9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

First topic message reminder :

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clearly an imbecile who probably believes 911 was an inside job.

I actually do believe that

rik-dagless: "For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT"

Good find.  Yes.  For collapse to occur steel doesn't have to be melted, it just has to lose its mechanical strength to support the weight of the mass it is carrying, and its strength decreases with increase in temperature.  That is just one of the factors that needs to be considered but it nicely demonstrates that the "steel must melt" contention is incorrect.  I'll look at your other link later.

Would the temperature of the steel on the lower floors really have heated up to a temperature where they would have lost their strength

I'm not sure the fire above would have been able to raise the temperature of the steel a thousand feet below to the required temperatures in just one hour

You're not sure based on what exactly Herman?

Physics

See above..

Herman wrote:Would the temperature of the steel on the lower floors really have heated up to a temperature where they would have lost their strength

It must have done.

Herman wrote:I'm not sure the fire above would have been able to raise the temperature of the steel a thousand feet below to the required temperatures in just one hour

It must have done.

What physics?

I'm not interested in another crackpot Youtube video made by somebody who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Explain what you've read or seen that has led you to that conclusion.

Herman Jaeger wrote:Would the temperature of the steel on the lower floors really have heated up to a temperature where they would have lost their strength

I'm not sure the fire above would have been able to raise the temperature of the steel a thousand feet below to the required temperatures in just one hour

Very good Herman, assuming you are referring to WTC1 and WTC2 the explanation has already been given in previous comments.  Assuming you are not trolling and are genuinely interested in the explanation I simply say:  although the WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to sustain the impact of an aircraft slamming into them, they were not designed to sustain the weight of a 15 storey or 22 storey building (respectively) slamming into them.  This happened when the structure failed at the impact level.  The buildings then collapsed progressively floor by floor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse

[erratum: I shouldn't have said pancake collapse previously - I should have said "progressive collapse"]

From that link: "On September 11, 2001, World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 in New York City collapsed as a result of terrorist attacks and the subsequent fires that followed. After a 3-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, it was concluded that fire weakened the steel structure until the long bridge-like floor sections (called trusses) began to progressively sag. This sagging converted the downwards pull of the trusses into an inwards pull. This intensifying inwards pull on the walls eventually caused the outer columns of Tower 2, and later the inner columns of Tower 1, to buckle and fold, thus initiating the collapses".  

Once the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was initiated, they collapsed progressively, floor by floor, from the impact of having a 15 or 22 storey building falling on them.

superflyweight wrote:

Herman wrote:Would the temperature of the steel on the lower floors really have heated up to a temperature where they would have lost their strength

It must have done.

Herman wrote:I'm not sure the fire above would have been able to raise the temperature of the steel a thousand feet below to the required temperatures in just one hour

It must have done.

Not necessarily if something else was planted up there see video

Something you're unable to understand or explain.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Something you're unable to understand or explain.

See above

That's not an answer is it, this is beyond you.

Omg this is ridiculous. The steel at the point of impact was hottest, therefore weakest, subsequently the beams gave way. This meant a whole section of the building (something equivalent to a 15 or 22 block of flats) fell on top of the remainder of the building, and it just collapsed like a pack of cards. It was a simple dominoe effect. The mass falling due to gravity increased in an accumulative fashion, as floor after floor was added to the weight of the tumbling mass. Meaning the downword force grew as the collapse continued, hence an implosion. Its not rocket science, it just like a snow ball rolling down a hill, getting bigger and stronger as it goes. I struggle how anyone is unable to comprehend that.

I found the following FAQS from NIST that seems to focus on questions related to WTC1 and WTC2.  It seems it was correct to say "free fall" when discussing the collapse - the free fall of the 15 or 22 storey top sections that went into "free fall" following the initial collapse of the structure above the impact zone (NIST say it was 12 and 28/29 storeys respectively).  

It's a thorough explanation to frequently asked questions giving engineering numbers (forces and resistances).  Additional things to note that haven't previously been mentioned above are:
a) the water sprinkler system was cut by the impact of the aircraft and so no water sprinkler system was working at the impact level.  
b) the impact itself damaged and weakened the structure (this has been previously mentioned above)
c) the impact knocked off the fire resistant coverings of the structural elements, so the structural elements in the impact location were exposed to the full heat generated by the fire.
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

NIST have updated building models to test for impact resistance of aircraft on buildings to include for the effects of fire - these had been missing from previous pronouncements of aircraft resistances for these buildings.  They have also changed recommendations of building design to take into account what has been learnt from the WTC collapses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse#Model_code_changes

Finally I would like to say is what distinguishes a "conspiracy theorists" from someone who is just curious and puzzled and sceptical - is that when the conspiracy theory has been thoroughly shown to be false or the "conventional theory" shown to be correct, they go quiet, rather than saying - yes, maybe it looks like I was mistaken.

*********************************************************
Note: with regard the term "pancake collapse" - there seems to be some confusion over it's precise meaning and usage.
FAQS 6 and 8 (in the NIST link) refer to the cause of the initiation of the collapse - in FAQS 8 they effectively say that the pancake theory doesn't initiate the collapse, but elsewhere pancake theory is used to describe the subsequent collapse following initial failure of the structure at the impact level (e.g: cambridge expert using pancake theory to describe the collapse following the initial failure).  FAQS 11 relates to the subsequent collapse of the buildings, in which they say the building collapsed sequentially, quote: "As the stories below sequentially failed".  NIST themselves have created some confusion in what I believe has been either an inconsistent or incorrect use of the term "pancake theory".

Basically, for clarity, there are two components to the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.  a) The initial failure of the structure at the impact level.  b) The subsequent collapse of the buildings following the initial failure.  I believe NIST have been incorrect in their use of the term "pancake theory" in FAQS 8, and I have seen conspiracy theorists make use of that elsewhere.  

Aside: I would be classed by others as an "expert" myself and one thing that irritates me is lack of clarity or lack of consistency in the use of terms.  Two "experts" or two people could be agreeing with each other, but because of an inconsistent use of the same term, they think, or others may think, they are disagreeing with each other.  I have also seen how political activists try to change the meaning of a term in order to subvert the intended meaning.  It really grinds my gears.

Nore Staat wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Would the temperature of the steel on the lower floors really have heated up to a temperature where they would have lost their strength

I'm not sure the fire above would have been able to raise the temperature of the steel a thousand feet below to the required temperatures in just one hour

Very good Herman, assuming you are referring to WTC1 and WTC2 the explanation has already been given in previous comments.  Assuming you are not trolling and are genuinely interested in the explanation I simply say:  although the WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to sustain the impact of an aircraft slamming into them, they were not designed to sustain the weight of a 15 storey or 22 storey building (respectively) slamming into them.  This happened when the structure failed at the impact level.  The buildings then collapsed progressively floor by floor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse

[erratum: I shouldn't have said pancake collapse previously - I should have said "progressive collapse"]

From that link: "On September 11, 2001, World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 in New York City collapsed as a result of terrorist attacks and the subsequent fires that followed. After a 3-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, it was concluded that fire weakened the steel structure until the long bridge-like floor sections (called trusses) began to progressively sag. This sagging converted the downwards pull of the trusses into an inwards pull. This intensifying inwards pull on the walls eventually caused the outer columns of Tower 2, and later the inner columns of Tower 1, to buckle and fold, thus initiating the collapses".  

Once the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was initiated, they collapsed progressively, floor by floor, from the impact of having a 15 or 22 storey building falling on them.

I was trolling mate

Do I think it was an inside job....?


Not in a million years.

The inside jobbers will be delighted to hear it. Yet another soul convinced it wasn't an inside job for One Million Years. That list is growing and they get paid a bonus for every soul added.

NS

As you say you'd be classed as an 'expert' in this, I'm interested to know who you work for.

I'd be considered an expert on construction materials including reinforced concrete (indeed, to the extent of acting as an Expert Witness), although fire damage isn't really my area (although the guy on the next desk does have some knowledge of fire damage assessment of reinforced concrete, and I have picked up a little knowledge doing report reviews for him...)

Nixon couldn't keep Watergate quiet with about ten people involved..

The useless W is going to keep this under wraps..

I'd love to be a conspiracy theorist...Life would never be dull.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nixon couldn't keep Watergate quiet with about ten people involved..

The useless W is going to keep this under wraps..

I'd love to be a conspiracy theorist...Life would never be dull.

Well, when you think about it, neither has the 911 show been kept cleanly under wraps.  Denial is one thing, and given the amount of people that potentially would fry (metaphorically) if anything dubious was ever admitted about the mass killing of US citizens on American soil, it's not exactly surprising that denials would be forceful and deeply ingrained.  But few can say the alternative accounts aren't out there.  Nothing has been kept quiet, it's just that the denials are more robust and defiant.

It's still one delightful story though of gamblers luck when one man decides to privately buy the lease to a run down area (in terms of modernity, that's what the twin towers [asbestos riddled] area was) at a relative bargain basement price that had up till then been the property of the city itself.  It was a stroke of luck that this purchase happened just months before the tragedy that killed so many people.  Why was it lucky to be personally involved in such a tragic occurrence?  Well, the money of course.  To modernise and rid the twin towers of asbestos would have been prohibitive in cost terms, but the site was still attractive enough to 'gamble' on.  
This lucky man also made sure to have a terrorist insurance policy that was known as 'the Travelers form'.  This, he himself stated, made it easier to claim that the double hit of two planes made the tragedy a double incident and allowed him to claim two insurance payment handouts instead of one, literally twice what he initially invested in the purchase.  He also was lucky enough to have wanted to demolish famous Building 7 as early as 2000, by his own words and before he'd purchased the lease, and miraculously got his wish when he gave his equally famous assessment of how that building went down...claiming more insurance money in the process.
That's one lucky story pulled from such a tale of adversity.  It should have been made into a movie, a heart-warming modern fairytale: The Miracle of West Street.

I take it the Pentagon and Flight 93 just happened to be coincidences then...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I take it the Pentagon and Flight 93 just happened to be coincidences then...

?  You'd have to elaborate, Truss.

At a guess, you mean to ask what did the owner of the Twin Towers site have to gain from these events - Pentagon and Flight 93?  

Well now, if that's your question, that would presume that my inference is that it was all the evil privately run plan of a New York gambling speculator looking for some profit.  
Did I make such an inference?  
No. I just said he hit a very lucky streak in the overall scheme of things.  The overall scheme of things of course didn't belong solely to him - and that's obviously true regardless of what side of the fence you're on - whether it was a genuine attack on USA by Muslim extremists or whether it was a false flag jaunt designed to get American minds firmly onto a war footing against some bad folks in them Arabian parts of the world with the oil and things.....  Whatever the scenario, the lucky guy that gained billions was just a small part of the story.

Scripps/Howard Poll 2006 (US)

Was the collapse of the Twin Towers aided by secret explosives planted in the building ???..

Not likely - 59%
Somewhat likely - 20%
Very likely - 16%

Was the Pentagon struck by a military missile instead of a plane ??

Not likely - 80%
Somewhat likely - 6%
Very likely - 6%

Did the Government have specific warnings of 9/11 but choose to ignore them ?

Not likely - 32%
Somewhat likely - 30%
Unlikely - 30%.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Scripps/Howard Poll 2006 (US)

Was the collapse of the Twin Towers aided by secret explosives planted in the building ???..

Not likely - 59%
Somewhat likely - 20%
Very likely - 16%

Was the Pentagon struck by a military missile instead of a plane ??

Not likely - 80%
Somewhat likely - 6%
Very likely - 6%

Did the Government have specific warnings of 9/11 but choose to ignore them ?

Not likely - 32%
Somewhat likely - 30%
Unlikely - 30%.....

Did you mean 'very likely'?

For 2006, they're not bad Sceptical percentages at all in the 'Somewhat likely' and 'very likely' categories.

Any similar polls done closer to 2017?

SecretFly wrote:For 2006, they're not bad Sceptical percentages at all in the 'Somewhat likely' and 'very likely' categories.

Any similar polls done closer to 2017?

Not really....Look at JFK..The idea that another gun man was on the grassy knoll has pretty much been debunked...By tests on bullet trajectory........ Imagine a poll on whether there was one would garner similar results...

I believe there was a small conspiracy but I believe Oswald was the gun man and the bullets came from the book depository for what it's worth......

People will produce "facts" to fit their narrative.....You can't rule out explosives in the Tower....You can't rule out a lot of things that don't make sense..

Conspiracy theorists only need to create doubt.........They don't have to prove anything..

You're right.  People will produce "facts" to fit their narrative.  

Whatever about JFK, the "facts" about 911 don't join up.  Plain and simply, there is a jigsaw that doesn't remotely work if you only believe the "facts".  Nobody that has done any study at all on the details can avoid that conclusion.  The official "facts" don't remotely add up to a coherent whole.

So I'd come to the conclusion that the official "narrative" is in fact the laughable conspiracy theory.  And it did result in the execution of an official 'fake war', didn't it.  So add that acknowledged conspiracy theory of WMDs to the official narrative of 911 and what do you get?  A lot of nonsense, that's what.

Conspiracy theorists are generally like Defence lawyers with a guilty client they create doubt....They don't prove anything themselves...They leave that to others..

"Logical" conclusions convict but they can never be fully proven....Look at OJ....We know he did but we can't prove it a 100%....

Jello and wall......Explain this...Explain that.....It is a fact of life you can't explain everything......But if it is a choice of resonable explanation and far fetched..

I'll stick with the former..

Nothing has been proven about 911. Show me where the proof is and I'll show you hundreds of holes.

So what are you on about as regards conspiracy theory. Who holds the Truthful foundation stone? Where is the Foundation of Truth and who is telling it?

Just stop feeding the WUM.

SecretFly wrote:Where is the Foundation of Truth ?

I thought it was in your house.

Now saying that 911 is not the story told by a known bunch of liars in the form of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld is more wumming?

Time for Rumsfeld's famous speech (a known ultra conspiracy theorist): "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Where is the Foundation of Truth ?

I thought it was in your house.

My house is carbon neutral so stop wumming me!

Jesus wept. Two jet airliners flew into the WTC (or maybe this didn't happen in SF World?), they blew up and the buildings fell down. End of.

Not really end of. They were designed specifically to be able to deal with planes crashing into them. WTC5 burned for much longer than either and stayed up.

Scottrf wrote:Not really end of. They were designed specifically to be able to deal with planes crashing into them.

Fake news. One problem is that once this sort of unsubstantiated claim gets out into the wild, it is repeated so often people end up thinking that it is true and there even ends up being 'pseudo-evidence' online that people end up believing. Any counter-evidence i.e. the facts, then become doubted, even ridiculed, as part of a conspiracy. And so it goes...

Edit - or to put it another way. Were they 'designed specifically' to deal with planes of that size and weight, carrying that much fuel, at that speed, hitting them at that height? No, they weren't.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Not really end of. They were designed specifically to be able to deal with planes crashing into them.

Fake news. One problem is that once this sort of unsubstantiated claim gets out into the wild, it is repeated so often people end up thinking that it is true and there even ends up being 'pseudo-evidence' online that people end up believing. Any counter-evidence i.e. the facts, then become doubted, even ridiculed, as part of a conspiracy. And so it goes...

Edit - or to put it another way. Were they 'designed specifically' to deal with planes of that size and weight, carrying that much fuel, at that speed, hitting them at that height? No, they weren't.

It's simplistic but I'm assuming it's a theory that didn't have much practical foundation, what with a building that size never collapsing before. I tend to think that only complete clowns give it a second thought.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Not really end of. They were designed specifically to be able to deal with planes crashing into them.

Fake news. One problem is that once this sort of unsubstantiated claim gets out into the wild, it is repeated so often people end up thinking that it is true and there even ends up being 'pseudo-evidence' online that people end up believing. Any counter-evidence i.e. the facts, then become doubted, even ridiculed, as part of a conspiracy. And so it goes...

Edit - or to put it another way. Were they 'designed specifically' to deal with planes of that size and weight, carrying that much fuel, at that speed, hitting them at that height? No, they weren't.

Hardly unsubstantiated.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

""We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer."

""Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there.""

The only thing unsubstantiated is the commission report which omitted lots of facts to come up with the explanation.

As for carrying that much fuel, it's easy to see when the fuel stops burning, it burns black.

Scottrf wrote:Not really end of. They were designed specifically to be able to deal with planes crashing into them. WTC5 burned for much longer than either and stayed up.

The problem with this is that buildings like the WTC are bespoke designs and cannot be tested in any meaningful sense, and each will behave differently. Add to that there was no significant history of large planes crashing into high rise structures (Empire State building has been hit by light aircraft, but nothing like an airliner), so there were lots of unknowns - some fewer now, in that the collisions and fires highlighted deficiencies in the supposed 'crash proofing', in particular relating to fire suppression (the impacts disables the sprinkler systems) and relating to the security and effectiveness of the fire-proof coatings to the main support columns.

I actually think it is great testimony to the design and construction of the twin towers that they actually stood up for about an hour after being intentionally struck by large planes full of fuel.

JFK was still an inside job tho
#FactsOnly

dummy_half wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Not really end of. They were designed specifically to be able to deal with planes crashing into them. WTC5 burned for much longer than either and stayed up.

The problem with this is that buildings like the WTC are bespoke designs and cannot be tested in any meaningful sense, and each will behave differently. Add to that there was no significant history of large planes crashing into high rise structures (Empire State building has been hit by light aircraft, but nothing like an airliner), so there were lots of unknowns - some fewer now, in that the collisions and fires highlighted deficiencies in the supposed 'crash proofing', in particular relating to fire suppression (the impacts disables the sprinkler systems) and relating to the security and effectiveness of the fire-proof coatings to the main support columns.

I actually think it is great testimony to the design and construction of the twin towers that they actually stood up for about an hour after being intentionally struck by large planes full of fuel.

You don't test a building by putting it in an earthquake either but you have an idea of the horizontal and vertical stresses it can take, loads it takes to fail etc.

Unfortunately, or conveniently, depending on your point of view, Skilling died in 1998 and so his take on 9/11 can't be asked.

As I said - Were they 'designed specifically' to deal with planes of that size and weight, carrying that much fuel, at that speed, hitting them at that height? No, they weren't, not even according to Skilling. Perhaps Leslie Robertson's view is more realistic.
"Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out."
"To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance."

Even the Titanic was 'unsinkable' according to those who designed it, until it was hit by an iceberg/The US Government/Mossad*

* delete as appropriate

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But lets not act like it's normal for a building of this type to collapse from fire.

You mean like a fire in a waste-paper bin? No, I doubt that would collapse them.

Any fire at all.

Perhaps read the section 'The Fire' here - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

I don't entirely understand the science - not sure many people would - but there is enough layman's terminology in there to explain why this fire did what it did. Remember also that it was a massive bomb, not just a fire.

You wont be able to find a comparable event, because thankfully, there hasn't been one.

Scott the only thing the fire destroyed was the floor and the area around the crash site. The weight of the falling floors plus the addition of more floors as each floor was consumed by the mass accelerated by gravity demolished the building in a way reminiscent of the professionally demoed buildings. Think of it as Tophat jumping from a bar (using several cranes) suspended above a tower of flats, the roof ain't going to hold him and he's too big to punch through the roof. so you'll get the weight of Tophat plus the roof hitting your next floor, then the cumulative weight of Tophat, the roof and the next floor hitting the next floor and the next floor until the very end where he'll reach terminal velocity and punch through the other side of the earth, defeating the grasp of earth's gravity, and use his own to pull us into the sun*



*Please don't try this at home

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I was born with a brain thankfully so yes do believe the official version of events, anything is a level of idiocy I will not lower myself. In other news, Elvis is still alive.

So you just believe what you're told and don't make up your own mind by doing research?

Do you believe that false flag operations are not used? Try the German invasion of Poland, USA turning a blind eye to Pearl Harbor knowing that it would be attacked (why the carriers were out at sea) because it needs to be able to justify offensive action. I do believe JFK fired an Air Force General for actually proposing in writing that a US airliner be shot down to make it look as if Cuba had attacked the US.

I was a believer essentially until i researched Building 7. Its at least worth a look.

In history no buildings have collapsed the way the main towers did. And the odds on both collapsing are even greater. We are to believe the fires weakened essential structural beams etc etc.

Building 7 is the outlier, an anomaly to tease even the most accepting sheep…it wasn't hit by anything other than falling masonry and there were internal fires but these buildings don't just collapse like a house of cards from fire. It very cooperatively fell down in its own footprint later that day….why?

Elvis is still alive?

Christ! They kept that one well hidden. Thanks for the Update Hammersmith

Poor schidt must have escaped from Vault 7 when they recently opened it.

He's doing fine now but initially he was all shook up.

He showed up in the ghetto.