9/11 Conspiracy Thread

Is there any doubt at this point that there actually was a conspiracy surrounding 9/11 now that The Saudis have confessed to having some damaging information within the missing 28 pages?

Shouldn't we at this point doubt the entire narrative about jets bringing down towers?

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center

The whole article is good, I suggest you read it. When you post the nonsense you have about this, particularly the melting steel, it shows you have no clue what you are talking about and quite frankly, its embarrassing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
You do know what happens to metal when it heats up right?..



(psst it weakens)

You are correct. It weakens. No one is arguing that point.

The point of contention is does it weaken enough for the buildings to fall near freefall velocity in a symmetrical manner.
 
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center

The whole article is good, I suggest you read it. When you post the nonsense you have about this, particularly the melting steel, it shows you have no clue what you are talking about and quite frankly, its embarrassing.

This is the only time I even mentioned melted steel as even a remote cause. When you don't read my entire argument, quite frankly, you embarrass yourself.

That is where the discussion begins because jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel and at the very worst, it would have yielded, but what we saw on 9/11 was metal collapsing like cinder blocks after a martial artist chops the boards. Also, explain how asymmetrical damage results in symmetrical failure?

Explain to me how asymmetrical damage can cause symmetrical failure of the towers at near freefall velocity.
 
Apparently you are, you will and you will go to your grave still doubting those that have way more experience in such matters because you want to be right.

My argument is that asymmetrical damage from an airliner filled with jet fuel could not have brought the towers down in a symmetrical manner at near freefall velocity... without some other influence being involved. All 3 towers falling looked like controlled demolitions.

That is what I am saying.

And again, what is with this jet fuel talk and heated metal with regards to WTC 7?
 
Ras, answer me this...

If the whole idea was for the buildings to come down and incite the US population into a fit of rage, why bring them down in the manner they did? Wouldn't toppling them over and causing more death and destruction be more beneficial to the desired outcome of killing as many as possible and making far more destruction?

Why bring them down on themselves instead of toppling them to cause even more destruction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
My argument is that asymmetrical damage from an airliner filled with jet fuel could not have brought the towers down in a symmetrical manner at near freefall velocity... without some other influence being involved. All 3 towers falling looked like controlled demolitions.

That is what I am saying.

And again, what is with this jet fuel talk and heated metal with regards to WTC 7?

It's been explained, time and time again, it's been explained. You've had pictures, you've had charts, you've had people telling you until they are blue in the face about how the design of the building contributed to the way it came down.

Yet you continue to ignore experts in the matter and would rather go with some wild conspiracy theory about controlled detonations rather than actually being logical about it.

Why even bother trying to explain anything to you since your mind was made up well in advance that this was a US Government operation cooked up in conjunction with the Saudis, Israelis, Al Qaeda and anyone else who happens to be on your global hit list.
 
This is the only time I even mentioned melted steel as even a remote cause. When you don't read my entire argument, quite frankly, you embarrass yourself.



Explain to me how asymmetrical damage can cause symmetrical failure of the towers at near freefall velocity.

But you did mention it. No?

Here, let me quote the same article on the freefall, which you obviously haven't opened because it doesn't placate your conspiracy fetish:

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

FYI....There is also a really nice, scientifically and engineer-based explanation on WTC 7 in this same article. I, again, asked you to read. I post this article because it breaks down in a way the obviously engineering-illiterate crowd can understand, such as yourself.

Keep digging yourself in this ridiculous hole you obviously have no clue you are even in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
It's been explained, time and time again, it's been explained. You've had pictures, you've had charts, you've had people telling you until they are blue in the face about how the design of the building contributed to the way it came down.

Yet you continue to ignore experts in the matter and would rather go with some wild conspiracy theory about controlled detonations rather than actually being logical about it.

Why even bother trying to explain anything to you since your mind was made up well in advance that this was a US Government operation cooked up in conjunction with the Saudis, Israelis, Al Qaeda and anyone else who happens to be on your global hit list.

With some it's like 50 First Dates...go to sleep and they wake up with all the logical arguments and detailed technical explanations never happened and we're back covering the same ground again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Ras, answer me this...

If the whole idea was for the buildings to come down and incite the US population into a fit of rage, why bring them down in the manner they did? Wouldn't toppling them over and causing more death and destruction be more beneficial to the desired outcome of killing as many as possible and making far more destruction?

Why bring them down on themselves instead of toppling them to cause even more destruction?

Why hit them at all? Why not take 5 planes and hit the capital, the Whitehouse and 3 college stadiums on a Sat afternoon? UM, OSU, and Neyland in 1 afternoon would have caused more damage and rage than 10 World Trade Centers.
 
There you go.

The consequence doesn't matter. Always look at who benefits.

* My comment above is not meant to belittle the lives lost on that terrible day

But wait... you still miss my 2 major points regarding the nature of the failure.

1. It was symmetrical in nature. Instead of the building failing or favoring one side or the other, all 3 buildings failed in the normal direction. What are the odds that 3 buildings damaged asymetrically and in different manners (allegedly WTC 7 was damaged also) falling straight down in the normal direction?

2. The speed of the collapse. You get no argument from me that metal is weakened with heat, but I would think that after you mover further away from the source of heat, the structural integrity of the steel would gradually improve. With that being that case, lets assume that the steel near the source did weaken and fail... you should have had a series of inelastic collisions that may have very easily caused the weight of floor above to collapse on to the weakened floor below. But at a point, as you move further away from the source, these inelastic collisions of floors on top of floors would have run into gradually stronger floors on the lower levels.

What I am suggesting is that (worst case scenario) we should have seen 2 towers failing asymmetrically with probably everything within 15-20 floors of the impact points possibly falling to the ground on the side of the collision or one side or the other. Any floors that would have collapsed on each other would have eventually reached stronger/less weakened floors and eventually stopped at some point. Instead of a total collapse, we should have seen two 70-80 floor structures left standing with jagged/asymmetrical damage left behind from the other floors falling away to the street.

Of course even then, there are some other questions:

1. How much time does it really take to weaken steel to failure? Is 90 mins a reasonable amount of time when we have examples of other buildings burning for as long as 24 hours without heat fatigue/failure?

2. Still no reasonable explanation for WTC 7.
 
Ras, answer me this...

If the whole idea was for the buildings to come down and incite the US population into a fit of rage, why bring them down in the manner they did? Wouldn't toppling them over and causing more death and destruction be more beneficial to the desired outcome of killing as many as possible and making far more destruction?

Why bring them down on themselves instead of toppling them to cause even more destruction?

You need to be directing your questions to the people that don't want the 28 pages released or direct it to The Saudis.
 
It's been explained, time and time again, it's been explained. You've had pictures, you've had charts, you've had people telling you until they are blue in the face about how the design of the building contributed to the way it came down.

Yet you continue to ignore experts in the matter and would rather go with some wild conspiracy theory about controlled detonations rather than actually being logical about it.

Why even bother trying to explain anything to you since your mind was made up well in advance that this was a US Government operation cooked up in conjunction with the Saudis, Israelis, Al Qaeda and anyone else who happens to be on your global hit list.

As time goes on and as we see more people coming out fighting for the information about 9/11 to not be released, I don't see how you can say it is a wild conspiracy theory at this point. At the very least, you should have doubts about the entire narrative.
 
Why even bother trying to explain anything to you since your mind was made up well in advance that this was a US Government operation cooked up in conjunction with the Saudis, Israelis, Al Qaeda and anyone else who happens to be on your global hit list.

Again, that is where you are wrong. I used to laugh at 9/11 Truthers as much as anyone else did until about 4 years ago.
 
You need to be directing your questions to the people that don't want the 28 pages released or direct it to The Saudis.

Deflection.

You just gave an answer of "why don't you ask your cat in Oklahoma why the fox stole the chicken eggs in Georgia."
 
3POyupA.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people

VN Store



Back
Top