The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

[skunknuts[ADR]]

What do you guys think?

Ive seen Loose Change and Another Documentary calling 9/11 a Govt. Work
and i can see some clear evidence of a work, but gimmie your thoughts

[(sic)]

Bottome Line Homie......

Steel Buildings Don't fall from Fire.

A Plane DID NOT hit the pentagon


http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk

[meepins]

The best site you can go to is 9/11 research.net . Avoid things like Loose Change etc. those guys are kids and idiots.

[Hammafist]

soo many facts jsut dont add up i dont bleive the conspiracy presented in loose change but i do beleive something fishy was going on

...and if it wasnt a work, uu mean to tell me the most advance and best intelligence agency in the world had no idea any attack was going to happen, i think that is bullshit

[Shoei]

i call it a work. There wasnt no plane parts found at the pentagon, the plane that they said hit it is huge, offcourse there will be plane parts, why wasnt there? i do not know.

[Evil]

If you don't think a plane hit the pentagon take a look at this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[skunknuts[ADR]]

that site you provided was pretty interesting, but i still think the govt. had something to do with it

[ninjashoes]

I love conspiracy theories but this ones too far out there for me. No goverment would be able to pull something like this off with absolutely noone coming forward about the truth.

[Andrew Dice Clay]

its bullshit, my boy works at the naval intelligence ops and he says it was legit, there were some shit that ahppened that we will never know, but for sure there was no cover up, as much as we liked to hope. fuckin sandiggaz

[meepins]

I love conspiracy theories but this ones too far out there for me. No goverment would be able to pull something like this off with absolutely noone coming forward about the truth.

Iran Contra

It wouldn't neccessarily have to be government agencies.There is a ridiculous amount of money floating around the military industrial complex and terrorist attacks of this magnitude are well within their will and abilities.

Just an interesting thing to note, the day before the twin tower attack Rumsfeld was up before Congress or the Senate and he was all like "ummmm .... yeah.... theres like a trillion dollars of tax payer money the Defence Dept. can't account for" ...... fucking mindblowing.Of course that little nugget got buried when the shit went down. Trillion = 1000 billion .

[Evil]

It was a bunch of pissed off Muslems... why is that so hard to believe?

[kopman]

No, I don't buy into the Conspiracy Theorie that the US administration is trying to sell.

[chad]

from an oversees point of view, we have had terrorism in england for years from the ira who are given alot of funding from usa. you are just experiencing what we have had for 50 years. usa has to face the fact that to a hell of alot of countries you and us just the same are hated. for what reason god only knows. bush would of known what was going to happen on 9/11 months before. the guy has no mind of his own. this aint a dig at americans cause at the end of the day we fight side by side. whats the difference between what mugabe is doing in zimbabwe to what bush done to those people in missisipi after the floods.

[meepins]

from an oversees point of view, we have had terrorism in england for years from the ira who are given alot of funding from usa. you are just experiencing what we have had for 50 years. usa has to face the fact that to a hell of alot of countries you and us just the same are hated. for what reason god only knows. bush would of known what was going to happen on 9/11 months before. the guy has no mind of his own. this aint a dig at americans cause at the end of the day we fight side by side. whats the difference between what mugabe is doing in zimbabwe to what bush done to those people in missisipi after the floods.
We'll not as bad in UK as it was here in Ireland, granted there was only the one bombing in my city 'Dublin' ... there were many attacks in the North which wasn't so far away. There wasn't the absurd hysteria and frenzy that has been whipped up in the U.S. 'Clash of civs' bollox. It's just something that was going on in the background and people just gradually worked at it.

Chad if you want to know why there is so much hatred just pick up some of Chomskys books.One of the foremost critics of the US foreign policy. Lets see US supports a brutal Saudi regime, Iran contra affair, cia funded and trained the mujahadeen some of which have now become the loosely related group of al qaida of rogue fundies. Then theres all the problems caused in south america sponsoring dictators , Mexico, (Chile thats a British one - Pinochet) , then Cambodia , oh the coup in Venezuala - Chavez kidnapped - the private money elite are going to try that shit again this coming december.. probably going to see Chavez assassinated... because he is too popular they could never depose him democratically despite the mountains of propaganda on the subject....the list literally goes fucking on and on and on. So to throw your hands up and say god knows why... it's a bit ridiculous because you could go to wikipedia or something and find out in ten minutes.

Here is a John Pilger article won't take five minutes to read :http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-11/10pilger.cfm

I agree what you said about Bush, the administration is just a front for the monied interest - arms manu, oil corps, Banks ,lobbies all that jazz. Those with all the money decide what goes on , Bush is a fucking sideshow.

[cam]

how would any conspiracy develop in the time line required, this all happened so fast, the other planes where obviously real

[meepins]

how would any conspiracy develop in the time line required, this all happened so fast, the other planes where obviously real
clarify what you mean, are you talking about conspiring to war on Iraq for oil in response to an attack on US ?

[skunknuts[ADR]]

in my opinion i dislike bush

hes a loser

and deserves to be fondled by shane west

[cooncat]

For all the "where's the plane" losers who are expecting a nice cartoon-esque plane-shaped hole in the pentagon, with an intact plane sitting in it, watch what happens when a plane built with super-lightweight aircraft aluminum and traveling several hundred miles per hour collides with a re-enforced concrete barrier...still wondering where the plane went?

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/--_RGM4Abv8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/--_RGM4Abv8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Sharkhunter]

It was a work! To get the American people all worked up and backing whatever the shariff Bush wanted.

[cam]

I was talking about the fake plane bullshit, sorry
I also don't believe for one second about doing it for oil, that small potatoes man, check this out and let me know what you think

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0209/S00146.htm

[(sic)]

its bullshit, my boy works at the naval intelligence ops and he says it was legit, there were some shit that ahppened that we will never know, but for sure there was no cover up, as much as we liked to hope. fuckin sandiggaz


Your friend's either lying to you, doesn't have high enough security clearence to know about the war games that were going on the day of 9/11 that had to deal with the EXACT TYPE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS that we saw happen.....


9/11 WAS NOT planned by the people who tookl advantage of it, they just found out about it and then used the biggest corrupt Government to allow it to happen and then use it to thier advantage.......

[cooncat]

Your friend's either lying to you, doesn't have high enough security clearence to know about the war games that were going on the day of 9/11 that had to deal with the EXACT TYPE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS that we saw happen.....


9/11 WAS NOT planned by the people who tookl advantage of it, they just found out about it and then used the biggest corrupt Government to allow it to happen and then use it to thier advantage.......

I've heard those reports of drills that resembled the attacks being conducted on 9/11...it's pretty interesting. What I don't understand how some conspiracy theorists twist things like that into wild convoluted conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality...claims like "it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon, it was a cruise missile!" (why?!?) or "jet fuel couldn't melt steel...they used explosives!". It's like some people gravitate towards the most outlandish explanations possible, ignoring the simple, more probable, yet less exciting explanations.

What would the simple explanation be in regards to the war games? There are two possibilities; one is that the government had received intelligence indicating that such an attack was imminent (this intelligence could have been very specific, or vague), but the attack was allowed to happen so they would have a premise for invading the middle east.

The second, and MUCH MORE LIKELY scenario is that the government had received intelligence predicting the attacks, but they were unable/too incompetent to prevent them. You see, this theory predicts the government to be bloated, uncoordinated, inefficient and borderline incompetent, whereas the popular "loose change" conspiracy theory would require the government function like the most well-oiled and finely tuned machine in existence. I'll let you guys decide which one of those corresponds to what the government looks like in reality.

[[AEM] TEAM420]

Its no conspiracy but if you want to believe that then go ahead

[tenorbass]

conspiracy theories about 911 are preety out their i think. I think that it just happened. Planes got hijacked and hit the plane. The pentagon plane hitting I think is a fake. I dont think that terrorists did that. The only thing that 911 really did was take thousands of lives. Then thousands of our soliders lives when they went to war. Stupid humans! :fuk:

[Bullock]

Watch the South Park episode called "The Urinal Deuce."

It will solve all of your questions about a 9/11 conspiracy.

[bigbadroy]

It was a bunch of pissed off Muslems... why is that so hard to believe?

because both planes that hit the towers went off course. as soon as that happened they would have those f17s in the air prepared to shoot it down. that site about the pentagon is false. if a plane hit the pentagon how come they never realeased the footage from the gas station or the other places across the street. without 911 we couldn't have a war in iraq

[cooncat]

because both planes that hit the towers went of course. as soon as that happened they would have those f17s in the air prepared to shoot it down. that site about the pentagon is false. if a plane hit the pentagon how come they never realeased the footage from the gas station or the other places across the street. without 911 we couldn't have a war in iraq

You really think that whenever a plane goes off course, the first line of action is to scramble "f17s" and shoot it down!? Even today, post 9/11, the rules of action regarding such incidents aren't so extreme...and remember, back then, nobody thought a hijacked plane would end up getting flown into a building! The accepted course of action was just to keep quiet and take the hijackers where they wanted to go.

If a plane *didn't* hit the pentagon, explain the huge hole and wreckage (which, despite what conspiracy lunkheads would have you believe, is matches exactly what we'd expect to see in such a crash), and the thousands of eyewitness accounts! And, seeing as *something* obviously hit the pentagon, what is your alternative theory, supporting evidence, and what happened to the real hijacked plane?

Also, George Bush Sr. didn't need to manufacture a terrorist attack to invade Iraq...so much for that argument.

PS--would you care to enlighten me as to the nature of these F-17 fighters that were supposed to shoot down these airliners? Are they some top-secret plane I'm not aware of, or merely a shining example of your ignorance?


:p

[The_attack]

conspiracy theories about 911 are preety out their i think. I think that it just happened. Planes got hijacked and hit the plane. The pentagon plane hitting I think is a fake. I dont think that terrorists did that. The only thing that 911 really did was take thousands of lives. Then thousands of our soliders lives when they went to war. Stupid humans! :fuk:

First you say that the conspiracy theories are pretty out there. Then you go on to say that you believe that the plane hitting the pentagon is actually fake, so you do think it is a conspiracy theory?

If the planes that hit the twin towers was legit. Then why go through the trouble of faking a hit on the pentagon. Anything that the conspiracy theorist say the Bush administration wanted out of the set up would be accomplished by the twin towers getting hit.

I can't imagine somebody saying "you know what, we just got hit by terrorist twice already. Why not fake another attack on the pentagon?"

[bigbadroy]

You really think that whenever a plane goes off course, the first line of action is to scramble "f17s" and shoot it down!? Even today, post 9/11, the rules of action regarding such incidents aren't so extreme...and remember, back then, nobody thought a hijacked plane would end up getting flown into a building! The accepted course of action was just to keep quiet and take the hijackers where they wanted to go.

If a plane *didn't* hit the pentagon, explain the huge hole and wreckage (which, despite what conspiracy lunkheads would have you believe, is matches exactly what we'd expect to see in such a crash), and the thousands of eyewitness accounts! And, seeing as *something* obviously hit the pentagon, what is your alternative theory, supporting evidence, and what happened to the real hijacked plane?

Also, George Bush Sr. didn't need to manufacture a terrorist attack to invade Iraq...so much for that argument.

PS--would you care to enlighten me as to the nature of these F-17 fighters that were supposed to shoot down these airliners? Are they some top-secret plane I'm not aware of, or merely a shining example of your ignorance?


:p
you still didn't answer my question. how come there is no footage of the pentagon being hit by a plane? f17's f13's whatever they are called. and bush senior didn't need to do that to invade irag, but it was a good excuse to. what are you some brainwashed army asshole who thinks our government is a bunch of good guys. we are the most hated country in the world for a reason.

[cooncat]

you still didn't answer my question. how come there is no footage of the pentagon being hit by a plane?

Dude, the surveillance video from the citgo gas station was released in sept. '06. You can even watch it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk). There were also several other pentagon security tapes that captured the crash (here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8)).

of course, anyone who knows anything about security cameras knows that they don't record at a high enough frames-per-second to catch something whizzing by at 500mph, and the quality of these tapes is generally poor. You really can't clearly see the plane in any of them, although one frame of that last video did rather famously catch a blurry splotch heading toward the pentagon right before the crash. Maybe we should wage war on blurry splotches!



http://911myths.com/assets/images/Wilson1.jpg

Top: Computer model of pentagon before crash, showing relative size of a 767 at the appropriate distance.

Bottom: Blurry splotch, but mostly consistent with what a plane would look like (if the plane were a blurry splotch on a surveillance tape).



and bush senior didn't need to do that to invade irag, but it was a good excuse to.

Strange, I thought WMD's were the excuse Bush used to invade Iraq...I believe 9/11 was used to bomb afghanistan.

So, basically what you're saying is, Bush & Co faked the hijacking of a plane, secretly destroyed the plane and killed everyone onboard, while simultaneously firing a missile at the pentagon, and while faking cell phone calls from passengers of said plane that reported the plane had been hijacked...and all so Bush would have a *second* excuse to invade Iraq, years later? Do you people even listen to yourselves?!?

And why the heck would they fire a missile at the pentagon while secretly destroying the *real* airliner, instead actually using the airliner to attack the pentagon, thereby taking care of both problems? ?????!?!?


what are you some brainwashed army asshole who thinks our government is a bunch of good guys. we are the most hated country in the world for a reason.

Ad Hominem attacks are generally the last resort of a man who doesn't have a leg left to stand on...you can't argue my points so you attack me. I'll just take that as a sign that my point has been made. :)


f17's f13's whatever they are called.

You're 0 for 2...no such plane as an F-13 either. Keep guessing, statistically you've got to pick one that actually exists soon!

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

Watch the South Park episode called "The Urinal Deuce."

It will solve all of your questions about a 9/11 conspiracy.

South park is a very reliable source! +repe'd


This thread is funny. We can prove beyond a doubt the majority of what they are saying is bunk. We can prove that there was a major cover up. All you have to do is do some research into the 9/11 commision. People like to make it out to be some huge vast conspiracy, just key people in key places. The rest is all compartmentalized.

im gonna go smoke a :sifone:

[Sepiku .]

South park is a very reliable source! +repe'd


This thread is funny. We can prove beyond a doubt the majority of what they are saying is bunk. We can prove that there was a major cover up. All you have to do is do some research into the 9/11 commision. People like to make it out to be some huge vast conspiracy, just key people in key places. The rest is all compartmentalized.

im gonna go smoke a :sifone:

Have you read that whole thing? I read it a week after it came out.

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

Have you read that whole thing? I read it a week after it came out.

pfft I read it the day it came out.

me>you

[Sepiku .]

pfft I read it the day it came out.

me>you

Bored > conspiracy nut

[FRITZ Aint no bitch Diaz]

Lol I am. ok.

I highly doubt you even read a page of the commission report. Now run along kiddie, when you have something with substance please go ahead and post it.

[bigbadroy]

Dude, the surveillance video from the citgo gas station was released in sept. '06. You can even watch it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk). There were also several other pentagon security tapes that captured the crash (here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8)).

of course, anyone who knows anything about security cameras knows that they don't record at a high enough frames-per-second to catch something whizzing by at 500mph, and the quality of these tapes is generally poor. You really can't clearly see the plane in any of them, although one frame of that last video did rather famously catch a blurry splotch heading toward the pentagon right before the crash. Maybe we should wage war on blurry splotches!



http://911myths.com/assets/images/Wilson1.jpg

Top: Computer model of pentagon before crash, showing relative size of a 767 at the appropriate distance.

Bottom: Blurry splotch, but mostly consistent with what a plane would look like (if the plane were a blurry splotch on a surveillance tape).




Strange, I thought WMD's were the excuse Bush used to invade Iraq...I believe 9/11 was used to bomb afghanistan.

So, basically what you're saying is, Bush & Co faked the hijacking of a plane, secretly destroyed the plane and killed everyone onboard, while simultaneously firing a missile at the pentagon, and while faking cell phone calls from passengers of said plane that reported the plane had been hijacked...and all so Bush would have a *second* excuse to invade Iraq, years later? Do you people even listen to yourselves?!?

And why the heck would they fire a missile at the pentagon while secretly destroying the *real* airliner, instead actually using the airliner to attack the pentagon, thereby taking care of both problems? ?????!?!?



Ad Hominem attacks are generally the last resort of a man who doesn't have a leg left to stand on...you can't argue my points so you attack me. I'll just take that as a sign that my point has been made. :)



You're 0 for 2...no such plane as an F-13 either. Keep guessing, statistically you've got to pick one that actually exists soon!

lol in both those video's you see something right before the "crash" the second one you see the smoke (blurry splotch as you call it) but watch the 1st vid on the right side of the screen, right before the "crash". you can definitly see something that is way too small to be a plane.

[Sepiku .]

Lol I am. ok.

I highly doubt you even read a page of the commission report. Now run along kiddie, when you have something with substance please go ahead and post it.

I feel I should explain I'm neither a dick or a liar. Having said that I never read it in detail because it was absurdly boring but did skim through 90% of it reading at best a full 60% of the report.

But your right. The unexplained isn't the place for me since most of the crap here is... well.. crap.

Here, enjoy.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=159_1174634215"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=159_1174634215"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

[cooncat]

lol in both those video's you see something right before the "crash" the second one you see the smoke (blurry splotch as you call it) but watch the 1st vid on the right side of the screen, right before the "crash". you can definitly see something that is way too small to be a plane.

I can't even believe there are still people who believe this argument!

1) WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE GOV'T USE A MISSILE!?!? Instead of the ACTUAL AIRLINER THAT DISAPPEARED? Why would they fake a hijacking, kill all the passengers, then use a missile?!? Are you even listening to yourself?

2) What about all the evidence for the plane? From human remains not belonging to pentagon staff found in the wreckage and IDENTIFIED:

Warning: graphic

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/3/33/P200042.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Image:P200047.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Image:P200048.jpg

To the hundreds of eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a plane (most of whom agree it was an airliner), and the phone calls received from passengers telling their loved ones their plane had been hijacked?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Phone_calls

Or what about the numerous identifiable 757 parts found in the wreckage?

compressor:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/rb211a.jpg

Wheel rim:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/178.jpg

lettered aluminum skin:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_91.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_171.jpg

(you can clearly see the letter "C" of American Airlines in the background)

And when it was still on the plane...

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Fragment.jpg


And by the way, in the second video, if you look right where the computer model predicts the tail fin of the airliner to be, you can see it in the photo, as well as the fuselage. If your whole argument rests on the fact that the object that is barely peeking into the frame before the crash on the first vid is "way too small to be plane", I'd love to see your mathematical proof regarding the relative size of a 757 as it would appear in relation to reference objects at the distance that the camera was from the object. Or, if you logic boils down to "Planes are BIG!", then you should probably learn how perspective works to make big things appear small at a distance.

[Evil]

The truth wins again.

[cooncat]

if any of those pictures I posted don't show, try copy/pasting the image URL directly into your browser's url bar.

[bigbadroy]

if any of those pictures I posted don't show, try copy/pasting the image URL directly into your browser's url bar.

what caused the towers to collapse?

[SolitaryIndividual]

I'm a mechanical engineering student. I've taken endless math and physics courses including courses titled STRENGTH OF MATERIALS, STATICS (dealing with structures at rest and the forces acting on them ... such as a truss system under stress) and ive taken multiple courses in chemistry. This being said, there are explanations behind all your wacked out theories through physics, and this isnt some twisted made up knowledge or top secret fake info, some of it is pretty regular everyday stuff such as the how metals act when they are subjected to crazy temperature differences and great amounts of stress. Some other stuff, such as how the towers should fall, are physics problems that are solvable and provable with definite results ... that can be solved by anyone educated in physics/ engineering. Anyway here is the quote i want to provide you with, look it up on the internet if you want the source, i didnt make it up.







For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.


i felt i needed to drop this in here, but im not gonna be coming back to this thread because i know what i need to know and there is no reason for me to get caught up in this, and if you believe all the theories than it is because you want to, whether you realize it or not, against your better judgement ... and there is nothing i can do for you

[Krahzee1]

http://www.debunking911.com/

this guy explains, in great detail, even the toughest questions.

[(sic)]

http://http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM

[(sic)]

If you ever read about the WTC construction.....it had HUGE massive columms on the inside of them, now watch this video....after the building falls....those coulmms.....part of them anyway are still standing....then...magically....they just disappear in mid air....they suddlenly turn into dust and then blow away



<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uaFHNcIBzcQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uaFHNcIBzcQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[bigbadroy]

If you ever read about the WTC construction.....it had HUGE massive columms on the inside of them, now watch this video....after the building falls....those coulmms.....part of them anyway are still standing....then...magically....they just disappear in mid air....they suddlenly turn into dust and then blow away



<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uaFHNcIBzcQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uaFHNcIBzcQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


thats interesting. who is totovader?

[(sic)]

thats interesting. who is totovader?


Don't know....just a vid I found going thru things......



That video, and the fact that there were MOLTEN POOLS of steel in the basement of the WTC upawards of six weeks AFTER the attacks says one things to me.....


Massive amount of sulfur based thermite or Micro Nukes to take out the 30 story basement.

Yeah....I know, I know....it's kinda of far fetched....but not as far fetched as 19 Arab Hijackers taking over 4 airplanes with box cutters and hitting 75 % of thier targets......

Anyone who is interested in Micro Nukes....read up about red mercury and the Russian scientists that desgined them

[bigbadroy]

Don't know....just a vid I found going thru things......



That video, and the fact that there were MOLTEN POOLS of steel in the basement of the WTC upawards of six weeks AFTER the attacks says one things to me.....


Massive amount of sulfur based thermite or Micro Nukes to take out the 30 story basement.

Yeah....I know, I know....it's kinda of far fetched....but not as far fetched as 19 Arab Hijackers taking over 4 airplanes with box cutters and hitting 75 % of thier targets......

Anyone who is interested in Micro Nukes....read up about red mercury and the Russian scientists that desgined them

it's not that far fetched. gotta admit steel turning into dust has been on my mind all day.

[(sic)]

it's not that far fetched. gotta admit steel turning into dust has been on my mind all day.


Yeah....it gets to the point of how far down the rabbitt hole do you wanna go

[cooncat]

what caused the towers to collapse?

If I remember correctly, some pissed-off muslims flew some airliners into them.

tumbleweed

[Evil]

:Ditto: :whathesaid: :correct: :beavisnbutthead:

[bigbadroy]

If I remember correctly, some pissed-off muslims flew some airliners into them.

tumbleweed

but how did the steel collapse?

[Evil]

but how did the steel collapse?

Melting point of steel 1370 degrees

Temperature of an ordinary candle flame 1400 degrees



Also take a look at how the WTF was designed, Without the floors connecting the outer walls to the inner structure theres nothing holding it up. No interior floors = no strength.

[bigbadroy]

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064


THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?


Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanations are lies.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center the collision would have mixed the fuel with the limited amount of air available within the building, quite well, but the combustion would still have been mainly a combination of reactions (2) and (3) as the quantity of oxygen was quite restricted.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:


Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.
Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:


CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ? 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ? 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 10,000 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel


will release 31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy.
This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:


39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.


Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Concrete 3,300
Steel 450
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:


39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 3,300 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, we have that

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Therefore T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280° C (536° F).

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

[Evil]

TL/FWI

[Evil]

Yeah I guess invisible men in heat proof sutes clumbed up the tower and place explosives only on the floor the jets happed to crash into... that makes more sence...


BTW jet fuel was not the only combustible material in those buildings...

[cooncat]

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064


THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

*snipped*

[/B]

It looks like whoever wrote that assumed that nobody would actually bother to sift through all those calculations, and instead just assume that their assertion was correct. No such luck today...even my cursory examination of that proof reveals a simple flaw that invalidates the whole damn thing.

Here's the rub; the proof calculates the maximum possible heat energy the jet fuel could have produced, but falsely assumes that the heat was distributed in a perfectly uniform fashion throughout every ounce of material in the floor! They simply took the maximum amount of energy in joules that could be released via combustion with given quantity of fuel and divided it by the amount of energy required to heat their estimated amount of material on a floor by one degree...this gives the total number of degrees that the fuel could have heated the given material, assuming it heated every molecule of material on the floor simultaneously to the exact same temperature!

Even a $40 handheld butane torch (http://cableorganizer.com/solder-it/pro-torch200.htm) can produce a 2500°F flame! But, how is this possible, if 10,000 gallons of jet fuel can only produce 536°F? Because the heat energy it generates is concentrated in a small area, not spread out evenly throughout the whole room! If you looked at their hypothetical WTC floor as described in the proof using an infrared camera, the whole floor would be exactly the same shade of orange, because the heat would be evenly distributed...of course in reality, much of the room would be a cool green or blue, with red and white hotspots where the fires burned most intensely.

Of course, calculating the temperatures involved in this much more complex model of the fire would be far beyond the abilities of the junior-college math student who apparently wrote that proof, so maybe we should leave that one up to experts, who by the way all agree that the jet fuel was more than capable of producing the amount of heat needed to cause structural failure.

[cooncat]

[URL="http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064"]"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

Because we all know that "simulated" eight-story buildings behave identically to and are under equivalent stress as a 1,727 foot, 110-story super-skyscraper.

:gojerkit:

[cooncat]

Don't know....just a vid I found going thru things......



That video, and the fact that there were MOLTEN POOLS of steel in the basement of the WTC upawards of six weeks AFTER the attacks says one things to me.....


Massive amount of sulfur based thermite or Micro Nukes to take out the 30 story basement.

Yeah....I know, I know....it's kinda of far fetched....but not as far fetched as 19 Arab Hijackers taking over 4 airplanes with box cutters and hitting 75 % of thier targets......

Anyone who is interested in Micro Nukes....read up about red mercury and the Russian scientists that desgined them

First of all, please prove that there were "molten pools of steel" in the basement "six weeks after" the attacks, and secondly, prove that if such a pool were to exist, it could only have been produced by a thermite reaction or a "micro nuke".

Secondly, thermite doesn't explode. It does burn extremely hot, and could certainly melt steel with little trouble, but thermite alone could only explain the molten steel, not any of the actual explosive damage incurred to the towers. So, did "they" use conventional explosives to bring down the towers, and then they just decided to throw in a "massive amount of...thermite" just as an extra little touch, because they thought it would look cool to have some molten metal in the rubble?

:confused:

So, seeing as thermite has no logical use in this situation, the only thing you have is the "micro nuke". You're honestly telling me that the idea that the towers were brought down with "micro nukes" is less far-fetched than the possibility that some pissed-off arabs hijacked some planes (even though hijackings happen all the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hijacking#List_of_well-known_hijackings), even three so far this year!) and hit an *amazing* 75% of their targets?

:fool:

[HarshReality]

Because we all know that "simulated" eight-story buildings behave identically to and are under equivalent stress as a 1,727 foot, 110-story super-skyscraper.

:gojerkit:

2 110 storey sky scraper's that miraculously fell straight down 1 floor at a time.. Un-fuking believable..

[Evil]

2 110 storey sky scraper's that miraculously fell straight down 1 floor at a time.. Un-fuking believable..


How dumb can you be?

[SolitaryIndividual]

How dumb can you be?

honestly man, i even said i wasnt gonna come back but i cant stand idley by while people are so mislead and aren't having any grasp on reality. I mean here is the explanation in plain and simple terms, it is all just a matter of physics, statics, mech eng, deformables and so on.


the temperature was hot enough to cause the steel beams to sag, this is not debatable anymore, it is an accpeted proven fact, period. Now when these steel beams ( i presume they were I beams) began sagging, the angle clips, which connected the horizontal beams of the structure to the vertical ones snapped under the stress cause by the deformation of the beams. This cause the building to start pancaking one floor down on top of another, and with 95% of the interior of the WTC towers consisting of air, there is ABSOLUTELY only one way the towers could possibly fall, which is straight down.

I genuinely hope you are understaning what I am saying here, because if you can grasp these concepts it will help to put your mind at ease so you can have so closure on this. If you are still reaching out as far as you can to find any wacked out radical question you can after this, then please step back and realize that you have a desire inside yourself to keep believing that there are conspiracies involved.


Another was to look at you quesiton of why didnt the towers fall over. This is completely basic almost common sense physics. Ask yourself the question, what conditions would be needed for the towers to fall directly over?

1) The Tower would have to be a completely rigid structure. It would have to be one solid inseparable object, such as a rod, to fall straight over onto its side. Does the design of WTC towers seem in any way comparable to the design of a rod to you? No not at all.

2) To cause the tower to fall, and this would require condition 1 to be true as well, and an extremely massive force would have to be applied (depending on friction it could be applied at almost any angle to the structure) but ideally and logically the force would be applied orthoganally to the structure at either the very bottom, or most likely near the top.

this is the ONLY way within our physical limits that the towers could have fallen over onto their side, which in this case would have been completely physically impossible


and PS ... DID NO ONE read my last post?

[bigbadroy]

First of all, please prove that there were "molten pools of steel" in the basement "six weeks after" the attacks, and secondly, prove that if such a pool were to exist, it could only have been produced by a thermite reaction or a "micro nuke".

Secondly, thermite doesn't explode. It does burn extremely hot, and could certainly melt steel with little trouble, but thermite alone could only explain the molten steel, not any of the actual explosive damage incurred to the towers. So, did "they" use conventional explosives to bring down the towers, and then they just decided to throw in a "massive amount of...thermite" just as an extra little touch, because they thought it would look cool to have some molten metal in the rubble?

:confused:

So, seeing as thermite has no logical use in this situation, the only thing you have is the "micro nuke". You're honestly telling me that the idea that the towers were brought down with "micro nukes" is less far-fetched than the possibility that some pissed-off arabs hijacked some planes (even though hijackings happen all the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hijacking#List_of_well-known_hijackings), even three so far this year!) and hit an *amazing* 75% of their targets?

:fool:

what is your opinion on that video? computer editing?