9/11 Conspiracy Thread

#1,551
#1,551
Seems far fetched to me...but the pictures are intersting...where it looks like 2 shape charges are going off at exactly the same time blowing out dust and such, in 2 different sides of the bldg, 10 floors below the fire. Seems like that might be hard to explain away. Exact same "cone shaped" blasts coming out at right angles, 10 floors below the fire, when the building wasnt collapsing yet because the fire was supposedly still heating up the steel beams many floors above. I am not a believer, i would like to hear what caused these explosions. Supposedly, those were smoke. But nothing seems to be on fire on those floors....
 
#1,552
#1,552
LouderVol said:
Whole paper starts by ignoring half of the cause of the collapse: planes flying into the building. They go straight to fire, and how many fires started with jet fuel as the source?
Click to expand...
You're not very bright, are you?

Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact, had been designed specifically to withstand the impact of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling, explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: "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." Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single 200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to either of the Twin Towers. "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism
that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled
demolition.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,553
#1,553
marcusluvsvols said:
Seems far fetched to me...but the pictures are intersting...where it looks like 2 shape charges are going off at exactly the same time blowing out dust and such, in 2 different sides of the bldg, 10 floors below the fire. Seems like that might be hard to explain away. Exact same "cone shaped" blasts coming out at right angles, 10 floors below the fire, when the building wasnt collapsing yet because the fire was supposedly still heating up the steel beams many floors above. I am not a believer, i would like to hear what caused these explosions. Supposedly, those were smoke. But nothing seems to be on fire on those floors....
Click to expand...

Let's play along with the narrative and say that the building was on fire on those floors. The building still should not have been structural weakened based off of the comments made not by just these guys, but by the designer and engineer that built the Twin Towers.
 
#1,556
#1,556
And the quote you used Ras ignored the extreme structural damage done by the plane. Again it's a combination of things. The physical damage and the fire brought it down. And I am glad you are finally recognizing that gravity was the only force in play. Been saying it for a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,557
#1,557
Rasputin_Vol said:
Let's play along with the narrative and say that the building was on fire on those floors. The building still should not have been structural weakened based off of the comments made not by just these guys, but by the designer and engineer that built the Twin Towers.
Click to expand...

They make zero comments about the building not being weakened. Stop being dishonest. They said the plane wouldn't take it down alone, no idea how you can assume they would think a plane wouldn't damage the building
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,558
#1,558
LouderVol said:
Physics professor (no real world experience and physics doesn't equal structure) civil engineer (roads), mechanical system engineer (HVAC) and a director of a group. Not a solid line up. A bit better than the high school teacher but none of those guys have the experience or qualifications for me to take seriously.

Whole paper starts by ignoring half of the cause of the collapse: planes flying into the building. They go straight to fire, and how many fires started with jet fuel as the source? I will hang up and listen. Dear god how blind do they have to be. They look at each region individually and proclaim it's not enough. Yet they don't combine and look at the whole picture.
Click to expand...
That is literally what all of the conspiracy nuts seem to not be able to comprehend. Someone should do an experiment, find a conspiracy nutter and smash their head with a bat and then light their shirt on fire..figure out which one makes the person collapse..
 
#1,559
#1,559
Rasputin_Vol said:
Let's play along with the narrative and say that the building was on fire on those floors. The building still should not have been structural weakened based off of the comments made not by just these guys, but by the designer and engineer that built the Twin Towers.
Click to expand...

What the. Planes flying hundreds of miles an hour slammed into the building.. You don't need a degree in engineering to know that will adversely impact the structure of a skyscraper..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,568
#1,568
I don't post here much but the 9/11 thing has always gotten under my skin. The problem I see with both sides of the argument is most focus on "unprovable" facts. I don't look at the "who" or the "why". The reason I don't is two fold: 1). The current story still shows hijackers on the list that are alive and well so clearly this was a half-assed job and 2). If this was some crazy conspiracy of some kind, you're simply not going to have irrefutable evidence of who or why so you're going to lose that argument every time.

The only thing I hinge on that keeps my radar up is this: Free fall speed. Regardless of the damage of the planes, the heat of the fires, the structural integrity of the building, etc etc --- a building cannot fall at free fall speed into itself unless taken down from the bottom and with simultaneous breaks in the beams. Saying otherwise violates basic laws of physics. The path of least resistance will always be followed and that's why a building falls over and the only way to make it fall into itself is through controlled demolition. This is very basic physics and it's simply not covered. Because of this --- whether it's the sloppiest government investigation in history or the biggest conspiracy (or both) you're going to continue to have this discussion. The government simply can't overlook something so obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,570
#1,570
VolByBirth said:
I don't post here much but the 9/11 thing has always gotten under my skin. The problem I see with both sides of the argument is most focus on "unprovable" facts. I don't look at the "who" or the "why". The reason I don't is two fold: 1). The current story still shows hijackers on the list that are alive and well so clearly this was a half-assed job and 2). If this was some crazy conspiracy of some kind, you're simply not going to have irrefutable evidence of who or why so you're going to lose that argument every time.

The only thing I hinge on that keeps my radar up is this: Free fall speed. Regardless of the damage of the planes, the heat of the fires, the structural integrity of the building, etc etc --- a building cannot fall at free fall speed into itself unless taken down from the bottom and with simultaneous breaks in the beams. Saying otherwise violates basic laws of physics. The path of least resistance will always be followed and that's why a building falls over and the only way to make it fall into itself is through controlled demolition. This is very basic physics and it's simply not covered. Because of this --- whether it's the sloppiest government investigation in history or the biggest conspiracy (or both) you're going to continue to have this discussion. The government simply can't overlook something so obvious.
Click to expand...

polling the forum, how many times have we tried to explain the free fall thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,573
#1,573
Rasputin_Vol said:
jet fuel = diesel fuel...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Jet fuel doesn’t have to be atomized to flash. Jet A has a flashpoint (the point at which vapors are present) minimum of 100F (usually higher). Had he heated the fuel in the jar to the appropriate temp those matches certainly would have flashed.

JP-5 for instance has a minimum flashpoint of 140F. The Navy uses it, it’s safer on ships.
 
#1,574
#1,574
tumscalcium said:
Jet fuel doesn’t have to be atomized to flash. Jet A has a flashpoint (the point at which vapors are present) minimum of 100F (usually higher). Had he heated the fuel in the jar to the appropriate temp those matches certainly would have flashed.

JP-5 for instance has a minimum flashpoint of 140F. The Navy uses it, it’s safer on ships.
Click to expand...

Dude, did you not see he had a damn propane burner as well as a match? Those were both over 100F.
 
#1,575
#1,575
Rasputin_Vol said:
Dude, did you not see he had a damn propane burner as well as a match? Those were both over 100F.
Click to expand...

Dude I worked with jet fuel. I sampled it for various things all the time. One of our tests was for flashpoint. Had he heated the fuel in the mason jar enough to begin with the matches would have gone poof.

Search for a video on automatic flashpoint detectors. I’m sure they’re out there. The machine gradually heats the fuel and a flame is dipped in the cup at 1C intervals until the flame goes poof. No atomizing required.

I’m not getting into anything other than you don’t need to atomize jet fuel. That’s all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top