9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Never before in the history of engineering had a loaded fuel tanker truck hit a bridge with the resultant inferno causing the bridge to weaken and collapse. bridge collapse should have been the end of the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. It's too bad logic and evidence are a lot less persuasive than obviously doctored photos.

The link stated that...QUOTE"The tanker exploded, sending flames hundreds of feet into the air, according to witnesses, and quickly buckled a three-lane section of Interstate 580 and caused it to collapse onto Interstate 880 some thirty feet below."
So an explosion destroyed the concerete not flames melting steel.......so not really a good comparison

You do the math. The only ones who are saying the steel melted are journalists whose science education ended with Physics 001 "Physics for Poets", and nutjobs. That the steel couldn't have melted is a straw man argument. Steel becomes malleable at a temperature far lower than the melting point.

LOL....ok lets look at it from from 'malleable steel' as a cause.....:scratchin:
OK the jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees....reinforced steel becomes malleable between 2150-2350 so again it is not possible for the steel to become malleable let alone melt.......so back to the math

On the other hand, if 9/11 was some conspiracy by people in power, all we have to do is find the culprits and put them in jail. Tada! The world is safe again.

I wouldn't say the world would be safe but at least we would understand the difference between a dollar and a human life a bit more..
explain to me the bbc saying no 7 had collapse when the building is right behind the reporter......? phsycic journalism..pff

 

[BenTheMan]

Like I say, this belongs in the pseudoscience section, there's no longer any merit to discussing this topic as a subject of physics.

You are correct sir. I should have moved this thread long ago.

 

[GeoffP]

LOL....ok lets look at it from from 'malleable steel' as a cause.....:scratchin:
OK the jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees....reinforced steel becomes malleable between 2150-2350 so again it is not possible for the steel to become malleable let alone melt.......so back to the math

That is patently incorrect. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 500C. Thermal protection was stripped off by the impact.

Now, on the other side of the story, that steel on the bridge was indeed melted. It isn't blown to bits, but melted. So now what?

 

[shaman_]

explain to me the bbc saying no 7 had collapse when the building is right behind the reporter......? phsycic journalism..pff

Due to the damage and the fire burning unchecked for seven hours, WTC7 was expected to fall long before it actually did. This is why the firemen on the scene backed off. While that report is a little odd, it doesn't really point to a conspiracy.

When WTC1 and WTC2 fell, the collapse was not neat like a controlled demolition would be. The debris fell all over the WTC complex. Every building in the WTC complex collapsed or had to be demolished due to the damage it received. Part of a skyscraper fell on WTC7 and it was significantly damaged. The fate of WTC7 is not so strange.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would say I was very impressed that a main stream media like the BBC is airing like this type of information to millions of viewers. Now all who watched that program are talking about an inside job.

I watched the program. I also understood the program. As a consequence I am not talking about an inside job.
You seem to have a predeliction for making errors when assessing situations. May I advise you get help when crossing the road.

 

[snake river rufus]

Yes.....

The BBC last Sunday has aired more than an hour program about WTC7.
A very detailed investigation of all the evidences of WTC7 collapse. Watch it if you can : Link is : ......bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd

The BBC is finally trying to come clean with it's conscience, and tries to justify why Jane Stanley reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.

The program showed the following:

• 
  [*]Control Demolition
  [*]Free fall speed
  [*]Themite
  [*]Very high temperature at the base of WTC7 event 5 days after 911
  [*]And many more...

I would say I was very impressed that a main stream media like the BBC is airing like this type of information to millions of viewers. Now all who watched that program are talking about an inside job.



Thanks you, this phrase is everything...Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it..."

Also, Steel will only melt in the following situations:

• 
  
  [*]When a blast furnace is used
  [*]When Oxyacetylene gaze mixture is used
  [*]When a thermite device is applied to it

This will leave Thermite as the prime suspect...INSIDE JOB

US GOVERNMENT HAS SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT...

Case closed

Again, no steel melted. You were hoodwinked by these conspiracy whacko. But hey get sending your money to them, no reason for them to be gainfully employed when they can rely on the gulibilty of people like you.

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah. James, it was aluminum, not steel.

 

[James911]

I watched the program. I also understood the program. As a consequence I am not talking about an inside job.
You seem to have a predeliction for making errors when assessing situations. May I advise you get help when crossing the road.

Ok, let me hold your hand and make you cross that road:

I want from you a Yes or No answer:

• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about control demolition? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Temperature exceeding 1700 dgree C at the base of WTC7? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Thermate residue found around WTC7? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about the impossibility of WTC7 falling symmetrically due to fire? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about first time in history a control demolition is carried out using thermate, so that no traces are left behind and to avoid explosives that make lots of noise? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about a man walking on dead bodies inside the WTC7 before it collapsed? Yes or No

The last point is very strange...we are learning more and more things.
Why people were killed inside WTC7.
What were they doing inside WTC7 before they were killed.
Surely no plane has hit WTC7, so why people died in it hours before it was demolished.

Best regards
James

 

[snake river rufus]

Ok, let me hold your hand and make you cross that road:

I want from you a Yes or No answer:

• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about control demolition? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Temperature exceeding 1700 dgree C at the base of WTC7? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about Thermate residue found around WTC7? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about the impossibility of WTC7 falling symmetrically due to fire? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about first time in history a control demolition is carried out using thermate, so that no traces are left behind and to avoid explosives that make lots of noise? Yes or No
• Did the reporter on the BBC program talked about a man walking on dead bodies inside the WTC7 before it collapsed? Yes or No

The last point is very strange...we are learning more and more things.
Why people were killed inside WTC7.
What were they doing inside WTC7 before they were killed.
Surely no plane has hit WTC7, so why people died in it hours before it was demolished.

Best regards
James

If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then the reporter wis uninformed or an idiot.
No airplane hit WTC7, the first factual statement that I've seen you post on this thread.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

.
Now, on the other side of the story, that steel on the bridge was indeed melted. It isn't blown to bits, but melted. So now what?

Well i've looked at a few more sites on this and it seems the after the explosion the bridge collapsed after a couple of minutes(caused by explosion),the way the road collapsed created a type of oven around the tanker where temps possibly got up to 2000....hence the steel melted but the melted steel was not the cause of the collapse.....
LOL there is conspiracy theories on this too

Due to the damage and the fire burning unchecked for seven hours, WTC7 was expected to fall long before it actually did. This is why the firemen on the scene backed off. While that report is a little odd, it doesn't really point to a conspiracy.

If you look at other videos of buildings collapsing from fire damage and videos proffessionaly demolished there is a big difference and the WTC7 building collapses perfectly.

When WTC1 and WTC2 fell, the collapse was not neat like a controlled demolition would be. The debris fell all over the WTC complex. Every building in the WTC complex collapsed or had to be demolished due to the damage it received. Part of a skyscraper fell on WTC7 and it was significantly damaged. The fate of WTC7 is not so strange.

I doubt you would be able to perform a 'neat' demolition on the WTC 1&2 without significantly damaging the surrounding area, if you look at a safety zone for demolition its quite extensive..

I don't think something's not right because of conspiracy but, because it didn't look right the way all three building's seem to collapse so perfectly and as no other structure's like this have ever collapsed due to fire before comdined with footage of other similar structure's that have had major fires
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjO...eature=related
I'm not convinced its so clean cut,a war started for no legitimate reason,a government that would lie to invade another country and sacrifice it's soldiers for a dollar wouldn't think twice about it's citizen's (but that's only my opinion I can't be bothered going into that)..the main reason is on appearance of the collapses alone.

 

[James911]

If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then the reporter wis uninformed or an idiot.
No airplane hit WTC7, the first factual statement that I've seen you post on this thread.

Well Well Well...you have seen or not seen the BBC program?

If your answers are No to my above 6 questions, then either you haven't seen it, which is not true, because you said you have seen it. Or you have seen it, in which case you are trying to lie and hide the truth from the readers. Full stop.


Regards

 

[GeoffP]

Well i've looked at a few more sites on this and it seems the after the explosion the bridge collapsed after a couple of minutes(caused by explosion),the way the road collapsed created a type of oven around the tanker where temps possibly got up to 2000....hence the steel melted but the melted steel was not the cause of the collapse.....
LOL there is conspiracy theories on this too

So couldn't the melted steel at WTC, if there were any, be the result of the oven effect in the burning debris? This sound like the smoking gun that wasn't. PH, the conspiracy theories are all based on shoddy impressionism. Look at James' flailing around to keep pushing his agenda after being stomped on the other threads. It's a faith-based issue, not an evidence-based issue.

 

[snake river rufus]

Well Well Well...you have seen or not seen the BBC program?

If your answers are No to my above 6 questions, then either you haven't seen it, which is not true, because you said you have seen it. Or you have seen it, in which case you are trying to lie and hide the truth from the readers. Full stop.


Regards

I have not seen it nor have I ever said that I did. You are the one trying to hide the truth or you just have very little understanding of physics and engineering

 

[GeoffP]

Well Well Well...you have seen or not seen the BBC program?

Argument from false authority.

 

[James911]

I have not seen it nor have I ever said that I did. You are the one trying to hide the truth or you just have very little understanding of physics and engineering

So why did you reply to my post. Before you reply go and watch the Documentary.

 

[shaman_]

If you look at other videos of buildings collapsing from fire damage and videos proffessionaly demolished there is a big difference and the WTC7 building collapses perfectly.

The lower floors of WTC7 lost enough structural integrity and collapsed under the weight of the floors above, with the help of gravity. This collapse may be similar to a controlled demolition (well they fall in the same direction) but that doesn’t mean it had to be.

If we want to theorize about building seven you have to ask, how did they get explosives there without anyone seeing them? Why did they wait seven hours before setting them off? Why even blow WTC7 with explosives? What is the point of that? There are going to be planes flying into the building next to it. What if no debris had hit WTC7 at all? Would it then have just dropped for no reason? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

I doubt you would be able to perform a 'neat' demolition on the WTC 1&2 without significantly damaging the surrounding area, if you look at a safety zone for demolition its quite extensive..

But you and others refer to WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing “perfectly”. The collapse starts at the floors where the planes hit – unlike a controlled demolition. The buildings fell but did not go straight down. One certainly had a large lean as it collided with WTC7. So what was perfect about the collapse?

I don't think something's not right because of conspiracy but, because it didn't look right the way all three building's seem to collapse so perfectly and as no other structure's like this have ever collapsed due to fire before comdined with footage of other similar structure's that have had major fires

But these building did not collapse simply due to fire.

 

[shaman_]

Ok, let me hold your hand and make you cross that road:......


...
The last point is very strange...we are learning more and more things.
Why people were killed inside WTC7.
What were they doing inside WTC7 before they were killed.
Surely no plane has hit WTC7, so why people died in it hours before it was demolished.

Best regards
James

There is no point answering these questions because, as snake river rufus pointed out, they are not even based on facts.

There are no deaths attributed to WTC7 so what are you talking about? Answer the question without telling me to watch some documentary.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

So couldn't the melted steel at WTC, if there were any, be the result of the oven effect in the burning debris? This sound like the smoking gun that wasn't. PH, the conspiracy theories are all based on shoddy impressionism. Look at James' flailing around to keep pushing his agenda after being stomped on the other threads. It's a faith-based issue, not an evidence-based issue.

hmm the evidence to me is the way all 3 towers fell, plus if you nit pick through various theories there is a lot that doesn't make sense,compare it with other buildings on fire and it doesn't seem fitting for them to collapse this way...for me the way WTC 7 fell is a complete controlled demolition....
if part had fallen like normaly when buildings suffer trauma and fire damage then I wouldn't think that..

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

The lower floors of WTC7 lost enough structural integrity and collapsed under the weight of the floors above, with the help of gravity. This collapse may be similar to a controlled demolition (well they fall in the same direction) but that doesn’t mean it had to be.

If we want to theorize about building seven you have to ask, how did they get explosives there without anyone seeing them? Why did they wait seven hours before setting them off? Why even blow WTC7 with explosives? What is the point of that? There are going to be planes flying into the building next to it. What if no debris had hit WTC7 at all? Would it then have just dropped for no reason? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

So what caused the fire in WTC 7.........?

But you and others refer to WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing “perfectly”. The collapse starts at the floors where the planes hit – unlike a controlled demolition. The buildings fell but did not go straight down. One certainly had a large lean as it collided with WTC7. So what was perfect about the collapse?
But these building did not collapse simply due to fire.

Well the planes disintegrated on impact and it states here that the 'Empire state building' was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945 causing fire yet that still stands and did not collapse....!
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

In 1975 WTC 1 suffered a major fire and did not collapse.....!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html

Here is some comparison's to other major fires in similar structures
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
Also claims that the jet fuel would have burnt itself out after 10 mins....no its still not a clean cut issue

 

[GeoffP]

hmm the evidence to me is the way all 3 towers fell, plus if you nit pick through various theories there is a lot that doesn't make sense,compare it with other buildings on fire and it doesn't seem fitting for them to collapse this way...for me the way WTC 7 fell is a complete controlled demolition....
if part had fallen like normaly when buildings suffer trauma and fire damage then I wouldn't think that..

Well, which other naturally collapsing buildings have fallen sideways? Does the design of the WTC buildings suggest that their designers might have intended them to fall directly down, or topple over to hit Manhattan like a giant domino? The physical evidence supports a normal collapse, not demolition. Why else do pieces falling off the tower - those breaking away from it at any stage, I might add, as can be seen in the videos - always fall faster than the tower itself? Surely these pieces are in literal free-fall.