Question:
I am certain that the Twin Towers collaped as a result of controlled demolition, am I stupid, or mad?
hog b
2008-05-30 14:47:08 UTC
I don't want that to be true, but I can't find any evidence to believe otherwise.
I have read the Popular mechanics explanation, and find it disingenuous, and even a lie, regarding the construction of the Towers. I understand Newtonian Physics, that's all it seems to take to spot the Emperor's new clothes.
Tin foil hats, no Moon landing, Elvis living on Mars-all that sort of stuff I have no time for.
Is it a specific madness that I have?
27 answers:
Psycho Magnet
2008-05-30 15:06:23 UTC
People said the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real too and we now know it was a lie used to drag us into war.



We also know NORAD did drills where they used jets as weapons against, of all places, the Pentagon and WTC -- although we were told "who would have ever thought of that?" by Washington.





Madness isn't questioning what you've been told; madness is accepting everything you're told.





I linked a site you might find interesting since it's all professional architects and engineers discussing how that collapse isn't possible using the official theory.





Edit: One other "thing to make you go hmm". I suspect you already know but check out thermite and how it's used and then take a look at the WTC debris:

http://www.yannone.org/BlogPics/ThermiteCuts.jpg

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/april2006/240406thermite1.jpg

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/9-11%20-%20Evidence%20of%20thermite-cut%20columns-c-indicated.jpg





Edit #2: How many who mentioned it know that the Popular Mechanics article was written by a member of the Bush family? If you were trying to prove religion is real, you can't do it by quoting the Bible. I would also want to point out that the very article has been debunked itself. It states NORAD seldom scrambles aircraft especially for civilian/commercial aircraft and cites one occasion (Larry Payne the golfer - name might be wrong*) meanwhile Associate Press did an article shortly after showing some 60 or 80 scrambles according to military records in the year or two prior to 9/11. So if we're to trust that PM article does that mean AP and the US military lied about the scrambles? Or did PM lie? You tell me but that's one example in a list of misinformation put out by a magazine that deals with rebuilding lawnmower engines.
justa
2008-05-30 15:02:33 UTC
Do you have any idea how long it takes to do a controlled demolition? Where would they hide the dynamite?

How could you keep it a secret when there are security cameras 24/7 not to mention people coming and going at all times. If anyone had been walking around on all the floors with packages, after the first bombing of the garage in '99 they would have been apprehended.

Not to mention the fact that thousands of people watched the planes fly into the buildings, including my own sister.

I remember when the buildings were first built, there was a debate on how safe they would be with the new (for then) type of construction used, some said then that it would pancake if hit by an airplane, as had happened with much less damage to the Empire State building years before.

It wasn't anything other than a terrorist attack.

I understand why you would want to believe otherwise, that one human could willingly do that to other innocent humans goes against whatever humanity we share, but they did it and yes, people can be that deranged...and more.
blursd2
2008-05-30 15:15:16 UTC
You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but I would have to say such an opinion gravitates more towards the stupidity spectrum.



The problem with every argument for the explosives theory regarding the fall of the Twin Towers is that all supportive evidence is selective, and usually highly circumstantial (if not pure conjecture). This is also what is known as "cherry-picking" information ... you only treat information that confirms your hypothesis as cogent, and ignore often overwhelming and directly correlating information that does not.



Another key aspect of this belief system is the use sole use of VISUAL evidence (which is highly subjective and prone to epistemological ignorance on the part of the viewer), and near complete absence of PHYSICAL (i.e. empirical) evidence. If the Twin Towers really were brought down by explosives it would have taken a ridiculous amount to bring them down, not to mention thousands of miles of blasting wire. Not one single blasting cap, nor one inch of explosive wiring was found in the mountain of debris left after the collapse.



Lastly, there is the logical consideration of paradigms such as Occum's Razor. It states that "all things being equal the simplest answer is usually the best [and most correct] one." Which is a simpler explanation ... ? Two airplanes traveling at high velocity and loaded with jet fuel impacted the Towers which compromised the structural integrity of the Towers causing a collapse, or ... The most expertly clandestine governmental coverup involving thousands of people, at numerous administrative strata at the state and federal level colluded to collapse with explosives at the EXACT locations where the planes impacted (and have been able to cover up what would have been a mountain of physical and virtual evidence)? I'm hoping at this point you realize this is a rhetorical question ...



On a visceral psychological level, however, there is a well documented phenomena that correlates these type of irrational belief system with highly traumatic experiences. And whenever a tragedy of this level occurs there will always be pseudo agent provocateurs, unsubstantiated fifth columns, and imagined conspiracy theories ... you can go back to the time of the Egyptians and Romans and read about directly analogous experiences.



These particular conspiracy theories revolving around the collapse of the Twin Towers have very little to do with rational logic, and more with demagogics.



Edit: You're not mad ... the distinguishing characteristic of someone who is mad is that they will not (or cannot) recognize their own madness. More often than not they believe they're actually getting saner ...



Edit: I've heard the Thermite argument before, and while at a prima facie glance it would appear to be a convincing fact when you learn more about it most of its cogency erodes. The main problem with the Thermite argument is that is disregards that no other correlating physical evidence that would HAVE TO be present in correlation with the Thermite was present. Its like saying someone was shot when there is no bullet or casing to be found -- the damage could be explained by other actions, none of which have to do with a gun. Digressing to the original point ... Thermite can also occur when industrial grade steel and aluminum are close to each other at extreme temperatures. Guess what ... the Twin Towers were made out of industrial grade steel, and there was probably just as much aluminum in the building (chairs, computer casings, lighting fixtures, etc ...), and ... the most important factor ... burning jet fuel and secondary fires that reached super hot temperatures. Of course you're going to find Thermite deposits ... to prove it was explosives you need other cooperating evidence, and there is none.
anonymous
2016-09-30 05:31:45 UTC
the element i hit upon maximum suspicious - greater so than the *seen* squib explosions; greater so than the places of work being cleared out the weekend in simple terms before the crumple; greater so than the thoughts of each and every of the firemen, policemen and witnesses (or perhaps all of that in the process all fairness persuasive) - is that the BBC *reported* that WTC 7 had collapsed jointly because it became into nevertheless standig interior the background. The stay satellite tv for pc feed very actually vanished interior of a couple of minutes, and the BBC have provided that claimed they have misplaced the tape of it - "by way of cock-up, not conspiracy." Is that even a possibility? thankfully others stored it and uploaded it, so we are in a position to all see it for ourselves. numerous documetaries available; numerous rebuttals and many scientists and chemical engineers on the two factors giving diametrically opposing critiques on the comparable information... yet there is quite no rebuttal for the undeniable fact that the BBC knew it became into gonna crumple, an entire 20 minutes in the past it did. it quite is the main damning piece of information, because of the fact it became into so unintentional. it quite is like somebody mis-study the memo, or possibly the ink on the fax have been given smudged, and that they made a huge mistake accidentally, panicked, then compounded it by using attempting to conceal all of it up. So, yeah, i don't think of it is so trouble-free as "Dubya is ebil and the gubmint doned it" yet imo they have been controlled demolitions.
teresathegreat
2008-05-30 15:19:29 UTC
I surpised you can give any serious credence to the evidence SUPPORTING this theory. I read the arguments explaining the controlled demolition theory, and found the evidence to be circumstantial and tied together by illogical or improbable arguments.



Look, don't believe either side until you give a serious reading to the full argument. Look for verifiable, untampered evidence. You don't have to be a building engineer or demolition expert to spot the whole in a weak argument.



Keep in mind the difference between "possible" and "plausible." Yes, it is entirely possible that these building, like many others, were brought down by controlled explosions. But is that the most likely, the most logical explanation? Is it supported by the sum total of all the evidence?



Personally, I find it hard to believe that such a large-scale and intricate demolition, deliberately planned against civilians of our own country, could be pulled off by even a diabolical shadow government, without leaving any trace of the planning or personnel. Somehow, somewhere, some guilt-ridden or greedy government worker would have leaked a memo or expense report or a document proving the government's involvement or a specific person's diabolical plan. It just isn't comprehensible that destruction of this magnitude could be carried out with complete secrecy - even if everyone involved was murdered, there would still be a pile of bodies to explain. It just doesn't make sense.
Last In Line
2008-05-30 20:54:03 UTC
Ok, I am not sure how much of a controlled demolition it was. However I almost sometimes wonder about it being an inside job. I don't say this by what has happened, but instead by what hasn't.

We are wide open to terrorism, and nothing has happened in America since 9/11. We have a virtual fence which leaves our border virtually open for terrorists to get in, and ...nothing, nothing, nothing!!

What could someone like umm... the world bank have possibly gained from the Twin Towers falling?

Well, that got the public support behind taking out the little guy (axis of evil) nations, who would resist a new world order government.

I could be out of my mind too for thinking that, but it is entirely possible, and now even more so in seeing that Iran is next on the list.

I hope I'm wrong...If I'm onto something though, then that would make us the next 1939 Germany.

I have noticed that history tends to repeat itself.
anonymous
2008-05-30 16:08:43 UTC
It is not controlled demolition. As a combat engineer and a transporter of hazardous materials, I fully understand the inner workings of controlled demolition, properties of steel, and burning jet fuel.



It's really a simple matter of physics.



Jet fuel burns at approximately 1800 degrees F. In order for the towers to collapse, the melting point of the steel (2500 degrees F.) does NOT have to be met. The steel only needs to be made malleable where it is rendered "soft" enough to be shaped and molded. The temperature needed to achieve this property is 1750 degrees F. With the weight of nearly 30 floors being exerted on columns of steel which have achieved or nearly reached the malleable temperature, it is obvious how the structure pancaked all the way down. There is no need for demolitions on the lower floors. A pancake starts from the top down.



Take off the tin-foil hat and use your noggin.
smsmith500
2008-05-30 16:33:31 UTC
I consider you to be both. The evidence for "controlled demolition" has been refuted several times. The popular mechanics explanation is valid and can only be considered "disingenuous" if you are convinced that 9-11 was an inside job.
mashkiki
2008-05-30 15:57:11 UTC
Okay, I'm keeping this short.



If you want fact from an unbiased source, try this paperback (and may also be on DVD)by the editors of Popular Mechanics. The book is titled, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to Fact.



I was fascinated by the detail and the explanations. I believe that to ignore these findings, one must simply be resolved to always disagree. For those who believe in being intellectually honest, you will love it.
JasonDark
2008-05-31 16:07:09 UTC
It's a delusion of self-grandeur. Scientists will always know more than you about their subject of interest, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!



Being wrong isn't all that bad, really. Plenty of people have been wrong, and still came far closer to the truth than anyone before them had. For example, scientists used to think that the planets' orbits were perfectly spherical. Of course they are not - they are elliptical - but at least they had abandoned the geocentric theories of the time.



Now, this doesn't mean you shouldn't educate yourself. By all means, deepen your research! Just don't think that your second-hand knowledge makes you more of an expert than the experts.
dancer_0161
2008-05-31 20:29:59 UTC
I would have to go with the stupid part! Just look at the pics!!!

For RKO to say that Halliburton is an obscure little company is completely wrong. I think you need to do some more checking, Halliburton is a huge company!
biernes_atrece
2008-05-31 14:10:52 UTC
i've watched the zeitgeist movie.



9-11 incident was an inside job as well as the related hijacking incidents.



evidence showed why.



1st, the structural framing collapsed in the manner that demolition works on buildings works. they call it the "pancake" effect.



2. experts found molten metal (also on the structural steel framings) which would not be a result of a plane crashing into it.



others more.. i recommend the zeitgeist movie.



the philosophy behind it was to create chaos and establish fear on the people to gain total control. in short, the quest for power by manipulation.



passing of the anti-terrorist bill with its hidden agenda >> to keep track of every citizen without it being a crime and no questions asked on your privacy issues.



though i have to look for other sources to justify their claim but id like to believe the possibilities are great.



some issues concerning the claim can be found at



http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

http://TruthBeKnown.com
anonymous
2008-05-30 15:08:38 UTC
You aren't crazy. If you are, then all these people are crazy too...



Military personnel...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/



Architechs and Engineers...

http://www.ae911truth.org/



Scholars...

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/



Pilots...

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/





Let me ask you a question...



How many people would have to be involved if the higher-ups knew the attack was coming, and they just decided to DO NOTHING?? It doesn't take a significant number of people to do nothing.



If they did nothing, is that any better than them planning and executing the attacks themselves? Same result, right? Still criminals, right?



Besides, Rumsfeld himself announced the day before 9/11 that $2.6 trillion was missing from the Dept. of Defense budget.



How many people could you keep silent with $2.6 trillion?







"But our government would never do anything like that!"



Bullsh*t.



The Gulf of Tonkin incident that was the final straw that sent us into war in Vietnam... NEVER HAPPENED. We didn't find out the truth until over 20 years had past.



Google "Operation Northwoods".



FDR knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor.



World War I 1914-1918 The U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near the Britain and some 1200 people including 128 Americans on board lost their lives. Now we know this was an inside job, the major explosions were inside

the Lusitania as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was actually Against the US laws to transport war materials and Passengers in the same ship.





I've got an engineering background... I ran nuclear reactors in the Navy. I'm no expert on controlled demolition, but I know about materials, loads, stresses, etc. If the floor trusses gave way, like they said, the "pancake collapse" wouldn't have happened the way it did. It would be an assymetrical collapse where the top of the building would topple over and fall off... it wouldn't pulverize every floor, all the way down in a symetrical free-fall fashion the way it did.



You'll notice in PM's explanation that when the drew the pics of the buildings, they conveniently left out the 47 core columns made up the middle load-bearing portion of the towers.



Also, one of the lower floors burned for hours and hours in a fire back in the 1970's... and it had 100 floors of weight above it... no collapse. And this was a hotter burning fire that more than likely did more damage than the fires on 9/11. The fires on 9/11 gave off black smoke... indicative of a fire that is cooling... not getting hotter.



And what about the 2000 degree molten steel that they found under all the rubble??



And the people involved... Larry S. just bought the buildings and took out a terrorism policy on them just weeks before the event. Marvin Bush, Dubya's brother was head of security. All the put options placed on the airlines. Bush's connections and previous business dealings with the Bin Laden family...



Make me wonder how other people stay asleep on things like this.



If the lie is big enough... and you say it often enough...



People will believe anything.
consrgreat
2008-05-30 15:55:13 UTC
I will not say as the libs love to violate folks for this type of stuff....but I will say that if you believe this your are defiantly gullible....no matter which other option you choose...I WAS THERE...THERE WERE NO "CONTROLLED EXPLOSIONS"



IT WAS THE WEIGHT OF THE FLOORS ABOVE THAT COLLAPSED THE LOWER ONES...



and yes it happened at free fall speed due to the weight..if you want to try this and prove it to yourself.....take a 10 ton rock and hoist it 20 feet in the air...stand under it and let it fall...see if you can slow it down...bet you cant slow it 1 bit...same principal...the weight coming down was so massive that the floors below just immediately gave out....and pulverized anyone or thing in their way

IT WAS MUSLIM EXTREMISTS IN JUMBO JETS



CASE CLOSED
Chopper
2008-05-30 14:57:30 UTC
Alright, here are some simple points to prove you wrong:



If it was controlled, how/when did they put the explosives in the building? It would have taken a while, and someone would have noticed.



How could the government keep everyone involved silent. Someone would have spoken out by now.



If the government can kill 3000 people, why wouldn't they kill the people who are saying it was a controlled demolition?
rz1971
2008-05-31 14:48:33 UTC
I find it sad that people will question the official view, but will accept the 'conspiracy' as absolute truth and not question that. If you question that conspiracy you will find large holes, missing information, misstated information which leads to other questions.



IMO, I don't trust the conspiracy theorists.
anonymous
2008-05-30 14:58:11 UTC
Hey you know what, everyone and there moms knew they were bombs inside that building that day, even news reports said bombs went off, all of a sudden when the official release comes out guess what? no bombs planted just planes hitting, sounds to me a whole lot of bullsh*ting



I'm sure in 10 years there will be specials on the history channel about a government cover up to 9/11
amazin'g
2008-05-30 14:55:56 UTC
Yes, I think you have an unhealthy fixation on the subject. You're trying(for some reason)to disprove the facts. You won't be able to, so give it a rest.
Rex K
2008-05-30 14:54:34 UTC
You can see it happen..There are videos & recordings of the actual crashes..Plane carrying 38,000 gals of fuel goes in on one side..flames & smoke come out the other.. Don't get stuck on stupid..see it for your self..See it on your own computer.
fatboysdaddy
2008-05-30 17:04:35 UTC
Please read the Popular Mechanic Magazine.

The March issue will help you out. It dispels ALL those silly conspiracy theories.
caustic.rhoda
2008-05-30 14:56:23 UTC
Mad people general don't countenance the idea they may be mad. Which leaves only the stupidity option.
Drixnot
2008-05-30 15:16:36 UTC
I don't know... I really don't, I know nothing of engineering or architecture.



The truth is I'm rather sad that I would even have a doubt, but I do. Why? Because of the President's reaction to the news... he just sat there... didn't even ask the man to repeat himself. JUST SAT THERE.



And then once we go into Afganistan... he turns around and gets us into another war in Iraq... but tells the American people a pack of lies to do it.



The whole situation just sounds suspicious, and I hate it that our government just might be involved in something so horrible.
Melkiha
2008-05-30 14:55:07 UTC
How much do you know about engineering and constructions?
?
2008-05-30 14:56:10 UTC
Neither, you are just easily duped by conspiracy theory loonies.

9/11 Myths - http://www.911myths.com/
Beatle Band Aid
2008-05-30 15:05:37 UTC
OMG are you kidding me? Stupid is a stupid does.
anonymous
2008-05-30 15:02:37 UTC
Both- add gullible.
-RKO-
2008-05-30 15:23:08 UTC
I don't think you're stupid at all; in fact, I beleive more citizens should question their government, especially since the 'fourth estate' no longer acts as America's watchdog.



Consider this scenario:



Saddam Hussein humiliates George H.W. Bush during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, even threatening to kill Bush at one time.



Shortly after leaving office, George H.W. Bush joins a new company called the Carlyle Group, headquartered in Washington, DC, within walking distance of the White House. Among Carlyle Group investors are several Bush friends from Saudi Arabia, including a family by the name of binLaden who originally puts up $2.5 million.



George W. Bush, an obvious village idiot, is 'selected' to be President. He has 'marching orders' to avenge his father's enemy, Saddam Hussein.....to "get even", Texas-style.



Dick Cheney resigns from an obscure little company known as Halliburton, where he served as CEO for a very short period of time. He is awarded with an astonishing multi-million-dollar 'golden parachute' before he becomes Vice-President of the United States.



The Bush family friends in the oil industry have bailed out George W. Bush time and time again, from one failed business venture after another. It's time for them to be paid back - big time, Texas-style.



Another Bush family friend owns the World Trade Center (WTC) complex of buildings. Larry Silverstein is drowning in red ink as vacancies increase at an alrming rate and tenants are not happy. Silverstein hires George W. Bush's younger brother, Marvin, as Director of Security for the WTC and also rewrites his insurance policies to specifically include coverage in the event of "acts of terrorism".



Osama binLaden is his family's "bad boy" and needs to be "taken down a notch or two", because his radical, violent adventures are giving his family a bad name. Still, no rich family wants to really abandon their son - they just want to punish him a bit, but allow him to continue to live the kind of lifestyle his family enjoys.



Government agencies get wind of a potential attack on U.S. soil. Just prior to 09-11-01, demolition crews are seen in the WTC buildings, and seem to be particularly interested in many of the building's vacant floors.



On 09-11-01, the World Trade Center buildings collapse, actually 'pancaking' one floor on top of another, just as so many other buildings collapse when they are planted with demolition explosives. Thousands of Americans die; the public - and Congress - is outraged, and as emotions run high, Bush gets a virtual 'blank check' to do anything he wants to catch these 'terrorists'.



Bush pushes through a Nazi-inspired Department of Homeland Security with an outlandish budget. Then the American people are told that Saddam Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction", which Bush somehow rationalizes to be equated with the 'terrorists'. Bush unconstitutionally, illegally and immorally invades another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States of America. Colin Powell is dispatched to the United Nations; we find out later he was used as a scapegoat, presenting false information. But, by now, the 'war' in Iraq is underway.



Larry Silverstein collects sixteen times his investment from the insurance carriers. A 'commission' submits a rushed - almost impromptu - report to the people about the 9-11 tragedies. Just as quickly, the debris from the WTC is used to build a new U.S. battleship to honor those who died, instead of stockpiling that 'evidence' for future examination and further investigation.



On 9-11-01, Carlyle Group investors are meeting in D.C. when the 'terrorists' attack. While all other aircraft is grounded, these ivnestors are quietly flown out of the country on U.S. jets. Could Osama binLaden have been flown back into the states on those same planes? Could he be living in his family's huge gated, guarded compound outside of Orlando, Florida??



As soon as the 'war' in Iraq begins, the Carlyle Group and Halliburton become two of the federal government's largest contractors, often being awarded contracts without even having to submit a competitive bid. Today, Halliburton is building fourteen new, permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. Today, the U.S. has almost completed construction of the largest embassy in the world on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the 'new' Iraqi government's modest headquarters. does that sound like we'll be leaving Iraq anytime soon? It appears that we'll maintain a 'presence' in Iraq for decades - perhaps generations - until we've sucked every drop of oil from Iraq's sands.



Bush's #1 non-military 'benchmark' demands that the Iraqi Parliament surrender two thrids of its oil fields to foregin oil companies, thus allowing corporations like Exxon-Mobil to virtually STEAL most of Iraq's most valuable economic resource.



Does all of this seem to be too 'coincidental'???



Have the American people been duped? Did the Bush administration lie to Congress? Have our U.S. soldiers been conned into believing they were risking their lives for 'democracy' when, in fact, they've been risking their lives so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists, oil barons and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful?? -RKO- 05/30/08


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...