Question for 9/11 conspiracy believers.

[LARED]

I have noticed that many 9/11 conspiracy believers routinely state the WTC's (1, 2) were imploded.

Imploded; To demolish (a building) by causing to collapse inward.

Is it because you believe the building was demolished or because you think it was collapsed inward, or both? or are you just repeating something that sounds good?

Either way it is not a correct use of the term as whether you believe it was demolished or not, there is nothing to indicate it collapsed inward. In fact many will tell you it was imploded and then in the next sentence say that is evidenced by the fact that only explosives could have caused the building to project material away from the structures.

What gives?

Edited to remove typo including WTC 7 in list.

[el_gato]

1. perhaps you should

view the footage of the wtc7 collapse and decide for yourself what you think of it.

[LARED]

3. You're right

I mistakenly included WTC 7 in my question. It does look like it was imploded. Except there are no explosives evident.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention

[HarryLime]

6. time for a commercial interruption

"Except there are no explosives evident ."

This episode of 'Living with Unreality' has been brought to you by the makers of Depleted Uranium shells. America makes DU to save YOUR life and bring YOU freedom. Now support the Pentagon's use of DU or ELSE!

Back to the scheduled programming featuring LARED, DU's noted intellect and moralist.

[LARED]

7. Huh?

What does DU have to do with WTC7?

Seeing as you believe my statement that no explosives were evident as being absent from reality. Perhaps you could explain where you see evidence of explosives. I see none.

Moralist? Do you know what a moralist is?

[HarryLime]

10. See no evil...

"I see none."

The visual evidence of explosives are quite evident when examining the Naudet brothers's miraculous footage. The "money shot" as people call it is found pretty readily around the Net. (How the Naudet brothers knew to set up a tripod and camera to catch WTC 7 fall before it went is beyond me. Wow, those guys are GOOD.)

Plus, there is the logic advanced admirably by Plague Puppy and others which demonstrate that massive simultaneous failures at the lower levels, coupled with the mysterious explosions as the building fell, are strong indicators of a controlled demolition.

However, you WON'T see this or intellectually consider the logic explained to you. Neither will you REQUEST that FEMA produce a clear explanation of the mysterious collapse of WTC 7. You're perfectly content that a 45-story building suddenly collapsed in a very large metropolis with no official explanation.

[LARED]

16. With all due respect Harry

I see nowhere in the video where explosives are quite evident. And it is precisely because I have considered the logic and intellectual aspects of 9/11 that leads me to believe there is no evidence of explosives.

I would love for FEMA or anyone to produce a clear explanation about the building collapse. And contrary to popular notions there are investigations going on to attempt to find some answers.

Logically there is no official explanation because there is an ongoing investigation. That does not mean we will ever get one, but it certainly explains why we don't have one yet. The existing FEMA report clearly states why they think it collapsed as well as stating it needs to be investigated.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Dunno about conspiracy, airplane tank exploded, building imploded

Airplanes contain fuel, which would tend to explode on impact.

Buildings are frequently demolished by implosion, and explosives are used to do this. The explosives must be placed very precisely at different points in the building. Math is involved. So is science.

The towers collapsed (imploded) in the same way that old buildings do when they are demolished with explosives.

My observations are based on what I saw on 9-11 and what I have seen in other places with other buildings.

I understand that many people agree with the bush regime that it is best not to look so closely into the 9-11 events.

I agree that to do so might be distressing for some, and that each individual should respect their own comfort level in this regard.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

4. Here is my take on it...

although I am not a believer in this particular part of the theory:

The idea is that the colapse of the buildings (especially building 7) was vertical instead of toppling. Believers question whether it was physically possible for all supports to give simultaneously, which would have been what was required in order for the building to collapse straight down.

As for the "projected material" I believe they are refering to what is seen on a few videos of the collapse to be debris being blasted out windows below the collapse point imediately prior to the visible collapse.

One mainstream theory for this material is that the floors collapsed internally briefly before the external walls collapsed which resulted in an overpressure blast of debris out the windows.

Building 7 however is indeed a strange one. Unlike the two towers, building seven seems to collapse from the bottom up, with the top floors staying intact as they fell straight down towards the ground - very much like a commercially imploded building demolition.

I would say that the believers have a weak case, but they do have a case. I think there is not enough evidence to be able to determine whether this is what actually happened. It makes you wonder why the authorities were so quick to destroy that evidence.

[RH]

5. vertical instead of toppling?

I have seen films of instances where the very intention is to demolish by toppling, where for example a tall brick chimney is toppled by lighting a fire at one side of the base of it with no explosives involved, just a weakening of some of the mortar, the idea being that when enough space is available it is easier to clear up a distributed mess rather than a tall pile.

The net result nevertheless is that as the object topples it tends also to fall vertically anyway, disintegrating before it hits the ground because the structure is not sufficiently strong under the stress to maintain the integrity.

[Flightful]

8. Angular momentum

Simply put, if the force required to topple a structure exceeds the load-bearing capacity of said structure, the structure will fail and drop vertically. To cause a building to topple it would be necessary to either push it over, or remove all the support from one side to beyond the centre of gravity. Wth the WTC, the structure would collapse long before you reached the CG.

[RH]

18. Not quite.

With a very tall structure such as a chimney the need is only to weaken one side enough to tilt the centre of gravity beyond a certain point.

[number6]

9. answer .....

"I have noticed that many 9/11 conspiracy believers routinely state the WTC's (1, 2) were imploded."

not imploded, question is ,..do I think there were explosives
in the buildings 1, 2, 7, ? yes

can I prove it ? no
could I be wrong ? yes

certainly the buildings were demolished, but how ??
just by impact and jet fuel ??

I'm skeptical.

[Bridget Burke]

11. Many 9/11 conspiracy believers do NOT

"routinely state the WTC's (1, 2) were imploded." A few of them do. More have suspicions. Most direct their questions elsewhere; for example:

* Why were warnings ignored, or steps only taken to protect certain people?

* Why was the government's response that day somewhat odd?

* Why have investigations been stonewalled?

Since you reject all conspiracy explanations, how do you think the attacks of September 11th were carried out? By a Lone Gunman? He must have been very busy.

[CaptainClark23]

12. Pardon

"Is it because you believe the building was demolished or because you think it was collapsed inward, or both? or are you just repeating something that sounds good?"

I do not believe the official explanation of events. There are some theories which I lend credence, and others which I dismiss. I'm not out to convince you of anything, your mind is already made up on the subject.

But I gotta tell you something LARED. Regardless of what you believe or not, to suggest that the buildings' implosion, explosion, or just plain falling down, as something that "sounds good" to anyone is fecking crass.

It didn't sound good that day, it didn't feel good, it didn't smell good. Some days I can still taste the ashes in my mouth.

Who are you fighting here? Not to single you out, but it seems to me that many of those arguing either side of the 9.11 story have lost their focus and have taken to sniping and belittling eachothers' positions. Your stance, as I've read it in these threads, seems to be based on reason and rational thinking.

So do your own arguments a favor and leave the petty bickering over semantic terms alone. If someone else's argument is so inherently flawed so as to be dismissed with the definition of a single term, then why bother at all?

Again, I believe there was high-level Governmental complicity involved
in the attack and ensuing collapse of the WTC. But I value the role that you and other adherents of the official explanation play in this ongoing dialogue. On your best days, you can help focus and refine the debate.

On your worst you can say some pretty damn stupid things, just like those you love to deride.

[TrogL]

13. Given there was a massive fire inside the buildling

What kept the explosive charges that conspiracy theorests say brought down building 7 (and 1 and 2) from discharging prematurely? In a controlled demolition/implosion, the charges have to be set off so exactly in sequence that they have to be controlled by computer.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

14. Molten steel

"It is hard to remember that they have already carted off 40 days of rubble and yet so much remains".......... "The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down. Some of the steel workers are engaged in cutting pieces of jagged steel into smaller bits."

http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/reflect/malloydiary.html


-----------------------
"NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris."

"
Fresh Kills actually was closed in March 2001, but there was ample space to accommodate the WTC wreckage, so the city decided to reopen the site so that smaller metal pieces, concrete, and other debris could be disposed of. Additionally, an open space where debris could be examined was established. More than NYDS employees continue to assist with landfill operations."

http://sept11.wasteage.com/ar/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

Why, after 50 yrs of operation, was fresh kills closed in march 2001 even though "there was ample space to accommodate the WTC wreckage"?

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

Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,”

http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html

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

"Mitchell worked for Tully, a firm doing construction on the West Side Highway. Tully had offices at the WTC site and has been involved in twothirds of the cleanup.
The Mohawks were amazed at the extent of the devastation. They saw mangled iron split open, similar to a peeled banana, Mitchell told me."

http://bloodpoetry.homestead.com/IronMan.html

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

"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. "
http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html

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

"The people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

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

"it is molten steel . like volcanic lava.. further along there is more ,
though this FLOWS like water it is so hot..

Core drilling the ground temp is 1200 degrees !
the dead zone might be that way for a year .."

http://www.poetsforthewar.org/poems/hdow.shtml

[plaguepuppy]

15. About those explosions

Explosions and implosions are not mutually exclusive, though WTC-7 fell very much like a classic implosion or controlled demolition. The collapses of the towers can still be considered largely implosions, since most of the debris fell in or near the buildings' footprints, but showed a very explosive appearance early on. This video shows several close-up views of the WTC-2 collapse:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dust%20trails/abc_news_footage_of_WTC-2.htm

You can argue all you want about air pressure, but I find it hard not to view these events as explosions, or actually a confluence of many smaller explosions.

[DeadBroke]

17. Okay, but

still photographs and video taken as the steel was recovered from the Trade Center and Bldg #7 show very noticable stretcher lines or Luders lines, which are vein like deformations that occur to steel when maximum yeild and shear strength is exceeded. There are also news articles about tests showing high carbon spheroidizing on steel framing members, which is caused by prolonged exposure to heat. Would these be present if explosives were used for a controlled demolition?