Albereth
Honorary Master
Whatever sources you use for your material make stuff up. Bush was not watching TV when the first plane hit, he was reading with kids in a school. Please verify your sources for accuracy.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Genuinely useful vs overrated camping gear?
911 Military Com Channels Audio Released
- Thread starter LoneGunman
- Start date
Whatever sources you use for your material make stuff up. Bush was not watching TV when the first plane hit, he was reading with kids in a school. Please verify your sources for accuracy.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
100 professors question the 911 commission report:
http://truthatsentinel.blogspot.com/2007/06/here-is-amazing-collection-of-experts.html
http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911
http://truthatsentinel.blogspot.com/2007/06/here-is-amazing-collection-of-experts.html
http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911
I often go to professors of theology & religion for engineering advice.
Albereth
Honorary Master
WTC didn't collapse due to fire. Someone flew a huge jet with fuel in it into the towers.
Also - I would hope that someone designed the building to collapse in on itself. I would want to live next door and have the constant worry of it falling over and squashing me.
Also - gravity. Has this property of being a vector, i.e. has a direction, that direction being towards the centre of the mass. Not some round about route. Things tend to fall straight down.
Also - with all the radios and whatnot about how come none of the recordings have sounds of explosions/detonations on them if the buildings were brought down deliberately, and why are there not eyewitness accounts of any secondary explosions?
mercurial
MyBB Legend
I was actually discussing WTC 6 and 7. To recap, here are my questions that have apparently well documented answers (none of which make any logical sense.)
On a side note, the WTC twin towers were designed to withstand a jet impacting them.
See above.
Lets go out on a limb here and look at gravity and the effect it had on WTC south. The jet that impacted it, hit the corner of the tower, thereby spewing most of its jet fuel out of the building where it ignited in a rather spectacular fireball (as was shown in most of the videos aired on cable TV)
Logic and gravity would dictate that the area of collapse would be the same place the structure was impacted and we would see a lean in the direction of the removed/damaged corner.
What did we see ? A near perfect symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed.
Amazing stuff this gravity. Not only did it right the lopsided tower, but it also produced enough force to collapse at near free fall speed with scant regard for friction and other extraneous forces.
There are actually. Skeptics just dismiss them as non-noteworthy, since they do not tie in with official doctrine.
explosions in WTC before collapse
eyewitness accounts of collapse of wtc
Albereth
Honorary Master
So your arguement is that the engineers built a WTC mock and flew a plane into it to see if it would withstand it.
There is that saying the the difference between practice and theory is that in theory there is no difference.
Just a note on falling things - every thing tends to fall at free fall speed. Perhaps a struggle through the Principles of Mathematics by Newton will enlighten. Or you could looking into the practical findings following an experiment involving a leaning tower and a couple of different mass iron balls.
And before it becomes an arguement I think we can agree that the stuff the WTC was made out of overcomes air friction a bit better than say, a feather would.
There is that saying the the difference between practice and theory is that in theory there is no difference.
Just a note on falling things - every thing tends to fall at free fall speed. Perhaps a struggle through the Principles of Mathematics by Newton will enlighten. Or you could looking into the practical findings following an experiment involving a leaning tower and a couple of different mass iron balls.
And before it becomes an arguement I think we can agree that the stuff the WTC was made out of overcomes air friction a bit better than say, a feather would.
That is not my argument. That is how it was built according to the people who designed and built it. I just put the link out there.
Do you think that the two towers should have exhibited the exact same symmetric free fall considering the two were hit in completely different locations ?
Can't argue with you there. I was referring to the idea that as each successive floor 'pancaked' onto the lower one, there would be some type of friction counterbalancing the free fall effect.
There is a whole lot more to 911 than the 'shock and awe' of the twin towers collapse. Before it becomes another argument, I purposefully wanted to ignore/bypass the twin towers during this discussion and concentrate on the rest of 911; specifically the questions I posted earlier which a few people have responded to with snide one liners.
Which is an appropriate response to the conspiracy theory BS.
Amerikanse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, that makes sense according the the oficial story, which is that the steel sturcture melted. That would bring it straight down, seems like
Once again, before I beleive this stuff, I need names, times, dates, documents. Until then this stuff will remain on the back burner of workd history.
Which brings us back to the Madrid inferno that burned for almost 24 hours yet didn't melt sufficiently for a full collapse.
For the WTC towers we have jet fuel that burns for less than an hour and melts enough of the main steel cores to instigate a complete collapse.
Which brings us back yet again to WTC 7 which didn't get hit by a jet but by debris which caused serious fires that all burned out within 20 minutes yet WTC 7 still managed to collapse perfectly.
So we have 3 buildings that had fires in them that burned for under an hour which caused them to completely collapse and 1 building that burned for almost 24 hours yet didn't collapse.
Kinda weird if you ask me.
Never going happen.
Yeah, oddly enough, that's the way gravity works...falling things tend to go straight down.
Different construction.
Didn't you read about that Californian bridge last year that had a petrol tanker fire start under it...and it collapsed, steel-and-concrete-construction and all? Exactly the sort of thing that "couldn't have happened" with the WTC...
And your qualifications to pontificate on what is weird in this issue are...?
Different construction.
Slightly hotter as well - Exceeded 2750 degrees (which I assume is F since its an american publication)
Surprising the whole bridge didn't collapse...
None - I'm just opinionated
as we all are.LoneGunman
Expert Member
Pity about the pictures (and video) showing survivors in the exact area of where the
airplanes went into the WTC - standing unburned and unharmed.
Either there was a 'raging inferno' which justified and explained how steel could melt or
become soft enough to cause a freefall collapse of three buildings on that day.
Or there was - as the firemen reported - just a relatively small fire which could be put
out with two fire engines worth of hoses.
Note the woman survivor, standing exactly where one of the planes entered the building.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman.jpg
No 'inferno'. No severe oven-like heat.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_woman_impact-area_full_large.jpg
short film clip of the woman waving - WHILE the remaining fire's still burning above her: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.1.scar.person.wmv
another film: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/woman-waving-close.avi
here's a pic of another survivor, also in the immediate area post impact:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_man.jpg
So much for the existence of a severe kiln-like fire.
Those fireballs were vast quantities of the available fuel-to-burn, being burned up in mid
air.
I trust the word of the firemen who were on the scene, over any self-appointed experts
for some hobby magazine.
And its clear that survivors were able to stand unharmed in the immediate area where the
planes impacted, within 45 minutes of the impacts. Therefore - no inferno - the fuel was
used up, the desks and chairs and office equipment had mostly burned up, and the impact
area and region, while a catastrophic mess, was cool enough for humans to be walking through.
airplanes went into the WTC - standing unburned and unharmed.
Either there was a 'raging inferno' which justified and explained how steel could melt or
become soft enough to cause a freefall collapse of three buildings on that day.
Or there was - as the firemen reported - just a relatively small fire which could be put
out with two fire engines worth of hoses.
Note the woman survivor, standing exactly where one of the planes entered the building.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman.jpg
No 'inferno'. No severe oven-like heat.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_woman_impact-area_full_large.jpg
short film clip of the woman waving - WHILE the remaining fire's still burning above her: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.1.scar.person.wmv
another film: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/woman-waving-close.avi
here's a pic of another survivor, also in the immediate area post impact:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_man.jpg
So much for the existence of a severe kiln-like fire.
Those fireballs were vast quantities of the available fuel-to-burn, being burned up in mid
air.
I trust the word of the firemen who were on the scene, over any self-appointed experts
for some hobby magazine.
And its clear that survivors were able to stand unharmed in the immediate area where the
planes impacted, within 45 minutes of the impacts. Therefore - no inferno - the fuel was
used up, the desks and chairs and office equipment had mostly burned up, and the impact
area and region, while a catastrophic mess, was cool enough for humans to be walking through.
Last edited:
LoneGunman
Expert Member
and as an addendum, here's a link to a scientific journal - (so much for the idea that
no 911 Truth material has/is being subjected to scientific peer review) dealing with the
collapse of WTC, as well as the 'fire being so hot' theory..
(It's 88k as a download)
From Bentham Science Publishers.
" Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government
Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge,
Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley doi: 10.2174/1874149500802010035
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
(extract)
7. Fires of Short Duration
NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most
a few minutes” [4]. “At any given location, the duration of
[air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min
to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures
were near 500 °C or below” [4].
We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and
patchy, how did both towers experience sudden-onset failure
of structural steel over a broad area in each tower and how
could the collapses of all three WTC high-rises have been so
symmetrical and complete? [13, 14, 17] We seek discussion
on these points.
8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel
"NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the
WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of
steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit).
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel)
fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius
(2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum
upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius
(1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example,
see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)” [3].
Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar
on this point:
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and
many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is
argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially
with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The
temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual,
and it was most definitely not capable of
melting steel [18].
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires
were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may
have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of
the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence
for temperatures much higher than NIST’s reported 1,100 °C
[13]. We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high
temperatures.
(etc)
-------------------------------
[3] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety
investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to frequently
asked questions”, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available:
NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov. [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[4] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR .
Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
September 2005.
[13] S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”,
Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006.
[Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
[14] F. Legge and T. Szamboti, “9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden
collapse initiation was impossible”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol.
18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof
911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[17] D. L. Griscom, “Hand-waving the physics of 9/11”, Journal of 9/11
Studies, Letters, February 8, 2007. [Online]. Available:
www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[18] T. W. Eagar and C. Musso, “Why did the World Trade Center
collapse? Science, engineering, and speculation”, JOM, vol. 53, no.
12, pp. 8-11, December 2001.
no 911 Truth material has/is being subjected to scientific peer review) dealing with the
collapse of WTC, as well as the 'fire being so hot' theory..
(It's 88k as a download)
From Bentham Science Publishers.
" Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government
Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge,
Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley doi: 10.2174/1874149500802010035
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
(extract)
7. Fires of Short Duration
NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most
a few minutes” [4]. “At any given location, the duration of
[air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min
to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures
were near 500 °C or below” [4].
We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and
patchy, how did both towers experience sudden-onset failure
of structural steel over a broad area in each tower and how
could the collapses of all three WTC high-rises have been so
symmetrical and complete? [13, 14, 17] We seek discussion
on these points.
8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel
"NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the
WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of
steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit).
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel)
fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius
(2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum
upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius
(1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example,
see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)” [3].
Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar
on this point:
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and
many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is
argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially
with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The
temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual,
and it was most definitely not capable of
melting steel [18].
We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires
were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may
have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of
the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence
for temperatures much higher than NIST’s reported 1,100 °C
[13]. We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high
temperatures.
(etc)
-------------------------------
[3] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety
investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to frequently
asked questions”, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available:
NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov. [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[4] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR .
Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
September 2005.
[13] S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”,
Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006.
[Online]. Available: www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed
March 17, 2008].
[14] F. Legge and T. Szamboti, “9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden
collapse initiation was impossible”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol.
18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof
911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[17] D. L. Griscom, “Hand-waving the physics of 9/11”, Journal of 9/11
Studies, Letters, February 8, 2007. [Online]. Available:
www.journalof911studies.com [Accessed March 17, 2008].
[18] T. W. Eagar and C. Musso, “Why did the World Trade Center
collapse? Science, engineering, and speculation”, JOM, vol. 53, no.
12, pp. 8-11, December 2001.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
notice how zero focus is given to the pure science with references.
the conspiracy theorist trolls love to try make smokescreens, instead of addressing facts.
(And trying to link 911 truth with antisemitism, is rather bizarre).
Rather ask:
(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable
normal defensive procedures?
(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings collapse due to fire, falling at virtually
free-fall speed, and exhibiting many other indications normally associated with controlled demolition?
And then explain how come - after the event -
-Bush, Cheney and all other key officials refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney
would not even speak to the 9/11 Commission unless they did so together.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4862296/
-The 9/11 Commission admits that the U.S. military intentionally lied about what happened that day;
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/they-dont-believe-it-why-do-you.html
and the Commission reached conclusions based on political considerations, and that its
conclusions were largely based on third-hand information conveyed through military
spokespeople about what severely tortured, crazy people supposedly said
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/911-confession-falls-apart.html
-NIST admits "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", even
though no modern steel-frame building has ever before or since totally collapsed due to fire,
even with much hotter and longer-burning fires.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html
-FEMA admits that its best hypothesis for why WTC 7 collapsed has only "a low probability of occurring"
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html
It is not very reassuring when the professionals tasked with defending the
government's version of what happened on 9/11 themselves, aren't
willing to swear to that version.
the conspiracy theorist trolls love to try make smokescreens, instead of addressing facts.
(And trying to link 911 truth with antisemitism, is rather bizarre).
Rather ask:
(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable
normal defensive procedures?
(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings collapse due to fire, falling at virtually
free-fall speed, and exhibiting many other indications normally associated with controlled demolition?
And then explain how come - after the event -
-Bush, Cheney and all other key officials refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney
would not even speak to the 9/11 Commission unless they did so together.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4862296/
-The 9/11 Commission admits that the U.S. military intentionally lied about what happened that day;
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/they-dont-believe-it-why-do-you.html
and the Commission reached conclusions based on political considerations, and that its
conclusions were largely based on third-hand information conveyed through military
spokespeople about what severely tortured, crazy people supposedly said
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/911-confession-falls-apart.html
-NIST admits "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", even
though no modern steel-frame building has ever before or since totally collapsed due to fire,
even with much hotter and longer-burning fires.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html
-FEMA admits that its best hypothesis for why WTC 7 collapsed has only "a low probability of occurring"
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html
It is not very reassuring when the professionals tasked with defending the
government's version of what happened on 9/11 themselves, aren't
willing to swear to that version.
Ask the structural engineers.
Oh, wait...they already detailed how that happened.
(BTW- Falling at "near free-fall" speeds implies that they collapsed under the influence of gravity. Funny that...is someone expecting them to fall slower than that?)
There's been no other similar example in world history. Perhaps that's why... (No, the Madrid one was not the same construction...)