Was 9/11 a controlled demolition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter polyb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    conspiracy
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Morgan Reynolds, a former Bush administration economist, who questions the official narrative of the World Trade Center's collapse on 9/11, suggesting it may have been a controlled demolition. Reynolds argues that if this theory is proven true, it would imply a significant government conspiracy and challenge existing engineering analyses. Participants express skepticism about both the demolition theory and the credibility of the sources promoting it, highlighting the need for rigorous scientific inquiry into the events of 9/11. Some contributors raise concerns about the government's response on that day and the destruction of evidence, while others dismiss the conspiracy theories as unfounded. The debate underscores the ongoing controversy and differing interpretations surrounding the events of 9/11.
  • #61
After watching the second plane hit my first reaction was; "It is going to fall." I was aghast when I saw the firefighters rushing into that building. I was yelling "No when the steel melts it will collapse, they are going to their death."

It is obvious that the Bush administreation ignored the threat. They may have even allowed it to happen, but they did not blow it up.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
russ_watters said:
Because that sort of thing doesn't happen very often, people don't have a basis for comparison. That's why you see comparisons to things like the Meridian buiding fire in Philly - that's the closest thing there is for a comparison and that building didn't collapse. Inevitable [fallacious] conclusion: fires don't make steel buildings collapse.

EXACTLY!

These conspiracy theorists like to say: "No steel-framed building has ever collapsed as a result of a fire before!" Yeah, well, no steel-framed building has ever had a fuel-filled 757 fly into it at 400 mph before.
 
  • #63
God almighty you people irritate me so much, and this a quote “physics forum”, what a utterly unfunny and ironic joke it is that you people can not see something that you have to break the laws of physics to defend!

All you accredit PhD physics and structural engineering MIT dons….. would you please care to take a look at the collapse of this building, please?!



Videos Show Building 7's Vertical Collapse.
The survival of several video recordings of Building 7's collapse, though of low resolution, allow study of the building's motion and the time of collapse.

Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance.
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg Video Broadcast by CBS - 1.4mb - mpeg
This 36 second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.

http://wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg Video from NBC news camera - 1.5mb
This 9 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg Video broadcast on CBS - 1.7MB - mpeg
This 9.6 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.

Building 7 was the third skyscraper to collapse into rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, small fires levelled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team who investigated the collapse were not allowed access to the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? (Some of the rubble from Ground Zero went to New Jersey, but all the sections that would explain the collapse were recycled as described above)

Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.
 
  • #65
Rude Boi MC! said:
Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance.
So can you provide a video of a tall building collapsing, where it doesn't look like a controlled demolition? If not, how can the fact that it looks, to an untrained eye, like a controlled demolition mean anything at all?

This old, tired argument is essentially a big, bright neon sign that says "I don't know the first thing about structural or materials engineering, but based on my intuition, I think..." That's called argument from ignorance. And here's a news flash (that really shouldn't be) - if all it took to be an engineer or scientist was intuition, there'd be no need to go to school to learn it.

edit: btw, this issue (like many in science) requires only about a two sentence explanation(already provided) from someone who understands the issue. After that, the choice becomes yours to accept the explanation of the expert, flatly reject it, or to go to college and become an engineer yourself (so you can understand it instead of just having to accept it). Yes, it is probably unreasonable to expect you to go study engineering, but consider the logic of flatly rejecting the opinion of people who did study engineering.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
Greetings,

Here is an audio clip of Larry Silverstein saying he pulled the building, in contradiction of FEMA's "... I don't know"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3

Is anyone else here dazzled by the lunatic doublethink going on here? I think if triplethink exists it should be in Physics Forums.
 
  • #67
I can't believe this issue is still being brought up. Someone made a hilarious video parodying all these 9/11 conspiracies... i wonder where it is...
 
  • #68
Rude Boi MC! said:
All you accredit PhD physics and structural engineering MIT dons….. would you please care to take a look at the collapse of this building, please?![/B]

They already did and showed how dumb the conspiracy theories are.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? (Some of the rubble from Ground Zero went to New Jersey, but all the sections that would explain the collapse were recycled as described above)

Good question. WHY. WHY would this be covered up? WHY would someone demolish it? Until you can answer that, you have simple heresay and banter by someone who is telling you how to think. And no, it is far from the "most mysterious engineering failure" in world history. Its very simple, many engineers have confirmed what happened, its been highly publicized... you just don't want to believe it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
64K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
15K
Replies
35
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
53K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
11K