Was 9/11 a controlled demolition?

  • Thread starter polyb
  • Start date
  • Tags
    conspiracy
In summary, Morgan Reynolds, a former Bush team member during President George W. Bush's first term, voices serious doubts about the official story about the collapse of the WTC, and believes that a controlled demolition was more likely to be responsible. If this is true, it has major political and social consequences, as it would prove that the US government was involved in an attack on America.
  • #36
Wow. All these theories...

And I thought it was as simple as Trump looking to cash in on the insurance money.

:D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Arctic Fox, was that so he could buy a better toupee? :smile:

I'm not even going to debate the conspiracy theories about how/what made the towers came down except to say that most of the people that come up with these theories play fast and loose with the data out there, taking what's needed to support their idea and conveniently dismissing the rest as other crackpot conjecture and hearsay or claim it's "part of the cover up".

As to the idea that our government knew the attack was in the works since '93 and did nothing to stop it I say bull! This same tired lines been used with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Come up with something new will ya"?! The CIA and the FBI and allot of other orgs that deal with intel and examining it for trends were and still are what's called "stovepiped" as far as trading info. The sad fact is they were hampered by their own organizational structure when it came to trading information. We had people with different pieces of the puzzle in different places and no one was able to put it together until after the fact (hind sight being 20/20 and all that). Now we can backtrack, analyze, and go "oh yea, I guess we should change the way we operate and watch out for these trends next time".
Also everybody seems to forget that up until that day the hostage situations we'd encountered were all "meet our demands or we start killing hostages". So we were geared towards that type of situation. We were doing something, waiting for the terrorists to make demands and figure out how to resolve the situation with minimal loss of life. I don't think anyone realized what was going to happen until those planes hit the buildings, and only then when there was nothing to loose did a few people on the last plane to crash try to do anything.
 
  • #38
I don't think this person is implying that it never happened..or that it was a conspiracy...

Most conspircay theories I hear involve who was behind it, not whether physics applied or not.

I would suspect that the physics would be the same regardless of who was behind it :smile:

It's an interesting question though...assuming his data is correct, how could it be explained?
 
  • #39
Is this right? said:
a structural engineer gave this to me and i thought this would be a good place to find out if it is correct... i don't need any smart ass posts...

thanks..

No its not correct, i would love to see the credentials of the person whos talken to you. think about what your actually saying. Your saying that an object DEFIED physics. People, this is not a conspiracy theory, this is simply someone claiming something defied gravity. All we can say is that the laws of physics have never failed and its unimaginable that they failed in such a high profile event.

Without even doing the calculations, the argument is flawed. The debris was like 7 stories high for one (which means it doesn't go all the way to the ground). You are also taking "Air resistance" to mean the same thing as the resistance a big slab of metal takes on when it slams into something below it. The problem here is that air resistance is a continually thing while the "resistance" a floor has when it hits another floor is almost instantaneous. Think of a velocity vs. time graph. With air resistance of a normal object, the acceleration is slower then a vacuum drop. With an object continually hitting something (like the floors below it), the effect would be that every few fractions of a second, the velocity would drop off a LITTLE bit but it is incredibly quick and with the weight of a few dozen stories, it becomes almost negligable.

Another problem i think is that since the WTC was a closed building structure, it inevitably should have fallen at close to free fall speeds because it creates its own vacuum. There was not much air inside the actual building and when the floors start collapsing, its pushed out of hte windows so quickly that not much resistance can occur (and its turned into a vacuum). A building collapsing on itself is a muuuuuuuuuch different situation then a book falling.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Is this right? said:
the main problem with this is that the towers collapsed completely in the time it would have taken an object (like a block of wood) dropped from one of the roofs to reach the ground. the WTC towers were about 1350 feet high.
Neither of the towers collapsed from the top floor. You have to measure up to the floor where the planes hit to find how far down they actually fell. In both cases, this distance is less than the full height of the towers.
 
  • #41
zoobyshoe said:
Neither of the towers collapsed from the top floor. You have to measure up to the floor where the planes hit to find how far down they actually fell. In both cases, this distance is less than the full height of the towers.

rofl oh yah, and of course that obvious fact...
 
  • #42
Whats this guys name and what's the firms name? There are fairly obvious discrepencies between reality and his theory and i think a lot of people would feel troubled to think someone with an expertise in the field would make such obvious and simplistic mistakes
 
  • #43
interesting

alot of hard to believe religious conspiracy babel here but if you scroll down and look at the card images pretty funny considering the game was made in 1995:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1753.cfm
 
  • #44
Well, its not too difficult to see the WTC as a potential target around 1995, considering Al Qaeda's first attempt to bring it down occurred in 1993.
 
  • #45
re

Yea, I don't think the Govt. is responsible for 9/11 , but I do have a feeling there is some sort of society of elite trying to run things behind the scenes. Of course, a satanic secret society with a complex plot to take over the world and usher in the new antichrist is a whole different leap :bugeye:
 
  • #46
Pengwuino said:
That website has absolutely no credibility in my books. Its a home internet users website! If there was a real group of engineers who could actually come up with something like this, it would be on a real website and it woudlnt claim that a freaken US unmaned military aircraft took out the WTC.
Pffff... pmsl...the U.S. government will just omit reports that aren't consistent with the official story from mainstream media sources. That's how propaganda works. The government uses the mainstream media and will only pay "experts" to say things that agree with the official story. :rolleyes:

Any expert who doesn't believe in the official story doesn't have access to mainstream venues to support their opinions. Thus they are left with their own alternatives to express their disagreements -- often leading them to "conspiracy sites" and such. As a result they become branded as "conspiracy nuts". :eek:
 
  • #47
Any expert who doesn't believe in the official story doesn't have access to mainstream venues to support their opinions.

BS. If there were glaring inaccuracies in the government's report regarding the collapse of the towers, if it was so obvious that amateurs like Morgan Reynolds could figure it out, these facts would be brought to light in a much more detailed manner in the industry and academic literature on the subject. And not just in the US, but in publications worldwide. I've never seen anything in the publications on fire engineering or structural engineering to support this absurd contention that explosives brought down the towers. Nothing. Nada. Sure, there are disagreements and controversies over what factors played a bigger role in the collapse, but there's nothing to suggest that NIST's report is wildly improbable. In fact, I just read an article on the NIST report. Most engineers seem to agree that the government position is a sound one, and those that disagree do so only in certain details, such as whether there were design flaws in the towers. They certainly don't think the government position is so incredible that only explosives could explain the behavior of the buildings.

The attack on 9-11 was a conspiracy - by Islamic religious fanatics. Please leave it at that, and stop turning this event into a sick joke with these wild stories.
 
  • #48
Kemal said:
BS. If there were glaring inaccuracies in the government's report... these facts would be brought to light... in publications worldwide.

Right, just like how LH Oswald killed Kennedy. Let me add that I don't buy the WTC imlposion conspiracy garbage, BUT last I checked the history books still have Oswald listed as a lone shooter... and as we all know...
 
  • #49
Tarheel said:
Right, just like how LH Oswald killed Kennedy. Let me add that I don't buy the WTC imlposion conspiracy garbage, BUT last I checked the history books still have Oswald listed as a lone shooter... and as we all know...

False analogy - these are two very different events. The conspiracists are making some specific claims about the behavior of materials in fire, and other things. The collapse of the WTC has been studied by engineers and scientists extensively. The industry journals and peer-reviewed literature should contain some evidence supporting these claims. I am not aware of any. And for that matter, it is by no means obvious that Oswald was not the lone shooter, as you imply. In fact, based on the evidence I've seen, I'm convinced he was.
 
  • #50
If you were blissfully ignorant of material science and structural engineering, you just might be able to make a National Inquirer case the official 911 investigation report was a cover up. How naive is that? Did you hear the one about Lincoln dying from a head wound inflicted by a single gunman?
 
  • #51
This might shed some light on the subject

http://movies26.enwhore.com/loosechange.wmv
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
The FOX TV series The Lone Gunmen (X-Files spin off) airs their opening episode "Pilot" six months before 9/11 which depicts a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to crash a Boeing 727 into the WTC via remote control and blame it on foreign terrorists in the hopes of generating a bigger military budget.

Despite the uncanny similarities between the Murdoch-produced film and the horrific reality of 9/11, rather than being discussed in the media as a prescient warning of the possibility of such an attack, the pilot episode of ?The Lone Gunman? series seemed to have been quietly forgotten.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that...they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice." -CBS (05/17/02)

"You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said. -DoD (10/23/01)

From the episode:

"The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stock pile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully-loaded 727 into the middle of New York City; you'll find a dozen tin-pot dictators all over the world, just clamoring to take responsibility. And begging to be smart bombed."

Download and see the episode: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

http://propagandamatrix.com/multimedia_priorknowledge_lonegumen.html

-------------------------------
Video: Alex Jones Interviews X-Files/Lone Gunmen Star Dean Haglund who believes 9/11 was an inside job!
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/120105haglundteaserwmbb.htm
--------------------------------------------
Another thing, have you folded the 20$ bill?

http://www.clydelewis.com/twenty.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Sorry Grotesque_puppet, but that video oozes the same conspiracy theorist pap that all the others I've seen do. The porn film soundtrack made me giggle, though.

The thing I don't understand: Why are people so surprised that the inferno caused by the impact of a couple of airliners can actually bring down a building?
 
  • #54
Burnsys said:
Despite the uncanny similarities between the Murdoch-produced film and the horrific reality of 9/11, rather than being discussed in the media as a prescient warning of the possibility of such an attack, the pilot episode of ?The Lone Gunman? series seemed to have been quietly forgotten.
Its not that it was forgotton, its that no one watched it in the first place. It was a dismal failure.
 
  • #55
brewnog said:
The thing I don't understand: Why are people so surprised that the inferno caused by the impact of a couple of airliners can actually bring down a building?
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.

RE: that video. I watched part of it once, and it was just plain awful. Its almost like he's making the stuff up as he goes along. There is no basis in reality in what he's saying.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
The thing I don't understand: Why are people so surprised that the inferno caused by the impact of a couple of airliners can actually bring down a building?

I think it was the way it was brought down...Even the first time I watched it I thought it looked like a demolition job.
 
  • #57
Grotesque Puppet said:
I think it was the way it was brought down...Even the first time I watched it I thought it looked like a demolition job.
Similar to what I told brewnog, that's people's instinct for finding comparisons. Since you've never seen a large building fall before except for by demolition, the fact that it looked like a demolition is meaningless. You connected it to the only thing you had for comparison simply because its the only thing you had for comparison.
 
  • #58
russ_watters said:
Its not that it was forgotton, its that no one watched it in the first place. It was a dismal failure.
It doens't matter if it had a lot of rating or a little. the point is that it predicted what happened in 911

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

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that...they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice." -CBS (05/17/02)

"You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said. -DoD (10/23/01)
 
  • #59
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html
'Able Danger' Intel Could Rewrite 9/11 History

Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., a champion of integrated intelligence-sharing among U.S. agencies, wrote to the former chairman and vice-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission late Wednesday, telling them that their staff had received two briefings on the military intelligence unit — once in October 2003 and again in July 2004.

"The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9/11 commission staff that the commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger," Weldon wrote to former Chairman Gov. Thomas Kean (search) and Vice-Chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton (search). "The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
It was also in Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor", Burnsys, but so what? That's fiction, not a prediction. There is no reason to expect the government to start a study into every fictional story out there. Otherwise, NASA would get pretty bogged-down studying all manner of science fiction (they're all predictions, right?).

edit: A note about Tom Clancy. "Debt of Honor" is the closest thing in pop fiction to being an actual prediction for one reason: Tom Clancy does consult for the DoD on battle scenarios because of his knowledge and imagination. However, the fact that he wrote it in a book does not imply that he seriously considered the possibility (I honestly don't know if he did or not) any more than he considered the risk to the US from Japanese terrorists. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #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.
 
  • #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

News Facts of 9/11 - need confirmation
Replies
2
Views
3K
MHB Simple Model of 9/11/2001 World Trade Center Collapse
Replies
8
Views
3K
Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize
2
Replies
52
Views
15K
The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON
4
Replies
109
Views
57K
What caused the mysterious flash of light during 9/11 plane strikes?
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize For Proof Of Official Theory.
Replies
4
Views
5K
News This is a link to 'The Fatal Flaw in the 9/11 cover-up.'
Replies
20
Views
3K
Can Fire Melt Steel? Investigating the Controversy Surrounding 9/11 Conspiracies
Replies
4
Views
52K
News Brownshirts in America: Paul Craig Roberts
Replies
9
Views
2K
What Fallacies Are Present in These Arguments?
Replies
4
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top