Sensible Discussion - Building Collapses on 9/11

[LISpace]

Good day all.

I was quite enjoying the last discussion we were having on the 9/11 building collapses. For older ARRSErs this subject may be long past its sell by date, but as a recently joined member this was the first opportunity for me to join the debate. For reasons unknown (to me at least) the last thread disappeared, and this was a shame because (in between the usual mud slinging) some useful points were being made.

So I've started this thread in the hope that the discussion can continue, and I've put it in the NAAFI to avoid 'Sensible Bit' Mods binning it. I realise that this makes the thread vulnerable to 'George W Bush is the spawn of the Devil' nut jobs hijacking the subject, but hopefully those with a genuine interest in reading or discussing the issues will prevail.

Sane 9/11 conspiracy theorists are welcome in order to liven up the debate. I personally don't have a problem with a 'robust exchange of views' but I guess we should mostly try to play the ball rather than the man.

So to recap:

Official investigations into the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 state that (in general terms) the buldings failed due to structural damage caused by impact (planes/debris) and fire.

Those who disagree with these investigations will usually claim that explosives were used. However, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of these buildings.

Off we go

 

[gobbyidiot]

The "debate" is as dead as disco - look at the Popular Mechanics exploration

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Conspiracy theorists are sceptical about everything except conspiracy theories. Anyone who has been anywhere near the state (army, police, civil service) knows a) loads of people in "hardcore" jobs, and b) that everything leaks.

This bulletin board is full of people who have heard first hand from people involved in all sorts. The idea that some big conspiracy could have been put in place - think about it. Who do you use - special forces, CIA..........

And how do you stop one of them getting religion, getting cancer, getting arrested as a kiddy fiddler, getting shitfaced, and bubbling the details to his mates or walking into a newspaper or TV studio?

 

[fingers_1661]

Its 11/9!

 

[LISpace]

Its 11/9!

I know and I don't like '9/11' myself. Trouble is that it is now in such common usage that if shorthand is to be used, it's the only really recognisable way of doing it.

 

[Seadog]

Dialogue with 'truthers' isn't possible. Their movement is falling apart under the weight of its own stupidity and dishonesty. Some hotties in it though, barking but hot.

 

[LISpace]

Dialogue with 'truthers' isn't possible. Their movement is falling apart under the weight of its own stupidity and dishonesty. Some hotties in it though, barking but hot.

Obvious response: got any pictures?

 

[bigbird67]

sensible discussion?? In the Naafi bar??? Are you quite insane???

 

[daz]

Dialogue with 'truthers' isn't possible. Their movement is falling apart under the weight of its own stupidity and dishonesty. Some hotties in it though, barking but hot.

Seadog,

You mean like Dr Judy Woods

Methinks you've been at sea to long mate

 

[drain_sniffer]

Are you on commission with bacofoil?

 

[LISpace]

sensible discussion?? In the Naafi bar??? Are you quite insane???

Are you on commission with bacofoil?

I know, I know. I did state that only sane conspiracy theorists should join in. But I acknowledge that I might be on a hiding to nothing here.

 

[daz]

sensible discussion?? In the Naafi bar??? Are you quite insane???

Are you on commission with bacofoil?

I know, I know. I did state that only sane conspiracy theorists should join in. But I acknowledge that I might be on a hiding to nothing here.

Now that’s the understatement of the week

BTW, can we take side bets on what SLRboys/goodcuntz/shattered shites new persona will be

 

[Chibber]

Good day all.

I was quite enjoying the last discussion we were having on the 9/11 building collapses. For older ARRSErs this subject may be long past its sell by date, but as a recently joined member this was the first opportunity for me to join the debate. For reasons unknown (to me at least) the last thread disappeared, and this was a shame because (in between the usual mud slinging) some useful points were being made.

So I've started this thread in the hope that the discussion can continue, and I've put it in the NAAFI to avoid 'Sensible Bit' Mods binning it. I realise that this makes the thread vulnerable to 'George W Bush is the spawn of the Devil' nut jobs hijacking the subject, but hopefully those with a genuine interest in reading or discussing the issues will prevail.

Sane 9/11 conspiracy theorists are welcome in order to liven up the debate. I personally don't have a problem with a 'robust exchange of views' but I guess we should mostly try to play the ball rather than the man.

So to recap:

Official investigations into the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 state that (in general terms) the buldings failed due to structural damage caused by impact (planes/debris) and fire.

Those who disagree with these investigations will usually claim that explosives were used. However, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of these buildings.

Off we go

It's true!!!!!!!!!!!

I was the one who set the fuses- wasn't it really good of me to time it to go off at the same instant as afucking big aeroplane hit the tower?

 

[LISpace]

Daz,

I've PM'd Frenchperson and invited him along, but was hesitant to do the same for Shattered Light in case an ARRSE lynch mob came for me.

 

[Chef]

The buildings fell down because the Israeli funded Al Queda believed that a splinter group of the Peoples' Popular Front for Judea were using the building as a front to smuggle Chinese cockle pickers to Middle America in order to foil UFOS in their attempts to interfere with cattle and rednecks.

Professor Vas Deferens stated that had the buildings remained standing they would have collapsed shortly anyway due to global warming and climate change caused by the London olympics.

Meanwhile the retreat of the glaciers due to the presence of the strangely charismatic T Bliar in the middle east where the mysterious Maggie had sent him to sort out the Irish problem had led to a plot by the Arab funded Mossad to unite with Al Queda in an attempt to discredit the EU by proving that American concrete was inferior to Chinese cement.

A touching re-union between Gordon Brown and his clunking fister at the building was interuppted by the arrival of two airliners though strangely not the two hi-jacked by Mossad in conjunctio with the Stasi, who apparently did have a role in it after all.

All of which pointed towrds a CIA-GRU plot to involve the middle east in a conspiracy.

This they now proceeded to do.

I trust that clears up any outstanding questions.

 

[Bugsy]

Good day all.
So to recap:

Official investigations into the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 state that (in general terms) the buldings failed due to structural damage caused by impact (planes/debris) and fire.

Those who disagree with these investigations will usually claim that explosives were used. However, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of these buildings.

Off we go

It's a bit disingenuous to talk about "official investigations" and their findings in this context, since no real examination of the collapse of the Twin Towers was ever carried out. Let's look at these investigations a little more closely:

The 9/11 Commision Report - The remit of this investigation was to examine possible intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 and, of course, to exonerate the Septic gobment. Although, as a consequence, the collapse was mentioned, no real reasons were given for it. There's often a claim that the commission never made any mention of the collapse of WTC7, but that wasn't its purpose, since it was primarily concerned with deflecting any claim of collusion from Bush the Bewildered and his posse of corrupt crooks.

The WTC7 FEMA Report - This report was remarkably underfunded, given the enormity of the atrocity, and came to the logical conclusion that a further and more thorough investigation was necessary. This was supposed to be carried out by FEMA and published in 2004 as a "final report". It's not 2008 and there's still no report.

The FEMA Report on the Collapse of WTC1 and 2 - For some inexplicable reason, this investigation decided to limit itself to examining events from the moment of impact up until the "initiation of collapse", stating that after that point total collapse was inevitable - a view not shared by millions of architects and construction engineers the world over.

So we have the startling fact that there's never been any proper investigation either into the collapse of the Twin Towers or the collapse of WTC7.

I agree that some of the real nutters out there have put forward some quite outrageous theories, but the point is that until another proper and impartial investigation is carried out and ALL the facts are made known, any talk of conspiracies is, by definition, only conjecture. And surely such an investigation would lay to rest once and for all the speculation surrounding the incident?

MsG

 

[MikeMcc]

Good day all.
So to recap:

Official investigations into the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 state that (in general terms) the buldings failed due to structural damage caused by impact (planes/debris) and fire.

Those who disagree with these investigations will usually claim that explosives were used. However, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of these buildings.

Off we go

It's a bit disingenuous to talk about "official investigations" and their findings in this context, since no real examination of the collapse of the Twin Towers was ever carried out. Let's look at these investigations a little more closely:

The 9/11 Commision Report - The remit of this investigation was to examine possible intelligence failures leading up to 9/11 and, of course, to exonerate the Septic gobment. Although, as a consequence, the collapse was mentioned, no real reasons were given for it. There's often a claim that the commission never made any mention of the collapse of WTC7, but that wasn't its purpose, since it was primarily concerned with deflecting any claim of collusion from Bush the Bewildered and his posse of corrupt crooks.

The WTC7 FEMA Report - This report was remarkably underfunded, given the enormity of the atrocity, and came to the logical conclusion that a further and more thorough investigation was necessary. This was supposed to be carried out by FEMA and published in 2004 as a "final report". It's not 2008 and there's still no report.

The FEMA Report on the Collapse of WTC1 and 2 - For some inexplicable reason, this investigation decided to limit itself to examining events from the moment of impact up until the "initiation of collapse", stating that after that point total collapse was inevitable - a view not shared by millions of architects and construction engineers the world over.

So we have the startling fact that there's never been any proper investigation either into the collapse of the Twin Towers or the collapse of WTC7.

I agree that some of the real nutters out there have put forward some quite outrageous theories, but the point is that until another proper and impartial investigation is carried out and ALL the facts are made known, any talk of conspiracies is, by definition, only conjecture. And surely such an investigation would lay to rest once and for all the speculation surrounding the incident?

MsG

My bold. I seriously think that is a statement that you would need to back up with some figures! There have been a number of studies in the around the world that have backed up the supposition that once the collapse started complete building destruction was unavoidable.

Bhazant and Zhou mentioned that the surviveable loading were exceeded by more than 16 times, a recently published study by Dr Seffen from Cambridge University (in Feb 2008 ASCE Journal) puts the figure at >30 times.

There's at least a couple of competing theories as to what triggered the collapse (either softening of the cross beams or their expansion, leading to bowing of the exterior walls).

We'll never know the precise causes and mechanisms because there isn't enough data to know what loadings were experienced in what structural members at what time. But none of the studies have assumed anything other than planes hitting the structures and the fires causing sufficient damage to cause the collapses.

Certainly explosives can be ruled out because they fail a major pre-requisite. It takes a lot of explosives to demolish buildings of such size and alot of preperation work. There is absolutely no evidenec that any of this preparation was carried out or that there were any explosives in any of the buildings.

 

[LISpace]

Bugsy,

Firstly I would say that investigations very rarely satisfy those who are determined to find conspiracies. I doubt that the Diana Inquest for example (assuming that it will find that a drunk driver had a crash) will satisfy Fayed and others of a similar viewpoint.

My point of view on the building collapses is that there is more than sufficient evidence available to rule out the use of explosives. I don't think you'll find an appropriately qualified person who would contradict this.

I will defer to engineers on the availability of evidence to give confidence of the building collapse mechanisms, but those who have posted here seem to have no problem with it.

 

[LostBoss]

only sane conspiracy theorists should join in.

Well now that would be a very select group now wouldn't it.

Oxymornonic you might say or fuckingmoronic if you were that way inclined.

Listen fella, what is your point? Every six months you come back and we go over all the same ground again.

You've changed the square root on no-one's mind. However you do give us the opportunity to rip the ragged piss out of whatever you are calling yourself now and Frenchie - which is a good thing.

So why do you bother - you convince no-one - why do you do it?

If you say you are a "searcher of the truth" I'd say that looking for it in the Naafi on Arrse probably isn't the best place for it however if you want to know if having yon bird pull her pearl necklace out of your backside really will intensify the duration of your orgasm you might find a couple of practitioners who can help you out.

So what's your aim?

 

[Piefinder]

Those who disagree with these investigations will usually claim that explosives were used. However, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of these buildings.

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me." [NY Times]

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]
Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." [People]

 

[mark1234]

How many pages will this one run for?