Terror Threat raised to Severe

[Guest Bilo]

Popular mechanics are well known for totally ignoring important facts to fit their theories.

In the same way that those who claim the Twin Towers were the first to collapse due to fire ignore the fact that they were also the first steel-framed skyscrapers to be hit by a fully laden 737 going at 500mph you mean?

[MC Prussian]

In the same way that those who claim the Twin Towers were the first to collapse due to fire ignore the fact that they were also the first steel-framed skyscrapers to be hit by a fully laden 737 going at 500mph you mean?

Hey - the tower hit the plane first!

(Sorry for this shameless post)

[samlcfc]

and denying anything dodgy has gone on, just proves their point, because you would deny it....!

yeh, thats why if anything dodgy ever goes on behind a major event its unlikely to be discovered because most people would believe the official version. Not saying that all conspiracy theories are crap, its just likely that most of them are

[lildave3]

Well this thread's a bag of shit.

[samlcfc]

Well this thread's a bag of shit.

it was inevitable it'd have a page of comments on conspiracy theories. Im surprised its not hit some weird religious debate yet

[BoneDog]

In the same way that those who claim the Twin Towers were the first to collapse due to fire ignore the fact that they were also the first steel-framed skyscrapers to be hit by a fully laden 737 going at 500mph you mean?

The towers were built to withstand numerous passenger planes hitting them as are all tall buildings.

Many structural engineers and architects etc. (including some who worked on the WTC) have talked about how it is impossible for the 3 buildings to crumble (most obviously building 7). The towers were built to withstand hurricanes and weather that has much more force than one plane. The were also built to withstand AEROPLANES and massive fires.

If you know anything about the strength of the WTC's then saying that a passenger plane and a relatively SMALL fire that was starved of oxygen, hence the black smoke, caused the buildings to collapse is laughable.

There was masses of molten iron/steel at the scene in the basements for weeks after the collapses (steel cannot melt from a jet fuel fire. It needs super high temperatures and the WTC fires didn't have super high temperatures as the black smoke proves). There were many reports of explosions in the basement levels of the buildings all morning from firefighters, news reporters and WTC employees (of course these reports only got aired once or twice and were soon pulled from the airwaves).

Many workers and firefighters coming down the stairs in the WTC's reported explosions going off all around them when they were in the lower half of the buildings

Even if the top of the buildings collapsed they would of slipped off the side and not caused the super structure below them to crumble. It is impossible for the damage to have caused the whole of the towers to crumble into dust without explosives (nano-thermite and not ordinary thermite as the National Geographics pathetic excuse for a scientific expeiment used. Real scientists laughed at that programme).

The damage right at the top of these super structures was tiny for buildings of this stature and I just can't understand how people can still believe this obvious fabrication of the fire/planes causing the 3 towers to crumble to dust. Even if building 7 was hit by a plane it wouldn't of collapsed like it did from those tiny fires it had.

Most people don't like top level politicians and say they don't trust them one bit. Most people know that these leaders do not give one shit about any of us and that they lie to us all the time. Yet when these same world leaders spin a lie about major events these same people put all their trust in them. It really is puzzling.

[BoneDog]

In the same way that those who claim the Twin Towers were the first to collapse due to fire ignore the fact that they were also the first steel-framed skyscrapers to be hit by a fully laden 737 going at 500mph you mean?

It wasn't the first building to be hit with planes (you may be right that it's the first one to be hit with a 737 though).

Many much smaller buildings have been hit with big planes and have had less damage done than happened to the super strength WTC's! Many, many times.

Also, many weaker buildings have been hit with cruise missiles and bombs much more powerful than the 737's and have remained standing in better shape than the super strength WTC's.

We must stress the words SUPER STRENGTH when we talk about the WTC's cos there aren't many buildings around that could take as much sideways force than they could. (they were built to withstand much, much more force than a poxy 737. The 737's fuel would also of had no impact on the structure as jet fuel burns up very quickly indeed, in the initial explosion I think).

Even if 2 cruise missiles hit the WTC's in the top half they wouldn't of collapsed. School children can see that surely

[Fosse Boy]

I think it was done by the aliens who were involved in the Rendlesham Forest Incident. Convinced.

[Guest DavidJCW]

Wow didnt realise we had a member of the intelligence service posting on here!

It was in the news...

[Guest DavidJCW]

For all those who are interested in conspiracy theories then you should watch Zeitgeist. It's a fascinating account of some of the most contentious issues in the modern world including religion, banks and the WTC attacks. WELL worth sitting through all 2 hours of it as it's amazing how accurate it is and how it completely ridicules all that governments and the news tells us.

[Zingari]

In the same way that those who claim the Twin Towers were the first to collapse due to fire ignore the fact that they were also the first steel-framed skyscrapers to be hit by a fully laden 737 going at 500mph you mean?

WTC7 was not hit by an aeroplane , the NIST Report says it collapsed due to fire .

there is plenty of film footage of the collapse , watch it with the sound turned off if you like , and ask yourself if it really looks like a building that is falling due to randomly spaced fires

to El Empty

[Guest Bilo]

WTC7 was not hit by an aeroplane , the NIST Report says it collapsed due to fire .

there is plenty of film footage of the collapse , watch it with the sound turned off if you like , and ask yourself if it really looks like a building that is falling due to randomly spaced fires

to El Empty

Badly damaged by WTC1 when it collapsed and ruptured the steel skeleton. Because WTC1 didn't collapse into its own footprint like a building in a controlled demolition. Because it wasn't controlled.

The majority of footage shows the side of WTC7 that wasn't ripped open by the debris of WTC1, but the structure of it was pretty much destroyed.

[Daggers]

Even if 2 cruise missiles hit the WTC's in the top half they wouldn't of collapsed. School children can see that surely

Not the ones I teach because I'm crap at my job.

[Guest Bilo]

The towers were built to withstand numerous passenger planes hitting them as are all tall buildings.

Many structural engineers and architects etc. (including some who worked on the WTC) have talked about how it is impossible for the 3 buildings to crumble (most obviously building 7). The towers were built to withstand hurricanes and weather that has much more force than one plane. The were also built to withstand AEROPLANES and massive fires.

If you know anything about the strength of the WTC's then saying that a passenger plane and a relatively SMALL fire that was starved of oxygen, hence the black smoke, caused the buildings to collapse is laughable.

There was masses of molten iron/steel at the scene in the basements for weeks after the collapses (steel cannot melt from a jet fuel fire. It needs super high temperatures and the WTC fires didn't have super high temperatures as the black smoke proves). There were many reports of explosions in the basement levels of the buildings all morning from firefighters, news reporters and WTC employees (of course these reports only got aired once or twice and were soon pulled from the airwaves).

Many workers and firefighters coming down the stairs in the WTC's reported explosions going off all around them when they were in the lower half of the buildings

Even if the top of the buildings collapsed they would of slipped off the side and not caused the super structure below them to crumble. It is impossible for the damage to have caused the whole of the towers to crumble into dust without explosives (nano-thermite and not ordinary thermite as the National Geographics pathetic excuse for a scientific expeiment used. Real scientists laughed at that programme).

The damage right at the top of these super structures was tiny for buildings of this stature and I just can't understand how people can still believe this obvious fabrication of the fire/planes causing the 3 towers to crumble to dust. Even if building 7 was hit by a plane it wouldn't of collapsed like it did from those tiny fires it had.

Most people don't like top level politicians and say they don't trust them one bit. Most people know that these leaders do not give one shit about any of us and that they lie to us all the time. Yet when these same world leaders spin a lie about major events these same people put all their trust in them. It really is puzzling.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

Has 9/11 been taken advantage of? Definitely.

It has been used as justification for everything from the erosion of civil liberties around the world to the invasion of Iraq to the Bush administration's entire Islamophobic foreign policy concerning the Middle East. What it caused seemed to spur the policies of the neo-cons into action.

All in all, it seems very convenient. The conclusion that 9/11 was a deliberate false flag operation is perhaps an understandable conclusion. I almost believed it, some of the science seems quite convincing when you first look at it. The thing is that the science by PM and NIST explains why the Towers collapsed the way they did and shows the controlled demolition theory is bull. We have to remember that the events of that day were without precedent anywhere in the world, hitting two towers with the kind of structure that had never suffered such severe damage in the past. The 'official story' is undoubtedly true in its most basic facts. Hijacked airplanes hit the Twin Towers and the resultant damage and fire so severely undermined the towers that they collapsed. Gets a bit complicated thereafter though.

What did the authorities know about the attacks? Was every major intelligence agency really ignorant? More specifically, what did the Saudis know (given that the majority of hijackers were their citizens)? After all, a USA lashing out at Islamists would have been very handy for their domestic issues. Same with Israel. The sight of Palestinians dancing in the streets the evening of the attack wouldn't exactly have endeared the US to their cause, and Israel knew it. That's what can't be put to bed, the theory that some countries knew or had a good idea what was going to happen but chose not to prevent the attack as the US would not then defend their interests with the amount of vigour that a wounded, post tragedy US would.

[MC Prussian]

...

It takes you a long time to get to the point, but when you finally do, you claim

Hijacked airplanes hit the Twin Towers and the resultant damage and fire so severely undermined the towers that they collapsed. Gets a bit complicated thereafter though.

There you got it all wrong, I'm afraid. Two buildings created to withstand enormeous outer influences suddenly collapse because two airplanes hit them, leaving behind only minimal superficial and interior damage to the construction in the process?

You got to be kidding me.

(Again, sorry for the detour around the original topic)

[breadandcheese]

I'm confused. I was always taught in chemistry that although steel needs extremely high temperatures to melt, it loses strength at high temperatures of over 1000 degrees, even if it maintains its solid state.

At the same time, I was always taught in physics that the whole point of a steel structure in a skyscraper was to share the load and distribute the weight of the building around the frame, thus ensuring strength. In that regard, it is quite conceivable that if a large passenger plane flies at 500mph into a building and destroys a number of steel pillars and frames, it will reduce the building's ability to carry the strength of the building.

I have not yet seen these two elementary facts debunked yet in all the 911 conspiracy theories, but instead read deflecting arguments about controlled explosions, missing passengers from the planes, etc.

I'm also intrigued as to how conspiracy theorists are so sure that the twin towers were definitely strong enough to survive a direct hit by two large planes, filled with highly flammable fuel. I mean, there's plenty of examples over the last century of buildings and bridges collapsing or performing poorly because of design flaws, even though models showed them to be safe. Is it not conceivable that although the models showed the twin towers to be safe from an extreme event, it in fact was not and there was no way the designers could have prepared for an event like this?

[Guest Bilo]

I'm confused. I was always taught in chemistry that although steel needs extremely high temperatures to melt, it loses strength at high temperatures of over 1000 degrees, even if it maintains its solid state.

At the same time, I was always taught in physics that the whole point of a steel structure in a skyscraper was to share the load and distribute the weight of the building around the frame, thus ensuring strength. In that regard, it is quite conceivable that if a large passenger plane flies at 500mph into a building and destroys a number of steel pillars and frames, it will reduce the building's ability to carry the strength of the building.

I have not yet seen these two elementary facts debunked yet in all the 911 conspiracy theories, but instead read deflecting arguments about controlled explosions, missing passengers from the planes, etc.

I'm also intrigued as to how conspiracy theorists are so sure that the twin towers were definitely strong enough to survive a direct hit by two large planes, filled with highly flammable fuel. I mean, there's plenty of examples over the last century of buildings and bridges collapsing or performing poorly because of design flaws, even though models showed them to be safe. Is it not conceivable that although the models showed the twin towers to be safe from an extreme event, it in fact was not and there was no way the designers could have prepared for an event like this?

Far, far too sensible.

Only someone with a neocon agenda could come up with some intelligent, considered and quantifiable evidence. The temperature of the fire would have been high enough to reduce the integrity of the steel but not to melt it. This quote sums it up though.

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3.

Load bearing steel pillars and frames were destroyed on impact and the surrounding ones were undermined by the high temperatures. It was the combination of these factors that caused the towers to collapse. Once part of the towers buckled, the rest was inevitable. This seems like common sense to me.

[Webbo]

Why did the authorities need to demolish the world trade centre? Do you not think that hijacking 4 planes and crashing them into these towers, the Pentagon and which ever target the last plane was aimed at dramatic enough?

[Zingari]

I'm confused. I was always taught in chemistry that although steel needs extremely high temperatures to melt, it loses strength at high temperatures of over 1000 degrees, even if it maintains its solid state.

At the same time, I was always taught in physics that the whole point of a steel structure in a skyscraper was to share the load and distribute the weight of the building around the frame, thus ensuring strength. In that regard, it is quite conceivable that if a large passenger plane flies at 500mph into a building and destroys a number of steel pillars and frames, it will reduce the building's ability to carry the strength of the building.

I have not yet seen these two elementary facts debunked yet in all the 911 conspiracy theories, but instead read deflecting arguments about controlled explosions, missing passengers from the planes, etc.

I'm also intrigued as to how conspiracy theorists are so sure that the twin towers were definitely strong enough to survive a direct hit by two large planes, filled with highly flammable fuel. I mean, there's plenty of examples over the last century of buildings and bridges collapsing or performing poorly because of design flaws, even though models showed them to be safe. Is it not conceivable that although the models showed the twin towers to be safe from an extreme event, it in fact was not and there was no way the designers could have prepared for an event like this?

so basically if you chop through some steel girders towards the top of a steel framed building , allow some kerosene ( basically parafin ) to trickle down to the lower section on the building and ignite it , the whole building will come down neatly on itself .

sorry it's like the magic bullet theory , it doesn't wash and never will , we'll just have to disagree i suppose

[Daggers]

I'm betting the same people are responsible for the Halifax radio advert, Spangles being withdrawn from sale and the fact that you can't find Cod Steak In Cheese Sauce (in a boiling bag) anymore.

Still - we beat them on Salad Cream and we made the bastards see the error of their ways with Cheese Crispy Pancakes.

[Webbo]

so basically if you chop through some steel girders towards the top of a steel framed building , allow some kerosene ( basically parafin ) to trickle down to the lower section on the building and ignite it , the whole building will come down neatly on itself .

sorry it's like the magic bullet theory , it doesn't wash and never will , we'll just have to disagree i suppose

Like I said earlier why did the towers have to come down? And were did the Americans find 4 pilots willing to commit suicide?

[grth2004]

I'm betting the same people are responsible for the Halifax radio advert, Spangles being withdrawn from sale and the fact that you can't find Cod Steak In Cheese Sauce (in a boiling bag) anymore.

Still - we beat them on Salad Cream and we made the bastards see the error of their ways with Cheese Crispy Pancakes.

god i love those pancakes

[Zingari]

Like I said earlier why did the towers have to come down? And were did the Americans find 4 pilots willing to commit suicide?

the theory goes that the planes that crashed into the towers were fly-by-wire military aircraft fitted with explosive pods on the fuselage , not flights 11and 175 , many witnesses described the planes as "big grey windowless aircraft" and much work has gone on to prove this point

next question will be , what happened to flights 11 and 175 , then?

answer ; i don't know , i don't claim to have all the answers i just think there are too many inconsistencies in the official explanation ,

but just like JFK , it won't go away

[hairy]

I have just been reading of the US is responsible for the earthquake in Haiti. Apparently they tested some new weapon there so they could then occupy the country to allow the extraction of oil and uranium as well as having a base near the troublesome central and south american countries. Appartently the oil in Haiti is listed as the USA's oil reserves and they are very keen to protect it for future use.

Where is that caravan bloke when you need him

[MC Prussian]

I have just been reading of the US is responsible for the earthquake in Haiti. Apparently they tested some new weapon there so they could then occupy the country to allow the extraction of oil and uranium as well as having a base near the troublesome central and south american countries. Appartently the oil in Haiti is listed as the USA's oil reserves and they are very keen to protect it for future use.

Where is that caravan bloke when you need him

Is the God's Kingdom of Serbia involved in any way?