A Coincidence Theorists Guide to 911

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
-SNIP

"Most people -- or certainly many people, especially in the U.S. -- believe the complete structural failure and total collapse of the World Trade Center towers was caused by the combustion of large quantities of jet fuel, dispersed and ignited after "hijacked" jets crashed into each tower on Sept. 11, 2001. That is the scenario promulgated to the far corners of the globe by official U.S. government sources.

Interestingly, jet fuel -- somewhat similar to common kerosene and not much different than charcoal lighter fluid -- burns at roughly 875 degrees. Whether a little or a lot of fuel is burned, it still burns at roughly the same temperature. Now: Think about all the kerosene burning in all those kerosene heaters (and lanterns), constructed primarily of thin, low-grade, steel sheet metal. Think about all those kerosene heaters burning merrily away, with temperatures perhaps approaching 875 degrees at the hottest. Think about how parts of all those kerosene heaters would then turn into bubbling pools of melted steel before the horrified eyes of countless poor souls who had no idea the fuel used in their heaters would actually "MELT" the heaters themselves.

Of course, this does NOT happen -- which gives us a pretty good idea that what had been sold far and wide by the U.S. government and innumerable media outlets as the "cause" of the trade center towers' collapse is in fact absolute fiction and fantasy, without the slightest shred of scientific fact or collaborative evidence and testimony to support such monstrous and utter nonsense. Hardened steel such as that used in the WTC beams and girders needs temperatures of approximately TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED (2,800) degrees to actually melt, and temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees to turn bright red and soften.

The official version of the collapse of the WTC towers is -- again -- that burning jet fuel eventually melted or liquefied the massive and seriously hard steel beams of the WTC tower(s), to the point where the beams all gave way, unilaterally and simultaneously throughout both the gigantic structures and causing their total and nearly instantaneous collapse. Well, if such doesn't happen with kerosene heaters, you can bet it doesn't happen to huge steel-beamed buildings -- and indeed it never has; especially when the fires which supposedly "caused" such total structural failure had in fact long since largely burned themselves out.

In fact, nearly a year after the monumental and treacherous catastrophe which struck lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, an audio tape of firefighter communications was finally released -- which proves that the actual conditions at and near the point of impact in the north WTC tower only moments before the building's collapse were totally inconsistent with the conditions which had to have existed for the official version to be even minimally correct.."

READ "Fire Dept. Tape Invalidates Key Points Official 911 Story"
http://freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=2093

then approach Prof Jones' careful analysis, and see that the 'official' story is simply thumbsuck, and bollocks and pseudo-science for people who don't understand that FINITE limits of temperatures of substances, are completely known and defined.
You can't make a fuel that only reaches X temperature, be responsible for an effect that only occurs at Y temperature.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
icyrus - my point is 'it doesnt matter or need 'structural engineers' - IF you're talking about liquids (fuel) that can only reach X temperature, and steel that can only be affected at Y temperature.

Who is saying that fuel was the *only* thing burning? Prof Jones?
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
trollishly choosing to not understand these simple basics of precise and fully defined scientific principle - means its useless arguing with you. Thats like trying to play and explain baroque music to someone who's pretending to be tone deaf.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
The official version of the collapse of the WTC towers is -- again -- that burning jet fuel eventually melted or liquefied the massive and seriously hard steel beams of the WTC tower(s), to the point where the beams all gave way, unilaterally and simultaneously throughout both the gigantic structures and causing their total and nearly instantaneous collapse.

Please provide a link proving that this is, in fact, the official standpoint. I don't believe this is the case.
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
claymore "Who is saying that fuel was the *only* thing burning? Prof Jones?"

er no :) If you think that burning office supplies and fixtures (paper, wood, fabric) can reach oxy-acetylene flame temperatures - sufficient to meet the necessary SUSTAINED heat to effect any significant change in steel - then wow, how do you suppose your braai flame doesnt melt your braai stand - or make it 'soften' and fall over?
:p
 

icyrus

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,600
LoneGunman said:
icyrus - my point is 'it doesnt matter or need 'structural engineers'

We're talking about buildings collapsing and you say that it doesn't require a structural engineer?

LoneGunman said:
IF you're talking about liquids (fuel) that can only reach X temperature, and steel that can only be affected at Y temperature.

That would be all well and good if there was just a fire... but I seem to remember the small matter of 2 airplanes crashing into them aswell.

Anyway, my point is just that this is a unique situation and I am more inclined to listen to engineers' points of view than random conspiracy theorists. Show me a peer-reviewed and published report written by an accredited engineer (or better - engineers) stating all the scientific reasons why the buildings couldn't have collapsed from the plane crash along with proofs and I will take notice. Until such time, excuse some of us if we have or doubts.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
trollishly choosing to not understand these simple basics of precise and fully defined scientific principle - means its useless arguing with you. Thats like trying to play and explain baroque music to someone who's pretending to be tone deaf.

Did you miss the point?
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
er no :) If you think that burning office supplies and fixtures (paper, wood, fabric) can reach oxy-acetylene flame temperatures - sufficient to meet the necessary SUSTAINED heat to effect any significant change in steel - then wow, how do you suppose your braai flame doesnt melt your braai stand?
:p

At what temperature does steel lose a significant portion of its strength? I know. Do you? Are you aware that wooden roof trusses hold structural strength longer in fires than do steel ones?
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
icyrus - "That would be all well and good if there was just a fire... but I seem to remember the small matter of 2 airplanes crashing into them aswell.
"
dont you read previous posts? I said quite clearly that if anyone wants to point out that the planes impact helped cause the collapse - then I point simply to the collapse of the THIRD building, which fell exactly the same way as the first two. No plane hit it. Two little fires inside. And a 47 storey building neatly collapsed into its own footprint.
Caused by?
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
Claymore - read prof jones article, and debunk that - he gives all necessary temperatures, which you can easily cross reference using any online information source to determine if his data is incorrect or correct
Read the source data.

EDIT - and then, you might want to consider the throughly annoted and referenced article 'The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True' : http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
(which also cross references the various statements and 'findings' in the official 911 commission, with known data that is at odds with the official view.)
 
Last edited:

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
icyrus - "That would be all well and good if there was just a fire... but I seem to remember the small matter of 2 airplanes crashing into them aswell.
"
dont you read previous posts? I said quite clearly that if anyone wants to point out that the planes impact helped cause the collapse - then I point simply to the collapse of the THIRD building, which fell exactly the same way as the first two. No plane hit it. Two little fires inside. And a 47 storey building neatly collapsed into its own footprint.
Caused by?

The official report, I believe, is not out yet. But it is known that the inside of the building burnt for a fair while, and that it had some construction oddities of its own, like being cantilever built over another building. 160000 litres of diesel in various parts of the building might have been a factor too. I would like to see the official report on that one before I jump to conclusions.
 

icyrus

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,600
LoneGunman said:
icyrus - "That would be all well and good if there was just a fire... but I seem to remember the small matter of 2 airplanes crashing into them aswell.
"
dont you read previous posts? I said quite clearly that if anyone wants to point out that the planes impact helped cause the collapse - then I point simply to the collapse of the THIRD building, which fell exactly the same way as the first two. No plane hit it. Two little fires inside. And a 47 storey building neatly collapsed into its own footprint.
Caused by?

That is strange logic. So, you're saying that the plane's hitting the twin towers is irrelevant because another building collapsed without being hit by a plane?

It's kind of like saying that the titanic couldn't have sunk as a result of a collision with an iceberg as other ships have sunk without being hit by and iceberg?

You do realize that the buildings could have collapsed for different reasons?

Ignoring that, back to my main point: Show me a peer-reviewed and published report written by an accredited engineer (or better - engineers) stating all the scientific reasons why the buildings couldn't have collapsed from the plane crash along with proofs and I will take notice. Until such time, excuse some of us if we have or doubts.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
Claymore - read prof jones article, and debunk that - he gives all necessary temperatures, which you can easily cross reference using any online information source to determine if his data is incorrect or correct
Read the source data.

I have seen several explanations of the failure of the core. Frankly, I can't be bothered to trawl through the writings of a lone dissenter who is not even qualified in the field he's expounding upon.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
I don't understand why the buildings could not collapse into their own spaces either. Where else were they supposed to collapse? I saw one mention saying that one of the buildings would have needed a deflection of over 30 metres at the top before it would have collapsed *out* of its own space.
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
heheheh jeeeez sorry Claymore - but re "The official report, I believe, is not out yet."
EARTH TO CLAYMORE .. HELLLOOOO :p

er YES it is. here's "The 9-11 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition"
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/


as regards the diesel in various parts of the building... ahem.. and er, how exactly does a plane hitting 60 floors above some diesel, make said diesel erupt into flame? :p
 

Highflyer_GP

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
10,123
LoneGunman said:
Simply put, the US they stated, HAS to move into and control the supply of oil, if the US is to survive. They also stated, a year before 911, that this would be almost impossible to sell to the US public, barring - and I quote more or less 'some catastrophic intervention from outside the US, like a new Pearl Harbour'.
911 gave them their needed 'new Pearl harbour' excuse, to step from one to another country in the oil rich regions, and to begin to secure the oil that the US needs.. and also the equally useful bogeyman of 'Al Qeada' and the response - the 'war on terror'..
that's a very interesting point as i find it very strange that on the very day that these towers collapsed, CNN were already comparing it to being the worst catastrophy since Pearl Harbour. yet the thousands of americans who died during wars waged overseas isnt a disaster? this was the excuse they needed, and by comparing it to the very thing that they said needed to happen makes things blatantly obvious.

as you said, shock the public by feeding them useless info such as "the worst catastrophy since pearl harbour" is a good way to justify their cause. and to make sure nobody questions the official explanation, cloak the proof in lengthy thousand page documents so that nobody would bother wasting their time. people would rather just say "ya, whatever, i take his word for it" because it had no effect on their personal lives. but the families of those who died, people who were actually present at the scene such as firemen and police, science and engineering experts, all question this. yet they form only a minority of people to which everything doesnt make sense and therefore will never be taken serious by the vast majority who couldn't give a damn and accept the explanation given simply because the event had no impact on their personal lives
 

LoneGunman

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Messages
4,552
icyrus - you miss my point. weirdly so.

YOU SAY: oh but the towers collapsed AND they were hit by planes.
I SAY: okay, so then what caused WTC 7 to fall, seeing at it was hit by no planes?
(and if you go back to fire again - I again point to basic temperatures that fuel cant get to...yaddayaddayadda..

CLAYMORE : "I don't understand why the buildings could not collapse into their own spaces either. Where else were they supposed to collapse? I saw one mention saying that one of the buildings would have needed a deflection of over 30 metres at the top before it would have collapsed *out* of its own space."

okay
a) show me one instance of photograph showing a steel building that has collapsed 'naturally' (none have done so due to fire) and into its own footprint.

Again, you say 'catastrophic collapse'. why cant it just fall into its own footprint? Buildings that collapse naturally without demolitions, never DO generally speaking. Think it through, the frictions of floors dropping onto floors, (in a 'natural' collapse) is not even, thus the building will tend to favour the section that is falling 'first' - resulting in a fall outside its footprint.

And by the way, please explain the half ton steel girders that wedged into neighboring buildings, which travelled sideways to the ground and were stuck into buildings like arrows, having travelled parallel to the ground. Where's THAT energy come from to avoid gravity?


muttering that 'a lone dissenter' who happens to be a professor in Physics, you couldnt be bothered to read his evidence,
well, if you can't take the time to even check the burning temperature of fuel - then why bother even arguing with me or someone else who suggests that this might be relevant. If you're that unable to simply check scientific fact, YET want someone to persuade you that the official story is not true - you're surrounded by an Alice-logic that means you're not willing to do any work from your side EXCEPT accept the 'official' view.
(And good grief, not even knowing that the final report is out, means you really arent that interested. If you were, you'd be willing to engage on some level beyond saying 'aaah, I couldnt be bothered to look at...")
Arent you missing Monster Trucks or something :p
 
Last edited:

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
heheheh jeeeez sorry Claymore - but re "The official report, I believe, is not out yet."
EARTH TO CLAYMORE .. HELLLOOOO :p

er YES it is. here's "The 9-11 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition"
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

Please provide a direct link to the official report of the collapse of WTC7. As I understand it, the reports for WTC1 and 2 are out, but 7 is not.

NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available.

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center


as regards the diesel in various parts of the building... ahem.. and er, how exactly does a plane hitting 60 floors above some diesel, make said diesel erupt into flame? :p

I'm just mentioning it - it's not actually though to be likely. That said, have you ever been in a building fire? Have you seen how fast things catch alight? I have.
 

icyrus

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,600
LoneGunman said:
icyrus - you miss my point. weirdly so.

YOU SAY: oh but the towers collapsed AND they were hit by planes.
I SAY: okay, so then what caused WTC 7 to fall, seeing at it was hit by no planes?
(and if you go back to fire again - I again point to basic temperatures that fuel cant get to...yaddayaddayadda..

What I said was that just because WTC 7 collapsed without getting hit by a plane doesn't mean that the planes didnt play a part in the collapse of the twin towers.

Once again back to my main point (which you seem to be ignoring): Show me a peer-reviewed and published report written by an accredited engineer (or better - engineers) stating all the scientific reasons why the buildings couldn't have collapsed from the plane crash along with proofs and I will take notice. Until such time, excuse some of us if we have or doubts.
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
8,340
LoneGunman said:
okay
a) show me one instance of photograph showing a steel building that has collapsed 'naturally' (none have done so due to fire) and into its own footprint.

Did you miss the bit about no other buildings of the WTC building design ever having collapsed?
 
Top