definitively concur with you in terms of the skepticism that is due. But since skepticism is part of the game, then should we not also apply this to the 'official' story as well? In order to come to any conclusion that would that could be considered reliable and appropriate we have to apply the the same standards to all stories and claims.

    Now for my bias, well I really do not have one either way because there is no way for me to determine what happened because I am in no position to do that. I am highly skeptical of the official story considering that the stories we were feed proved later to be false. I cite C.Rice where she had stated there was no way they could have known the attacks were going to happen. Yet later Clarke testifies before congress that they had sufficient warning that attacks were being planned. That is one reason why I think this administration has no credibility.

    Now to address the 'stand-down' with NORAD. Here I'll refer you to WRH site and let you gander through his take on this whole thing:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html [Broken]

    BTW, just a little FYI: Rivero, the site originator, claims to be a conservative republican who originally started this site when the Vince Foster case came up against Clinton. His take was that Foster was 'suicided'.

    The details are pretty complicated and it really isn't as simple as NORAD stood down. My bad for any misrepresentation. It is interesting that NORAD/USAF was conducting some complicated drills on 9/11 and there was zero response to the highjackings. It gets more detailed and complicated from here though. Here is something to think about: Do you remember the Arnold Palmer flight incident? You know, his plane had decompressed and everyone aboard had died. Well if you remember the story, it did not take long for the USAF to scramble jets and check out what had happened after contact was lost. Point being is that there are protocols for these or any events. But that did not happen on 9/11?

    Just to throw this odd part of the 9/11 story into the mix, did you hear about the five middle eastern men who were alleged to have been filming the event and dancing in the streets when it all happened?

    As for complete crediblilty, it's a myth! I view all of these things with skepticism and in no way alluded to supporting or denying any claims, I was just posting here because I thought it was interesting that the author had some impressive credentials. Oh ya, you forgot to mention all of the author's credentials in your zeal, so here they are:

    Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Jun 14, 2005 #8
    I missed that one! Gotta link?

    Perhaps the question of who stood to benefit, gain, and profit would be a good point of inquiry. BTW, that goes for any theory, be it al-queda, israel, the military-industrial-fast-food complex, or whomever. It isn't very pleasant to consider that anyone would instigate such atrocities in the name of profit, but look at history and you can see the same thing happening over and over again. So in a respect it wouldn't really be anything new. Hence why I said I thought if the stakes were high enough I would not put anything past anyone. It does certainly kind of diminish one's faith in humanity, but then again that may be healthy in some respects.

    Interesting that you would waste your time with this thread, if you wanted to chat I could think of a million other things to discuss that would be much more pleasant than this stuff. :biggrin:
  10. Jun 14, 2005 #9
    i thought this thread was trying to point to the government not al-qaeda or anyone else who might try to 'benefit' from staging an attack. And why would the US murder her own citezens? what could possibly be gained by this? it was just for sport? ridiculous! oh but then they would have had to pay off like at the very VERY least, a few dozen ppl to say that their husbands, moms, whatev. died in a feild after overpowering the terrorist who alledgedly invaded the plane... yes very sensible, and just to make sure noone suspected the government we immediatly put into affect the USA PATRIOT ACT, and paid a couple foriegn nationals to make threats and 'admit' they had planned this, not to mention that they of course filmed the footage we saw on tv on a model of the towers just to make all of us believe it was really a terrorist attack, then to top it all off they paid all of NYC to claim they saw these "attacks"...and none of these ppl ever siad anything...very reasonable i completely agree it HAD to have been the government

    GET REAL!!! excuse the subtle sarcasm but this IS absurd
  11. Jun 15, 2005 #10
  12. Jun 15, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hey poly, you'll have to excuse me and probably a lot of people on this forum. Its just that almost since day 1 (9/11/01), we've had to disprove conspiracies like this over and over and over be it in this forum, other forum, at work, school, at social events, etc etc and although many of us were quick to look into the evidence and everything and create well thought out responses and debunking efforts, its gotten to a point where we just dont care to give very reasonable responses anymore.

    Anyhow, ill be nice because you didnt go off cussing at everyone for no responding like most people do lol. As for the website, if your a group of people and you have true compelling evidence for something that you seriously took time and most likely money to create a case for, you most likely have the $20 a month necessary to maintain a website that does not offer any downloadable stuff and the few hundred dollars ncessary to hire someone to make the website. If your truely a serious person and really care to get the "truth" out... this cost is a drop in the bucket (especially compared to what you probably paid in time and money to build your case).

    Anyhow lets see here... ah yes, for one, they calculated flight speed going at sea level (yet what fighter flies at sea level??? especially when your told to intercept a commercial jet in flight). The website also ironically ignored the fact that no interceptor aircraft were at AAFB at the time. You must also be foolish enough to assume that if an aircrafts transpoder goes off, NORAD (who wouldnt really be the first line of defense because local radars would pick it up first) instantly knows its a hijacked airplane doomed to hit a building. As we have found out through the years, NORAD was somewhat slow because people got lazy but this does not by any means conclude that they made it happen. I believe some experts say that on an average day, about a dozen aircraft have their transponder signals go out for a few seconds or a few dozen minutes and aircraft are scrambled about once a day (even before 9/11).

    Also, the site thinks, ok, since htere was an operation specifically created to stop this kind of attack means that they should have been MORE prepared for it. In fact, if we look at how humans work, they would have been far less prepared for an actual attack if it happened those days (which it did). Think about the chain of command hearing theres an airplane that has gone off according to its transponder and your in a training exercise when something juuuuust like that might happen. Do you expect to carry out hte order at blazing speeds or are you going to have that "oh saw that coming, guess we should go do it" lazy, slow-witted response? Most peoples experiences iwth humans say the latter.

    Sounds like your already completely convinced President Bush pushed the detonating plunger to blow up the towers however according to statutory so meh... doubt you could see the websites through clear, unbiased, scientific eyes.
  13. Jun 15, 2005 #12
    Just for the record I did not say that. I just posted a couple links. ;-p
  14. Jun 15, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Dont deny it!!!!! ahhhh!!!!!

    I think all these conspiracies are good for the government. If at anytime, any administration decides to pull some actual weird conspiracy, the onslaught of ignorant conspiracies in the last few years will make people think "oh pff, not agian... im not even gonna try to do a real investigation this time".
  15. Jun 15, 2005 #14
    Wow... are these theories still around? It's amazing what some people will convince themselves of if it makes for a better story or a fascinating mystery they can attempt to unravel.

    I am a practicing structural engineer. I have an undergraduate degree in civil engineering, I also took 5 or 6 graduate level structural design courses, and I have plenty of experience in the structural design field. Trust me when I say there is no truth to these theories. All of my co-workers and colleagues agree. I could systematically go through and refute or explain away nearly every "point" Morgan Reynolds attempts to make, but I won’t waste time on that. It is glaringly obvious from his prose that he is not familiar with how a building is constructed, steel design, stress analysis, or load transfer. Maybe he can easily fool a semi educated lay person, but he isn’t fooling me. Hundreds of real experts conducted their independent detailed investigations (yes they did analyze the collapsed structural elements before they were recycled as well as the patterns of smoke leaving the building and all other evidence) and came to the same conclusion… http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf (the original structural engineer) are among them. Yes, the ASCE Report was created in conjunction with FEMA, but ASCE is an independent organization made up of thousands of the most credible and ethical engineers we have. I was a member myself for many years and you could not convince me that they would be part of a cover-up.

    Although the mode of collapse for the two buildings was slightly different due to the impact locations, the bottom line is this: Planes flew into the world trade center. The impact of the planes alone was not enough to cause collapse. The fire alone was probably not enough to cause collapse either. The most damaging thing was the explosion which blew the fireproofing off of the steel framing. (Fire proofing is typically sprayed on to steel framing to reach a certain thickness. This is to protect the steel which begins to lose strength as it heats up.) The problem was that although the fire proofing was fine for typical building fires (electrical fires, etc.) it was not blast resistant. The force of the explosion blew off all of the fireproofing in the surrounding areas. This left the steel defenseless against the flames which slowly heated it up and diminished its load carrying capacity. It has even been determined that the connection of the lightweight floor trusses probably failed first and separated from the exterior columns. This in turn caused the unbraced length of the column to grow. The taller the column becomes (between brace points.. i.e. the floors) the less load they can carry before they begin to buckle. Eventually the load became too much for the weakening steel and the floors above the impact point collapsed. This caused a chain reaction pancake collapse all the way to the ground. No bombs needed.

    I enjoy researching a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but this one is dead… debunked. Show me just one credible structural engineer that believes this bomb theory. There aren’t any and there is a reason for that.

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  16. Jun 15, 2005 #15
    This is my 1st thought as well.
    The demo charges are also sequenced from the ground up which would make it even more obvious.

    What about the logistics of placing countless charges and wiring them all completely undetected. This is the most impossible part of the entire theory.
    Portions of the building would need to be torn open to access structural members and place charges. There would be 100's of charges per floor and all of them wired together carefully.
    A project like that takes months to complete (and that's without having to sneak around)
  17. Jun 15, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    But its George W. Bush! he can do annnnnnnnnnnnything!!!

    As long as its evil
  18. Jun 16, 2005 #17
  19. Jun 16, 2005 #18
    Why Americans Refuse To Believe....

    THE 9/11 EVIDENCE...

    An Analysis by TvNewsLIES.org - April - 2005

    The attacks of 9/11 were so unthinkable that most Americans would refuse to believe the complicity of their own government, even if presented with a mountain of evidence.

    Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do.

    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2005
  20. Jun 16, 2005 #19

    Yes, the fire at WTC 7 may have been smaller than those in the twin towers, but I would still not classify as a “small” fire. (see picture below.)


    A fire of this magnitude would be more than enough to bring down a steel framed building. WTC 7 didn't collapse until 5:20 pm which means the building burned in this manner for roughly nine hours. Fireproofing is rated in "hours" which is representative of how long it can protect the steel from the heat of a fire. I'm not familiar with the building code that was in effect in NY in the 1980s (when WTC 7 was built), but I would guess that it had no more than a 3 "hour" fire protection assembly. The building actually lasted much longer than this.

    This fire was probably compounded by the fact that there were two full 6,000 fuel tanks (for an emergency power generator) on the fifth floor. These tanks were found damaged in the debris. The soil below the debris was tested and little evidence of the fuel was found (leading to the conclusion that it was probably burning before the building collapsed). There is also a good chance that the pump that powered the building’s sprinkler system was damaged by the falling debris of WTC 1 and 2 which interrupted the water supply. Here is a pretty good NIST presentation covering the details of the building 7 collapse.

    There still isn’t one shred of evidence that any of the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives. As others have pointed out, it would have taken months to calculate and wire a building for that kind of controlled demolition. And it would have been impossible to do so without any of the thousands of workers in the buildings noticing.

    I still haven’t seen any of these theories that put forth a reason why anyone would put bombs in these buildings. Why would the terrorists put bombs in a building that they are planning on flying planes into anyways? Why would the terrorists “waste time” on bombing WTC 7 when they have been working so long on elaborate plans to attack much larger targets (twin towers / pentagon / white house)? Why would the government secretly bring down WTC 7? It had already suffered un-repairable damage… Had it not collapsed, it would had to have been demolished eventually anyways. Why would the government rush to do it 9 hours after the attack? Call me a skeptic, but none of this even makes sense to me.

  21. Jun 16, 2005 #20
    Could someone post a link to this incredible evidence please?

    http://tvnewslies.org/ ---> Appears to be the work of a nutjob to me. :biggrin:

    I'm not a Bush supporter or defending the government or anything of the sort. I am simply taking the available facts and drawing my own conclusions usinng my engineering knowledge. After a couple of google searches, I really find it astounding how many people seem to be convinced that this is a big conspiracy. :bugeye: Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. :tongue:
  22. Jun 16, 2005 #21

    Well Chief, to me the nut jobs are the people who seriously believe that 19 Arabs following some guy living in a cave in Afghanistan took box cutters, trained and failed their flight tests, but were able to steal 4 airliners and guided them with BLue Angel precision into 3 high profile buildings in the US without any foreknowledge .

    Chief, people like you are sad. I am still looking for the two nine foot diameter jet engines that managed to evaporate at the Pentagon. I am still trying to find evidence of ANY steel framed building collapsing because of a fire that took place.

    And frankly Chief, the WTC leasor, Larry Silversteen ADMITTED on TV that the he and the fire chief had building seven "PULLED", a demoliton term.

    I know, I know, your baal god government would NEVER pull crap like this!

    Well, read the Northwoods document which was an OBVIOUS conspiracy by the Joint Chiefs of Staff back in the early 60's that only needed one more participant to make it real. Maybe that is why the killed Kennedy...because he refused to play ball.

    Now go back to playing your video games and make sure your TV is in good working order so that your brain can be made into a sponge for the government propaganda you so readily accept as fact. I guess as long as that six pack is available everything is fine in the good ol' U.S.S.A. Isn't it cheif?

    God, you people are hopeless. At least a few folks on this thread have brains that work...no, yours isn't one of them.
  23. Jun 16, 2005 #22
    Wow... that's some rather convincing evidence there.

    If you look around the internet you will find several sites with good information regarding all of the issues you have brought up. Or perhaps you could just go back to reading your comic books and make sure your hashpipe is in good working order so that your brain can be made into a sponge for the crackpot propaganda you so readily accept as fact. :-)
  24. Jun 16, 2005 #23

    The paper above compares the collapse of 6 steel buildings as a result of fire from 1970 to 2002. Four of them were the wtc buildings obviously but there are two others one in 1970 and one in 1986 that had collapses due to fire.

    So I guess your search is over, kind of hard to see though with your head up there. o:)
  25. Jun 16, 2005 #24
    Let us not digress into petty character assault, alright. That kind of subterfuge is useless.

    The reason I posted this article and was intrigued by it was because of the source. We have one Morgan Reynolds, professor emeritus of Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. He was also the chief economist for the DOL during the first Bush term. Now for me, the question is begged to be asked: Why is this man putting this out? It would seem to me that he is risking not only his reputation but also possible retributions from people who do not like what he is saying. Pengwuino suggested that he had fallen for conspiracy theory nonsense, but I have to disagree, why say anything and risk reputation. It seems to me there are at least two possible reasons for him making this statement.

    1) He really believes this and is acting out a sincere sense of what he thinks happened and his sense of justice. If this is the case then he would possibly risk his reputation for what he has published. Of course this is where penguiwno would say he is a sucker.

    2) Since he is an economist he probably is familiar with what kind of market exists for books of this nature and is possibly looking to cash in on this market. If this is the case than we may see a publication of his about this topic coming around soon. My only doubt about this is it would seem that he probably has adequate pensions, retirements, and investments for his services at the institutions he worked. So the idea of this perhaps being a retirement bonus is a little flimsy, IMHO.

    Though he is not a structural engineer, he does have a quite an impressive background and this raises my flag as to why he would bring these topics up for debate.

    On another track, if we were to take an impartial approach to this subject then we would have to first forget about any 'conspiracy theory', which includes the official one. We would have to investigate everything with no prejudice and a willingness to follow the conclusion where they would take us. Unfortunately there are many impasses to deal with. For example: it would require many impartial experts from many fields; the fact that most of the forensics were destroyed before being investigated; there is also documentation that is not available for scrutiny, which may or may not be of use, because of 'national security'. This inquiry would also take many man hours to do and this is a major impedance. Because of these factors and more this would make any conclusion untenable through a discussion board. This is a major problem and is one reason why I say I cannot know what theory to be the most plausible.

    Chief, though I respect your skepticism and accept your credentials, how sure can you be about those statements from these reports without going through the details yourself? This is important. Though I am nothing more than a physics guy(no phd yet), it seems that the details of the building structure, materials, etc. would be absolutely necessary to draw any conclusions. So here is a track of thought: On the case for WTC collapse, what would be necessary to do it? How hot and how long would a fire have to burn in order to weaken the support structures?
    How about with and without the insulation? How much damaged would the planes have to impart in order to have the towers collapse? Also we could ask the question of 'if' it was a demolition, what kind of logistics would have to be worked out and could it be feasible? The details are very important and I for one do not really have that much expertise or time. I suspect that neither do you, but for the sake of argument let us speculate.

    Anecdote: We had the Warren commission publicly state that a 'magic bullet' did all sorts of impossible things during the JFK assassination. They even had physicists 'prove' that it happened the way they stated. The documentation relevant to this case will not be open for scrutiny for quite some time. My question is this: Considering that an assassination of a president was pulled off and covered up quite effectively with the general public still being no wiser, who is to say that another atrocity could not be pulled off again? Except in this case a possible demolition made to look like a terrorist attack.

    Perhaps more concisely to the point is this: What kind of holes can be punched into the 'official' story? If we are to play skeptically, then I say apply it to all stories regardless of the source. Perhaps then we may ascertain the truth behind the event. I for one have sufficient reason to doubt the official story as well as many of the competing stories out there. Unfortunately this leaves me unable to conclude much.
  26. Jun 16, 2005 #25


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Polyb, what you must realize is that since he has no background in such things, he is essentially as credible as a 3 year old. It's like a structural engineer commenting on the latest IMF decision regarding debt relief. No matter how much the guy knows about structural engineering, one cannot assume he knows anything about economics. This obviously works the other way around and explains why we are not convinced by this guy. His credentials are great and I'd give him my life savings to invest in the stock market, but I wouldn't let him build a tree house for me.

    There have been numberous independant investigations apart from the government that shows the conspiracy theories to be untrue and deceitful. This man may have brought it up as some sort of revenge. Maybe he had something bad happen during his term in the administration and wanted to get revenge? We're all human and anyone could imagine doing things like that themselves.

    As for your anecdote, some computer models have been made that replicate absolutely everything from the JFK assassination and showed that the assassination may have been the real deal. You also seem to show a bias against the government. You effectively did this. You saw a report that you didnt believe and immediately said the government was behind the assassination. 1) Just because you dont believe it doesnt mean its absolutely false and 2) Just because an investigation does not come out in a convincing manner does not mean there were some sort of conspiracy. You MUST provide a real source, a motive, methods, and everything else that would 100% explain the events. In order to be taken seriously, one must develope a theory that explains exactly what happened. Thats why say, the Pentagon conspiracies are very stupid. People will tell you "this is conclusive proof that a small luxury jet hit the pentagon" and then on the same page tell you "this is conclusive proof there was a truck bomb" and then later, an A3 fighter jet is the culprit.

    If someone is to take the giant step to say someone lied and is responsible for something, they better have conclusive proof
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook