What really happened???

If you saw the Pen & Teller's Bullsh!t episode on conspiracy theories, you wouldn't even be believing this crap.
 
Well I find it odd that alot of structural engineers at universities and so forth are divded on the issue, and if you read the NIST and FEMA report's the analysis shows that the structural engineers you seem to hold in high praise forgot to include or purposely ignored thermal conduction in their theory, which isnt very proffessional atall, infact ignoring/not including basic physic's is a ridiculous error, and makes them appear like amateur's.
 
clarky003 said:
Well I find it odd that alot of structural engineers at universities and so forth are divded on the issue, and if you read the NIST and FEMA report's the origional anlysis shows that the structural engineers you seem to hold in high praise forgot to include or purposely ignored thermal conduction in their theory, which isnt very proffessional atall, infact its a ridiculous error.
Click to expand...

That link doesn't help...so they tell us the fires didn't have air? What happened to the windows on 3 or so floors that were blown out from the collision? Oh...not a lot of fuel? A jet liner full of fuel sounds like a lot to me. Huge steel columns to absorb the heat? Kind of like a fork in a giant fire will whick away all of the heat right?

That link is based off of ignorance and the hope people can't think for themselves. This bullshit still remains a dumbass conspiracy theory.
 
Thermal conduciton is a massive basic factor that helps determine predicitions of temprature on a steel structure so you dont seem to know what your going on about. Of course if you dont include the rest of the building in the models and theory your going to get much higher tempratures, but in reality all that heat would dissapate through the entirity of the steel structure through conduction, helping heat escape and cool from the area much more rapidly.

Which means their model is in error with basic physic's, probably because they couldnt be bothered to figure out how much steel volume the entire building core had, and then proceed to build an entire model of the tower's. They only tested the impact area and fire spreading cenario's, assuming fire brought it down they modelled erronous situations where thermal conduction was limited to the size of the computer model (impact floors)... no collapse models for simulation where built in the computer. Its all far away from a thorough investigation.
 
clarky003 said:
Well I find it odd that alot of structural engineers at universities and so forth are divded on the issue, and if you read the NIST and FEMA report's the origional anlysis shows that the structural engineers you seem to hold in high praise forgot to include thermal conduction in their theory, which isnt very proffessional atall, infact its a ridiculous error.
Click to expand...

I'd need a way more official site than that to even consider their claim. I'm especially not going to believe a site that has been attacked by both Scientific American and Popular Mechanics concerning validity.

I mean, while we're at it, we may as well believe that the 9/11 hijackers were brainwashed by psychiatrists, who were the real masterminds behind the attacks.

clarky003 said:
but in reality all that heat would dissapate through the entirity of the steel structure through conduction, helping heat escape and cool from the area much more rapidly.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the calcs that prove that. Dont' forget that all of the "steal structure" not directly within the impact zone is covered with thick insulation. Your thermal conduction model does include highly insulated steel right? Because that would mean major conduction is only going to take place on the steel surfaces that have been exposed by the force of impact. Thus the actual conduction area for any steel member is only going to be it's cross section. You're not going to get that much conduction through a narrow, insulated beam that is only open on one end. Basically, that's like saying you could stick the tip of a steel rod into a camp fire and reduce the temperature of the fire. (Sure it will...but it would be a completely insignificant amount.) And how about major gaps in the steel structure? Do you know what kind of expansion joints they used or how exactly it was put together? I certainly don't and the author of that website doesn't seem to either. He's just throwing out random ideas without any data.
 
I'd need a way more official site than that to even consider their claim. I'm especially not going to believe a site that has been attacked by both Scientific American and Popular Mechanics concerning validity.
Click to expand...

Its a conclusion drawn directly from the NIST report, it references the sections its looking at, and its objective, there is no inclusion of thermal conduction as reported by NIST and FEMA.
I mean, while we're at it, we may as well believe that the 9/11 hijackers were brainwashed by psychiatrists, who were the real masterminds behind the attacks.
Click to expand...

Im not believing that crap. This is based on visual evidence that points towards demolition, and it deserves attention, rather than sticking with the rather weak unsubstantiated assumtion that collapse initiation leads to total symmetrical global collapse in both cases.
I'd like to see the calcs that prove that. Dont' forget that all of the "steal structure" not directly within the impact zone is covered with thick insulation. Your thermal conduction model does include highly insulated steel right?
Click to expand...

I dont have a model, but if youve read the NIST report they assume that the insulation was ripped off in the impact in order to beable to heat the steel up fast enough, then heat would be transfered directly into the steel structure, its all cross connected so the exposed steel would conduct heat through to the rest of the steel in the whole core. They keep conduction limited to the impact area which fits the theory creating more heat thats needed for it to work, but conduction wouldnt be limited to just that area in a still connected structure and can make hudge differences to temperature's especially when theres so much extra steel for the heat to travel into.

The core segments have to be damaged and large surface areas of steel exposed for NIST's theory to even begin to work. Contradictory.. if insulation was actually left in the damaged area covering most of the steel, then why did modern steel buildings collapse with ease all the way throughout in record time when the cause was supposed to be weakened/melted steel through the entire core that intiated the collapse as they state.

anyway my point, if NIST say the steel area was exposed to fire they cant ignore proper thermal conduction which they appear to have done.
 
clarky003 said:
then heat would be transfered directly into the steel structure, its all cross connected so the exposed steel would conduct heat through to the rest of the steel in the whole core. They keep conduction limited to the impact area which fits the theory creating more heat thats needed for it to work, but conduction wouldnt be limited to just that area in a still connected structure and can make hudge differences to temerature's especially when theres so much extra steel for the heat to travel into.

anyway my point, is if they say the steel area NIST says was exposed to fire they cant ignore proper thermal conduction which they appear to have done.
Click to expand...

As I said, the thermal conduction is only going to take place through the ends of steal beams. You're not going to have that much actual area of bare steel in contact with the fires. Just common sense tells us that it wouldn't draw any significant amount of heat away.

Look at it this way: Imagine the area of fire as a big sphere. Now take out all the steel and insulation within that sphere. What do you have left on the edge of that sphere? The only steel coming in contact with the sphere is the cross sectional area of individual beams. Because of the insulation outside the impact zone you will not have whole beams exposed to fire outside the sphere...only their cross sections. Thus thermal conduction would most likely be insignificant in terms of temperature change within the fire.
 
Well thats a funny assumption considering its not actually about exposed surface area, even if you had 1 meter squared exposed to heat and no flame the buildings core structure is still totally connected, or in contrast 30 meters squared its still all interconnceted and wouldnt just stop at the ends, entropy will always take place between the cooler connected beams and the heated ones limiting the temprature throughout the heated area

The NIST report relies on lots of exposed steel and limited conduction to gain the tempratures needed which again is not actually known, its guessed within the objective of the theory, however it cannot be substantiated that it is the cause when they found a condition that works in a model made to induce that condition, its just simply bad science not using more physical evidence but rather making up the correct conditions to fit the theory.

As you can see if you look at construction photographs in the 1970's, conduction from that area would beable to access/interact with all areas of the connected steel core, being able to dissapate throughout the entire structure.
 
clarky003 said:
well thats a funny assumption because its not actually about exposed surface area
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

Heat conduction is all about surface area. Just look at a car radiator. Or the heat sink on your computer processor. If you only have a small surface area of steel exposed to the fire then it can't transfer that much heat through conduction.

Because I'm lazy:

7b3ca5d632c8c438e0ee86d48230c80c.png


A is the transversal surface area
Click to expand...
 
Oh dear god, once again the conspirators take the stage. Armed with the one vital fact that every scientific mind on the planet overlooked.

The only true investigators left to enlighten us all with their razor sharp minds and superhuman like intelligence. Thank goodness for these people, what would we do without them?

Which one is it this time? The pod under the planes, the missile into the Pentagon, the controlled demolition? Who knows?

“If you look closely at this shaky video, maybe squint your eyes slightly, stand back from your screen at a 45 degree angle, tilt your head slightly you will clearly see a shadow. What could this be? It’s so obvious, its bomb....it must be.
Look even closer you will see smoke, yes smoke at the base of building that as just a passenger jet slammed into it. Oh god what could it be?.....It must be a bomb.”

Forget common sense, forget logic, suspend all belief in anything that resembles intelligence and jump on the 9/11 circus. As the clowns entertain the audience with their silly and outrageous act don’t forget to buy the international best selling book, only 15 dollars including tax from Amazon….it’s a really great read and tells the “entire truth”

Please…..just stop.
 
In a large steel building core its also about the volume capacity of the steel, thats conduction transference your on about, if you heat the end of a long steel rod and the heat is concentrated on the end not a direct flame as you claimed, it will still dissapate throughout the length of the rod lowering the heated ends surface temerature, the longer the rod the more heat can be drawn away over time.

So assuming that small areas where exposed.. to not allow better more overall conduction and faster heating like your saying, along with FEMA and NIST's theory that conduction was limited even though unknown areas of steel where stripped of insulation in the collision and exposed.. how does that lead to molten pools of steel when the most intense jet fuel and conventionally fueled fires can just about get near the structural weakening point of steel not even anywhere near melting point, and then a symmetrical collapse of the core... when heat cant possibly transfer equally across all supports to weaken it all in symmetry to fall in its own footprint.. and not to mention happening consecutively 3 times in one day.

and Objection noted Baxter :p
 
clarky003 said:
In a large steel building core its also about the volume capacity of the steel, thats conduction transference your on about if you heat the end of a long steel rod and the heat is concentrated on the end not a direct flame as you claimed, it will still dissapate throughout the length of the rod lowering the heated ends surface temerature, the longer the rod the more heat can be drawn away over time.
Click to expand...

You can assume that the volume capacity is huge and it won't change the fact that you still can't transfer that much heat away from the fire.

So assuming that small areas where exposed.. to not allow better more overall conduction like your saying, it still goes against FEMA and NIST's theory that conduction was limited even though large areas of steel where exposed, the theory you support.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I'm saying that most likely such a small surface area of steel was exposed to the fire that the heat lost through conduction was insignificant with respect to the general model.

Yes, large areas of steel were exposed IN the fire zone. That's not what I'm talking about and does not affect the heat transferred to the rest of the building. Again, think of the sphere that seperates the fire zone from the non-fire zone. The amount of heat, Q that can be transferred from the fire zone to the non-fire zone is directly proportional to the surface area of steel coming in contact with that sphere. (Yes, a very simplified and innaccurate model, but it suffices for the general principle.) This surface area is only made up of the ends of steel beams because the rest of the beams are covered in insulation.

Here's yet another way to think about it. Imagine this entire steel structure. Now let's say we heat the top of the structure and let the heat transfer through it to the bottom. The amount of heat transferred is directly proportional (roughly) to the sum of the cross-sectional areas of the individual members. So even if you have a building that is 200ft on a side the actual area of conduction isn't really all that big. Basically, it takes A LOT of surface area to efficiently transfer heat. Thus why heat exchangers such as radiators and heat sinks try to maximize surface area.

Bottom line is that you can't transfer very much heat through a simple steel member. We're not talking about the buildings ability to store heat (volume capacity), we're talking about it's ability to transfer heat from one location to another.

If you really don't believe me then I'd suggest doing the calc on how much heat a steel member could transfer (just treat it like an insulated wire and use the equation above) using some reasonable base variables and compare that to the heat generated by a fire. Then you can draw up a simple model of how many beams it would take to significantly affect the temperature of the fire.

Argh, you've got to stop editing while I'm typing.:p

So assuming that small areas where exposed.. to not allow better more overall conduction and faster heating like your saying, along with FEMA and NIST's theory that conduction was limited even though unknown areas of steel where stripped of insulation in the collision and exposed.. how does that lead to molten pools of steel when the most intense jet fuel and conventionally fueled fires can just about get near the structural weakening point of steel not even anywhere near melting point, and then a symmetrical collapse of the core... when heat cant possibly transfer equally across all supports to weaken it all in symmetry to fall in its own footprint.. and not to mention happening consecutively 3 times in one day.
Click to expand...

Just one note about the amount of steel exposed. It actually doesn't even really matter how much was actually exposed to a certain extent because the amount of heat transfer through the structure is still bound by the cross sections of the beam members as it moves through the structure.

As for the "molten steel" I believe the only evidence of that is from observations. I don't think any actual data was collected on it and thus it's highlly questionable whether it was actually there or not. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. I need to go to bed so I'll just take the lazy route and quote from an article:

# The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, observed "literally molten steel" at the WTC. This was also mentioned by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. The melting point of un-fireproofed steel is around 2750 °F (1510°C) while the highest speculation regarding temperatures inside the twin towers circled 2000 °F (1093°C). According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F (593 °C).” Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9cm at 932 (500°C) degrees Fahrenheit, causing the floors above to buckle. The molten steel observation has not be elaborated on or picked up by most news groups. The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, in a second hand account by James Williams who reported, “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said, “Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins…” (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Verifying the validity of these molten steel sightings has proven difficult; NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero hot spots suggest the temperatures were not nearly hot enough, particular after 21 days, to produce “literally molten steel.”[2]
Click to expand...

Ok, next is the building falling symmetrically and landing in it's own footprint. First, I don't really see why this is considered odd? In order for it to fall outside it's foot print there would need to be substantial horizontal forces acting on the structure. Where would they come from? Yes, if one side collapsed before the other you'll get a small horizontal force due to the moment induced by the off center vertical force, but really it wouldn't be that big. If you think about it an off-center force toward the top of the building is going to create a moment equal to the distance between the force and the center of the building times the force. Then this will be equal to a horizontal force at that level times the height. Because the height is so large the horizontal force at that point would be relatively tiny. I'd have to actually look at it closer to really tell, but that makes sense. I don't see how any building could fall outside it's own footprint without something exerting a pretty massive horizontal force on it, which in most cases isn't going to happen.

Oh and:

It has been observed the Twin Towers fell straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a similar characteristic of a controlled demolition. Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building “would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base.” In other words, the structure had no choice but to fall straight down, following the path of least resistance. As far as the speed, a consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall. The most widely used number is at 10 seconds. Objects breaking away from the collapsing towers are photographed falling faster than the actual building, indicating the structure was not in a true free fall as in the case of typical prepared demolitions.
Click to expand...
 
You would have to figure out what area was exposed, which isnt known.. to get anything accurate out of it, you would also need to not just include one beam but its welded connected beams. I understand steel doesnt transfer heat very fast in a short period of time with low exposure to suface area, but my point is its not actually known in the report, and they just create the results to the theory. and assume its correct.

The molten steel in the basement, is by far the biggest anomalie and isnt addressed, nor are any of the demolishion characterisitic's.. The conversations gone a bit too technical, its a simple matter that NIST didnt bother with conduction transference atall, even though steel is still a good conductor... why it was never even done wasnt even explained, which is poor practice for any official write up. They obviously felt the same as you, and just simply ignored any impact of an interconnected structure on the assumption that it wouldnt have any significant impact.. and because of the assumed large exposure it should of still been tested.

If it was me I would want to know how all steel columns throughout the building gave way symmetrically to allow the total collapse within the footprint for all 3 WTC buildings, they dont address that atall. Even the lower structurally unaffected areas gave way with no resistance, even though you can see the top of the building disintigrates into dust before it impacts below in both of the first instances.
 
clarky003 said:
You would have to figure out what area was exposed, which isnt known.. to get anything accurate out of it, you would also need to not just include one beam but its welded connected beams.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't necessarily have to know the exposed area. The reason I suggested doing the calc for one beam is that then you have a base number to work with. If you know how much one beam can transfer then you can easily know how much 200 beams can transfer. Playing around with the data you could come up with some rough estimates of just how many beams it would take to significantly affect the fires temperature. Depending on the data you may then be able to show the heat transfer through the steel structure was either significant or insignificant if for example you got that it only took five beams or for example if it took 10,000 beams.

You do bring up a good point concerning the connections. This actually further supports my point in that the connections between beams are going to have an even smaller cross section and thus act as a bottleneck with respect to heat transfer.

The molten steel in the basement, is by far the biggest anomalie and isnt addressed, nor are any of the demolishion characterisitic's.. The conversations gone a bit too technical, its a simple matter that NIST didnt bother with conduction transference atall, and steel is still a good conductor... the fact it was never even done wasnt even explained. They obviously felt the same as you, and just simply ignored any impact of an interconnected structure even if it it was the assumption that it wouldnt have an impact.. and because of the assumed large exposure it should of still been tested.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that they probably didn't ignore the aspect of conduction at all. I imagine heat conduction through steel structures has been rather well studied and there are probably even codes for it. If it's not in the report I would venture to guess that it was automatically known to be insignificant from existing knowledge.

Ok, fun conversation...thanks. But that's enough structures talk for now....I don't even really like structures. That's why I'm in mechanical engineering and not civil. I don't think I could stand civil, yuck. Bed time for me. Got a test in the morning, bah.
 
You wouldn't necessarily have to know the exposed area. The reason I suggested doing the calc for one beam is that then you have a base number to work with. If you know how much one beam can transfer then you can easily know how much 200 beams can transfer. Playing around with the data you could come up with some rough estimates of just how many beams it would take to significantly affect the fires temperature. Depending on the data you may then be able to show the heat transfer through the steel structure was either significant or insignificant if for example you got that it only took five beams or for example if it took 10,000 beams.

You do bring up a good point concerning the connections. This actually further supports my point in that the connections between beams are going to have an even smaller cross section and thus act as a bottleneck with respect to heat transfer.
Click to expand...


Well I definately agree with that, but there is no real definitive way of knowing as we cannot see inside the building, know the extensiveness of the fire... its temerature, how much air its getting.. weither its choking itself slightly, etc, how much insulation has been stripped, steel surface area exposure.. or even weither the second planes wing even hit or damaged the core signifiantly as its entrance was way off centre.. All NIST have is assumtions made to fit within the only theory they have.

My opinion is that they probably didn't ignore the aspect of conduction at all. I imagine heat conduction through steel structures has been rather well studied and there are probably even codes for it. If it's not in the report I would venture to guess that it was automatically known to be insignificant from existing knowledge.
Click to expand...


Through proffessional etiquet atleast they should aknowledge why they didnt feel the need to mention it, its not what I call thorough, a hell of alot of questions arnt answered.
 
clarky003 said:
Through proffessional etiquet atleast they should aknowledge why they didnt feel the need to mention it, its not what I call thorough, a hell of alot of questions arnt answered.
Click to expand...

Like I said, just a guess on my part. Could be some other explanation. I don't know what the standard procedures are in a report like that.

Ok, ya I'm really going to bed now....curse you insomnia!
 
Heres the video i saw on TV that seriously made me question it all.

No matter what your orientation on the subject matter, I recommend everyone watches this before they place any comment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=WTC

If you want to skip the full length video recording, and move to the analysis goto 13:20, and sound delay correction is applied at 17:40.
 
The narrator guy is a tit.

"Whoaah, bring it back!"

You're not a DJ, that's footage of the split-second people are dying you keep rewinding there.
 
The video is as credible as any other video taken by the public, it just hasnt been lapped up by a mainstream media corporation.

Its clear the rewinding is focusing on the visual's sounds and timing of the event, not the peoples reactions.
 
Well that was a half hour well spend, wow how did I ever missed such clear, precise and undeniable rubbish.

Oh hang on while I delay my posting by 9.2 seconds and take into account the speed of my internet connection to compensate for my lack of visual and audio understanding of the significance of this absolute pure speculation. Metering that into my bullshit ometer and also taking into account the distance from my screen and the half bottle of wine I have just consumed confirms it was indeed a waste of precious drinking time and I demand a full refund.

Come on Clarky, seriously those sounds could have been anything.
 
clarky003 said:
The video is as credible as any other video taken by the public, it just hasnt been lapped up by a mainstream media corporation.

Its clear the rewinding is focusing on the visual's sounds and timing of the event, not the peoples reactions.
Click to expand...
The video is primary evidence, but the interpretations of it are done by nobodies - any idiot can write what he pleases on the internet.
 
I like the fact that so many people are dismissing the contents of this video without even watching it and calling anyone who does watch it a 'conspiracy nutcase' because they refuse to believe that a govornment (specifically the American govornment) is capable of commiting such an atrocity.

The clincher for me (the reason I think 9/11 was a filthy US Govt. planned event) is Iraq and how quickly Dubya and he cronies 'war on terror' moved on to Iraq.

Anyone who's studied the Invasion of Iraq even a little bit will know that upon invasion the first concnern of the US led coalition had was the securing of the oil fields while facilities such as hospitals were left for people to ransack.

*cough* WMDs *cough*
 
That's not really relevant - the fact is, is that it's near impossible to keep these kind of things completely silent.


The amount of people needed to pull off such a thing would be enormous , every single person would be required to stay silent and be totally willing to cause the deaths of many innocent people..

The fact that not a single person has claimed to be involved in such a huge undertaking is rather telling.
 
craig said:
I like the fact that so many people are dismissing the contents of this video without even watching it and calling anyone who does watch it a 'conspiracy nutcase' because they refuse to believe that a govornment (specifically the American govornment) is capable of commiting such an atrocity.

The clincher for me (the reason I think 9/11 was a filthy US Govt. planned event) is Iraq and how quickly Dubya and he cronies 'war on terror' moved on to Iraq.

Anyone who's studied the Invasion of Iraq even a little bit will know that upon invasion the first concnern of the US led coalition had was the securing of the oil fields while facilities such as hospitals were left for people to ransack.

*cough* WMDs *cough*
Click to expand...

Really ?

Oh well maybe you should enlighten us all as to how and when The US Government planned and the executed this mammoth task. That being mass murder of its own citizens, oh and while you’re at it pray do explain the reasons why.
 
Well look at 7/7 (eugh!), are you seriously telling me those 4 men worked alone? They were part of a network that manages to remain pretty silent about its actions.

A big power like the US govornment could quite easily silence anyone involved. Say they got 30 men to carry out the WTC attacks.. now knowing these men had a concience, say they got another 30 men to kill these men (citing false reasosn for the need to assasinate them). Speculation? Yes, but it would remove the need for worrying about 'staying silent'..
 
craig said:
Well look at 7/7 (eugh!), are you seriously telling me those 4 men worked alone? They were part of a network that manages to remain pretty silent about its actions.

A big power like the US govornment could quite easily silence anyone involved. Say they got 30 men to carry out the WTC attacks.. now knowing these men had a concience, say they got another 30 men to kill these men (citing false reasosn for the need to assasinate them). Speculation? Yes, but it would remove the need for worrying about 'staying silent'..
Click to expand...

Oh I see and then maybe get another 30 men to silence the 30 men and then another 30 ............................
 
ComradeBadger said:
The video is primary evidence, but the interpretations of it are done by nobodies - any idiot can write what he pleases on the internet.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but the person with the footage comes across as intelligent and honest, and the conclusions drawn up from the sound and time frame are very clear and concisely narrated, very well treated and to the point with the given evidence, its not rocket science its clear and in plain sight.. hand that to other people, have it processed and it would most likely have the same response, othewise you would be accusing him of being deaf or blind if he was to fit that 'idiot' criteria.

The answer is its not isit completely silent, there have been wistleblower's like Jose sanchez who saved someones life in the basement while witnessing a detonation as he was getting them out.

There are plentiful holes in the official story, people just keep talking about it.
 
if it wasn't for the fact that A ****ING PLANE HIT THOSE TOWERS AND MILLIONS OF MASSIVE BURNING DEBRIS FELL OFF I would investigate that smoke.
 
A ****ING PLANE HIT THOSE TOWERS AND MILLIONS OF MASSIVE BURNING DEBRIS FELL OFF
Click to expand...

There is no recorded historical references so how are we all so sure a jet can demolish a whole steel reinforced building into mainly dust.. and be so sure that it can collapse a sky scraper within its own footprint which requires the creation of symmetrical internal weakness's giving way simulataniously throughout for not on one, but on 3 occassions within the same day. We have nothing to compare it to, experts have nothing to compare it too, making it mostly guesswork that only attempt's to pocket it within the framework of the bush administrations theory. If you read FEMA and NIST's report the Omission's are clear and the lack of thoroughness, along with ignored analysis of evidence such as the molten steel, and forensic evidence from steel members ignored in NIST's report.

The bush administration still have 28 censored pages taken from the comission report which have not been publically released yet.

and responses like that negate the sound in the video ive just posted, which makes me wonder who bothered to watch all of it, that smoke rises in sequence with the explosion's pre collapse. 3 hours after any aircraft struck.


If you can show me some clear video evidence or simulation evidence that collapse initiation from a jet, its fuel and fire, can cause total global collapse I might agree, and how that explains the explosions at the base of the tower well before it begins to fall then il give you a cookie.

The next part of that video has recorded sound of WTC 7, and the most easy to follow address of some of the key unanswered question's.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1499087335913993078&q=911+Eyewitness
 
Why were all the survailliance cameras taken by FBI from the pentagon? Why didnt they want to show what really happen ? I didnt see a plane fly into the pentagon ... I saw a missle though.
 
P43.2/1Gig/X800P said:
Why were all the survailliance cameras taken by FBI from the pentagon? Why didnt they want to show what really happen ? I didnt see a plane fly into the pentagon ... I saw a missle though.
Click to expand...

A missile wow!! What was it like, big, small? Maybe an ICBM or SAM or just your bog standard missile. Painted blue, red or even yellow please, please give me more details
 
I've seen alot of the theories on 9/11. Alot of them are wrong to obvious facts, or just anti-governmental people stirring up conspiracys but at the end of the day there is more to it than just a "terrorist attack" something else did happen.

Bush never gave much details on what happend at all.

The Pentagon conspiracy is by far the most intresting.
 
Mutley said:
The Pentagon conspiracy is by far the most intresting.
Click to expand...
Easily. There was no plane to be found. Yet they say a plane crashed into the pentagon created a 16 foot wide hole.. No wings, nothing. Just little tidbits that could be picked up by hand. That doesn't make sense at all.
 
1) Why use airplanes on the WTC? Why not bombs? Actually, what is the actual conspiracy, that they used both?

2) Why also the Pentagon? Isn't the WTC enough?

3) Why a missle on the Pentagon? They already highjacked two planes, why bother with a missle?

4) How is all of this kept secret? If the CIA & FBI can barely keep their own secrets how come this 'operation' is so different?

5) Why the Pentagon and WTC? Why didn't they hit something more culturally effective like the Superbowl and something that wouldn't effect operations like the Pentagon. Which they would need if they planned to invade Iraq.

6) Why? Why blow up your own people? Why go through a grand conspiracy for just something like oil? I mean come on, Roswell has a better excuse then 9/11. WWI was started on less, so why bother with so much?
 
Those who control oil, the worlds leading energy source (almost everything valuable to modern society including the currencey strength is dictated by that bulk 44% of oil based fuels), can dictate policy.. expand their armies.. keep the machines and electricity that drive modern life going.. essentially control the global economy, which in turn keeps their positions valid retaining the status quo.. keeping those at the top of the pyramid sitting unmoved happy aquiring more wealth which is what many atheist's desire most.

Its correct to be suspicious that the threat to the economy is dictating these events, its approaching the end of the age of 'easy' oil as demand just keeps expanding and supply is increasingly more difficult and expensive to get at. Naturally oil companies that dont want to change yet will want to strive to bleed it till the very last drop before they go out of buisness.. and government's are more the corporate puppet nowday's.. because in order for government to exist and have any bearing on their populace they need energy supply, otherwise the government along with the system collapses.

Its a harsh reality but its a power game at the core. If you LOSE, future maintenance on your existing way of life is screwed (big enough drive for you?). If America cant keep the currencey strong enough to keep oil cost's down.. aquiring new, cheaper, richer , more easily accessable oil fields is prime objective solution for an extended period of using oil. It can then secure the future energy for its armies, it can afford the resources to keep people happy in their place , it can afford faster economic growth, it can boost the strength of the dollar and petrodollar trade, its the ultimate initiation in a temporary attempt towards global economic take over... and how far would you go to aquire what you need, if the situation wasnt looking so bright?

thats what you need to ask yourself, and then study the kindof meglomaniac people alot of plotician's and coporate executives are and then there is really no suprise that you get dirty fighting, I mean if this is true, they are thinking "why play fair, when you can gain the advantage now by playing dirty".

and all this makes sense when you read the Project for the New American Century brief, playing dirty is their main suggestion to speed up the process of energy aquisition.


All that anyone needs to do is just keep asking those question's, demand answers.
 
Asking questions? ......Emmmmmm let me think?

So it's now a power game, it’s no longer a question of physics; it's all about keeping oil costs down, economic growth and even economic take over.

So as the politicians get dirty lets all forget about the physics of the towers or the poor unfortunate individuals that lost there lives there. Let’s just keep asking the questions.....heaven forbid there would be a hidden agenda behind it, which of course there isn't.

It's all about controlling oil, sorry did I say that? Oh no you did.

Keeping the armies, machines and electricity going.......but hey it's not a conspiracy it's all abut the physics ....isn't it?

So if it’s about questions, bearing in mind your deep seated and sound view of the Western governmental structure maybe you could answer these questions.

1 WHY?
2 WHO?
3 WHEN?
4 HOW?

Hey Clarky it's all about power, answer the simple questions and your damming indictment of the US Government will be validated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Solaris
What are you up to these days?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Shem
Shem
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
Star Citizen
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top