COMMENTS:
Evidence has emerged that explosive were set within the building and the building came down as a controlled demolition.
This was not a terroist attack so much from without, but more of a terrorist attack from within.
For those who doubt this, check the video coverage and secondary explosions are shown well after the planes struck the towers.
None of the above. It's a human thing, the need to put answers to questions that can never fully be answered.
Watch the videoes from news coverage that clearly show the explosive charges going off round the building and you'll no why the towers fell (straight down) Plus burning jet fuel doesn't melt steel. And the fires were almost out when the towers fell.
cretin_slut also believes in the Easter Bunny!
jack fate seems to want to deny the existence of pretty conclusive proof that the twin towers were demolished. Try debating me, jack, you imbecile.
Just in case anybody still believes the bullshit cover story, this might make you think a bit.
In 2001 before the 9/11 attacks 62 aircarft had been intercepted by Air Force fighter interceptor jets, and usually within 10 to 15 minutes of going off course. Yet bizarrely, on 9/11 four commercial jets were highjacked off course for about one and a half hours before the last one crashed into the most highly protected building in the world (the Pentagon) yet no jet intercepted it in time.
And Guest_a888b says this despite the facts laid out by Guest_a201e. That just isn't going to work any more, Guest_a888b.
The jews, those damn jews, they put more than 400 elephants in the top floor of both buildings, knowing that the extra weight would bring the buildings down. Then Elvis tried to climb the stairs in both buildings, and that old fat dead rock star, he was just too much weight for the buildings to take.
jappy can't refute the facts that are mentioned about 9/11 so resorts to childish ridicule.
Four planes were supposedly hi-jacked on 9/11 and none were intercepted even after an hour an and a half after the first one was reported. What kind of defence against terrorism is that?
look what it did for Bush :p
by x__ on Wed Jul 14, 04 7:11pm
[+]
the story of silberstein is quite astonishing- certanly everything is explaniable as a mere coincidence- But we don't feel so young everyday. Someday we feel old, very old. Check this link and read the brief story: http://globalfire.tv /nj /03en /jews /wtc-silverstein.htm
oops, sorry guys, i just realized that the link above belongs to a website of a neo-nazist club 'for jewish studies'. Suddendly I feel young back again...
One plane with a bit of burning fuel does not make a building that size turn to rubble. Come on. Use your brains.
check out physics911.org
there was not enough latent energy in the jet fuel to cause heat to rise high enough to melt the steel of the central pillars.
Yes. Burning aircraft fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt the steel core of those buildings. It is a scientific impossibility rather than a conspiracy theory.
I am perplexed by the lack of common sense here, do you honestly know the damage that is done by a plane of that size, carrying 57,285 gallons of highly flammable jet fuel (in gallons, this is nearly three times the amount you would find in a typical home swimming pool), weighing in at roughly 750,000 lbs, 231 ft feet long, 211 feet wide, 63 feet high, flying at .95 Mach (more than 600 mph).
jappy.
Aircraft fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt a building's steel core. It cannot. It is impossible. To suggest that burning aircraft fuel could have melted the WTC's steel core is completely wrong. jappy, you must accept the truth. Burning aircraft fuel can never melt steel. Ever.
Besides, there are many videos on the net that clearly show the explosives going off round the buldings just before they plummeted straight down.
What are you people talking about? Steel melts at about 1500C. Flames from most flammable gases have an temperature between 1800 - 2200C. And if you look at the videos, the towers didn't collapse from explosions. The weight of the buildings 'above' where the fires occured caused the steel to buckle, most likely 'before' the steel melted. They collapsed from the top down, like dominoes. When steel heats up it loses its strength. Pressure from the floors above can also play a role in increasing the temperature of the steel. But none of that matters...the reason the towers collapsed is because PLANES FLEW INTO THEM.
1# The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 51 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."
2# The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire.
3# The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down collapse was identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have done it better.
4# Even a layman with no explosives background should be able to see all this. But many specialists in the explosives and structural engineering have also made this observation and commented on these inconsistencies. After the WTC collapse, the Vice President of New Mexico Tech, Van Romero, gave an interview to the Albuquerque Journal. He stated plainly that he believed that the WTC collapse was too methodical and that explosive devices must have been placed in key points of both buildings. Romero said, "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points. One of the things that terrorists are noted for is a diversionary attack and a secondary device."
5# Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the World Trade Center. Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
Now this whole controversy between the "melted steel" scenario and the detonation scenario is one that could be very easily resolved. All we have to do is dig up the steel beams and examine each and everyone of them. If an explosive device caused the steel to fail, there will be tell-tale indications for the engineers to see. But if it was intense heat that caused the steel to "melt" or "buckle", there will be tell-tale signs of that as well. All we have to do to put an end to this controversy is to closely examine the steel. Right? Thanks to New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them! Much of the steel was recycled in America, but an additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management - which immediately shipped the WTCs steel to China and India for recycling before any investigators could have a chance to examine it!
AMAZING! The largest criminal investigation in history and the investigators weren't even permitted to see the most important evidence of all - the steel!
It's called nitpicking. Lotsa people do it. This is just the most tasteless example of it.
by Guest_2bf3e on Sep 30, 2004
Oh wow! What a refutal. Geez you're lame!
I used to work at an airport fueling jets. Tell ya what... no passenger jet I know of can carry 750K lbs. of fuel. Etended range 767s can carry a maximum of about 24,000 (shorter range versions about 16,000) gallons of Jet A, which has a typical density of about 1.68. Jet A is less explosive than mogas, but once it is ignited, it burns hotter and longer.
If you throw a lit cigarette into an uncovered container of Jet A, the cigarette will be snuffed out. If you cover the container for a period and throw the cigarette in while removing the cover, the fuel will ignite. For people who don't understand neither physics, nor the properties of fuel, it is easy to suggest Hollywood fantasy conspiracy theories.
For people who don't understand neither physics, nor the properties of fuel, it is easy to suggest Hollywood fantasy conspiracy theories.
by TheDoof on Oct 17, 2004
Oh you mean like a bunch of Arabs trained on Cessnas to fly great big passenger jets with more skill than pilots with many years of experience?
Or do you mean like the weird idea that a laminated paper passport could survive completely unsinged and undamaged in any way the sort of explosion that vapourizes a big passenger jet?
Or do you mean that really crazy silly idea that burning aviation fuel can melt steel girders without getting the temperature any higher that it does in your steel kerosene heater?
Or how about the weird theory that when tall buildings get hit by big passenger jetsm, such buildings will collapse very tidily straight-DOWN without the slightest variation, even though demolition experts have to struggle and make careful calculations to acheive this same result. I guess all those demolition experts should just give using carefully placed explosives and just ram jets into buildings instead???
For people who don't understand neither physics, nor the properties of fuel, it is easy to suggest Hollywood fantasy conspiracy theories.
by TheDoof on Oct 17, 2004
Oh you mean like a bunch of Arabs trained on Cessnas to fly great big passenger jets with more skill than pilots with many years of experience?
Or do you mean like the weird idea that a laminated paper passport could survive completely unsinged and undamaged in any way the sort of explosion that vapourizes a big passenger jet?
Or do you mean that really crazy silly idea that burning aviation fuel can melt steel girders without getting the temperature any higher that it does in your steel kerosene heater?
Or how about the weird theory that when tall buildings get hit by big passenger jetsm, such buildings will collapse very tidily straight-DOWN without the slightest variation, even though demolition experts have to struggle and make careful calculations to acheive this same result. I guess all those demolition experts should just give-up using carefully placed explosives and just ram jets into buildings instead???
Would there be evidence that explosives were used to bring down those buildings if that were the case? Of course there would. What a stupid theory.
Think about what explosives will do to metal support beams vs prolong heatting. A blind person could spot the difference. You guys really need to find another hobby. Defending conspiracy theories
isn't your bag.
Anonymous
I don't think you understand what you are asking the public to believe. Do you understand that the numerous steel support beams that had been "cut by explosive charges" is something that is very OBVIOUS to notice. It leaves a very distint mark. It doesn't need to be examined under a microscope to be noticed. Are you comprehending this?
Crews working on the sight would have spotted it even easier.
Thousand upon thousands of people working at the site, truckers trucking the material way, media, etc etc wouldn't have seen it. Where are these people? Killed by the CIA? What are you asking people to believe?
(punctuation correction)
Thousand upon thousands of people working at the site, truckers trucking the material way, media, etc etc wouldn't have seen it? <--
Do you understand that the numerous steel support beams that had been "cut by explosive charges" is something that is very OBVIOUS to notice. It leaves a very distint mark. It doesn't need to be examined under a microscope to be noticed. Are you comprehending this? by ClosetIguana on Dec 09, 2004
How many common normal people who have never before seen steel beams destroyed by explosives in their entire lives (such as the vast majority) would be able to recognize the difference, hmmm? 1 in tens of thousands maybe? This excuse of yours fails utterly from lack of real commonsense, and your continued pushing of the US government's "Arabs did it" conspiracy theory shows that you lack commonsense.
The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 51 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."
The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down collapse was identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now!
After the WTC collapse, the Vice President of New Mexico Tech, Van Romero, gave an interview to the Albuquerque Journal. He stated plainly that he believed that the WTC collapse was too methodical and that explosive devices must have been placed in key points of both buildings. Romero said: It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points.
Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the World Trade Center. Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following:
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
The steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them! A media darling and lifelong supporter of Israel, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made sure that the "smoking gun" evidence was destroyed and right quick too. Much of the steel was recycled in America, but an additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management - then shipped the WTCs steel to China and India for recycling! (from China Radio English Edition - "New York's Metals Management is among the firms taking steel from the huge project to clear Ground Zero. The company says it has bought 70,000 tons of scrap from the ruined twin towers. Some of the scrap has been shipped across the Pacific to Asian, including China and India. Among the consignments of scrap are the "very dense" steel girders from Ground Zero, which could finally yield 250,000 to 400,000 tons of scrap for recycling.")
The largest criminal investigation in history and the investigators weren't even permitted to see the most important evidence of all - the steel! Many of the most respected engineers in the country complained not only about the recycling, but also about the Federal government's suffocating control of their investigation. On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse: "Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with BUREACRATIC RESTRICTIIONS THAT PREVENTED THEM FROM INTERVIEWING WITNESSES, EXAMINING THE DISASTER SITE, AND REQUESTING CRUCIAL INFORMATION like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments."
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York Citys history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators//NYDailyNews
Numanx
"How many common normal people who have never before seen steel beams destroyed by explosives in their entire lives (such as the vast majority) would be able to recognize the difference, hmmm?"
EVERYONE would notice the difference! Just because you haven't seen one before don't concluded that it's not possible to notice the difference. Furthermore, as I mentioned, those construction crew workers that are very experience with the clean up after a demolition would spot it even easier. And there were thousands of these workers working there over the course of years! Your theory is nuts.
Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 51 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."
And those building did withstand a direct hit. That's not what brought them down remember?
"After the WTC collapse, the Vice President of New Mexico Tech, Van Romero, gave an interview to the Albuquerque Journal. He stated plainly that he believed that the WTC collapse was too methodical and that explosive devices must have been placed in key points of both buildings. Romero said: It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points."
And I could quote you hundreds that say what is commonly believed.
"Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the World Trade Center. Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following:
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
How many of these people even know what the sound of a bomb going off sounds like? It could easily have been confused with the sound of the floor smashing into each other. The time-line is basically the same.
"The steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them! A media darling and lifelong supporter of Israel, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made sure that the "smoking gun" evidence was destroyed and right quick too. Much of the steel was recycled in America, but an additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management - then shipped the WTCÂ’s steel to China and India for recycling! (from China Radio English Edition - "New York's Metals Management is among the firms taking steel from the huge project to clear Ground Zero. The company says it has bought 70,000 tons of scrap from the ruined twin towers. Some of the scrap has been shipped across the Pacific to Asian, including China and India. Among the consignments of scrap are the "very dense" steel girders from Ground Zero, which could finally yield 250,000 to 400,000 tons of scrap for recycling.") "
As I mentioned if explosive were attached to any of those numerous beams it would not go unnoticed. Explosives attached to beams look different than beam that didn't have explosives attached to them. Are you comprohending this?
If you or I had to compare a beam that had explosives attached to it and one that didn't...
You're not getting it are you?
"'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators"
Do you want to list off sources that say it was? I'm sure I can find more that back the offical reason than you can with this conspirisy.
"The largest criminal investigation ........like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments."
Are you concluding that these distress call may have found people saying explosions are going off? Have any fireman personell ever may this claim? They were there right?
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York CityÂ’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center." It must have been planted explosives! You got me! Lol
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
Sure, but doesn't therefor mean explosives were set.
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
by Numanx on Dec 10, 2004
Again, this proves nothing.
'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators
AS I mentioned before I can find you sources saying the opposite.
Here's one I found without trying
At temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, steel loses its strength and "turns to Play-doh," said engineer Ted Krauthammer, of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania.
As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes. "I was surprised and horrified to see them collapse," said Brooklyn-born physicist Frank Moscatelli of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania.
Of the hundreds of firefights/ police/ emergency personell/ workers of WTC - How many heard explosives going off? A few you said above right. Why just a few. Explosives not loud enough?
You know, you are really doing a disservice to those easily spun by misinformation.
At temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, steel loses its strength and "turns to Play-doh," said engineer Ted Krauthammer, of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania. by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004
That's a nice theory but for one teensy-wincy little problem; investigators found that the steel did not even reach 250C in temperature, let alone 500+.
The initial jet fuel was consumed after no more than 10 minutes, the 60,000 thousand or more tons of steel would have taken weeks to superheat to weaken steel, and there are numerous indicators of relative coolness in the Twin Towers on 9-11-1 such as;
- jumpers (not scalded, no more than 200 Fahrenheit)
- survivors who placed emergency calls from the top floors (up till collapse, detailed)
- thermogram of WTC2 facade at 9:18 a.m. (100 Celsius - water boiling point only)
- firemen nearly at collapse time above 70th floor of WTC2: no major fires
- over 400 computer hard drives recovered (Convar, a German company - not over 250 Celsius)
- computers recorded financial transactions seconds before each collapse
- dark smoldering smoke color
- no air flicker
- hardly any fires visible from outside until collapse time (very graphic)
- hundreds of people who managed to flee from the Twin Towers - no major fires
- not one shroud of "weakened steel" is ever presented despite clear crystal structure
- media push belief structure versus facts that cannot be forged (such as steel)
- 1.5 million tons of tell-tale debris from the WTC bombing were stolen & destroyed
- millions of unsinged papers did survive the "BS-TV fire inferno"
- high-rise fires do not cause collapses and never have, apart from 9-11.
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
Sure, but doesn't therefor mean explosives were set.
by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004
But it does show a blatant coverup.
As the steel columns at the core of the Twin Towers collapsed, the floors they supported fell on each other like two stacks of pancakes.
by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004
So, have you told any demoliton engineers of this wonderfully effective and cheaper technique of making buildings collapse straight-down? Using the magical properties that you ascribe to burning jet-fuel in that even if it only burns for 10 minutes at 250 Celsius, it can weaken a steel high-rise building in such a way that a PERFECT STRAIGHT-DOWN collapse is achieved; not once, but again and again! Wow! Amazing! You could put them all out of business!
Now that I know that according to you that such a temperature is enough to weaken steel maybe we should tell everyone not to make any lamb-roast in their steel ovens or their steel oven might will fall apart because of *weakened* steel.
Here's a recipe for a delicious roast lamb that according to you is too dangerous to cook in my oven;
3 lbs. of your favorite cut of lamb
1 head of cabbage
3 large carrots
3 medium potatoes
1 medium onion
2 long hot peppers
2 T lard or drippings
Place lamb in a heavy roasting dish with a cover. Place carrots, potatoes, and onion around the lamb. Cut the head of cabbage into 6 pieces and also place it around the lamb. Place the hot peppers on top of the lamb. Cover and let steam until done. Do not take the cover off unless necessary. Let roast in a 250 Deg. Celsius oven for 2-1/2 hrs. Serves six.
Of the hundreds of firefights/ police/ emergency personell/ workers of WTC - How many heard explosives going off?by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004
Actually quite a few did. I have 30mb of transcripts in pdf format copied onto several HDs.
Exceprt from an interview with Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro; The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
There was nothing there but rubble, Mike said. Were talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone! The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. You could stand here, he said, and two inches over you couldnt breathe. We couldnt see through the smoke so we started screaming. But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you cant see anything he said.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the buildings lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil and lying on the floor. They got us again, Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the buildings structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.
At this point the only overt damage to the building was the plane crash some 95 floors above, which could not have caused violent explosions underground. Since the towers were anchored at the base to the bedrock the shaking caused by the crash would have been greatest close to the crash site, getting progressively weaker as it approached the rigid attachment at the bottom. Yet the underground damage he describes can not have been the result of a mere shaking - nothing short of an explosion could reduce the contents of a machine shop to rubble.
Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again associated with a powerful underground blast.
The damage to the parking garage and lobby of the North Tower SIMULTANEOUS with the first plane impact are also indicative of the effects of high explosives, with widespread blast damage and fine dust covering the entire scene. As some of the firemen said, the lobby looked like the plane had hit the lobby, blown-out windows and a fine dry dust covering the entire lobby, very much the signature of high explosives.
Numanx
So of the hundreds of people within ear shot of the "explosives" how many heard it?
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York CityÃ’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center." It must have been planted explosives! You got me! Lol
by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004
The point in that quote is that there has been a DELIBERATE coverup.
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
by Numanx on Dec 10, 2004
Again, this proves nothing. by ClosetIguana on Dec 10, 2004
Yes it does, it shows a coverup again.
Numanx
So of the hundreds of people within ear shot of the "explosives" how many heard it?
by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004
You're repeating the same excuse like a mantra - have you no brain to come up with a different excuse. Your excuse died a long time, and yes people did hear the explosions and there are witnesses to them. I've already mentioned a few above. but you just repeat the same old excuse without reading.
Do you realize your posts make to different claims? 1 that explosives brought down the buildings the other
when the planes hit (oddly enough) lol!
... then again you probably believe there are numerous bombs going off at different times.
Do you realize your posts make to different claims? 1 that explosives brought down the buildings the other
when the planes hit (oddly enough) lol!
by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004
Read them again since you've obviously having problems, since I'm not making two different claims at all and never have. The first explosions at the base of the WTC north and south towers were at the same time, simultaneously with the impact of the planes hitting them above. Probably this was to use the plane's impacts into upper floors to distract people from teh noise of the explosions that occured UNDERGROUND. he sound and shaking of these explosions are reported by those people who were in underground carpark and sub-basment levels of the buildings. Is that clear to you now?
The damage shown on the video with very first firemen entering the North Tower lobby due to explosions as well.
...then again you probably believe that 250C will *weaken* the steel in your steel oven and make it too dangerous to use for making roast lamb.
Numanx
I'm still waiting for your response of why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions? How can people not notice explosions that would be required to take down those buildings? And how none of those numerous construction crew members noticed any beams that had explosives attached to them over the course of years.
I'm still waiting for your response of why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions? How can people not notice explosions that would be required to take down those buildings? by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004
No, you're not waiting for my response since you are simply repeating the same excuse like it's a mgic chant. Read above; there were witnesses there (and I've mentioned them by name already!) who heard the explosions in the sub-basement and there is video evidence of explosives having been used such as the news video from the very first firemen to enter the North Tower lobby (shattered, destroyed windows and concrete dust everywhere). I am not going to constantly repeat myself, and anyone who wants to, can read what I've already posted.
And how none of those numerous construction crew members noticed any beams that had explosives attached to them over the course of years. by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004
Really? So now you are making stuff up. I never mentioned any such a thing.
So, ClosetIguana, are you still pretending that temoperatures of only 250C for only ten minutes or so (the time it took the jet-fuel to burn out) is going to be enough to turn your steel oven to *weaken* the steel and turn your steel gas-oven to playdough?
Seriously, that isn't even hot long enough to cook a roast lamb properly.
PBS Nova - Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT.
The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective
Eagar: We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.
NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?
Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1200°F or 1300°F.
Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.
Continued..
NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.
Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.
Continued
...as a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling -- the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.
NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?
Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.
NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?
Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.
But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.
If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.
NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?
Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.
Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.
NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.
Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.
Numanx
The reason why I keep asking you "in a magical shant" why hundred and hundred of people didn't hear any explosion going off is because you haven't answered it.
And how none of those numerous construction crew members noticed any beams that had explosives attached to them over the course of years. by ClosetIguana on Dec 11, 2004
Really? So now you are making stuff up. I never mentioned any such a thing.
by Numanx on Dec 11, 2004
Huh? What I'm asking is why the hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them (which is something that doesn't need to be seen under a microscope).
Still waiting for answers for these 2 questions.
Huh? What I'm asking is why the hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them (which is something that doesn't need to be seen under a microscope).
Still waiting for answers for these 2 questions.
by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004
Since I never made up any such theory, maybe you should ask the person who did. I have never even mentioned it here - only you have. Are you still trying to trying come up with BS excuses? So now you say I mentioned things that I did not.
I really am not following you with this "
I never made up any such theory." What theory are you talking about?
I'm simplu asking a question. Why didn't hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them?
And why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions?
I really am not following you with this "
I never made up any such theory." What theory are you talking about?
I'm simplu asking a question. Why didn't hundreds of construction crew members working 7 days a week for 1 1/2 years never noticed beams that had explosives detonated on them? by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004
Wtf are you going on about? Lost a brain cell somewhere? I never mentioned any such thing as explosives being hidden for a years or whatever - only you have. If you want an answer for that one, go elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with me.
Why don't they simply look at the steel, and find out how the towers fell? That is the simplest, and most obvious solution.
And why the hundreds of other people didn't hear the explosions?
by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004
First aircraft impact -BOOM!!! Where do you think people were looking? UPWARD, which is a great distraction with all that noise to hide underground explosions as well, to weaken the building structures. There were witnesses underground who heard these underground explosions and saw the wreckage caused by them. I've already mentioned witnesses by name; read what they report.
In the early news reports that weren't repeated there were plenty of reports of explosions down at the base of the buildings, underground.
When the buildings came down people would initially blame the planes, as you do, but examination afterwards shows up glaring inconsistencies. The pyroclastic expansion of the cloud is too fast. Numerous other problems besides those that I have already mentioned.
If a large building is collapsing it would make loud noises which could be mistaken for BOMBS by people in a panic.
As the upper floors collapses internally they would have forced air, fire and debris outwards, which could be mistaken for CONTROLLED EXPLOSIONS by sad, deluded, no-job, web-surfing, no-girlfriend, Star Trek-loving, monkey spanking retards.
The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1200°F or 1300°F. by ClosetIguana on Dec 12, 2004
According to further studies, it is very unlikely that the temperatures went any higher than 250C. The temperatures recorded thermographically outside on the window glass never went above 100C. On top of this, the transcripts from the firemen who reached the floors above the 80-85+ level were that the fuel fires had all died out and there was only smoldering - this is also shown by the colour of the smoke. The materials that were studied, like burning on parts of the walls that investigators managed to study showed that tmperatures also probably never went above 250C.
Of course, if the US government really wants to lay the conspiracy theories to rest then they should provide some of those steel beams - lots of them from the core - to be tested properly by independent investigators. Ooops, they can't do that can they, BECAUSE THEY SOLD IT ALL TO BE RECYCLED BEFORE ANYONE COULD STUDY IT!!!
So sad, now everyone is going to be REALLY SUSPICIOUS and what's the odds that when the time is right, some smart entrepreneurial type has managed to keep a whole lot of those incriminating steel beams somewhere (if I know the Chinese, that's what somebody over there would've done) to use at a later date. That's the problem with outsourcing, you can never know if the other guy is going to keep the lid on it. (700,00o tons sent to China of all places - how can they believe that they can trust the Chinese?? There's bound to be at least one smart business type stashing a few beams away - all really suspect looking ones, thinking he could make a few bucks out of it later on)
Why don't they simply look at the steel, and find out how the towers fell? That is the simplest, and most obvious solution.
by cretin_slap on Dec 13, 2004
LMAO - of course, they can't do that, so they can't lay the suspicions to rest - because they tried to destroy all the evidence as fast they could (. Ha!
could be mistaken for CONTROLLED EXPLOSIONS by sad, deluded, no-job, web-surfing, no-girlfriend, Star Trek-loving, monkey spanking retards.
by wideheadofknowledge on Dec 13, 2004
Thats nice, but I doubt that has anything at all to do with underground explosions that witnesseed heard BELOW GROUND at the exact moment as the planes hitting near the tops of the buildings. Nor does it apply as an excuse for the damage in the North Tower lobby, or what firemen reported;
Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People Magazine the following:
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
So do plan to apply your excuse to firemen as well? What of the video evidence as well?
I also doubt that many of those witnesses, such as the firefighters and the workers below ground, who heard the explosions were "sad, deluded, no-job, web-surfing, no-girlfriend, Star Trek-loving, monkey spanking retards."
That description might apply to you possibly...
The reply above was to wideheadofknowledge for his silly little, and very innane insult of 13 December 2004.
Numanx
"Wtf are you going on about? Lost a brain cell somewhere? I never mentioned any such thing as explosives being hidden for a years or whatever - only you have. If you want an answer for that one, go elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with me."
What am I talking about? What are you talking about?
Nobody is making the claim that bombs were on the beams for a years!
I'm talking about the hundreds of construction crew members that were working at the site never after 911 (they weren't working they prior) never noticed any beams that had explosives detonated on them.
never after 911 (they weren't working they prior.
Rewrite- After 911 (they weren't working there prior
Numanx
Do you believe the explosives went off just before the tower came down? If so, why didn't most people hear them?
^didn't sign in
Couldn't sign-in on that particular PC - it's an old one and the Windows XP service pack 2 seems to have played merry havoc with the way IE works on it.
Kevin Ryan (an executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center) seriously questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. - From an email to Dr Frank Gayle (director of the government team)
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. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were 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.
NOTICE it was pnly 250C (500F).
Numanx
You keep on repeating the temperature never got above 250 c.
But some of the aluminum from the aircraft was found partly melted hence it had to have gotten to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. Disagree? If so please explain away as you did the other questions I've asked.
A little bit of science I learnt in high school; hitting a steel nail with a hammer actually melts parts of the nail. Same thing happens when a bullet fired from a rifle hits a steel plate - at the impact point, the metal is also melted - When the metal can no longer conduct heat away at the rate at which it is generated, the temperature will increase in the plastically strained zone. The heat is generated from the transfer of the energy of the impact to the metal. This would especially explain any component melting in engine parts and likely strain points on the airframe and wings.
The fireball that resulted from the jet-fuel was triggered by these momentary temperature spikes on parts of the airframe - spikes hot enough on those parts to set the fuel alight (it's not like planes are always rigged with detonators to make nice fireballs).
The vapourising jet-fuel of the fireball mostly went out and upward - and that's what's expected to do. It didn't create any kind of roaring high-temperature inferno inside the buildings.
Brian Clark, one of the few survivors from above the aircraft impact level in WTC 2 said this of the fires he saw whilst coming down the stairwell: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."
The New York Fire department tapes reveal that there were only small fires
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." Ladder 15: "Floor 78?". Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
The story of Stanley Praimnath who was feet away from the plane impact on WTC 2: "As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere."
So, ClosetIguana, why do you think there were huge hot pools of molten steel, 70 feet underground and an enormously high energy spike at the BEGINNING od each tower's collapse, 9 TO 10 SECONDS BEFORE the building collapses actually hit the ground? Those molten pools of steel lasted 100 days despite huge amounts of water being used to cool them down. They certainly weren't created by burning jet-fuel, there was nowhere near enough. It seems very unlikely it was thermite bombs as well; 22,000 tons of thermite would've been required to melt that much steel, and they would have to be lot hotter than that to stay molten for such a long period of time. You're not going come up with some ridiculous excuse about burning jet-fuel in an environment lacking in oxygen for it to burn being more effective than 22,000 tons of thermite are you?
I'd love to answer you question. Could you post a link from a reputable new source (BBC PBS) etc where I can read this story. All I can find one this comes from websites like "rumourmill.com".
It is actually from the BBC website - that's where I originally copied the relevant webpages from about the seismic activity and the pools of molten steel. Even if the pages are no longer there, there would be numerous copies elsewhere.
Why is it that Bushwankers always claim "I can't find it, therefore it doesn't exist!" when it's pretty obvious that you are not going to bother looking up something that destroys your own argument.
You can't come up with a reasonable answer can you for why those molten pools of steel were still hot enough to start fires 3 months after the towers came down and explain the incredibly powerful energy spikes in the seismic readings can you? So you're fishing for a distraction instead. Have you tried the roast lamb in your steel oven yet, or are you still afraid of *playdoh-fication* of the steel of the oven making it too dangerous after only ten minutes despite the fact that most people can cook roast lamb for an hour without problems with the steel of the oven getting playdo-ed (!?)
oh, cretin slap I hope your kidding, but thousands dead isn't really that funny
Numanx
Not believing in conspiracy theories doesn't make me a Bush supporter. Actually I think he's one of the worst presidents America has ever had (including Nixon).
2. Could you do me a favor and post that BBC link? That way I could respond to the story.
BTW your conparision between a building and an oven is ridiculious. Don't believe me ask an engineer. There's no comparing.
but thousands dead isn't really that funny
by everygirl on Dec 16, 2004
No, it's definitely not funny. Thousands of people killed by a callous and cruel hoax. There were definitely bombs in those buildings. The whole evnt stinks of coverup;
1)what was the US Airforce doing that day? Twiddling their thumbs? It took them over 1 1/2 hours to respond yet on every other occassion it only took 15 minutes to inercept a rogue plane.
2) All those cellphone calls that were so strange; like guys callingf their mothers and intrpducing themselves by their FULL NAMES to their own mothers - no way! Then they hangup before any further questions can be asked. Also the it's almost impossible to get a cellphone call to link from an aircraft at such altitudes, but "somehow" anyone could do it, and we're supposed to believe that hijackers wouldn't have tried to stop them??? It's simply not credible.
3) Lots of witnesses mentioned the explosions as the WTC towers came down, and many firemen in NY who saw them go down said it looked like a controlled demolition and so did the demolition experts.
There's just too many things about the whole event that are just way too suspicious. I could go on all day about them, but I don't have the time. The only people I've met who think the WTC towers came down simply because of plnaes crashing into them are online, nobody I've met in RL in the past two years believes that story. Bush's govt wanted an excuse for a war, and the Israeli govt wanted to get rid of Iraq. Everything this US Bush govt has said has turned out to be a lie.
Meteor7
...and the only place I've heard about the WTC being brought down by explosives is online.
This is where I heard that bin Ladin would be caputed by the U.S fall election (which I'm sure most of you conspiracy theorist believed but will never now own up to believing).
A question to you conspiracy theorist... Why do you think that media outlets around the world haven't reported what you're claiming? The conspiracy theorist have better investigators? The CIA has theatened their families lives if they tell "the truth".
** karma **
(conspiracy theorists)
** karma **
A question to you conspiracy theorist... Why do you think that media outlets around the world haven't reported what you're claiming? The conspiracy theorist have better investigators? The CIA has theatened their families lives if they tell "the truth".
by ClosetIguana on Dec 16, 2004
LOL. Actually, the speculation about the WTC and the whole 911 event being a hoax to get the USA into a war that the Bush administration wanted, has been rife in the commercial newsmedia in Japan, and throughout Asia. The Japanese national broadcaster, NHK has been the only news media organisation that hasnt mentioned it. The others just continue these days as if the whole event was a nasty hoax and react to all US media reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, and 911 related events with a great deal of scepticism. Even the government broadcaster (representing the Japanese government oppinion) will sometimes say things like "In the US media report they say this, of course its a blatant lie; here is what we have been able to discern of the real situation by intelligent analysis from many other sources instead".
2. Could you do me a favor and post that BBC link? That way I could respond to the story.
by ClosetIguana on Dec 16, 2004
How come you cant look for it yourself? Just put the following into a search engine; WTC, "molten steel", pools, BBC, "70 feet". keep fine tuning it until you find it. The seismic data is even easier to find. Surely you know how to use a search engine!
I've noticed that a few people on here use that tactic, Numanx. They ask you to explain it then trash it. It prevents other people from finding out for themselves. Don't hold out for Closet Iguana to suddenly come round to your point of view. He wants you to come back with as many facts as you can so he can dismissively trash them. Anyone who does not know the facts will assume that Closet knows what he's talking about.
cretin_slap
Hey all I'm asking is for your conspiracy theorists to back up your claims. You have no problem post reems and reems of stuff from those conspiracy theorists websites but can't post from reputible sites? What gives?
Numanx
Tried your recommendations (and only came up with those conspirisy theory websites reporting BBC made the report (like you guys). On BBC's website I put that in the search and guess what? There was no match. Surprised? I'm not.
If this BBC story existed it would have been MAJOR news and other news services would have picked it up.
But no the only place you can find it is on conspirisy websites. Funny how that works.
If this BBC story existed it would have been MAJOR news and other news services would have picked it up.
But no the only place you can find it is on conspirisy websites. Funny how that works.
by ClosetIguana on Dec 17, 2004
Maybe because YOU were only looking on *conspirisy* websites - I also found copies of the report on metallurgy and engineering websites. Most other people would fine-tune tehri search a bit, and type a few exceptions (and it helps a lot if you can spell "C O N S P I R A C Y"). So, perhaps you really don't know how to use a seacrh engine properly.
I don't see why you think seismic data would be major news; most peopkle don't care about dry reports. On most of the other stuff, well at the time they were reported, the USA was preparing to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age - so that kind of hogged the news a lot. "Pools of molten steel" aren't as interesting as actual wars.
Oh yes, and despite your BS, the BBC story exists. I copied the original page, and THERE ARE copies of that page elsewhere online that should be easy enough to find! What's the matter? Do you really need other people to LOOK FOR YOU?
Don't hold out for Closet Iguana to suddenly come round to your point of view. by cretin_slap on Dec 17, 2004
I'm not really talking to ClosetIguana in truth - I'm posting my cooments for the audience. Maybe I should mention naked schoolgirls and foot fetishes to get more attention :)
Numanx
You didn't think to check to see if the story was true before claiming the BBC wrote it, did you? LOL! Well you're not the first Numanx. No harm.
At least you hang around and let me take apart your arguements unlike by cretin_slap that always takes off. That guy believes all sorts of "C O N S P I R A C Y"
theories. BTW thanks for pointing out my spelling mistakes.
Did you want me to take apart your "seismic data"? If so, I really want you to first try and answer - why most people never reported these "explosions" going off. Come on be creative!
** karma **
2) All those cellphone calls that were so strange; like guys callingf their mothers and intrpducing themselves by their FULL NAMES to their own mothers - no way! Then they hangup before any further questions can be asked. Also the it's almost impossible to get a cellphone call to link from an aircraft at such altitudes, but "somehow" anyone could do it, and we're supposed to believe that hijackers wouldn't have tried to stop them??? It's simply not credible.
Meteor I am WARNING YOU! On this one, you better shut the fuck up!! As I mentioned in another post, my cousin was on Flight 93 and I can tell you, his wife did get a call from him...DO NOT FUCK WITH ME ON THIS ONE! If you want to blow your shitty conspiracy theories around go ahead, but if you mouth off and question the phone calls that these people and my cousin made the instant before they died, then I swear, I hope you burn in hell! My cousin DID NOT hang up before any questions. He told his wife exactly what was happening. He told her the plane and been hijacked becuase they did not know about the planes hitting into buildings. When he called back, he did know from another passnger...he talked to his wife for at least 7 -10 minutes. NO ONE was making him or the others say anything.
And, genius, of course you can make cell phone calls from a plane?! For someone who acts like he knows so much, you'd know that it is all over the news that airlines are considering allowing passengers to use cell phones in flight.
You're an ass man and I hope fate comes back to bite you in the ass for putting this crap out there and dishonoring people who lost their lives.
Did you want me to take apart your "seismic data"?
by ClosetIguana on Dec 17, 2004
No, I prefer experts to do it - and it's been analysed pretty well already. I don't see why you could reasonably be having any trouble finding it; are you sure that you know how to use a search engine properly? I'm not going to do your secretarial work for you.
At least you hang around and let me take apart your arguements .... by ClosetIguana on Dec 17, 2004
You must be a deluded optimist, because so far you haven't been able to support your own arguments very well at all - you must be using the freeper handbook.
Numanx
I know exactly where you got that info from the same sites you got the info about bombs being planted in the WTC. LOL.
Keep up the good journalism tactics there Numanx!
patch22us
I'm sorry to hear that story about your relative.
(to meteor7) And, genius, of course you can make cell phone calls from a plane?! by patch22us on Dec 17, 2004
But the odds are excceedingly small of getting any kind of reliable connection without an onboard relay - which all the aircraft *hijacked* at the time lacked. It's not impossible to get a cellphone connection, just extremely umlikely, especially when flying over an area with very, very few cellphone relays, and even more ulikely for so many calls at the same time in such circumstances to make a connection.
I know exactly where you got that info from the same sites you got the info about bombs being planted in the WTC. LOL.
Keep up the good journalism tactics there Numanx! by ClosetIguana on Dec 18, 2004
Now you're trying to say that the BBC, Asia Times Online, Japan Today, Sydney Morning Herald, and numerous others are spurious sources of news??? What do you propose; Fox "news" only? Sorry, but I prefer diversity of sources and credibility over "USA, USA, Rah-rah-rah" sort of rubbish.
My cousin DID NOT hang up before any questions. He told his wife exactly what was happening. He told her the plane and been hijacked becuase they did not know about the planes hitting into buildings. When he called back, he did know from another passnger...he talked to his wife for at least 7 -10 minutes. NO ONE was making him or the others say anything. by patch22us on Dec 17, 2004
Oh sure, we're supposed to believe that this *cousin* chatted merrily away on a cellphone for several minutes without any of these *hijackers* getting annoyed and stopping him. What was happening on that plane, did the *hijackers* just say "Hey everyone, we installed a cellphone relay while we were hijacking the plane, so go ahead and make LOTS of cellphone calls so that EVERYONE knows we're coming, so that the US Airforce hurries up a bit and intercepts us - we noticed that they're taking a REALLY LONG TIME to do anything even though on EVERY OTHER OCCASSION it only took them 15 minutes to intercept a rogue plane! Gee, I wonder what's taking those guys so long to DO SOMETHING! Could somebody please call their husband in the Justice Dept so that it all sounds a bit more credible!". Imagine the scene, dozens of people standing around having a cellphone calling party while *hijackers* do NOTHING at all. Weird, huh? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing happening in a hijacking before?
Say, patch22us and ClosetIguana, do you guys have any links to a real, uncensored, complete recording from ANY ONE of those EIGHT blackboxes on those planes (two each plane) something with real proof that the planes were hijacked?
dishonoring people who lost their lives.
by patch22us on Dec 17, 2004
This is such a typical ploy from freepers and Bushwankers, "Think about the dead, don't dishonor them" sort of crap as an excuse for not being able to come up with ANY REAL PROOF.
Numanx talks about real proof but when you ask for it he can't back-up his claims.
Speaking of which:
KWAME HOLMAN: With chilling audio tapes of the hijackers confronting their victims as a back drop, the 9/11 Commission painted a portrait of confusion and poor official communication throughout the frenzied morning of Sept. 11 2001. In the final day of hearings, the commission staff reported on the response by the Federal Aviation Administration and the military's North American Defense Command or NORAD. The staff said neither agency was prepared to react to hijacked planes that would become weapons.
PHILIP ZELIKOW: In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that, one, the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear. Two, there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command and, three, the hijacking would take the traditional form, not a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile. On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen. What ensued was the hurried attempt to create an improvised defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced.
KWAME HOLMAN: The staff played air traffic control recordings of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, destined to strike the first world trade center tower. This is believed to be hijacker Mohammed Atta.
HIJACKER: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try and make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
KWAME HOLMAN: It was the day's first indication to air traffic controllers that a hijacking was underway. The staff said controllers alerted FAA headquarters of a possible hijacking, but were told by the FAA officer on duty that an emergency conference call already was underway. However, the Boston-based controllers of Flight 11 were not satisfied military help was on the way and called the Northeast Air Defense Sector, or NEADS
Numanx talks about real proof but when you ask for it he can't back-up his claims. by ClosetIguana on Dec 18, 2004
Spreading more lies then?
So, what happened to those 8 blackbox flight recorders?
In the final day of hearings, the commission staff reported on the response by the Federal Aviation Administration and the military's North American Defense Command or NORAD. The staff said neither agency was prepared to react to hijacked planes that would become weapons. by |
