Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Local chapters > North America
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-25-2009, 03:54 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: Nine Eleven


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Nothing was pulled apart.

In that respect, consider that you are unable to identify good logic from bad logic.
If being careless with your info and being too careful with it are both suspicious then you cannot avoid being suspicious. Terrorists want it to be known that it was their organisation that commited the attack so don't be surprised if the authorities find out pretty quickly.

But the luggage in the 9/11 case, I admit, has further ramifications that need looking at; it would be an odd coincidence if the terrorist's luggage was the ONLY item that didn't make it on to the plane. If most of the luggage hadn't made it on then we could forgive that. If the excuse it didn't get on the plane truly is that there was no time, then that also would be odd IF it is true that the plane had plenty of time before it took off.

But how do we confirm any of this? When all we can do is google and bring up biased websites?

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-25-2009, 04:33 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: Nine Eleven

FBI Affidavit: Page 10

This seems to show that the luggage was certainly proper luggage waiting to be put aboard and not just left.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-26-2010, 08:11 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: Nine Eleven

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-05-2010, 05:32 PM
brice_fallsteen brice_fallsteen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 52
Default Re: Nine Eleven

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-2010, 05:33 PM
brice_fallsteen brice_fallsteen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 52
Default Re: Nine Eleven

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-05-2010, 05:34 PM
brice_fallsteen brice_fallsteen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 52
Default Re: Nine Eleven

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-16-2010, 01:45 AM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: Nine Eleven

Why the hell are you on a conspiracy forum and siding with the government's account of the 911 terrorist attack?

I am here to inform you that you should remove yourself from CC and join the government at their forums.

Interesting that the 911 terrorists knew exactly where to crash the planes into the towers in order to make the buildings collapse.

Or, should we believe that they had no clue and the buildings came crumbling down due to other forces?

Last edited by BlueAngel : 12-16-2010 at 09:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-16-2010, 05:52 AM
theconspiracist's Avatar
theconspiracist theconspiracist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Far inside the darkest corners of your mind.
Posts: 230
Exclamation Re: Nine Eleven

I have repeatedly stated many times over. The events of September was staged. It was all theater and orchestrated by other than your friendly American government. Whether they will deny it, or even admit partial...the truth will be buried along with the JFK and the Pearl Harbor conspiracies.

We the American People, knows what really happened on that warm and sunny Tuesday morning of September 11th, 2001. We aren't as stupid as the government makes us out to be. Right?
__________________
tHe cOnSpIrAcIsT: Never assume the obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-16-2010, 08:30 AM
brice_fallsteen brice_fallsteen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 52
Default Re: Nine Eleven

Quote:
Originally Posted by theconspiracist View Post
I have repeatedly stated many times over. The events of September was staged. It was all theater and orchestrated by other than your friendly American government. Whether they will deny it, or even admit partial...the truth will be buried along with the JFK and the Pearl Harbor conspiracies.

We the American People, knows what really happened on that warm and sunny Tuesday morning of September 11th, 2001. We aren't as stupid as the government makes us out to be. Right?
You may state it as many times as you like, that does not make it true.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-16-2010, 08:45 AM
brice_fallsteen brice_fallsteen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 52
Default Re: Nine Eleven

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Why the hell are you on a conspiracy forum and siding with the government's account of the 911 terrorist attack?

I am here to inform you that you should remove yourself from CC and join the government at their forums.

Interesting that the 911 terrorists knew exactly where to crash the planes into the towers in order to make the buidings collapse.

Or, should we believe that they had no clue and the buildings came crumbling down due to other forces?
It should be fairly obviously why I'm posting on a conspiracy forum. For those that missed it, let me break it down.

Someone posted a video with the same outlandish claims that have been debunked time and time again. I responded to that video by providing explanations and answers to the "questions" the subject of the video had.

I have no idea if they knew exactly where to crash the plans to destroy the buildings. Do you have direct knowledge that the terrorists knew exactly where to impact?

Using their history of attacks worldwide, I would say it's a logical assumption that the collapse was some what of a coincidence.

If you feel it possible for the government to produce such an elaborate hoax, and keep it relatively hidden, why is it so hard to believe that a terrorist network could use readily available information on the internet, specialized education programs, and so called "sleeper agents" to launch such an attack?

Asking questions is great. Dismissing answers because they don't line up with what you believe is not.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.