»911 was staged - PROOF«
|
|||
 ralph_angelus: But 9/11 involved about 3000 dead. Only a totalitarian government would even contemplate something like that No, 3000 died by accident since the collapse of both towers was unexpected. Since Bush refused to set up a 9/11 commission and finally underfunded it and refused to testify the mystery is still unsolved. Did Oswald kill John F. Kennedy? posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesConspiracy theories911 was staged - PROOF |
|
|||
 knn: Is 9/11 fully solved? No. Bush did not testify. Do you expect an 'orgy of evidence'? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: No, 3000 died by accident since the collapse of both towers was unexpected. Ad hoc hypotheses usually indicate that a theory is weak. So the aircraft were meant to crash into the towers, but they weren't meant to collapse? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: So the aircraft were meant to crash into the towers, but they weren't meant to collapse? Yes. I remember all speculation in scientific circles wondering why the towers actually crashed. It was a mystery, since the WTCs were designed to withstand an atomic bomb (so the original designers said, e.g. Leslie E. Robertson). They finally found out that the anti-fire material was blown away by the explosion pressure. Thus the steel was exposed to the full heat. Moreover the ceilings were fixed quite lightly (to build the WTC faster). Moreover the kerosene splashed from the top to the bottom because the center of the WTC was a shaft (for elevators/stairs). The expert who was examining a possible airplane crash 16 years ago (Charlie Thornton) said that a fully loaded Boeing 747 would do only partial harm. Prof. Jonathan Barnett (fire expert) said that in 20 years it's the first time that he saw how fire-protected steel collapsed. why did the wtc towers collapse? ♣  But I am not claiming anything here. But if you suspect the Bush administration to have planned 9/11 (or maybe the CIA) then probably they planned only a few hundred deaths. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 You have to think a little bit bigger. Not in terms of "the president" or "the government", both of which are transitory. If you want to really get into the conspiracy mood you should be thinking along the lines of; "The WTC was built with the intention of being knocked down"  posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: "The WTC was built for the sole purpose of being knocked down" And Boeing was established only for that purpose too 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
And this forum was established so that the world would know the truth. Hooray! posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
OMG but that would mean Knn is either one of the Living Dead or one of Them! posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: OMG but that would mean Knn is either one of the Living Dead or one of Them! I am not one of them, I am on the side of the light... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: I am on the side of the light... Ahh but we all know that 'the light' is what The Masons seek and they are evil world rulers...your mask has slipped mighty Knn, we know your secret now
posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Crossfade: Ahh but we all know that 'the light' is what The Masons seek 1) Proof? 2) Are Masons bad? Proof? Crossfade: we know your secret now If you know my secret, you'd know what k.n.n. means. Does it mean something anyway? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
KNN, let me get this straight- in this thread you reference the Operations Northwoods document, as supposed proof that the US military would contemplate faking foreign terrorist attacks to promulgate some nefarious agenda. Then you assert the allegedly hijacked airliners were flown by remote control into the Twin Towers. Then you say that the Towers were not meant to be collapsed, that this occurred accidentally. WTF? Please explain the logic and evidence to support this theory. 1) If you're going to reference Northwoods, why not just assert that remote control drone aircraft were flown into the Towers? Remember that in Northwoods, the civilian private plane was going to be swapped with a remote controlled drone, and this was already available with 1962 technology. 2) Why would the perpetrators fly planes into the Towers (either drone or remote control commercial) and not intend for them to collapse? Are you assuming that they would not have access to the buildings ahead of time to plant explosives? Why not? Have you ever seen a video replay of the WTC building 7 collapse, which occurred at 5:30pm on 9/11/01? And that building was even hit by an airplane! Now HOW did Osama do that? Sure looks like a controlled demolition to me. But anyway... KNN, you wrote: They finally found out that the anti-fire material was blown away by the explosion pressure. Thus the steel was exposed to the full heat. Moreover the ceilings were fixed quite lightly (to build the WTC faster). Moreover the kerosene splashed from the top to the bottom because the center of the WTC was a shaft (for elevators/stairs). The center of the WTC was NOT a shaft, but was constructed with 47 massive steel core columns. See your MIT reference article for a small pic of the columns. Then please do some more research in this area. It'll be more convincing when you find out for yourself. 
Keep diggin', JJ posted by escapetheMatrix |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 escapetheMatrix: Then you assert the allegedly hijacked airliners were flown by remote control into the Twin Towers. I don't claim this to be true. This is one of theories. escapetheMatrix: Then you say that the Towers were not meant to be collapsed escapetheMatrix: 2) Why would the perpetrators fly planes into the Towers (either drone or remote control commercial) and not intend for them to collapse? It was not planned that they collapsed. Witnesses said that USAma bin Laden was very pleased because the attackers only planned to kill people, but as the towers collapsed this was more than expected. escapetheMatrix: Are you assuming that they would not have access to the buildings ahead of time to plant explosives? Why not? Have you ever seen a video replay of the WTC building 7 collapse, which occurred at 5:30pm on 9/11/01? And that building was even hit by an airplane! Aaah, now I know where you are getting at. Yes, that's another theory, that ADDITIONAL bombs were placed to make the buildings collapse. escapetheMatrix: The center of the WTC was NOT a shaft, but was constructed with 47 massive steel core columns. See your MIT reference article for a small pic of the columns. Then please do some more research in this area OK, maybe I didn't put it in the right words, but even after rethinking: The empty space for elevators _IS_ a freaking shaft where the airplane fuel sploshed into... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Aaah, now I know where you are getting at. Yes, that's another theory, that ADDITIONAL bombs were placed to make the buildings collapse. Don't know what you're getting at with the word "ADDITIONAL". Are you implying that there were bombs onboard the passenger airliners? I'd like to see some proof of that, seriously. You didn't address WTC building 7 in your reply. I'm not too surprised, considering FEMA themselves have trouble explaining that collapse. From the FEMA Bldg. Performance Report Chapter 5 on WTC7: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." Quote: OK, maybe I didn't put it in the right words, but even after rethinking: The empty space for elevators _IS_ a freaking shaft where the airplane fuel sploshed into... Dude, why the hard-on for the jet fuel? What do you think it's really gonna do? Melt steel? C'mon, THINK for crying out loud.  But if you want a rigorous explanation, I'll let Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories provide one, below...
Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11: [NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at    --------- From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI To: frank.gayle@nist.gov Date: 11/11/2004 Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter". Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1.  2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. wtc.nist.gov… [PDF] 4.  5. wtc.nist.gov… [PDF] (pg 11) 6. forging.org… [PDF] Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories South Bend posted by escapetheMatrix |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 i'm just leaving this link here to a popular mechanics article i read about 9/11 myths...i'll have to quote and such at a later date.. posted by wonderboy aka tardo |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 1 December 2008, 23:40 php B.B. |