What is your opinion of 911's tower collapse

Email ^ | April 29, 2006 | Blogger

[Blogger]

I received an email from a friend regarding the Trade Towers collapse. I haven't watched the entire video in the attachment as it is over an hour and I have other things for my Saturday planned. However, before I watch it, for those who have seen such 'evidence' that the towers collapsed due to controlled implosion or something like that, what is your view of the conspiracy theory. I've never seen Michael Moore's stuff (don't plan on seeing it either). I haven't delved too deeply into any of the conspiracys other than to know they exist. Am interested in hearing the Freepers take on things though.

Please don't reply unless you have studied the evidence from both sides.

[condi2008]

Bump to read later.

[Blogger]

I have the Lord, for sure. So, I'm not really so worried. I have the friend though (who was actually a former student in my history class) who sends me these things and I wanted to hear a more balanced opinion.

[pgkdan]

Why pollute the forum with this garbage!? The Twin Towers collapsed because evil, twisted muslims hijacked 4 airplanes and flew 2 of them into the Towers. Plain and simple. If you need a refresher about what happened that day I suggest you go see "United 93". I saw it this afternoon and the rage that's burned in me for the last 5 years is fully stoked again. Even raising this question is an insult to the memories of the men and women killed that day.

[dakine]

Don't let folks bother ya'.... Conspiracy stuff has been around forever...

[Blogger]

Link to a video. Not the actual video. If I had a website to post it to I would send you the screen shot. Don't accuse me of lying. Some folks on the prayer thread would easily vouch for my integrity.

[Texas Eagle]

I think the whole thing was staged using the old moon landing set.

[Sloth]

What is your opinion of 911's tower collapse?

I'm against it.

[Blogger]

I never said that I did.

[Blogger]

That's good data. I think my friend would dismiss anything from a .gov, but it makes sense.

[Blogger]

Frankly because people will come here to see if it has been addressed. We are addressing it. I'm getting flamed a bit, but I can take it :)

[Blogger]

:)

[Blogger]

Whew!!! I was worried ;o)

[Tarpon]

Actually it's called "nutty conspiracy theories".

[Blogger]

It may be idiocy, but my old sign-up date should be a clue (and as I said in post 20, it's older than even what my current screenname shows) that I'm not a troll. I am a good-standing Freeper and would write in Mickey Mouse before I would ever vote for a liberal. I'm just asking the question.

[martin_fierro]

Resolved: The Earth is hollow.

Discuss.

Please don't reply unless you have studied the evidence from both sides.

[Jontherocks]

Sure I know what happen

Terrorist hit it with a plane

I think it disqusting some jerk would use the deaths of 3000 people to sell a stupid book

[twidle]

"They might want to clean up "twidle" on Aisle Three, too"

Aisle Three. What's your complaint with "twidle". Here I am facing you directly. Let's see What You Got??

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Right. It is your "friend".

[twidle]

Always good when you trolls expose yourselves

Takes a Troll to know a Troll!! What kind of Troll are you?? Troll Hunting????

[Sloth]

I dug up my reactions from when I watched this video last year:

---

It's really too lame to merit a point-by-point response, and this is not an exhaustive examination, but here are some of my initial reactions:

1.) The comparison to other high-rise fires (w/ no building collapse) is fallacious. The other fires did not have a ton of jet fuel injected into them.

2.) The video makes a point about the melting point of pure elemental titanium vs. the burning temperature of jet fuel. However, the components being discussed were titanium alloys, not pure titanium, and therefore would have somewhat different melting points. Furthermore, metals can either soften or become brittle at temperatures significantly lower than that at which they actually liquify. For example, here is a text that says titanium melts at 3300 F but rapidly loses strength above only 800 F:
http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_44.htm

3.) The video repeatedly plays a bunch of witnesses using the word "explosion" to describe the collapse of the towers. This is meaningless. The term 'explosion' is here being used to describe the billowing cloud of dust and smoke being expelled from the building as it collapses. I might call it that myself, but that doesn't mean there were internal detonations.

4.) Unlike a planned building implosion, the collapse of the WTC towers clearly propagates *downward* from the point of the airplanes' impact. Controlled demolitions typically take out critical points all along the height of the building so that it falls all at once.

5.) Mixed messages. The video makers clearly want us to believe that these additional explosions were part of the alleged controlled demolition. But it gives *many* different times for these explosions, as early (in one case) as 9 seconds after the plane hit the north tower. Obviously the tower didn't collapse at that point, so why the 'explosion'?

6.) It is ridiculous to assert that the family members of all the hostages who called them on airphones / cell phones would be fooled by this voice-synthesizing nonsense.

7.) The video falsely claims that cell phones don't work at airliner cruising altitudes. This is simply false. In a sense, they work *too* well -- the reason their use is widely prohibited (aside from paranoia about interference w/ airplane instruments) is that in an airplane you're moving at hundreds of miles per hour and you've got direct line-of-sight contact with scores or hundreds of cell towers, and those resources were not designed to deal with that kind of load.

---

BTW, http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm is useful, too.