Why did the 9/11 hijackers select those targets

[crazymikey]

Spidergoat,

But that is not what happend. It did not just weaken; it vapourized and/or melted, and it was still burning for 3 weeks afterwards, despite being hosed constantly. The steel supports of the WTC building were actually built to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. Not just that, but the concrete and the people in the building, everything vapourized. Jet-fuel just does not do that, it is designed for, surprise, a quick burning fuel to provide propulsion for a commercial aircraft.

In addition, it needs oxygen to burn, and there was little to no oxygen in the WTC building, which was clearly billowing smoke everywhere. Secondly, most of the jet fuel burned out on impact. In other words, the fire was not intense at all, let alone to vapourize 200,000 tons of building.

What is the most obvious event of 9/11, that screams, deception, is the falling of WTC-7, which was not hit by anything.

Ask yourself, when powerful explosive filled missiles are dropped on their targets, does it reduce it to powder? The building is destroyed, but it's left in ruins, and some of it standing. If a missile cannot reduce something to dust, despite being built to destroy, how does jet fuel cause the self implosion of 3 buildings(one was not hit) reduce 200,000 tons of building into dust, when it is designed as a quick-burn fuelto provide propulsion to a commercial airliner.

Let alone, a huge spike on the seismograph when they fell. It was not a jetliner, trust me on this, because it's scientifically impossible to have done what was done, and on top of that, the logistics and the plausibility of what happend, is extremely unlikely.

 

[goofyfish]

Ahhh.. the "trust me" argument again...

Peace.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Just to add to the discusion, I've heard that all the people that died in the pentagon attack were maintenance people rather then military people. Interesting...

I also heard that the towers were demolished and that the planes couldn't do what that they "did".

Also the firefighers were phoned and said that the tower would collapse before they actually did (I peronally don't think that's so relevant).

Can anyone back up those things?

 

[goofyfish]

A many military personnel were killed at the Pentagon.

:m: Peace.

 

[GuessWho]

crazymikey,

I first thought that you were joking but now I realized that you are serious and really believe in your conspiracy theory. Since you gave yourself the title "Open-Minded Scientist," you should be open minded enough to listen to yourself.

If you cannot even realize how ridiculous your conspiracy theory sounds, then raise to the power of 911!

 

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat,

But that is not what happend. It did not just weaken; it vapourized and/or melted, and it was still burning for 3 weeks afterwards, despite being hosed constantly. The steel supports of the WTC building were actually built to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. Not just that, but the concrete and the people in the building, everything vapourized. Jet-fuel just does not do that, it is designed for, surprise, a quick burning fuel to provide propulsion for a commercial aircraft.

Oh, I didn't realize that's where you were going with this. If even an ordinary house fire can heat steel to red-hot, the initial fires at the WTC could surely have done so. Then, if the steel is weakened in this way, floors start to collapse in a domino effect. The building was made strong enough to survive a jet impact, but not the tremendous mass of it's upper floors collapsing. It is the collapse of the buildings that caused almost everything to grind into dust. The building did not vaporize in the scientific sense of the term. In fact there was a great amount of material not reduced to dust.

In addition, it needs oxygen to burn, and there was little to no oxygen in the WTC building, which was clearly billowing smoke everywhere. Secondly, most of the jet fuel burned out on impact. In other words, the fire was not intense at all, let alone to vapourize 200,000 tons of building.

There is oxygen in air, of course, and the rubble contained many air pockets. I'm not sure how the appearance of smoke translates to lack of oxygen, it would seem that it contradicts that idea.

What is the most obvious event of 9/11, that screams, deception, is the falling of WTC-7, which was not hit by anything.

Ask yourself, when powerful explosive filled missiles are dropped on their targets, does it reduce it to powder? The building is destroyed, but it's left in ruins, and some of it standing. If a missile cannot reduce something to dust, despite being built to destroy, how does jet fuel cause the self implosion of 3 buildings(one was not hit) reduce 200,000 tons of building into dust, when it is designed as a quick-burn fuelto provide propulsion to a commercial airliner.

Again, the fuel and impact caused the fire, which caused the collapse, which caused the brittle concrete, plaster, and glass to crumble into dust and rubble. No one has ever suggested that the jet fuel directly caused the buildings to "vaporize".

Let alone, a huge spike on the seismograph when they fell. It was not a jetliner, trust me on this, because it's scientifically impossible to have done what was done, and on top of that, the logistics and the plausibility of what happend, is extremely unlikely.

Yes, it was unlikely, but not impossible, and you would expect a large vibration to occur when such a large mass falls. If the seismograph detected the vibration before they fell, then I might think that there were other forces involved.

 

[spidergoat]

Remember, by volume, buildings are mostly empty space.

 

[crazymikey]

Oh, I didn't realize that's where you were going with this. If even an ordinary house fire can heat steel to red-hot, the initial fires at the WTC could surely have done so. Then, if the steel is weakened in this way, floors start to collapse in a domino effect. The building was made strong enough to survive a jet impact, but not the tremendous mass of it's upper floors collapsing. It is the collapse of the buildings that caused almost everything to grind into dust. The building did not vaporize in the scientific sense of the term. In fact there was a great amount of material not reduced to dust.

The building was made strong enough to be hit by a 747 jet, now of course, that would be in the upper floor, because jets do not fly lower than where the planes impacted the building, and it would be silly to assume otherwise.
The steel can be red hot, but it does not mean it will collapse, to get the steel to collapse you would need to super-heat it to over 1000-1300 degrees, close to it's melting temperature, simply because the thermal energy would transfer to the colder parts of the building, and the heated section will quickly cool off.

As this happens, the concrete and the glass would start to melt, and the building will visibly start to melt away, and due to flash-point fires, there would be fires visible on many floors, causing explosions. The steel frames would fall away from the building, and some of it would still be left standing. That is NOT what happened. What happend, does not even happen with missile attacks for gods sake.

There is oxygen in air, of course, and the rubble contained many air pockets. I'm not sure how the appearance of smoke translates to lack of oxygen, it would seem that it contradicts that idea.

In the building, a fire would not have enough oxygen to burn, especially when the air is full of smoke. The jet fuel is a quick burning fuel, that needs oxygen to burn. None of the circumstances allow that.

Again, the fuel and impact caused the fire, which caused the collapse, which caused the brittle concrete, plaster, and glass to crumble into dust and rubble. No one has ever suggested that the jet fuel directly caused the buildings to "vaporize".

No, please review the physics of what happened. It was turned into dust, and that dust swept through the city. We can all conjecture on what happend, and try to rationalize it as much we can, but take all the evidence and facts into consideration.

200,000 tons of concrete and steel and humans, were all vapourized into micronic dust at the same time, simply because of a jet-attack, and fires, that did not have enough fuel or oxygen to burn, and that would easily have been dealt with automatic fire safety. I mean the most ridiculous event in this, is the 43 story WTC-7 imploding in exactly the same way, when it was not even hit.

Yes, it was unlikely, but not impossible, and you would expect a large vibration to occur when such a large mass falls. If the seismograph detected the vibration before they fell, then I might think that there were other forces involved.

It was not just unlikely, it was extremely unlikely, and scientifically impossible. I would like you to review the exact physics of the event at this web site, and I assure the articles presented at this site, are hardcore physics: http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=22

 

[Kunax]

keep it rolling crazymikey

 

[TruthSeeker]

A many military personnel were killed at the Pentagon.

:m: Peace.

Assuming that the list you provided is true, then I guess what I heard was a hoax...

 

[TruthSeeker]

The steel supports of the WTC building were actually built to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet.

Do you really realize what you are saying? Is there anything that we build that can withstand that? I would say... no.

I don't think that is an argument. However, I presume that the building wasn't hold by its... let's say....external squeleton. There was definetely something really concrete inside that would hold that building. Were airplanes enough to get that deep and brake that hard after having already hit? I'm not sure about that.

 

[crazymikey]

Assuming that the list you provided is true, then I guess what I heard was a hoax...

I would not give way so easily truthseeker. If a government can muder 3000 of its people, then why not a few military officials? The attack on the Pentagon is also suspect, because a jet-liner hitting it, would have caused much more damage. Instead, the exit-hole in the Pentagon, is only 2-3 metres wide. It's possible it really was hit, but it is suspect, nonetheless, especially when you consider every single event that happened on 9-11.

 

[crazymikey]

Do you really realize what you are saying? Is there anything that we build that can withstand that? I would say... no.

Of course there is. We can build buildings to withstand earthquakes and tornados, thus a 747 is nothing. A 747 at worst would cause a hole in the building, but it would not collapse the steel framework of the building.

Also, though this has nothing to do with 9/11, we do have technology now to build super-tensile alloys, that are 200 times stronger than steel, and have extremely high melting points.

 

[spidergoat]

The building was made strong enough to be hit by a 747 jet, now of course, that would be in the upper floor, because jets do not fly lower than where the planes impacted the building, and it would be silly to assume otherwise.
The steel can be red hot, but it does not mean it will collapse, to get the steel to collapse you would need to super-heat it to over 1000-1300 degrees, close to it's melting temperature,...

No, the steel is under stress, carrying the load of the upper floors, and at red-hot temperatures, or even below, steel gets weaker, becoming more maleable, and unable to support the load. As an anology, look at a molded plastic chair: if you were sitting on it, and held a torch to the leg, it would collapse way before the leg melted into a liquid.

simply because the thermal energy would transfer to the colder parts of the building, and the heated section will quickly cool off.

If the building was a solid chunk of steel, this would be true, but it was made of girders and thin sections, which can only carry away a small amount of heat. Also, the steel structure surrounding the impact area was still insulated with fireproofing material.

As this happens, the concrete and the glass would start to melt, and the building will visibly start to melt away, and due to flash-point fires, there would be fires visible on many floors, causing explosions. The steel frames would fall away from the building, and some of it would still be left standing. That is NOT what happened. What happend, does not even happen with missile attacks for gods sake.

The building fell down long before it got hot enough to melt glass. Much of the lower steel structure was left standing or intact and bent. The building was brought down, not just by the missile-like impact, but the resulting fire acting on uninsulated steel structures. There was a TV special about this very subject, it might have been Frontline.

In the building, a fire would not have enough oxygen to burn, especially when the air is full of smoke. The jet fuel is a quick burning fuel, that needs oxygen to burn. None of the circumstances allow that.

Smoke-filled air also contains oxygen. Smoke is just a diffusion of fine particles in air. The whole area was full of oxygen.

200,000 tons of concrete and steel and humans, were all vapourized into micronic dust at the same time, simply because of a jet-attack, and fires, that did not have enough fuel or oxygen to burn, and that would easily have been dealt with automatic fire safety. I mean the most ridiculous event in this, is the 43 story WTC-7 imploding in exactly the same way, when it was not even hit.

As I said, true vaporization from heat did not occur, it was not hot enough. The reduction of the building, and surrounding buildings into dust was the result of physical collapse. These large buildings were mostly empty space, which is why they were so useful to people, and why they could collapse into a (still substantial) pile of rubble.

 

[crazymikey]

The building fell down long before it got hot enough to melt glass. Much of the lower steel structure was left standing or intact and bent. The building was brought down, not just by the missile-like impact, but the resulting fire acting on uninsulated steel structures. There was a TV special about this very subject, it might have been Frontline.

Spider, you saw a TV-special, trying to build up a scenorio, upon the given facts. They did not even consider the possibility of something other than a plane attack, and most of their science is severely flawed.
As I told you, if it was melting, it would have been visible, because due to flash fires in every building, there would be several explosions on several floors. This has nothing to do with melting temperature of glass.

Seriously, if it was melting, like you are saying, it would not have imploded like it had, and contrary to what you are saying, it would not have crushed everything into dust. And the steel would most definitely not have been burning hot for several weeks afterwards, despite being hosed constantly.

If the building was a solid chunk of steel, this would be true, but it was made of girders and thin sections, which can only carry away a small amount of heat. Also, the steel structure surrounding the impact area was still insulated with fireproofing material.

It was close to 200,000 tons of steel, and no the specific heat capacity of steel, does not change, because theres umm "less of it"

Smoke-filled air also contains oxygen. Smoke is just a diffusion of fine particles in air. The whole area was full of oxygen.

Do you have any idea why large quantities of oxygen are used when melting steel in an industrial complex. Oxygen in a single enclosed space for jet fuel, is barely enough for it to burn, and consider how little fuel leaked into the building, it's highly doubtful the fuel would be burning, and that is exactly what was seen by all. It was billowing smoke, with barely any fire burning, and it was only 1 hour.

As I said, true vaporization from heat did not occur, it was not hot enough. The reduction of the building, and surrounding buildings into dust was the result of physical collapse. These large buildings were mostly empty space, which is why they were so useful to people, and why they could collapse into a (still substantial) pile of rubble.

No, buildings collapsing, do not turn people into dust. Let alone steel works into dust, or molten iron that burns for 3 weeks.

Did you review the web site I cited?

 

[Captain_Crunch]

Crazymikey, its clear to me from reading your posts on the construction and structural properties of steel and concrete, that you don't have even a basic grasp on these subjects.
The WTC used steel columns around it's perimeter for structural entegrity (to resist wind loads, effectively this is curtain walling), it had a steel core which took gravitational loads. Sky scrapers are made of steel as it is lightweight, keeping the mass of the building down, if you were to use masonry in place of steel then the building could not hold it's own mass causing structural failure. The inherent property of steel that makes it very vunerable when exposed heat, unlike masonry, when steel is exposed to heat it will quickly buckle and lose load bearing properties. Since these planes had just taken off, they would have had a full load of fuel and as a result been very heavy, this coupled with their size would knock a severe chunk of outer steel bracing, but they wouldn't have stopped there, they would have penetrated deeper effecting structural integrity of the inner steel central core. Due to the abundance of aircraft fuel and it being ignited would have easily caused the temperatures that are needed to cause catastrophic failure of steel. But of course, like any modern building there should be a minimum set time that building materials can resist fire and the WTC was no exception to this. It would have had sprinkler systems, and its likely (although I'm not 100% sure on this) that the steel would have had some sort of fire resistant covering. As the structure would have been severely weakened by the initial impact, the fire effectively finished the job causing a floor to collapse and because of its construction, all the other floors above it would have also collapsed. The gravitational effect of tons of falling steel would not have been designed to have been resisted as this is a freak circumstance that would not have been foreseen. Causing catastrophic and total failure.
Contrary to what you believe, a small amount of concrete would have been used, as far as I'm aware, concrete was only used in the floor slabs.
Your nutcase conspiracy is seriously flawed.
The effect of the planes crashing into the tower would not have needed any assistance from lasers or bombs.

Cheers.

 

[crazymikey]

You post that, and question my grasp of the subject?

if you were to use masonry in place of steel then the building could not hold it's own mass causing structural failure. The inherent property of steel that makes it very vunerable when exposed heat, unlike masonry, when steel is exposed to heat it will quickly buckle and lose load bearing properties. Since these planes had just taken off, they would have had a full load of fuel and as a result been very heavy, this coupled with their size would knock a severe chunk of outer steel bracing, but they wouldn't have stopped there, they would have penetrated deeper effecting structural integrity of the inner steel central core. Due to the abundance of aircraft fuel and it being ignited would have easily caused the temperatures that are needed to cause catastrophic failure of steel. But of course, like any modern building there should be a minimum set time that building materials can resist fire and the WTC was no exception to this. It would have had sprinkler systems, and its likely (although I'm not 100% sure on this) that the steel would have had some sort of fire resistant covering. As the structure would have been severely weakened by the initial impact, the fire effectively finished the job causing a floor to collapse and because of its construction, all the other floors above it would have also collapsed. The gravitational effect of tons of falling steel would not have been designed to have been resisted as this is a freak circumstance that would not have been foreseen. Causing catastrophic and total failure.
Contrary to what you believe, a small amount of concrete would have been used, as far as I'm aware, concrete was only used in the floor slabs.

If you are going to post, try and consider every aspect discussed thus far, rather than go off on your own tangent.

1. Most of the jet fuel was burnt up in the initial explosion, and there was little oxygen for it to burn. Yet something did cause the building to super-heat.

2. It could not have melted the steel works, because jet fuel burns at a far lower temperature. Yet it did.

3. It could not have crushed everything into micronic dust. Yet it did.

4. Fires would have caused explosions due to flash point fires on multiple floors. The steel works would have fell away from the building. Yet it didn't.

5. WTC-7, a 43 story building, was not even hit by a plane. Yet it fell exactly the same way; self-implosion.

6. Even missiles, equipped with high octane explosives, designed to cause mass destruction. Do not do what those jetliners did.

7. The logistics and plausibility of the event is extremely unlikely. Where 3 jetliner attacks take place, hours apart, yet cannot be stopped.

And if you want some hardcore physics lessons:

http://physics911.org/net/modules/n....php?storyid=22

Your nutcase conspiracy is seriously flawed.

And it a nutcase conspiracy, why, because you think the government is not capable of attacking and deceiving it's people? Sheep.

 

[Captain_Crunch]

If you are going to post, try and consider every aspect discussed thus far, rather than go off on your own tangent.

As far as I can see your theory is flawed so I pointed it out.

1. Most of the jet fuel was burnt up in the initial explosion, and there was little oxygen for it to burn. Yet something did cause the building to super-heat.

Again, Ill repeat steel frame does not require phenomenal amounts of heat to lose load bearing strength.

2. It could not have melted the steel works, because jet fuel burns at a far lower temperature. Yet it did.

It doesn't need to melt the steel for it to lose load beating capacity.

3. It could not have crushed everything into micronic dust. Yet it did.

Not everything was crushed to micromic dust. Given that the concrete would have been exposed to the heat it also would have been detrimental to its strucutural entegrity and bonding causing it to break up into dust. Largely it was made of steel, concrete was in minimal volumes.

4. Fires would have caused explosions due to flash point fires on multiple floors. The steel works would have fell away from the building. Yet it didn't.

Your under estimating modern building techniques, the fire would have been contained largely to the affected floors, sprinkler and fire resistance measures will have pre longed the effect of heat.

And it a nutcase conspiracy, why, because you think the government is not capable of attacking and it's deceiving it's people? Sheep.

I know that the building will have collapsed without the government interference. Therefore the rest of your theory does not apply if the first hurdle is flawed.

Cheers.

 

[crazymikey]

As far as I can see your theory is flawed so I pointed it out.

Not is flawed. You THINK it is flawed, because you cannot consider the possibility, that the buildings fell something other than a plane attack.

Again, Ill repeat steel frame does not require phenomenal amounts of heat to lose load bearing strength.

Prove it to me. If you are going malform the steel by heat, you need to bring it close to it's melting point.

It doesn't need to melt the steel for it to lose load beating capacity.

That's what you don't understand. The steel actually did melt, and it was molten for several weeks, despite being hosed constantly.

Not everything was crushed to micromic dust. Given that the concrete would have been exposed to the heat it also would have been detrimental to its strucutural entegrity and bonding causing it to break up into dust. Largely it was made of steel, concrete was in minimal volumes.

Not just the concrete was crushed to dust; even human beings and some of the steel framework.

Your under estimating modern building techniques, the fire would have been contained largely to the affected floors, sprinkler and fire resistance measures will have pre longed the effect of heat.

That is a contradiction. If you said the fire would have been contained, then how would it have burnt hot enough to collapse the building? This now means: quick-burn jet fuel, lack of oxygen, lack of fuel, and cooling.

I know that the building will have collapsed without the government interference. Therefore the rest of your theory does not apply if the first hurdle is flawed.

No, you don't know that. You believe that, and it's not supported by any facts at all. I mean seriously, if tomorrow a plane hits mount Everest, and it breaks into dust, and they tell you it was caused by the jet fuel, you would most likely believe it. That is exactly how absurd the WTC event is.

Read up on the physics of what happend, and use that head. If jetliners could do so much damage, we should abandon all our useless missiles, and starting ramming airliners into our enemy targets. Seriously, you are really gullible.

P.S Why did WTC-7 fall, got any pseudophysics, for this one?

 

[Captain_Crunch]

Not is flawed. You THINK it is flawed, because you cannot consider the possibility, that the buildings fell something other than a plane attack.

I know it is flawed.

Prove it to me. If you are going malform the steel, you need to bring it close to it's melting point.

How exactly am I supposed to prove it to you? Your wrong, you dont and I know it.

That's what you don't understand. The steel actually did melt, and it was molten for several weeks, despite being hosed constantly.

I didnt know that it was actually 'molten' but that could happen after the collapse/crash.

Not just the concrete was crushed to dust; even human beings and some of the steel framework.

Tons of falling debry would have crushed most things and malformed the metal so it would have been buried in the debris anyway.

That is a contradiction. If you said the fire would have been contained, then how would it have burnt hot enough to collapse the building? This now means:b quick-burn jet fuel, lack of oxygen, lack of fuel and cooling.

No, its not, Im saying that the other floors not directly effected by the crash would have contained any secondary burning. The actual floors that were destroyed when a jumbo jet traveling at speed crashed into would have burned away quite happily because fire resistance measures would have been damaged and not effective on containing any fire.

No, you don't know that. You believe that, and it's not supported by any facts at all. I mean seriously, if tomorrow a plane hits mount Everest, and it breaks into dust, and they tell you it was caused by the jet fuel, you would most likely, believe it. That is exactly how absurd the WTC event is.

What facts do you want? You havent provided any facts for your argument.

Read up on the physics of what happend, and use that head. If jetliners could do so much damage, we should abandon all our useless missiles, and starting ramming airliners into our enemy targets. Seriously, you are really gullible.

Firstly, jet liners are very expensive and slow. Secondly, they also require the death of the pilot.


Cheers