9/11 conspiracies
Posted by BebopI hate these. They are so dumb. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories in general, just ones about 9/11. There isnt any.
I think it's sick when people are murdered en mass and their own countrymen would rather look for fictional reasons and evidence to blame their own country, rather than the true terrorist culprits.
Not only is there no evidence to support the idea America 'had something to do with it' but the fact people continue to beleive such nonense on the basis of one ****ting video their work colleage sent them, which was created by some school kid in his spair time with no actual evidence at his disposal, when there's millions of things out there to debunk anything supporting this absurd notion into the ground is ****ing disgraceful.
This stuff really ****es me off and I think it's just cases of ignorent people trying to gain celebrity or intelligent status, most likely among their equally dumb companions, through the misfortune of thousands, perhaps millions, of people.
I put this type of attitude to terroist attacks next to nazi liquidtation. It's another example of how crap man can be.
Anyone else dumb enough to think perhaps " GEORGE BUSH DID THEM ORDER DA BOMBS ON DA PLANE" yet capable enough to provide some actual evidence?
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]We should all be skeptical of of our government, i sure am, but we shouldn't just make s[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it up. Specially not when you're dealing with horrible murders done to thousands of innocent people. I'd like to see a conspiracy theorist submit his crackpot theories in front of a 9/11 victim's family, and see how long it would take before he gets punched in the face.[/COLOR]
Posted by Lord of SpamHEY I PUNCHED YOU THAT MEANS IM RIGHT LOL
I remember the loose change video thing, and it seemed to raise some questions. That being said, theres a VAST difference in saying "not everything adds up exactly, and I'd like more info" and saying ZOMG TEH BUSH DID IT LOLZ! and frankly, I resent the fact that because I actually listen to things with an open mind that I am rediculed.
Posted by AxisI like the way Maddox explains it.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Posted by Lord of SpamDisinformation can explain the second point rather well. Let a few retards and weirdos yell the truth, and everyone will associate with lunacy. Your opponents discredit themselves, and anyone that agrees with them gets branded a loony. you win without ever having to do anything.
Posted by Bj Blaskowitzthat and physics
Posted by Fei-on CastorI'm not gonna say it happened for certain one way or another, but I've heard that there was molten steel found in the lower levels of the building, within days after the building collapsed. If this is the case, the buiding did not fall as a result of the plane crash, but as a result of explosives or something of that nature.
Keep in mind, I said "if this is the case" because I don't know about this molten steel thing.
Furthermore:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/feioncastor/omgplane.jpg[/IMG]
The plane hit near the top of the building. I could see if the floors above the point of impact broke off and fell to the ground, but what could make the foundation give out and cause the building to go virtually straight down into the ground? I mean, the thing collapses under the weight of itself, obviously, and a strike a point so high would not weaken the lower levels. The entire building was leveled, professional demolition style.
Keep in mind, I'm not blaming Bush or his administration. I'm just saying that I think there was more to it than we were told.
But the stupid music p*ssed me off. If they have a valid point to make, then make it. Don't do it by using some creepy music to sensationalize it. Then it makes it look like your selling something, not proving something.
[quote=Bebop]I think it's sick when people are murdered en mass and their own countrymen would rather look for fictional reasons and evidence to blame their own country, rather than the true terrorist culprits.
You're right, that's messed up.
But I think it's even more sick when a group of powerful people are aware of this plot, or even may have a hand in on it, and stand by and watch their own countrymen muredered, en mass, for their own reasons.
Posted by specopssv44The people who make up these retarded *** things have waayy to much ****ing time on their hands. How bout they do something productive for society aside from amusing the tons of retards that have a hard on for any conspiracy theory that comes their way.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Fei-on Castor: I'm not gonna say it happened for certain one way or another, but I've heard that there was molten steel found in the lower levels of the building, within days after the building collapsed. If this is the case, the buiding did not fall as a result of the plane crash, but as a result of explosives or something of that nature.
How so? if an explosive can he hot enough to make steel molten why not the burning of plane fuel and everything inside the building?
[quote]The plane hit near the top of the building. I could see if the floors above the point of impact broke off and fell to the ground, but what could make the foundation give out and cause the building to go virtually straight down into the ground? I mean, the thing collapses under the weight of itself, obviously, and a strike a point so high would not weaken the lower levels. The entire building was leveled, professional demolition style.
But it would. Let's say 10 floors collapsed together when their foundations would weaken. The force of them would take another floor, which would weaker, and then another and so forth so that the speed and weight and power of the floors collapsing would create a 'pancake' like effect. Of course it looks like an explosion. Then again the moon looks the cheese. The only way the floors could have collapased in a manner to warn off conspiracy theoists is if each individual floor shoot out 80 miles in all directions. It's reidiculas and unrealistic.
[quote]Keep in mind, I'm not blaming Bush or his administration. I'm just saying that I think there was more to it than we were told.
I've heard this type of thing alot. What do you mean more too it than your told? More about what?
[quote]But I think it's even more sick when a group of powerful people are aware of this plot, or even may have a hand in on it, and stand by and watch their own countrymen muredered, en mass, for their own reasons.
You saying the American government didnt try to stop it? They only had 2 fighter planes in the area (due to budget cuts) to intercept 4 planes which had turned off their tracking system. By the time they found out where they hit it was too late. They then had to 2 planes to intercept Flight 93. But by the time Bush had given the order to shoot it down if needed it was again too late. It wasnt a case of the American Government being slow. It was a case of terrorists being fast.
It's a healthy thing, I think, to question what you hear and your government but people forget that just because you question something doesnt mean theres some hidden truth somewhere.
Spam, Loose Change is one of the crappest things I've seen. It uses tiny parts of reality to distort what happened at the World Trade Centers. It basically says stuff like "OMG DUST FLEW OUT OF THE BUILDING WHEN IT COLLAPASED AND AN EXPERT SAID IT LOOKED LIKE AN EXPLOSION" where it is implied it was an explosion. The same expert can also be quoted to say "Yes it looked like an explosion. But it wasnt." Loose Change's 'evidence' is taking real evidence and altering it, making it smaller and missquoting it for their own purposes. They are like a Biritsh Tabloid. If you are interested in debunking Loose Change read this :http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]They way most conspiracy theory nuts work is by taking disparate facts and then putting them together in a way that might coincide with their dilussional stories. From the moment they begin their research, they aren't going to look for any evidence that might discredit their ideas, they are only going to look for evidence to support "their" truth. We are all fundemantally skeptical, and naturally mistrust information given by the government. But once you start coming up with your own theories and not only convincing yourself but others, then you've steered away from the rational thinking bus and fallen into the paranoia bandwagon. Which i wouldn't give a flying f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck about if it wasn't so hurtful to the families and friends of victims from that terrible tragedy. They have to put up with bull[COLOR="Yellow"]s[/COLOR]hit stories that their loved ones were horribly killed because of a stupid conspiracy.[/COLOR]
Posted by FateI'm still kind of worried about that first Osama video and the ones following it.
What happened during 9/11 means that black boxes are useless when it comes to the state of the nation. :(
What about the hotel thing? And the fireman saying he found the black boxes, only to recant? I don't get it. Oh, well. :( :(
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Bebop: How so? if an explosive can he hot enough to make steel molten why not the burning of plane fuel and everything inside the building?
Because contruction grade steel melts at roughly 2500 degrees Farenheit. ([url=http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html]source[/url]) and weakens, not melts, but weakens at about 1100 degrees Farenheit, you'd need something pretty d*mn hot.
I know [url=http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064]this[/url] source is a conpsiracy theorist website, but they seem to have their stuff figured out. Read through it. They mention the combustion temperatures of jet fuel as being no where near enough to melt, or even weaken steel.
[quote]
But it would. Let's say 10 floors collapsed together when their foundations would weaken. The force of them would take another floor, which would weaker, and then another and so forth so that the speed and weight and power of the floors collapsing would create a 'pancake' like effect. Of course it looks like an explosion. Then again the moon looks the cheese. The only way the floors could have collapased in a manner to warn off conspiracy theoists is if each individual floor shoot out 80 miles in all directions. It's reidiculas and unrealistic.
Your last statement is probably true. However, if you've ever watched video of a professional demolition of a tall building, it look strikingly similar to the way these buildings came down. I'm not saying for sure, I'm just saying what I've observed.
[quote]
I've heard this type of thing alot. What do you mean more too it than your told? More about what?
I think it wasn't as simple as "terrorists hijacked planes, flew them into buildings, and then buildings collapsed".
I think someone else, on our side, knew something more about it and helped orchestrate the whole thing. I'm not saying it was Bush, or even anyone working with him, necessarily. But it just seems like it was someone.
[quote]
You saying the American government didnt try to stop it? They only had 2 fighter planes in the area (due to budget cuts) to intercept 4 planes which had turned off their tracking system. By the time they found out where they hit it was too late. They then had to 2 planes to intercept Flight 93. But by the time Bush had given the order to shoot it down if needed it was again too late. It wasnt a case of the American Government being slow. It was a case of terrorists being fast.
Nah, the American goverment may have put forth their best effort. But even if the attacks weren't put together by someone on our side, I'd still blame Bush for the attacks. His press secretary has stated that we can thank Bush's policy for the fact that we haven't seen such an attack in 5 years. So I say if we can thank him for when things go well, we can blame him when they don't.
[quote]
It's a healthy thing, I think, to question what you hear and your government but people forget that just because you question something doesnt mean theres some hidden truth somewhere.
Absolutely, but as long as the possibility exists, I'm going to continue questioning. Once my ideas have been debunked, and they may well be, I'll give up on the questioning and fall in line with the rest of the lemmings.
[quote]
Spam, Loose Change is one of the crappest things I've seen. It uses tiny parts of reality to distort what happened at the World Trade Centers. It basically says stuff like "OMG DUST FLEW OUT OF THE BUILDING WHEN IT COLLAPASED AND AN EXPERT SAID IT LOOKED LIKE AN EXPLOSION" where it is implied it was an explosion. The same expert can also be quoted to say "Yes it looked like an explosion. But it wasnt." Loose Change's 'evidence' is taking real evidence and altering it, making it smaller and missquoting it for their own purposes. They are like a Biritsh Tabloid. If you are interested in debunking Loose Change read this :http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
I've never seen loose change, nor do I have any desire to. Those guys give honest truth seeking guys like me a bad name. They're sort of like those Anti-smoking "whadafuxup" kids. I mean, I don't support smoking cigarettes, but those guys p*ss me off.
Loose Change is probably just another sensationalist video that has creepy music and loosely thrown together quotes and images. I've seen a few of those, like that pentagon one with the Chemical Brothers music in it. And I don't know if their facts are straight. I'm just saying that they need a more professional presentation. If you go into any debate room, you'll never defeat your opponent by flipping on a strobe like, and screaming while you point at blurry images and flash up quotes that may or may not exist on a screen. You'll have to make concise points and be professional. If you want to take it scientifically, the same rules apply. How many scientists do you suppose won the Nobel after compiling a presentation like that Pentagon one?
[quote=Aioros]We should all be skeptical of of our government, i sure am, but we shouldn't just make **** up. Specially not when you're dealing with horrible murders done to thousands of innocent people. I'd like to see a conspiracy theorist submit his crackpot theories in front of a 9/11 victim's family, and see how long it would take before he gets punched in the face.
So because thousands of people died, then it must've been clear cut the way it happened?
If someone in my family died in that tragedy, and then I learned that there was a possiblity that my own government had a hand in on it, I wouldn't be p*ssed at the guy telling me his theory, I'd be p*ssed at the government, until I was given proof that theory was wrong. Then I'd punch the guy in the face. So he'd have plenty of time to run.
[quote=Fate]What happened during 9/11 means that black boxes are useless when it comes to the state of the nation.
When a plane crashes, the people investigating the plane crash try to determine what caused the crash. If it was engine failure, they try to determine which engine it was, and why it failed, so that they can better avoid that problem in the future. Black boxes aren't really meant to be tools to stop terrorists or expose terrorist plots. They're just meant to let the investigators know what happened, since everyone on board the plane is dead.
Posted by SpeedfreakI think it's bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it that people automatically discount evidence that's right in front of them just because if would be awfuwwy baaaaad if it were true.
Not every conspiracy theory is entirely nonsense. As a matter of f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking fact, every intelligence department of every country in the entire world runs on "conspiracy theories".
Seems to me that most people are interested in them, but are just too scared to appear crazy in front of their peers to actually admit it.
Especially concerning 9/11, with the sheer wealth of evidence put forward. I'm not saying I believe in the theories wholeheartedly, but if you don't find it the least bit interesting that the twin towers were the first tall buildings in history to completely collapse because of a few floors being on fire, let alone on fire for under an hour, then you're pulling the wool over your own eyes.
And a plane hitting the pentagon? I'm sorry, but I'll never buy that. I don't know what the hell actually did hit it, but it certainly wasn't a twin-engined passenger aircraft. If you believe that then you're a geniune idiot. AIRPLANES TO NOT VAPOURISE ON CONTACT WITH OFFICE BUILDINGS.
Hell, as far as I can remember, all that 9/11 stuff wasn't even a conspiracy theory. I don't remember any theories about who would do this and why. It was just a report, a report of completely obvious facts completely contradicting official statements by the US government.
Anyone who claims that wondering how so much evidence can completely contract the official story is offensive to the families of the dead victims is a complete wanker, as far as I'm concerned. If I was told by the police that my girlfriend died in an accident, then 2 weeks later the coroner privately produced substantial evidence that she was, in fact, murdered, then the coroner would be the last person on the planet I'd be p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ssed at. There's nothing disrespectful about it whatsoever. In my opinion, if there's ever any doubts regarding a person's death it should be pursued and pursued and pursued until you can conclude, without the shadow of a f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking doubt, exactly how they died. If anything, it's disrespectful to the victims not to do that.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Fei-on Castor: So because thousands of people died, then it must've been clear cut the way it happened?
If someone in my family died in that tragedy, and then I learned that there was a possiblity that my own government had a hand in on it, I wouldn't be p*ssed at the guy telling me his theory, I'd be p*ssed at the government, until I was given proof that theory was wrong. Then I'd punch the guy in the face. So he'd have plenty of time to run.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Of course not. But there's plenty of evidence and arguments that disproves pretty much everything that has been said by a conspiracy theorist. For example, as far as i know, to this date, not a single structural engineer supports the explosives theory.[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: I'm not saying I believe in the theories wholeheartedly, but if you don't find it the least bit interesting that the twin towers were the first tall buildings in history to completely collapse because of a few floors being on fire, let alone on fire for under an hour, then you're pulling the wool over your own eyes.
[COLOR="Yellow"]The first "tall" buildings to collapse because of a fire? How tall? Because i know for a fact plenty of buildings have collapsed because of fires in the past. How many other buildings that didn't collapse were hit head-on by a 280,000 lbs airliner traveling at 550 mph and suffered as much structural damage as the twin towers? And were the fires in those other buildings that didn't collapse caused by jet fuel? There are many things to take into consideration here.
[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: If you believe that then you're a geniune idiot. AIRPLANES TO NOT VAPOURISE ON CONTACT WITH OFFICE BUILDINGS.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Who says the plane vapourized? Haven't you seen all the photos which show countless pieces of plane wreckage and debris being picked up from inside and outside of the Pentagon. Did you read reports fromt the hundreds of people who were there picking up all that mess? What about the forensics, eyewitnesses, and the body remains that were found. Should all these pieces of evidence be dismissed?[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: In my opinion, if there's ever any doubts regarding a person's death it should be pursued and pursued and pursued until you can conclude, without the shadow of a ****ing doubt, exactly how they died.
[COLOR="Yellow"]It pretty much has. But conpiracy theorists don't want it to be that simple. They will never accept that it was as simple as religious fanatics inspired by G[COLOR="Yellow"]o[/COLOR]d hijacked our planes and crashed them into our buildings, killing thousands of our citizens in order to break the heart and spirit of this country. It's not a sexy or exciting answer for conspiracy theorists, but the truth almost never is.
And i'd also like to mention Loose Change is a just a dumb video, with factual errors up the ying-yang. If you are interested in watching it, do so from start to finish. And once the movie is over don't just go, "ahhhh that makes sense". Take everything that was said in the video, then research and try to find out just how accurate the information given was.[/COLOR]
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Aioros:
[COLOR="Yellow"]Who says the plane vapourized? Haven't you seen all the photos which show countless pieces of plane wreckage and debris being picked up from inside and outside of the Pentagon. Did you read reports fromt the hundreds of people who were there picking up all that mess? What about the forensics, eyewitnesses, and the body remains that were found. Should all these pieces of evidence be dismissed?[/COLOR]
I actually don't recall any of those pieces of evidence you've referenced. I don't recall seeing images of plane wreckage on the outside of the building. I don't recall seeing any photos indicating plane wreckage. [url=http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-001.jpg]Here[/url] is a rather high detail aerial photo of the building, shortly after impact. I have untrained eyes on the matter, as I don't know what wreckage from a Boeing seven-whatever-seven would look like. I really don't. I've never seen the remains of a huge airliner plane. So I don't know what to look for. But based on my limited (and that's hugely limited, mind you) knowledge of what to look for, there doesn't seem to be any wreckage from a plane there at all...
or [url=http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/gallery/unimaginable/pentagon.wttg.jpg]here.[/url]
or [url=http://www.assassinationscience.com/Pentagon.jpg]here.[/url]
or [url=http://www.assassinationscience.com/pentagon2.jpg]here[/url] and this image was taken within an hour, possibly only a few minutes after impact. Before the wall had even collapsed.
Furthermore, I found [url=http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/images/hole01.jpg] this[/url] image rather fascinating. The guy who added in his little notes thought he would be using this image to prove that it was a 757. However, if you know anything about the way this fabulous [url=http://www.airtermnorva.navy.mil/images/757.jpg]plane[/url] is constructed, you'd know what a fuselage is. For those of you who don't know, the fuselage is the center "tube" of the plane. It's the part with the cockpit, cargo area and passenger cabins. Extending from the fuselage are the wings on each side, and the tail, from the top of the back of the fuselage.
Okay, now that we've covered that, let's determine a few things we know. The fuselage is hollow. The engines, mounted partway down each wing, are not hollow. They're freaking solid. If the plane hit the wall, here's what is most likely. The fuselage impacts upon the wall, causing extensive damge, killing everything in the plane. The engines, being as solid as they are and NOT HOLLOW like the fuselage, pierce the wall like freaking needles through paper and detatch from the wing, landing somewhere inside the building.
I live in Prescott, Arizona. We haven't any great claims to fame here in Prescott, except that we host the world's oldest Rodeo every year, and we also have the presence of Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, arguably the most respectable aeronautical university in the world. People move to our little town from Germany, Hawaii, Japan, India and many other places simply to attend ERAU. Needless to say, it has a good supply of knowledgeble pilots and engineers. I actually live about 1 mile from the ERAU campus, and because I work about 100 yards from my house, I work very close as well. Many ERAU professors and students each lunch at the Deli where I work, and I have had many interesting conversations with them. According to professors of Aeronautical Engineering, you know, guys who have dedicated their lives to the study of building planes, these guys have told me that if a plane hits a concrete steel-reinforced wall, the fuselage is the last thing that is going to make it through. They've told me that the engines would break off and fly through the way like a hot knife through butter, and the fuselage would crumple into a ball on the wall itself, and be very unlikely to pierce the wall. It would destroy the wall, and leave it in ruins, but it certainly would be discernable wreckage. I'm saying that the fuselage is not going to punch a hole in a wall, the shape of a fuselage. It's going to crumple up before it'll punch a hole. The first thing that is going through the wall are the engines. That's what I'm getting at.
So, getting back to [url=http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/images/hole01.jpg]this[/url] image... I see a raging fire inside the windows above where the left wing should've hit. But I see windows with the frames still in tact. I can't determine if the glass is shattered, and it probably is, but there really should be a neatly punched hole in the wall where the engine came off the wing and went in, or so say the best aeronautical engineers on the planet.
If that black line of char came from the wing of the plane, the wing would've shorn off and been laying on the ground under that black line of char. Again, this is out of the mouth of the best aeronautical engineers in the world. What's more, that black line of char looks a little too narrow to have been placed there by the wing of a giant freaking plane. The windows underneath it look like something moving 550 mph didn't just smack into the wall right above them, and logically, into them as well. That chain link fence is standing awfully tall to have just had the left wing of a 757 mowing it down.
The evidence adds up, to me. I've seen enough for one night. I'm going to bed.
Posted by Speedfreak[COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]The first "tall" buildings to collapse because of a fire? How tall? Because i know for a fact plenty of buildings have collapsed because of fires in the past. How many other buildings that didn't collapse were hit head-on by a 280,000 lbs airliner traveling at 550 mph and suffered as much structural damage as the twin towers? And were the fires in those other buildings that didn't collapse caused by jet fuel? There are many things to take into consideration here.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][COLOR=#ffffff][COLOR=lightgreen]Buildings that have collapsed from being on fire were on fire for about 24 hours, and didn't collapse the way buildings do when they're demolished with explosives. Chunks fall off and the building crumbles, it doesn't freefall.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][COLOR=#ffffff][COLOR=lightgreen]I appreciate getting hit by an airline would cause a lot of structural damage, but I will only accept that it'd only affect the floors that were hit, maybe a few floors down and every flor above it. The towers were hit at the top, so how the heck does that explain the collapse starting at the bottom? [/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]Who says the plane vapourized? Haven't you seen all the photos which show countless pieces of plane wreckage and debris being picked up from inside and outside of the Pentagon. Did you read reports fromt the hundreds of people who were there picking up all that mess? What about the forensics, eyewitnesses, and the body remains that were found. Should all these pieces of evidence be dismissed?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=lightgreen]The US government says the plane was vapourised, thereby explaining the lack of wreckage. And what Fei-on said, take a look at those pictures and then google "airplane wreckage". If you can't see any difference then you're quite blind.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]It pretty much has. But conpiracy theorists don't want it to be that simple. They will never accept that it was as simple as religious fanatics inspired by G[COLOR=yellow]o[/COLOR]d hijacked our planes and crashed them into our buildings, killing thousands of our citizens in order to break the heart and spirit of this country. It's not a sexy or exciting answer for conspiracy theorists, but the truth almost never is.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][COLOR=#ffffff][COLOR=lightgreen]Generalise all you want about people who question the government. I don't give a d[COLOR=lightgreen]a[/COLOR]mn who was flying those planes, all I know is the explanations provided are total bull. Kerosene doesn't burn at a thousand degrees F, several hundred floor buildings don't fall from the bottom when they're hit at the top and terrorists with crash courses in piloting can't fly commercial jets 12 feet off the ground into the most protected airspace in the world, leave a single neat hole and no airline debris whatsoever.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[quote=Aioros]And i'd also like to mention Loose Change is a just a dumb video, with factual errors up the ying-yang. If you are interested in watching it, do so from start to finish. And once the movie is over don't just go, "ahhhh that makes sense". Take everything that was said in the video, then research and try to find out just how accurate the information given was.[/COLOR]
I watched the entire movie start to finish, I most certainly did not believe every single peice of evidence. If there were any theories as to why the government would do that I sure as hell didn't listen to them. I just remember a few extremely strong peices combined with obviously bogus government reports, and that's it.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to think what the government has told you in one instance is a crock of s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it.
Posted by Bebop[QUOTE=Fei-on Castor]Because contruction grade steel melts at roughly 2500 degrees Farenheit. ([url=http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html]source[/url]) and weakens, not melts, but weakens at about 1100 degrees Farenheit, you'd need something pretty d*mn hot.
I know [url=http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064]this[/url] source is a conpsiracy theorist website, but they seem to have their stuff figured out. Read through it. They mention the combustion temperatures of jet fuel as being no where near enough to melt, or even weaken steel.
Your the first person I've ever heard say molten steel was found at the bottom. I'm going to need proof of this.
Oh, and jet fuel burning, together with human bodies and all sorts of office equipment, is enough to weaken steel.
[quote]Your last statement is probably true. However, if you've ever watched video of a professional demolition of a tall building, it look strikingly similar to the way these buildings came down. I'm not saying for sure, I'm just saying what I've observed.
Again, moon may look like cheese but its not. Demoltions take out the foundations. This is what happened in the towers where the upper floors weaken and collapased building up enough energy to take out a floor underneath them with ease. Like I said before you cant expect the floors to shoot out horizontally in all directions.
[quote]I think it wasn't as simple as "terrorists hijacked planes, flew them into buildings, and then buildings collapsed".
I think someone else, on our side, knew something more about it and helped orchestrate the whole thing. I'm not saying it was Bush, or even anyone working with him, necessarily. But it just seems like it was someone.
Welll I thought you meant the Bush administration. It seems to be what people meant when they say "lol someone else had to do it". It's certianly possible they had help from someone in America but thats open enough to account anyone from a police officer to a citizen to a teacher to an illegal immigrent. Then again the July Bombers in London were British so...
[quote]Nah, the American goverment may have put forth their best effort. But even if the attacks weren't put together by someone on our side, I'd still blame Bush for the attacks. His press secretary has stated that we can thank Bush's policy for the fact that we haven't seen such an attack in 5 years. So I say if we can thank him for when things go well, we can blame him when they don't.
I find this a bit harsh and I honestly don't beleive thats the case. Thing is by the time they worked out planes were hijacked they certainly didnt know there were going to fly them into buildings. Locating the crafts took long enough because the hijackers had disabled a tracking system planes use so communication towers can track them. Certaintly initally it might have been a 4th best effort, but then again at the start they probably figured it was a routing hijacking where someone wanted money. Also, as said before, they only means of preventing the attack when they caught on was limited and, unfortunately, too late. I mean what more could they have done?
[quote]Absolutely, but as long as the possibility exists, I'm going to continue questioning. Once my ideas have been debunked, and they may well be, I'll give up on the questioning and fall in line with the rest of the lemmings.
This is also another thing about 9/11 conspiricy therorists which annoys me, and generally conspiracy theroists on the whole, that when they are confronted with evidence that proves them wrong they simply dont beleive. I'm not naming anyone here but it is the traditional reaction from these people.
And yeh, you hit the Loose Change idea right on the head.
Oh, and the twin towers didn't just 'freefall'. Chunks of it and generally the entire 2 buildings virtually wiped out the surronding buildings.
The collapse didnt start at the bottom. It started at the top. Perhaps it looked like the bottoms gave way first because it got smaller. That wasnt the case. Thats how professional demoltions occur. This didnt happen like that.
As far as I know the government didnt say it 'vapourized'. Concering this whole "did a plane hit the pentagon?" thing, it did. There was wreckage of aircraft and bodies being picked up and videos of the plane hitting it. End of.
And the terrorists didnt need that many flying lessons. They didnt need to learn how to take off or land, just to keep it steady in the air and aim for a huge building (which they still had trouble hitting). Flight 93 was unsuccesful too.
Also, buildings dont need to burn for 24 hours to collapse. It depends on size obviously, but then again the TT werent that amazingly built. The contractor of the sight was critized afterwards for not making it strong enough to withstand a hugh flying metal contraption to hit it and such high speeds and explode.
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Bebop: Concering this whole "did a plane hit the pentagon?" thing, it did. There was wreckage of aircraft and bodies being picked up and videos of the plane hitting it. End of.
Are you sure? Did you read my post with all the pictures of the impact point, just without a plane there?
And about the molten steel, there may not have been any. I was never in the remains of the building looking for survivors. It's just what I've read from a few websites, and the internet can lie, so I'm not saying that's a good piece of evidence. I'll be the first to admit that I could be dead wrong. I seriously very well could be a mistaken idiot here, and when someone proves that, I'll change my sig and user title accordingly.
However, when I look at those pictures of the pentagon strike (the ones I posted), I see no wreckage of a plane. I'm not saying that it's not there, but I sure as hell don't see it. Keep in mind that I don't really know what to look for. I know the basic layout of the aircraft, but I wouldn't know the wreckage of it from the wreckage of anything else that just hit a building. I'm not well-trained on the subject.
But I have spoken with people who are. I'm not joking about Embry Riddle being the best aeronautical university in the world. That's totally true. I work less than a mile from the ERAU campus and I often talk to aeronautical engineers about this subject, and they've all told me after reviewing numerous pictures of the pentagon, they can't see this plane. And these guys would know what to look for. They build planes like the 757 for a living. That's what they do. They'd know plane wreckage. And several of them (at least 5 or 6) have told me that there's no plane wreckage. They've looked over the pics, like the ones I posted, and told me there's no plane there. It was something else. Not a freaking 757.
Keep in mind, a lot of these guys are older guys, too. I'm not saying college students. I'm saying older gentlemen who have been working the field for 30 years. Guys who you'd guess are ultra-conservative types. Guys who support president Bush. They feel that HE has been lied to about the matter.
I'm not saying it was Bush. I'm saying it was someone other than a few guys hijacking a few planes. That's what I'm saying. Bush may very well have not known about it.
But I doubt that.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Fei-on Castor: I actually don't recall any of those pieces of evidence you've referenced. I don't recall seeing images of plane wreckage on the outside of the building. I don't recall seeing any photos indicating plane wreckage. [url=http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-001.jpg]Here[/url] is a rather high detail aerial photo of the building, shortly after impact. I have untrained eyes on the matter, as I don't know what wreckage from a Boeing seven-whatever-seven would look like. I really don't. I've never seen the remains of a huge airliner plane. So I don't know what to look for. But based on my limited (and that's hugely limited, mind you) knowledge of what to look for, there doesn't seem to be any wreckage from a plane there at all...
or [url=http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/gallery/unimaginable/pentagon.wttg.jpg]here.[/url]
or [url=http://www.assassinationscience.com/Pentagon.jpg]here.[/url]
or [url=http://www.assassinationscience.com/pentagon2.jpg]here[/url] and this image was taken within an hour, possibly only a few minutes after impact. Before the wall had even collapsed.
Okay, now that we've covered that, let's determine a few things we know. The fuselage is hollow. The engines, mounted partway down each wing, are not hollow. They're freaking solid. If the plane hit the wall, here's what is most likely. The fuselage impacts upon the wall, causing extensive damge, killing everything in the plane. The engines, being as solid as they are and NOT HOLLOW like the fuselage, pierce the wall like freaking needles through paper and detatch from the wing, landing somewhere inside the building.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Those pictures don't really do justice to the amount of debris that was carried out, most of it was from inside. The strongest part of the plane is the landing gear, according to the official report that is what caused the hole, not the fuselage. And what about all the remains of the passengers which were identified except for one? Where did they all come from if flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Other than the hole that doesn't "look" quite right to conspiracy theorists, is there sufficient evidence to show that it was anything other than a AA flight 77? The plane did basically explode on impact and most of it ended up inside because it flew right into the Pentagon.[/COLOR]
[URL="http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image062.jpg"]Debris from inside the Pentagon[/URL]
[URL="http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm"]Pentagon crash witness accounts[/URL]
Quoting Speedfreak: Buildings that have collapsed from being on fire were on fire for about 24 hours, and didn't collapse the way buildings do when they're demolished with explosives. Chunks fall off and the building crumbles, it doesn't freefall.
I appreciate getting hit by an airline would cause a lot of structural damage, but I will only accept that it'd only affect the floors that were hit, maybe a few floors down and every flor above it. The towers were hit at the top, so how the heck does that explain the collapse starting at the bottom?
[COLOR="Yellow"]Did those buildings have 100 million pounds collapsing on top of them? I doubt it. Structural engineers are actually impressed that the towers stood up for as long as they did. If they had been struck by a 767 fully loaded with jet fuel, they would have come down much faster. They didn't start collapsing at the bottom or freefall either.[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: The US government says the plane was vapourised, thereby explaining the lack of wreckage.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Excuse me? That is not the official explanation. How is it that an airplane striking a reinforced concrete building at over 500 mph isn't going to break into small pieces?[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: Kerosene doesn't burn at a thousand degrees F, several hundred floor buildings don't fall from the bottom when they're hit at the top and terrorists with crash courses in piloting can't fly commercial jets 12 feet off the ground into the most protected airspace in the world, leave a single neat hole and no airline debris whatsoever.
[COLOR="Yellow"]You're absolutely right on that.[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to think what the government has told you in one instance is a crock of ****.
[COLOR="Yellow"]That's true too, just not in this instance.[/COLOR]
Posted by chaser3592people die get over it. im not trieing to sound cruel but its happened, deal
i mean it was a tragedy to the world but hey in a sad way it helped eleminate some of the POLUTION problem by taking out thousands
i do feel for those that died though so don't get me wrong but it has happened and we really needs to move on from the grieving stage
Posted by BebopLike I said you're the first person I've ever heard mention molten steel found. It sounds bogus to me. The Cheif Fire Fighter, or something, said he never saw any and has never seen any in any building.
If anyone is still thinking about explosives and jet fuel heat etc read [url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y]this[/url] page and it will clear your mind.
Fei-on, a plane did hit the pentagon [url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y]Scroll down[/url] to see. I've even seen pictures of the wheels and engines lying around the pentagon. I'll try to find them. Oh yeh, and the black box was recovered too. Also as said before there are videos of the plane hitting it. And witnesses.
Posted by SpeedfreakWait wait wait wait. The pictures Fei-on posted don't do the crash justice, despite the all-encompassing shots, but the pictures you posted that could literally be taken from friggin' anywhere do do it justice?
Vapourised doesn't mean "break into small peices", it means vapourised. That is to say, turned into vapour through extreme heat.
To answer your question "How is it that an airplane striking a reinforced concrete building at over 500mph isn't going to break into small peices?", I have these pictures of airplanes after hitting the floor (similar in structural integrity to an office building) at similar speeds:
[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/08/23/image084c8bb4-2326-4147-8f71-b2cd0062cd11.jpg"]http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/08/23/image084c8bb4-2326-4147-8f71-b2cd0062cd11.jpg[/URL]
[URL="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/28/xin_490801280014133117972.jpg"]http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/28/xin_490801280014133117972.jpg[/URL]
Wings and turbine engines, yet you see jack on all pictures of the pentagon crash. So unless you're willing to tell me the pentagon has lasers that vapourise wreckage or that people removed entire wings and turbine engines before any camera crews got there, I don't see how it could've been a plane.
Here's a question for you, why is the hole in the building so **** small and neat if a plane with probably a 100ft wingspan hit it? Where's the 2nd and 3rd holes from the turbine engines?
Eye-witness accounts are hardly anything to go by, several people say they heard what sounded like a missile and "certainly wasn't a plane". But I'll look at the ones you posted.
[quote]I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball.
[URL="http://www.assassinationscience.com/pentagon2.jpg"]http://www.assassinationscience.com/pentagon2.jpg[/URL]
Explain.
And finally, what makes you think kerosene burns hot enough to weaken construction-grade steel?
I see a lot of name-calling going on here, but very little real debates based on factual evidence from the "sane" side. I'm just entertaining the "crazy" side because I find it interesting and I'm amazed by how well it holds up. I don't need to be convinced that the US government (or any government, for that matter) is corrupt, everyone knows it is. Politics is corrupt full-stop. I just don't understand the strong objection to asking simple, honest questions and demanding answers.
Bebop:
"[COLOR=lightgreen]FACT: [COLOR=palegreen]Jet fuel burns at 800
Posted by BebopSpeedfreak there are pictures of wreckage.
There was a huge team mobolized quickly to remove it with vehicles.
No 'camera crews' were allowed.
And no you cant see wreckage in those shots. But you can in others.
The wings wouldnt be strong enough to make a big impact on the steel enforced wall of the pentagon. What are you expecting? A cartoon like plane shaped cut out?
Oh and that image about the wings dragging doesnt say which ring its being taken from. That would explain minimal wreckage and no skid marks because its behind the photographer.
Speedfreak, does your site, which somehow discuess something as basic as how hot a fuel fire can be for more than a sentence, sya any different about the temperature jet fuel burns out? Even so the temperatue inside the buildings reached 1832 degree with the aid of other materials like carpets and chairs.
Posted by Fei-on CastorSpeedfreak, I love that first pic. You see that? The fuselage has been completely destroyed such that you can't even recognize where it should be, really. The engine is completely... there, I guess.
Posted by Bebophttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Those 2 links are Pentagon stuff.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Speedfreak: Wait wait wait wait. The pictures Fei-on posted don't do the crash justice, despite the all-encompassing shots, but the pictures you posted that could literally be taken from friggin' anywhere do do it justice?
[COLOR="black"][COLOR="Yellow"]Yeah, cause they show more of the debris than what is shown in other photos.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: To answer your question "How is it that an airplane striking a reinforced concrete building at over 500mph isn't going to break into small peices?", I have these pictures of airplanes after hitting the floor (similar in structural integrity to an office building) at similar speeds:
[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/08/23/image084c8bb4-2326-4147-8f71-b2cd0062cd11.jpg"]http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/08/23/image084c8bb4-2326-4147-8f71-b2cd0062cd11.jpg[/URL]
[URL="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/28/xin_490801280014133117972.jpg"]http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/28/xin_490801280014133117972.jpg[/URL]
Wings and turbine engines, yet you see jack on all pictures of the pentagon crash. So unless you're willing to tell me the pentagon has lasers that vapourise wreckage or that people removed entire wings and turbine engines before any camera crews got there, I don't see how it could've been a plane.
[COLOR="Yellow"][URL="http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml"]Engine.[/URL] And as for the wings, again, many things to take into consideration:
-Couldnt the damaged wings have "telescoped" into the body of the aircraft, as claimed by the Dept. of Defence?If you fixed a Boeing 757 firmly to a given piece of ground, then used a team of bulldozers to push the wings into the body, the wings would merely fold up like an accordion or crumple and bend.
-Couldnt the wings have been entirely fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks after the aircraft struck the building? The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage, as well as in the wing roots.
Quoting Speedfreak: Here's a question for you, why is the hole in the building so **** small and neat if a plane with probably a 100ft wingspan hit it? Where's the 2nd and 3rd holes from the turbine engines?
You think a hole approximately 75 feet before collapse is small? And what do you mean by 2nd and 3rd holes from the engines? Did you want the plane to leave an exact shape of the plane and its engines like in the Bugs Bunny cartoons? You still haven't said anything about the body remains which were recovered and identified.[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: Eye-witness accounts are hardly anything to go by, several people say they heard what sounded like a missile and "certainly wasn't a plane". But I'll look at the ones you posted.
[URL="http://www.assassinationscience.com/pentagon2.jpg"]http://www.assassinationscience.com/pentagon2.jpg[/URL]
Explain.
[COLOR="Yellow"]There's no evidence that any wing hit the ground, that was mostly brought up by people's assumptions. Could it be that the witness thought he/she saw the wing skidding across the ground? Regardless, he/she did see the plane, along with many witnesses, unlike other witnesses who thought they heard a missile.
[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: I just don't understand the strong objection to asking simple, honest questions and demanding answers.
[COLOR="Yellow"]There's no objection. You're asking questions honest questions and i'm giving honest anwers. Honest.[/COLOR]
Posted by Fei-on CastorBebop, your two links are well written. There's nothing I can honestly say in rebuttal, so for now, I am willing to accept that what is written there is the case.
However, I do have difficulty accepting it and I do plan to research it further until I can find no disprovable evidence supporting my claim.
I do wonder, however, why some witnesses claim the aircraft hit the ground and then skidded into the building, and there is no damage on the lawn at all. Still a mystery to me.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Fei-on Castor: I do wonder, however, why some witnesses claim the aircraft hit the ground and then skidded into the building, and there is no damage on the lawn at all. Still a mystery to me.
This could be anything. Some people may have got a better view, some may have seen something else. Skys the limit. One thing it could be, and theres a pychological term for it, is when someone thinks theyve seen something because theyve been told about it. This was certainly the case with the Loch ness Monster were people saw something and later beleived it was the legend itself because of people having an influence over them, or their own memory being altered during interviews.
Posted by chaser3592iwas simply saying that we are poluting way to much and i DO feel for those that died but in a sad way it helped the enviroment by taking out a few thousand people. 9/11 is over and to rebuild the towers would be as pointless as rebuilding new orleans.it's happened and we need to move on cause there is nothing we can do.
is that better?
Posted by Speedfreak[COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]Yeah, cause they show more of the debris than what is shown in other photos.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]"My pictures are better than his because they support my arguement more". Right.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]Couldnt the damaged wings have "telescoped" into the body of the aircraft, as claimed by the Dept. of Defence?If you fixed a Boeing 757 firmly to a given piece of ground, then used a team of bulldozers to push the wings into the body, the wings would merely fold up like an accordion or crumple and bend. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]The plane would need to hit the pentagon travelling sideways, stop, reverse, turn around and hit it sideways again for that to happen to both wings. What?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]You think a hole approximately 75 feet before collapse is small? And what do you mean by 2nd and 3rd holes from the engines? Did you want the plane to leave an exact shape of the plane and its engines like in the Bugs Bunny cartoons? You still haven't said anything about the body remains which were recovered and identified.[/COLOR]
[/COLOR][COLOR=palegreen]The engines weigh several tons each, the wings must weigh at least one. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a roughly plane-shaped hole on the side of the building. There should at least be a main hole with a wide gash to either side.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]I haven't seen any body remains, but presumably there were people in the pentagon too.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]There's no evidence that any wing hit the ground, that was mostly brought up by people's assumptions. Could it be that the witness thought he/she saw the wing skidding across the ground? Regardless, he/she did see the plane, along with many witnesses, unlike other witnesses who thought they heard a missile.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][COLOR=palegreen]You're the one that brought up eye-witness accounts, not me. Funny how you only give them credit when they support your arguement.[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=yellow][quote=Aioros]There's no objection. You're asking questions honest questions and i'm giving honest anwers. Honest. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=palegreen]No, you're saying everyone asking the questions are insensitive to the victims families and at the very least implying they're crazy.[/COLOR]
Posted by Bebop
Quoting chaser3592: iwas simply saying that we are poluting way to much and i DO feel for those that died but in a sad way it helped the enviroment by taking out a few thousand people. 9/11 is over and to rebuild the towers would be as pointless as rebuilding new orleans.it's happened and we need to move on cause there is nothing we can do.
is that better?
No. Please stop using the internet. You're an idiot. A few thousand deaths doesnt solve a billion population problem. And what has this got to do with poluting?
Whats so wrong with building New Orelans again? I'm sure people there have homes.
If you care so much about the population problem, and seeing as how stupid you are, it would be better if you died. Go play on some train tracks.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting chaser3592: iwas simply saying that we are poluting way to much and i DO feel for those that died but in a sad way it helped the enviroment by taking out a few thousand people. 9/11 is over and to rebuild the towers would be as pointless as rebuilding new orleans.it's happened and we need to move on cause there is nothing we can do.
is that better?
[COLOR="Yellow"]No! That's not better dips[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it! To think that mass murder is a good thing for the environment is insensitive, ignorant and offensive. There are plenty of third-world inhabitants who die every day of hunger, so i guess you don't need to worry about the population problem. Please, shut the f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck up and start thinking about how we should deal with the over crowded population in a humaine way. S[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it!
And there's plenty we can do about rebuilding the towers and New Orleans. How are we going to move on by not doing anything? F[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck this. . . i'm really pi[COLOR="Yellow"]s[/COLOR]sed off now so bye[/COLOR]
Posted by Raptor[quote=Chaser3265903849495830]but in a sad way it helped the enviroment by taking out a few thousand people.
Giant clouds of concrete powder released into the air and a gargantuan pile of rubble certainly didn't help the environment.
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]No! That's not better dips[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it! To think that mass murder is a good thing for the environment is insensitive, ignorant and offensive.[/COLOR]
But in most cases, it would benefit the environment. It is preferable, however, that the mass murders be conducted in a way that is not so destructive to the environment as 9/11. Use weapons that don't pollute so much.
Posted by DelilahHey, some websites I thought I might post here. (My uncle 'overheard' me on one of my anti-Bushrants, and he gave me some websites that he thought i should ck out. I have more written down, but I can not find the slip of papeat themoment.)
http://www.questionsquestions.net/
http://911research.wtc7.net/
:bounce:
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Speedfreak]"My pictures are better than his because they support my arguement more". Right. [COLOR="Yellow"]They show lots ofairplane debris, some say there was no airplane debris whatsoever or little debris. I countered that with photographic evidence.
[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: The plane would need to hit the pentagon travelling sideways, stop, reverse, turn around and hit it sideways again for that to happen to both wings. What?
[COLOR="Yellow"]Huh?[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: The engines weigh several tons each, the wings must weigh at least one. I find it hard to believe that there isn't a roughly plane-shaped hole on the side of the building. There should at least be a main hole with a wide gash to either side.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Lots of speculations. [URL="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y"]Experts explain.[/URL]
"When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground:
Quoting Speedfreak: I haven't seen any body remains, but presumably there were people in the pentagon too.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Flight passengers and hijackers were identified.
[/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Speedfreak]You're the one that brought up eye-witness accounts, not me. Funny how you only give them credit when they support your arguement.
[COLOR="Yellow"]I give more credit to witnesses who saw a plane rather than witnesses who heard a missile.[/COLOR]
Quoting Speedfreak: No, you're saying everyone asking the questions are insensitive to the victims families and at the very least implying they're crazy.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Then you misunderstood. I was referring mainly to the nuts who really make **** up and ignore evidence against their claims, not people like you or Feion. so now that we're clear, you're asking questions, i'm giving answers. And i don't think you're crazy for being skeptical, i am all the time.[/COLOR]
Posted by SpeedfreakI don't like your phots because they don't actually show that that debris is from the pentagon, it could be any plane crash. Fei-ons shots are obviously from the pentagon and they're right after the crash, yet they show little debris.
Stop bringing up sources that state the plane's wing hit the floor and then claim they're not accurate when I point out there's not a scratch on the lawn. Make up your bloody mind.
I don't expect there to be a cartoon-shaped hole, but I don't expect the wings to just pop off either. There would at least be some wing-shape impact of some sort on the building.
Who were the hijackers and passengers indentified by? I assume the police weren't alowed anywhere near the area and the FBI quickly took over the proceedings. I'd also like to know why any videotapes of the crash were quickly confiscated before anyone could see them. It reeks of fish, to me.
Posted by BebopVideotapes were confiscated because it was a matter of national security. If it involves somehing happening to a n offical government building they will be examined before being released. The pentagon video tapes have been released.
Posted by FateSuch crappy footage from one of the highest forms in the nation. :(
Posted by Bj Blaskowitzhttp://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html
references to the debris issue can be found here. You people are so silly.
Posted by FateThe guy seems like an ******* through the whole thing. I've seen more intelligent rebuttals. He also doesn't provide where he gets his sources, either. :/
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Princess Fate: The guy seems like an ******* through the whole thing. I've seen more intelligent rebuttals. He also doesn't provide where he gets his sources, either. :/
You mean the guy countering it is a bastard? I wouldnt say proving an idiot wrong makes you a bastard. Unless your that idiot of course.
He does provide where he gets his sources from. Mostly. The ones he doesnt he says they are a collection of some from the internet which "should be taken with a pinch of salt".
If someone says "a plane didnt hit the pentagon" your not a bastard if you ask "prove it".
Posted by Bj Blaskowitz
Quoting Princess Fate: The guy seems like an ******* through the whole thing. I've seen more intelligent rebuttals. He also doesn't provide where he gets his sources, either. :/
zomg
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg6.html
I guess it's a history thing. I always look for the sources at the end of what I'm reading, where they are SUPPOSED TO BE
Posted by chaser3592
Quoting Bebop: No. Please stop using the internet. You're an idiot. A few thousand deaths doesnt solve a billion population problem. And what has this got to do with poluting?
Whats so wrong with building New Orelans again? I'm sure people there have homes.
If you care so much about the population problem, and seeing as how stupid you are, it would be better if you died. Go play on some train tracks.
no you all need to shut the **** up and relize there are bigger things than 9/11 going on and unlike you i dont just talk about what i believe is right i act on them this board is just a **** dreamers paradise that they use to escape from the world so either act on what you believe is the truth or shut it cause a dream without a tool is useless and yes i took that from my sig so contribute to the truth or take a **** vow of silence because new orleans WILL happen again and rebuilding it is a waste of government funds and by the way POLUTION PROBLEM not population problem also when they died i did and still do feel for them but it did help tyhe enviroment because if you a few thousand more people littering and polluting would bring us closer to a firey apocoliptic death because by the end of 2050 we will have no more glaciers in glacier national park WE ARE KILLING OUR SELFES!!!!!!! think of that
Posted by mis0
Quoting Speedfreak: I think it's bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it that people automatically discount evidence that's right in front of them just because if would be awfuwwy baaaaad if it were true.
Not every conspiracy theory is entirely nonsense. As a matter of f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking fact, every intelligence department of every country in the entire world runs on "conspiracy theories".
Seems to me that most people are interested in them, but are just too scared to appear crazy in front of their peers to actually admit it.
Especially concerning 9/11, with the sheer wealth of evidence put forward. I'm not saying I believe in the theories wholeheartedly, but if you don't find it the least bit interesting that the twin towers were the first tall buildings in history to completely collapse because of a few floors being on fire, let alone on fire for under an hour, then you're pulling the wool over your own eyes.
The thing I don't like, and never did even as a kid about what occured on September 11th is that I knew then that a Boeing 707, which the WTC were designed to be able to be hit by, cruised faster than a Boeing 767, which are what hit both towers. Their is only a 10ft difference in wingspan, 6 foot difference in fuselage length, and 4,000 gallon difference in fuel capacity. But, a 707 cruises at 607mph, and a 767 cruises at 530mph. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, considering that both of those are the individual planes respective "normal operating perameters" that even at full speed, a 767 is still going to hit the tower with significantly less force, and thusly, they shouldn't have been able to bring the towers down on their own. Even when you consider the reported impact speeds of flight 175 (590mph) and flight 11 (470mph). Neither of those should have been able to bring down either tower, especially considering that neither plane would have had a full 23,000 gallons of fuel, and most certainly not when traveling at either of those speeds.
So, physics wise:
A 707 @ 607mph:
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890fps)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force.
(These figures were calculated with the aircraft fully fueled, and at maximum weight. This means that the reported numbers are much higher than what actually would have occured because the planes wouldn't have had near full fuel at impact.)
Flight 175 @ 590mph:
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865fps)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force
Flight 11 @ 470mph:
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689fps)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force
Really, neither of those figures really warrants a structural collapse according to what the architects said their structurecould withstand. And jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the structure, so that's a pretty stupid argument too.
When you consider the math, NOT crazy conspiracies, it still doesn''t really make sense. At the very least, mathematically, one tower should still stand today. And like you said, it is horrible to not to right by those who were murdered and determine what really happened. If there is doubt or suspicion, rule it out and give peace to the families. If a member of my family died in 9/11 that is exactly what I would want to know: what the truth is.
Posted by Bj Blaskowitzwait, they test buildings to see their strength vs certain models of airplanes?!
Posted by mis0They don't really have to physically do it - computer models suffice. The point was that the engineers originally determined back in the early 1960s when the WTC was designed that a 707 couldn't fell a tower on its own, which makes sense because of the exoskeleton type construction and heavy steel used. In theory, a 767 (the type that hit both towers) shouldn't be able to fell a tower either because it's normal cruise speed is only 530mph as opposed to the 607mph normal cruise speed of the 707. Both are capable of more than those speeds, but even at 590mph (flight 175 impact speed) it really logically couldn't have had more impact force than the 707 because to travel above cruise speed means extreme fuel consumption (cruise is basically the highest economical speed the plane can travel) and because tthe plane had already climbed to 30,000ft, it would have used a good deal of fuel before the impact. The WTC were the ultimate in skyscrapers in many ways. The design is part of the reason they were so tall. But yeah, the numbers have been crunched time and time again, and they don't really work.
Anyway, mathematically, this is pretty hard evidence against a single plane destroying a tower in the very short timespan it did.
Posted by higbvuyb[QUOTE=Misoxeny]The thing I don't like, and never did even as a kid about what occured on September 11th is that I knew then that a Boeing 707, which the WTC were designed to be able to be hit by, cruised faster than a Boeing 767, which are what hit both towers. Their is only a 10ft difference in wingspan, 6 foot difference in fuselage length, and 4,000 gallon difference in fuel capacity. But, a 707 cruises at 607mph, and a 767 cruises at 530mph.
No, a 707 cruises at 960 kph, and a 767 at 930 kph. The 767 also weighs 20 tonnes more empty.
And it would have gained a large amout of speed from descending from a height.
Posted by mis0I really hate arguing with you when I'm right, so, [url=http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html]boom[/url], headshot.
That basically verifies my math and figures there. Also, do you know what happens when you put something of the 767s magnitude into a dive, even shallow, at high speeds? Once you near a certain speed, the plane is going to become almost impossible to control. I imagine the at the 590mph flight speed, which is significantly higher than the cruise speed, the Boeing was quite a handful.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Misoxeny: I really hate arguing with you when I'm right, so, [url=http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html]boom[/url], headshot.
lol whatever, the website I looked at must have been wrong.
According to this site: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
So, the 767 would be substantially heavier, and could be going faster than 707 cruise speed. Remember, the WTC was designed to survive an accidental impact from a 707. In such an accident, a pilot would obviously be able to reduce speed, they would be likely to do so in any emergency, and would be even more likely to do so if they expect to collide with a building.
It was probably also only designed to resist the collision force of an aircraft, not of any fires, etc. The building is also old, and wearing away. The constant movement due to wind may also have damaged it slighly due to metal fatigue. There may have been small flaws in the materials used. Also, the entire building was supported by a strong central core. The burning fuel only needed to heat and weaken the small center area to destroy the bulding.
Posted by s0ulI know it sounds absurd to totally disregard the math and physics involved in it but the notion of a big skinny building surviving getting a ****ing plane driven into it seems equally absurd. Maybe the architects lied to discourage such an attack THAT THEY SAW COMING IN THE FUTURE? How's that for a conspiracy theory? Or maybe since the buildings' design in the 60's, the planes' abilities to destroy buildings has increased due to some sinister Boeing plan.
Oh, and if being indirect doesn't do it for you: I think 9/11 conspiracy theories are dumb.
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]How could i have been so blind? It is so fu[COLOR="Yellow"]c[/COLOR]king obvious that it's clear to me now. Bush destroyed the towers in order to distract the public from focusing about alien activity going on in Area 51. Trustful resources told me there were files inside the WTC depicting who really killed JFK and how the moon landing was hoaxed.:eek:
My apologies to all conspiracy theorists, you were right all along. The truth is out there.
EXCELSIOR![/COLOR]
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Misoxeny: At the very least, mathematically, one tower should still stand today.
According to physics bumble bees cant fly.
I dont really know where I'm going with that. I just wanted to talk about bees for a change.
Posted by specopssv44the way things should be in theory or on paper, is rarely the way they end up in real life. Science, mathmatics, all of that stuff fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of variables.
Posted by Fei-on CastorAs I recall, a few people said it was rude and insensitive to consider the notion that these attacks may have been planned by someone in the US Government. It was said earlier in this thread that those who thought such things deserved to be punched in the face.
So you're saying this is a serious issue.
If this is such a serious issue, why are you comparing the logical and scientific theories about 9/11 to the ridiculous and unfounded theories of Area 51 and other stupid conspiracy theories?
You are making a mockery of the deaths of thousands of Americans when you make such a comparison considering that there is a chance that it was set up by the US Government. I'm fairly certain that this is not the case, but I do have my doubts.
At any rate, don't be hypocritical. If you're going to play the sensitivity card, play it on yourself as well.
Posted by FateI don't think it was set up by the government. I just think some stuff was left out in the story that was told. It'd be kind of scary if the government came up with this idea. :(
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Bebop: According to physics bumble bees cant fly.
Wrong. According to physics, all bees can fly.
It's just that a noobtard twenty years ago used the wrong physics model on bumblebees and came up with that crap.
Posted by mis0
Quoting Princess Fate: I don't think it was set up by the government. I just think some stuff was left out in the story that was told. It'd be kind of scary if the government came up with this idea. :(
Of course it would be scary, but when you look at the hard government given facts and things observed in the media, it really doesn't seem right.
- 7 out of 8 flight data recorders (which are essentially indestructable) we're destroyed. Yet a hijackers passport survived one of the fireballs of a plane crash to be found by the FBI a few blocks from the WTC.
- WTC were designed to be hit by planes at much faster rates of speed, and still stand. One plane hit with roughly 75% of the estimated damage-withstanding ability, and that still fell the tower.
- The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were remarkably implosive, rather than highly destructive to everything around them. Also, the visible secondary explosions are worrying.
- The steel the WTC used was rated at 2000 degrees fahrenheit. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt it. And the horrible fireballs the erupted from both impacts were the explosion of that fuel! Most of it burnt up quickly in said fireball.
In any case, it's quite convenient for those data recorders to be destroyed, that passport to turn up, and WTC7, which housed many, many different things (from government agencies to civilian business, and an emergency response center) to simply collapse. And it sure did make a great case for trekking over to Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq, and people have willingly given up their civil liberties for "security". That's motive enough.
We don't like to think our government is capable of doing bad things. But it is - read up on COINTELPRO. People actually were killed by the government at that time. I wouldn't put anything past them at all anymore and the circumstancial evidence here is enough to make me have serious doubts.
Anyway, we all essentially believe what we saw. "Seeing is believing" is the saying, right? But because of that fact, we could have easily been manipulated by shock, fear, and anger to jump to conclusions and unite with whatever they said. Use those same eyes now to see for yourself that something, at the very least, is wrong with the 9/11 we all know.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Misoxeny: Of course it would be scary, but when you look at the hard government given facts and things observed in the media, it really doesn't seem right.
[QUOTE]- 7 out of 8 flight data recorders (which are essentially indestructable) we're destroyed. Yet a hijackers passport survived one of the fireballs of a plane crash to be found by the FBI a few blocks from the WTC.
They are destructible.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]Currently, EUROCAE specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s
Posted by mis0So, a building collapses from fire hot enough to melt the structure, yet a passport survives this? Right. Also, Flight data recorders certainly have to meet minimums, but they're durable metals, and even though the recorder might break on impact, they're still flame resistant for hours, and waterproof for a month. The data before that point should be recoverable.
As for the structure, you guys clearly don't get it. It was an exoskeleton - you could punch five holes in it, the intergrity isn't going to be drastically effected. Nor would fire change structural integrity because, like I said, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. It's just a simple fact. And on top of that, most of the jet fuel "exploded" in the fireball on initial impact. What was burning was the structure itself, which isn't key to structural integrity. Hell, some skyscrapers have had 26 floors burn over 19 hours and they still stand. They were made during the same era, too, with the same building standards. The WTC had no more than 10 floors burning, and it suffered catostrophic failure in under an hour, and fell cleanly to the ground in just 10 seconds. A building that's suffering from structural integrity issues isn't going to snap like that - it certainly would have been very obvious that it was failing slowly, and then it would get to a point where it couldn't hold anymore. Thing is, skyscapers are designed in every way possible to prevent this. Three world trade centers failing on the same day from under an hour of fire each is basically either the worst engineering efforts ever (and the WTC were actually some of the strongest buildings ever made) so more likely, they were helped.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Misoxeny: So, a building collapses from fire hot enough to melt the structure, yet a passport survives this? Right. Also, Flight data recorders certainly have to meet minimums, but they're durable metals, and even though the recorder might break on impact, they're still flame resistant for hours, and waterproof for a month. The data before that point should be recoverable.
The passport may have been in an area of low temperature, or it may have been blown out of the aircraft as its outer shell ruptured.
And at those speeds, any electronic devcice not specifically designed to survive this would be instantly pulverised, electronic devices would be irrecoverably destroyed by the high acceleration.
Quoted post: As for the structure, you guys clearly don't get it. It was an exoskeleton - you could punch five holes in it, the intergrity isn't going to be drastically effected. Nor would fire change structural integrity because, like I said, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. It's just a simple fact. And on top of that, most of the jet fuel "exploded" in the fireball on initial impact.
As for the jet fuel, you clearly don't get it.
as stated numerous times, STEEL WEAKENS SIGNIFICANTLY IN STRENGTH SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW MELTING POINT. And if the plane collides with the central support, it could damage it severely, and all the fuel has to do is weaken a small area. And jet fuel doesn't explode. Only jet fuel that has evaporated explodes, and it burns at 210 degrees C, not a very common temperature in a skyscraper.
[quote]What was burning was the structure itself, which isn't key to structural integrity. Hell, some skyscrapers have had 26 floors burn over 19 hours and they still stand.
But did this tower have a 130 ton plane slam into it?
[quote]They were made during the same era, too, with the same building standards. The WTC had no more than 10 floors burning, and it suffered catostrophic failure in under an hour, and fell cleanly to the ground in just 10 seconds. A building that's suffering from structural integrity issues isn't going to snap like that - it certainly would have been very obvious that it was failing slowly, and then it would get to a point where it couldn't hold anymore.
No. In fact, steel under increasing stress will fail suddenly, not gradually. Materials which fail gradually tend to be very weak.
[quote]Thing is, skyscapers are designed in every way possible to prevent this. Three world trade centers failing on the same day from under an hour of fire each is basically either the worst engineering efforts ever (and the WTC were actually some of the strongest buildings ever made) so more likely, they were helped.
No. The collision of the aircraft, would have already significantly damaged the structure, and the fire would jsut have made it far worse.
Anyway, if you think it was helped, how?
It wouldn't have been an explosive, as it would have had to weigh many tons, and would have been detected, as it would have to have been delivered by the aircraft, or carried up the building elevator in pieces. Also, use explosives can be vey easily detected.
Any nonexplosive modern weaponry capable of doing such a thing would have made a gigantic hole in the side of the building.
The only other possible alternative is that workers came and weakened the structure intentionally. This would not have happened, as there was no major maintenance done to the structure around that time, and it would have been seen.
Posted by BebopMisoxeny, passports werent the only things to survive the blast. Body parts did. Papers from the towers. Mugs. Photos. etc
As far as how strong the buildings were it's not really enough proof. Airbags are supposed to save people right? Well they've caused fatalites and alot of them. The towers werent capable of withstanding a hit like expected. I guess the theory didnt hold. The only way to really determine if it really is capable is to rebuild it and do it again. Test it. Whos up for that?
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Fei-on Castor: If this is such a serious issue, why are you comparing the logical and scientific theories about 9/11 to the ridiculous and unfounded theories of Area 51 and other stupid conspiracy theories?
You are making a mockery of the deaths of thousands of Americans when you make such a comparison considering that there is a chance that it was set up by the US Government. I'm fairly certain that this is not the case, but I do have my doubts.
At any rate, don't be hypocritical. If you're going to play the sensitivity card, play it on yourself as well.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Here's the thing. It's been 5 years since that tragedy happened. Inmediatly after the attacks and much of 2002 i had suspicions as well, about the towers, the Pentagon and other aspects of it. It seemed fishy to me how well executed the attacks were and i figured there had to be more to the story than what we were told. But, like i said it's been 5 years and throughout those years numerous pieces of evidence have been found and explanations have been clarified ("Loose Change" sometimes uses articles from 2001 and 2002 to prove points that were shot down years later). I can safely say that 9/11 conspiracies are just wrong and misleading, that's why i group it with other nonsense conspiracy theories. I've read what people like Misoxeny have written, and i understand their suspicions as well because i had them too.
Some conspiracy theorists claim that all of the missing people who presumably died on that day are safely hidden away somewhere. Others claim the recorded dialogue from the people inside the plane who called their family members were faked by the government. I can't stress how much of a skeptic i am, but to be convinced of things like this when there is no pure evidence for it, well, that takes a special kind of as[COLOR="Yellow"]s[/COLOR]hole.[/COLOR]
Posted by mis0
Quoting higbvuyb: The passport may have been in an area of low temperature, or it may have been blown out of the aircraft as its outer shell ruptured.
And at those speeds, any electronic devcice not specifically designed to survive this would be instantly pulverised, electronic devices would be irrecoverably destroyed by the high acceleration.
As for the jet fuel, you clearly don't get it.
as stated numerous times, STEEL WEAKENS SIGNIFICANTLY IN STRENGTH SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW MELTING POINT. And if the plane collides with the central support, it could damage it severely, and all the fuel has to do is weaken a small area. And jet fuel doesn't explode. Only jet fuel that has evaporated explodes, and it burns at 210 degrees C, not a very common temperature in a skyscraper.
But did this tower have a 130 ton plane slam into it?
No. In fact, steel under increasing stress will fail suddenly, not gradually. Materials which fail gradually tend to be very weak.
No. The collision of the aircraft, would have already significantly damaged the structure, and the fire would jsut have made it far worse.
Anyway, if you think it was helped, how?
It wouldn't have been an explosive, as it would have had to weigh many tons, and would have been detected, as it would have to have been delivered by the aircraft, or carried up the building elevator in pieces. Also, use explosives can be vey easily detected.
Any nonexplosive modern weaponry capable of doing such a thing would have made a gigantic hole in the side of the building.
The only other possible alternative is that workers came and weakened the structure intentionally. This would not have happened, as there was no major maintenance done to the structure around that time, and it would have been seen.
Kay, listen, you have to choose:
The passport would have been on the plane, in which, EVERYTHING was vapourized instantly, according to the government. If that is going to permanently destroy recorded data that is sealed in a metal case which is fireproof and waterproof which is on magnetic tape (which wouldn't be totally destroyed by mere impact) on four out of four data recorders, the terrorists passports would certainly have been vapourized too. In fact, suggesting that paper is more indestructible than titanium alloy is really stupid. Do you even know what you're saying? Pick one - either everything was destroyed, or obviously paper that would be on board a plane surviving would mean the data on board should be recoverable.
Next, READ, then COMPREHEND:
JET FUEL BURNS AT 1600 DEGREES CENTIGRADE. SPEAKING OF, MOST OF IT BURNED UP INSTANTLY ON IMPACT. THAT'S WHAT THE FIREBALL WAS. VERY LITTLE JET FUEL WAS EVEN BURNING.
By the way, paper burns at around 235 centigrade, so if it was hot enough to melt steel, then paper on board certainly was burned too.
WTC STEEL WAS RATED TO WITHSTAND 2000 DEGREE CENTIGRADE FIRES FOR HOURS.
STEEL TECHNICALLY DOESN'T START TO SOFTEN UNTIL 2500+ DEGREE CENTIGRADE FIRES ARE ENGULFING IT.
Think about it. Jet engines have stell components, yet somehow, the never ever melt. EVER. But after just an hour of fire on 4 floors, the steel which shouldn't melt unless the fires were several hundred degrees higher, failed. Catostrophically. Three times.
That doesn't work. No air bubbles, none of that nonsense. Besides, the WTC was so rigid it didn't even INCH when either plane hit either one. It just swallowed them up. That would support the idea that it was a structurally sound building. If it had swayed violently, then maybe, it wouldn't seem so rediculous. But, you're just kidding yourself if you think, by any mathematical reasoning, that the WTC should have collapsed in the time elapsed because of the force exhibited and the potential of fire damage. It doesn't work, and for you to argue against math is pretty stupid.
Also, as for "weakening" the structure, weeks before 9/11, irregular things occured, including shutting down power to most of the buildings for "engineering upgrades", which means there was no security systems online, and ample time to tamper. Also, for some reason, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC after this occured. Whatever. That's no really provable, but it supposedly happened. What I've shown you is math, which suggests that what you saying isn't even vagualy possible. Arguing "air bubbles" is just the same as arguing "bombs".
And even if the steel failure caused the collapse, EXPLAIN WHY IT PANCAKED INSTEAD OF THE TOP SNAPPING OFF LIKE IT WOULD HAVE THE STEEL FAILURE.
Now, show me something that says 1600 degree fires melt steel, and I'll rest my case. But there is nothing reputible that will.
Posted by BebopWTC Steel was not rated to withstand 2000 degrees. It's more around 1800. In any case jet fuel can weaken steel with effect. Plus the combined heat from jet fuel, office chairs, papers, wood and bodies, among many other lovely things, was a reason given for reaching higher temperatures from fire expects who beleived just that.
Remember, the heat weakened the steel. It never melted it.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Misoxeny: Kay, listen, you have to choose:
The passport would have been on the plane, in which, EVERYTHING was vapourized instantly, according to the government. If that is going to permanently destroy recorded data that is sealed in a metal case which is fireproof and waterproof which is on magnetic tape (which wouldn't be totally destroyed by mere impact) on four out of four data recorders, the terrorists passports would certainly have been vapourized too. In fact, suggesting that paper is more indestructible than titanium alloy is really stupid. Do you even know what you're saying? Pick one - either everything was destroyed, or obviously paper that would be on board a plane surviving would mean the data on board should be recoverable.
Anyone claiming that the entire aircraft was vapourised is bull****. To vaopurise an antire aircraft, you'd need more energy than 40 tons of TNT would release all exploding at once. The aircraft held less fuel than that, and aircraft fuel releases less energy per gram than TNT.
And the aircraft hit at a speed twice as fast as the flight recorders could tolerate. The internal parts, which somehow happen to not be made of titanium alloy, would have been crushed.
Try this. Lay a piece of paper flat on the ground, and place a ten ton weight on it. It is undamaged.
Get a hollow titanium alloy box with delicate parts in it and place a ten ton weight on it. It would be totally crushed. And there's no point in destroying the flight recorders, because it's relatively easy to fake, and would reinforce the case that it was an attack by terrorists.
Quoted post: JET FUEL BURNS AT 1600 DEGREES CENTIGRADE. SPEAKING OF, MOST OF IT BURNED UP INSTANTLY ON IMPACT. THAT'S WHAT THE FIREBALL WAS. VERY LITTLE JET FUEL WAS EVEN BURNING.
No, it would not have burned up instantly on impact, due to the fact that such fuels must be in vaopur form to actually burn. You'd need millions of joules of energy to instantly vapourise almsot all of the fuel, and that sort of energy doesn't come from nowhere.
[QUOTE]By the way, paper burns at around 235 centigrade, so if it was hot enough to melt steel, then paper on board certainly was burned too.
The paper may have been blown out of a rupture in the 'skin' of the aircraft by the sudden pressure increase. It didn't necessarily have to be exposed to the heat.
Quoted post: WTC STEEL WAS RATED TO WITHSTAND 2000 DEGREE CENTIGRADE FIRES FOR HOURS.
STEEL TECHNICALLY DOESN'T START TO SOFTEN UNTIL 2500+ DEGREE CENTIGRADE FIRES ARE ENGULFING IT.
Wrong. Steel melts at around 2800 degrees fahrenheit, which is about 1500 degrees celcius. If you want to debate this:
Quoting http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm: melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit).
Boom, headshot.
Steel also weakens and cracks above 500 degrees celcius:
[QUOTE=http://www.key-to-steel.com/default.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&NM=13]When heated in the range 500-900
Posted by Anti-Muffla
Quoting Misoxeny: Kay, listen, you have to choose:
The passport would have been on the plane, in which, EVERYTHING was vapourized instantly, according to the government. If that is going to permanently destroy recorded data that is sealed in a metal case which is fireproof and waterproof which is on magnetic tape (which wouldn't be totally destroyed by mere impact) on four out of four data recorders, the terrorists passports would certainly have been vapourized too. In fact, suggesting that paper is more indestructible than titanium alloy is really stupid. Do you even know what you're saying? Pick one - either everything was destroyed, or obviously paper that would be on board a plane surviving would mean the data on board should be recoverable.
Next, READ, then COMPREHEND:
JET FUEL BURNS AT 1600 DEGREES CENTIGRADE. SPEAKING OF, MOST OF IT BURNED UP INSTANTLY ON IMPACT. THAT'S WHAT THE FIREBALL WAS. VERY LITTLE JET FUEL WAS EVEN BURNING.
By the way, paper burns at around 235 centigrade, so if it was hot enough to melt steel, then paper on board certainly was burned too.
WTC STEEL WAS RATED TO WITHSTAND 2000 DEGREE CENTIGRADE FIRES FOR HOURS.
STEEL TECHNICALLY DOESN'T START TO SOFTEN UNTIL 2500+ DEGREE CENTIGRADE FIRES ARE ENGULFING IT.
Think about it. Jet engines have stell components, yet somehow, the never ever melt. EVER. But after just an hour of fire on 4 floors, the steel which shouldn't melt unless the fires were several hundred degrees higher, failed. Catostrophically. Three times.
That doesn't work. No air bubbles, none of that nonsense. Besides, the WTC was so rigid it didn't even INCH when either plane hit either one. It just swallowed them up. That would support the idea that it was a structurally sound building. If it had swayed violently, then maybe, it wouldn't seem so rediculous. But, you're just kidding yourself if you think, by any mathematical reasoning, that the WTC should have collapsed in the time elapsed because of the force exhibited and the potential of fire damage. It doesn't work, and for you to argue against math is pretty stupid.
Also, as for "weakening" the structure, weeks before 9/11, irregular things occured, including shutting down power to most of the buildings for "engineering upgrades", which means there was no security systems online, and ample time to tamper. Also, for some reason, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC after this occured. Whatever. That's no really provable, but it supposedly happened. What I've shown you is math, which suggests that what you saying isn't even vagualy possible. Arguing "air bubbles" is just the same as arguing "bombs".
And even if the steel failure caused the collapse, EXPLAIN WHY IT PANCAKED INSTEAD OF THE TOP SNAPPING OFF LIKE IT WOULD HAVE THE STEEL FAILURE.
Now, show me something that says 1600 degree fires melt steel, and I'll rest my case. But there is nothing reputible that will.
ok this guy is just explaining every detail of the conspiracy that was in this video that i saw about it. u have to look at the facts other than what u hear from a load of bull conspiracy story. From a scientific look at how and why the WTC fell that i saw a couple years ago on TV on a 9-11 anniversary.
The show shows the exact structure of the world trade center. There were the main beams in the middle and all stairs were around that one point. Thats the first engineering problem the towers had. Second, each floor had a set of trusses underneath it with an emense amount of tension. The people who put the fire proof coating on these trusses (that was absolutely neccesary in the case of a fire) got lazy and they missed many spots on the trusses. There were many pictures taken of the trusses and you could see the horrible job that the people did, there were many gaps in the coating.
From enginnering class, I know that tension is a force pulling both end of a metal object away from each other. If there was a fire, that would weaken the part of metal that was in the holes, all that weight would make the weaken metal snap, and in a truss if one component fails, they all will. To make this simpler for you, think if you are pulling apart a piece of paper from opposite ends if fairly hard to break without any twisting. Now, if u put a tear in one of the sides near the middle about 1/4 of the way in to a half, it will rip like 10 times easier. So, floor on the top of the WTC fails, the momentum of all of the floors keep the big huge mass moving, all the way down the tower. The WTC was not engineered properly, it was not a conspiracy.
As to the other part of the conspiracy, the object that hit the pentagon was not a missle, they have a good video where you can clearly tell its a plane. This video was also used in some movies I have seen talking about the conspiracy, and they showed the video. I couldn't believe what they were showing, they only showed the first frame and the frame of impact and sed that is all the camera captured an the frames that they chose had no proof that it was a plane. I was so mad. I have seen the video without frames cut, in the frames that they cut you can clearly see its a regular Boeing plane.
This conspiracy theory is a disgrace to the people that lost their lives in the plane that hit the pentagon. Saying its a missile is saying it wasn't a plane. Obviously they cut the video frames and they were using it to fuel this conspiracy, which is what they did with everything else they used for evidence too. they are giving some of the facts, not all of them. Kinda like the frames in the movie. They gave some of the frames, not all of them. Which the ones they cut out, clearly showed that that conspiracy theory was bogus.
Posted by AxisThank you for that MUCH needed bump.