Why did the 9/11 hijackers select those targets

Captain_Crunch said:
I know it is flawed.


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

You might as well just say: "I'm right; you're wrong"


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

LOL


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

Dude, you're killing me here; no humans do not become dust due to the collapse of a building, or an earthquake for that matter :D


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.
Click to expand...

If fires are burning on whichever floor, they would clearly be seen, and they would quickly spread to other floors. That was not what happend.

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

Well, I cannot either. As you don't know your physics, and the events that happen suspend the laws of physics. You would have to know your physics to know why what happend, was impossible.


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

You're taking the piss right? Jet fuel is very cheap, and something called GPS guided missiles, do not require pilots. Jet fuel is what propells the missile, usually carrying powerful explosives, yet now that 9/11 had invented new laws of physics, they don't need the explosives any more, just fire the empty missile ;)
 
If the floor collapsed as per the official story then would not the outer steel frame end up like a banana? Why did it collapse inwards?
 
Actually no Captain,

They all fell the same way; they imploded; they free fell; and they became dust -and one was not even hit. Incidentally, that is exactly how a controlled demolition of a building would behave.

Thanks Kazakhan, at least you're questioning what happend, and not just swallowing everything whole.
 
I mean collapsing floors would have been releasing the subsequent floors underneath from the outer steel shell. If the fire was supposedly hot enough to release a floor, then falling floors would do the same. The outer steel shell would have been pushed outwards and stayed relatively intact.(peeled banana!) But it didn't...
 
Last edited:
I mean collapsing floors would have been releasing the subsequent floors underneath from the outer steel shell. If the fire was supposedly hot enough to release a floor, then falling floors would do the same. The outer steel shell would have been pushed outwards and stayed relatively intact.(peeled banana!) But it didn't...
Click to expand...

<img src="http://www.universitystar.com/01/09/11/wtc.jpg" height=500 width=300 border=1/>
This photo kinda shows one of the towers pitching to the left and clearly shows the bottom half of the tower still standing where the top half is free falling.

source of photo
 
Red Devil, I'm not sure where you heard that, but how the hell would an entire building heat up to 5000 degrees in an hour, on one load of low temperature jet fuel, most of it burnt up on impact, and the lack of oxygen and blllowing smoke. Anyone who knows their physics, will tell you it's impossible.
Click to expand...

What lack of oxygen? When the planes impacted the towers, they created one hell of a gash in each tower. At that altitude, the wind would have created a sucking motion going into the gashes of each tower fueling the fire (much like an implosion) and making it even more hotter and let's not forget everything else the fire could feed on such as papers and the like. And remember, as the structure got weaker, the load up on top got heavier and heavier. Anyways, that's what I was told by a couple firefighter friends when I asked about how the heat from the jetfuel could have risen so high and quickly. Winds are deadly in fires.

Those that built the towers made it to survive the "impact" of a 747. Many variables can happen after the impact happens. Regardless of how much planning may have been done to build those towers, nothing is fool-proof. Shit happens and Mother Nature pinched one hell of a loaf that day.

Now why would the 9/11 hijackers choose those targets? I highly doubt it has anything to do with the involvement of those targets with the Middle East but rather than importance period to the United States. Let's see, Camp David for the President, the World Trade Center which is an economical hub for us, and then the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, or the White House, which is where most of our leaders reside. That's one hell of a blow taking out an economical hub and those in charge of the country. What better way to terrorize than destroy our leadership which could send the country in momentary chaos?

Heck, if I were a terrorist, those would be my targets. And if I wanted to try and kill the most people with just one "small" act (no nuke), I'd use some biological agent in Las Vegas. Why there? A high concentration of people for one, but most of those people are also only there for a few days which means it makes a prime spot for spreading the viruses once they all head back home. That's a target that would effect everyone worldwide.

Terrorism is politically and religiously driven. But when it comes to dealing damage, it's about causing as much damage as possible rather than picking and choosing selective or small targets just because they may have something to do with the Middle East. And those targets, well, I don't want to even imagine what would have happened if they were more successful with the other non-WTC planes. :\

- N
 
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.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for tornados, but earthquakes are nothing. Skyscrapers are built with material and mechanisms to help the tower roll with the earthquake. The WTC was built to within a hit from a 747 and IT DID. However, just like with the WTC in the case of an earthquake, if you want to add in more variables, then it's going to get dangerous. Toss in fires to help weaken the structure to have everything collapse above it and now that building too will be gone.

Steel is just that, steel. Everything has a threshhold. Because something is built with a very strong material, it doesn't mean it's indestructable. Once you bring in the bane of that material, it's going to go bye bye.

In regards to building new structures to withinstand earthquakes, MANY buildings were lost so the designers had past experience to devise a way to make a building best withstand damage from an earthquake. Exactly how many 747's fully loaded up with fuel have crashed into a high altitude office building equipped with highly flammable items? Not much can be done except create hypothetical designs.

If the floor collapsed as per the official story then would not the outer steel frame end up like a banana? Why did it collapse inwards?
Click to expand...

Wanna do a quick, fun test? Take an aluminum soda can and put a dent in the side so it looks bent somewhat like a banana. Now put it on the ground and stand on it with your foot. The can will now crush and be completely flat in perfect circular form.

Now if the crushing was played in slow-motion somehow, the bent side would tilt a bit but since the force is so great coming down on it, it keeps it in place, then the other side which isn't bent jams straight up but the weight is still so great that it crushes that part that would be otherwise jammed upwards.

- N
 
Wanna do a quick, fun test? Take an aluminum soda can and put a dent in the side so it looks bent somewhat like a banana. Now put it on the ground and stand on it with your foot. The can will now crush and be completely flat in perfect circular form.
Click to expand...
A skyscaper is not much like an aluminium soda can. Why would I bend it? My banana analogy was about the end result. The documentary I seen about the collapsing floors said the heat caused the weak tethers to the outer shell to fail. Which is what is supposed to have started the collapse.

As for the picture above why did that upper piece vapourize on the way down, shouldn't we have seen that fall intact most of the way down? And what is that glow a few floors below the failure point?
 
As for the picture above why did that upper piece vapourize on the way down, shouldn't we have seen that fall intact most of the way down? And what is that glow a few floors below the failure point?
Click to expand...
It wasnt designed to stay together in freefall, no building is. Im guessing thats where the plane hit but I dont know.
 
It wasnt designed to stay together in freefall, no building is.
Click to expand...
Well of course not:D
I just don't think it should have disappeared as quickly as it did.
 
I think we are going to go back and forth. You will hang onto the official explanation, I, and some others, will dispute it it. I just would like you to take this 9/11 events into consideration, the events that followed thereafter, the events that preceeded it, the existence of the shadow government, and what is happening in the world. Please, I implore you, don't just ignore it or forget it. The risk is real.
 
or was it planned by America.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html

please go on the site where it will give you SOURCES for the statemts below (reliable too, suuch as CNN,BBC) all it does is piece together what many medias said individually but not collectively)

9/11 - ARE AMERICANS THE VICTIMS OF A HOAX?
The time has come to stop using the flag as a blindfold, to stop waving our guns and our gods at each other, to take a close look at the facts which have emerged from the attacks on the World Trade Towers and to recognize the very real possibility, indeed probability, that We The People are the victims of a gigantic and deadly hoax.
In a normal terrorist event, the terrorists cannot wait to take credit, in order to link the violence to the socio-political intent of the terrorist organization. Yet the prime suspect in the New York Towers case, ex(?) CIA asset Osama Bin Laden (whose brother is one of George W. Bush's Texas business partners), has issued only two statements regarding the September 11th attacks, and both of those are denials of any involvement...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John, no disrespect but "what really happened" is probably a site run by "conspiratorists" and is only a theory, like Roswell back in '47. Which we now know was the US space program in its infancy. The collapse of the building was weight above weakened/melted steel. To say America was to blame or planned it is really too far fetched to even be considered. I would bank a lifetimes salary on that NOT being the case. Laden is well documented as celebrating a great "victory" when it happened. Oh, yes, he did it alright.
 
crazymikey said:
How do you suppose in a superpower nation, armed to the teeth wiith advanced technology and spy satellites, a bunch of brutes from Afghanistan, could so easily run a coulple of 747 into their most vital economic and military installations that would be defended by the state of art SAM systems.

If this happened anywhere else, it would be like this:

747 on it's way to target country - fine and dandy
747 veers of course - air traffic control alerted
Air traffic control hails the 747 - no reponse or wrong response
747 heads on it's way to important economic and military target
Hailed by military for violation of air space - no response or wrong response(optional)
Shot down

It seems so utterly incompetent, that it becomes questionable.
Click to expand...

true.

if a jet loses contact from traffic control for more then 10 mins, it is IMMEDIATLEY intercpeted by a jet. not only did the FOUR sep 11th planes go around for 40 MINS (and some even after the hitting of the trade centres) unnoticed but the jets on that day were ORDERED to ground.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Jet fuel does not burn as quickly as you might think. Actually the liquid fuel does not burn at all, it is the fuel vapor that burns. Fuel needs to either evaporate, or be atomized (sprayed) mixing it with air, to burn. There were reports of jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts, which means that some did not explode on impact, but burned later.

I disagree with the idea that there was somehow a lack of oxygen in the crash area, the building was full of oxygen, and the broken windows and walls let in even more air. There is no way to keep oxygen out!

The cooling properties of steel do not substantially come into play in an extreme fire situation like this. The heat conducted away from a rapidly spreading fire would be negligable, since heat is being added far faster than it would be conducted away.

An interesting theory:

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top