911 (murdered by the government)

Status
Not open for further replies.

zeldaprajihd45

New Member
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I believe that the USAG was involved in destroying those towers. According to my personal visit to the destroyed towers and knowledge of physics the plane didn't destroy the towers but a ton of explosives placed with deliberate accuracy since one of Newton's laws states that a object that has a momentum greater than the opposing resistance force of another then when the object hits the other object the other object will move in the direction of the object. In plainer terms if you hit something hard enough to move it it should move in the same direction as the force.

---------- Post added at 03:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------

Apparently USAG hasn't got bad enough to send a hitman on a 6 year old well don't be scared fellows.
 

descalzo

Grim Squeaker
Community Support
Messages
9,375
Reaction score
327
Points
83
Talk to any demolition expert and you will find out that taking down the WTC via demolition techniques would be nearly impossible.

It would take days, if not weeks of prep work, including cutting through steel beams.

Then the impact and explosion of the planes would have dislodged any explosives in place, requiring them to be hooked up again.
 

essellar

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
227
Points
63
According to my ... knowledge of physics ...

You'd better work on that part a bit; impulse reactions tend to be immediate and don't take many minutes to happen. I hit a golf ball, it initially compresses laterally due to its own inertia, but it begins to move even before it has finished compressing. If the impact of the airplanes was the direct initiator of the collapse of the towers, they would have begun falling even as the fireballs erupted.

On the other hand, structural weakness caused by an impulse reaction (the initial breaking and bending of beams and the cracking of concrete) and exacerbated by extreme heat may take some time to manifest itself as structural failure, and that manifestation will occur in reaction to the major forces in play at the time (in this case, gravity and whatever remaining structural integrity there may have been).

I realise that it's difficult for some people to believe that the direct actions of a mere 19 people could have such a devastating impact on a nation of some 300 million, but it really is time to put this baby to bed once and for all. Yes, the government of the USA was involved in the attacks, but not directly -- the attacks were carried out by people who believed* they had a righteous cause against the government and people of the United States for its ongoing actions both domestically and on the international stage. But can we at least face the fact that 30,000 pounds of jet fuel travelling at over 300mph is a pretty devastating weapon, even if the airplane itself is nothing more than a gnat's mass when compared to the target it hits?

____________
* My statement that their belief that their actions (and their cause) is righteous does not imply any endorsement on my part or any agreement with them. Certainly the USA, like many major powers both contemporary and in the past, has acted in a short-sighted and self-interested way in many instances, but I don't believe the acts of 9/11, the UK subway bombings in 2005, the Spanish rail bombings in 2006 (Basque), the Air India bombing in 1885 (Sikh), and so forth, can be justified under any circumstances.
 

deadmaus

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Points
1
knowledge of physics

= zero

Like Rosie O saying " it's the first time in history steel was ever melted by fire". Forget about making words and spears etc.

Also Mr Kool-aide drinker, do you fell bad about voting Obama in or are you in denial about his performance as well?




---------- Post added at 05:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 AM ----------

You'd better work on that part a bit; impulse reactions tend to be immediate and don't take many minutes to happen. I hit a golf ball, it initially compresses laterally due to its own inertia, but it begins to move even before it has finished compressing. If the impact of the airplanes was the direct initiator of the collapse of the towers, they would have begun falling even as the fireballs erupted.

On the other hand, structural weakness caused by an impulse reaction (the initial breaking and bending of beams and the cracking of concrete) and exacerbated by extreme heat may take some time to manifest itself as structural failure, and that manifestation will occur in reaction to the major forces in play at the time (in this case, gravity and whatever remaining structural integrity there may have been).

I realise that it's difficult for some people to believe that the direct actions of a mere 19 people could have such a devastating impact on a nation of some 300 million, but it really is time to put this baby to bed once and for all. Yes, the government of the USA was involved in the attacks, but not directly -- the attacks were carried out by people who believed* they had a righteous cause against the government and people of the United States for its ongoing actions both domestically and on the international stage. But can we at least face the fact that 30,000 pounds of jet fuel travelling at over 300mph is a pretty devastating weapon, even if the airplane itself is nothing more than a gnat's mass when compared to the target it hits?

____________
* My statement that their belief that their actions (and their cause) is righteous does not imply any endorsement on my part or any agreement with them. Certainly the USA, like many major powers both contemporary and in the past, has acted in a short-sighted and self-interested way in many instances, but I don't believe the acts of 9/11, the UK subway bombings in 2005, the Spanish rail bombings in 2006 (Basque), the Air India bombing in 1885 (Sikh), and so forth, can be justified under any circumstances.

Outstanding reply there sir.
 
Last edited:

cybrax

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
764
Reaction score
27
Points
0
If you ask any conventional demolition expert they will say it takes weeks of preperations to drop a building flat like this.

Some theories have been put forward that the towers were orginally built or retrofitted after the 1991 attack with features that would prevent the tower from toppling sideways in the event of catostrophic failure. Not surprisingly such wild claims have been strongly denied, sadly the logic is undeniable that such a feature would save lives in the surrounding area.

Given that every floor failed from the radio mast to ground level with little of the central core sticking up through the mess is a fact that deeply bothers those same demolition experts.

Some useless facts:
1. shaped charges for cutting steel beams and bulkheads are available on rolls (Sabrex)
2. there are non-explosive chemical methods for breaking up steel re-enforced concrete
3. at least one researcher found byproducts associated with thermite in the dust
 

zeldaprajihd45

New Member
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
November 16, 1999 plane hits apartments the apartments still standing today severe damage on a couple floors. I think that if a hit you with a bat in the hace you will fall on your back rather than collapse in a neat pile but 1st amendment allows it right as it is my humble opinion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU see demolitions and compare to a 911 vid
 

essellar

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
227
Points
63
Just to put a wee damper on any possible follow-on conspiracy whackadoo...

Some useless facts:...
3. at least one researcher found byproducts associated with thermite in the dust


...given that thermite (its commonest form, at least) is just aluminum and iron oxide, one would almost expect to see it (or its byproducts) in a disaster of that nature. The probability of aluminum and oxidized iron coming into contact at extreme temperatures should, I think, approach 1 under those conditions, so if you go looking for evidence of thermite, you're very likely to find it.

As for the "core", there really wasn't one in the WTC towers, at least not in any structural sense. The floors were peripherally supported; the central area consisted of little more than a firebreak and the elevator shafts (which were anchored to the floors). In fact, it was the peripheral support that was largely responsible for the mode of failure exhibited.

As for free speech, well, yes, zeldaprajidh45, you have the right to say what you want (unless it is defamatory, threatening, or falls afoul of any applicable hate laws). But so do I, and unless you can come up with something a little more substantial to support your argument, you're going to be scienced and engineered into dust by people who have actually taken the time to look over the buildings' structure and understand a little bit of physics and chemistry. I've already explained that the impact did relatively little damage to the buildings -- they may have been structural write-offs, but without the fire they could have been safely evacuated and razed in a controlled manner.

Because one building acted in one way and another in a different way proves nothing -- I highly doubt that the apartment building you're talking about was built in anything like the way the WTC towers were. (And the chances are pretty good that the airplane wasn't a nearly-fully-fueled 737 either.) Neither was the Pentagon; the damage it sustained was huge, but nothing at all like the towers. The towers were essentially empty boxes held together by their floors, and all it took was for one floor to let go of its outer walls. At that point, the "box" above fell on the floor below, which couldn't support it, so it fell on the floor below, and so on until everything hit the ground. It's pretty simple, really. It was a great structure where wind, earthquake and impact were concerned, but the idea that an enormous fire would occur immediately after an impact that knocked most of the solid (but fragile) insulation off of the structural members in the area of the impact wasn't something the engineers had planned for (nor, I think, would it have occurred to anybody at the time).

Oh, I've seen the vid, many times. The pops you see are due to air compression. You did at least realise that the windows didn't open, didn't you? And that as one floor collapses on another, the air contained by that storey has to go somewhere? Try thinking independently rather than listening to anyone with an agenda. Get a copy of the building's structural schematics -- you should be able to find them in a lot of places, along with neato documentaries of how the building structure was designed. Remember, those towers were the architectural marvels of their time -- there is a lot of information out there that predates 9/11, so you don't have to worry about a cover-up if you look hard.
 

zeldaprajihd45

New Member
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just to put a wee damper on any possible follow-on conspiracy whackadoo...



...given that thermite (its commonest form, at least) is just aluminum and iron oxide, one would almost expect to see it (or its byproducts) in a disaster of that nature. The probability of aluminum and oxidized iron coming into contact at extreme temperatures should, I think, approach 1 under those conditions, so if you go looking for evidence of thermite, you're very likely to find it.

As for the "core", there really wasn't one in the WTC towers, at least not in any structural sense. The floors were peripherally supported; the central area consisted of little more than a firebreak and the elevator shafts (which were anchored to the floors). In fact, it was the peripheral support that was largely responsible for the mode of failure exhibited.

As for free speech, well, yes, zeldaprajidh45, you have the right to say what you want (unless it is defamatory, threatening, or falls afoul of any applicable hate laws). But so do I, and unless you can come up with something a little more substantial to support your argument, you're going to be scienced and engineered into dust by people who have actually taken the time to look over the buildings' structure and understand a little bit of physics and chemistry. I've already explained that the impact did relatively little damage to the buildings -- they may have been structural write-offs, but without the fire they could have been safely evacuated and razed in a controlled manner.

Because one building acted in one way and another in a different way proves nothing -- I highly doubt that the apartment building you're talking about was built in anything like the way the WTC towers were. (And the chances are pretty good that the airplane wasn't a nearly-fully-fueled 737 either.) Neither was the Pentagon; the damage it sustained was huge, but nothing at all like the towers. The towers were essentially empty boxes held together by their floors, and all it took was for one floor to let go of its outer walls. At that point, the "box" above fell on the floor below, which couldn't support it, so it fell on the floor below, and so on until everything hit the ground. It's pretty simple, really. It was a great structure where wind, earthquake and impact were concerned, but the idea that an enormous fire would occur immediately after an impact that knocked most of the solid (but fragile) insulation off of the structural members in the area of the impact wasn't something the engineers had planned for (nor, I think, would it have occurred to anybody at the time).

Oh, I've seen the vid, many times. The pops you see are due to air compression. You did at least realise that the windows didn't open, didn't you? And that as one floor collapses on another, the air contained by that storey has to go somewhere? Try thinking independently rather than listening to anyone with an agenda. Get a copy of the building's structural schematics -- you should be able to find them in a lot of places, along with neato documentaries of how the building structure was designed. Remember, those towers were the architectural marvels of their time -- there is a lot of information out there that predates 9/11, so you don't have to worry about a cover-up if you look hard.

You are offensive in my opinion being offensive in a discussion is just a way to get trouble.
 

essellar

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
227
Points
63
You are offensive in my opinion being offensive in a discussion is just a way to get trouble.

Offensive? I haven't said anything personal in that; just refuted your argument and suggested avenues of actual research you might be interested in pursuing. I did characterize unfounded conspiracy theories as something less than desirable, but not you personally. Arguments ad hominem are a poor substitute for logic -- let me know when you have something substantial to add to the discussion.
 

zeldaprajihd45

New Member
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So steel balls found there are falacies. Even though everyone knows how logical it is for burning kerosene to melt iron as found in planes.
 

Darkmere

New Member
Messages
358
Reaction score
2
Points
0
I dont think that it could of been Demolished on purpose. If you ever watch a Skyscraper being demolished, the building had charges all up and down the building and then it comes down as one unit. The twin towers come down starting from the top and goes downward like an accordion or how ever you spell those things.
 

cybrax

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
764
Reaction score
27
Points
0
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

Aluminum (used in aircraft construction) melts at roughly 659 °C
Steel Girders (used for making the towers ) melts around 1500 °C

A pool of Jet Fuel burns at just 315 °C (lots of smoke orange flames)
To make any fuel burn hotter requires the addition of oxygen under pressure and sometimes pre-heating,
even then the maximum limit is just 825 °C (no smoke with intense blue flame)

Now riddle me this..
311497d1319156603-9-11-woman-hole-woman-wtc-tower-hole-made-jet2.jpg
http://www.documentingreality.com/

According to the official report this floor was awash with burning jet fuel hot enough to melt steel so how come this woman was seen there? For the curious her name is Edna Cintron. Is she superhuman or a ghostly apparition? because that is what you would have to believe in order for the commision report to have any credability.
 

Attachments

  • 311497d1319156603-9-11-woman-hole-woman-wtc-tower-hole-made-jet2.jpg
    311497d1319156603-9-11-woman-hole-woman-wtc-tower-hole-made-jet2.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:

essellar

Community Advocate
Community Support
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
227
Points
63
1) Steel does not have to melt in order to drastically change its structural characteristics. Tempering and annealing (changing the crystalline structure of the metal) happen at much lower temperatures.

2) Atomized fuel will burn at much higher temperatures than the surface of a pool of the same fuel. The exhaust gas temperature of the CFM56 turbofan engine used in the 737 at normal operation is 950°C, which temperature is considerably moderated from the "pure" combustion temperature of atomized jet fuel by a continual flow of high-speed excess air. By far the vast majority of the jet fuel would have been burned in its atomized state shortly after impact; most of the continuing fire would have been due to the ignition of combustibles (carpeting, furniture, wall coverings, etc.) already in the building.

3) That there can be an interval of time between the cause of the damage fatal to the building's structure and its ultimate collapse should no longer be of a surprise to anybody. One need only look at something like the Sampoong Department Store collapse in Seoul in '95 to see how damage caused at one point in time can result in a catastrophe at another point. As for how a small change in the properties of a support structure can result in its failure, take a look at the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City in '81.

While the impact of the airplanes with the structures was spectacular (and, no doubt, caused more than a few deaths immediately), most of the subsequent deaths were due to poor handling of the emergency in the immediate aftermath. Although the Air Traffic Control system seemed to be aware of the hijackings, the South Tower was not evacuated after the impact with the North Tower. The Port Authority assumed a simple accident (like the B-25 incident at the Empire State Building) and that people would be safer remaining in the South Tower. The SOP for emergencies (developed, in part, after the '91 bombing which caused injury only to evacuees) was for people above the impact zone to head up and out of danger rather than exposing themselves to smoke inhalation in the stairways.

There have been ten years to actually do a bit of research, and not just into the photos and videos taken on the day. There is the building's structure to look at, the characteristics of burning fuel, the airplanes themselves, the emergency planning in place, the communication of information at critical junctures -- it's a big field to go walkabout in, but if you don't do a complete tour of the territory, you can convince yourself of just about anything. (A lot of the world is like that, which is why I sometimes despair of democracy.)
 
Last edited:

fdmamo70

New Member
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So, before I get quagmired in this highly nonsensical discussion stemming from a blantantly stupid (if I may say so myself) conspiracy theory... can I ask why in Sam's Hill this type of topic is being discussed in the first place... ?!?!?!

For starters, X10 hosting forums community is a place for discussions on coding, website design and development, and other computer and computer-related topics .... at least that's what I've been told, by the TOS and other documents which I've been skimming, and in certain cases, doubling back to re-read in deeper concentration mode.

I don't know where this discussion (the larger one, not mine) is headed, but it does not appear to have any relation to computers. And I thought we weren't event supposed to mention explosives on here (oops, a demerit for myself there).

Next in line, the topic of conspiracies. These theories, from what I know, are spun up by pundits on national TV and by people whom have not time to do anything meaningful and plenty of time to waste and kill. I won't get into details (I have a few theories I adhere to myself; we all do; humanity is a superstitious species to begin with...), but from what I know, 9/11 happened because some folks who'd perverted the Islamic faith into their own death & destruction subversion chose to commit a heinous crime against America, but in doing so they also committed an even heinous-er crime against their own kind by inciting the hatred of the "bad apples of America" against all Muslims.

I have nothing against Muslims whom uphold the law. I'm friends with both cops and Muslims, heck, at my other business (comic book publisher/zine distro "Budgetblack Corporation") they are my customers. All of them. Yes, cops, and Muslims, and Christians, and you name it. Your neighbor could be one... Meh, I digress and miss the moon and hit the stars... Okay, anyway, Most folks are moderate, and uphold the law. I personally abhore the ones whom pervert ideologies to kill and maim and harm others. Those I would like to see eliminated from the gene pool.

Anyway, 9/11 was committed by religious perverts whom then made it possible for religious perverts on "the other side" to attack and wage war on otherwise-innocent nation-states (I won't get into Iraq and its dictatorship-wise issues... save that for another discussion.). But in the end, I think the religious perverts are not the two dichotomous sides: it's actually "perverts on one (weaker) side, and regular folks (you and I) on the other (stronger) side". This is the real playing field. And boy oh boy, we regular folks are always commanding the heights!

Have nice day.

Be mew. Don't be mean.
 

ante.allah.fjante51

New Member
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If you ask any conventional demolition expert they will say it takes weeks of preperations to drop a building flat like this.

Some theories have been put forward that the towers were orginally built or retrofitted after the 1991 attack with features that would prevent the tower from toppling sideways in the event of catostrophic failure. Not surprisingly such wild claims have been strongly denied, sadly the logic is undeniable that such a feature would save lives in the surrounding area.

Given that every floor failed from the radio mast to ground level with little of the central core sticking up through the mess is a fact that deeply bothers those same demolition experts.

Some useless facts:
1. shaped charges for cutting steel beams and bulkheads are available on rolls (Sabrex)
2. there are non-explosive chemical methods for breaking up steel re-enforced concrete
3. at least one researcher found byproducts associated with thermite in the dust

Exactly!
That could on the other hand be explained that mix of aluminum and iron oxide (which is commonly used for rust protection) would leave the same byproducts (on the other hand, extreme temperatures can make it behave like thermite :p)

But yes, there where thermite byproducts in the dust.
and I believe that it was thermite there as well.

and interestly enough, one of the byproducts is, melted steel, and for the information, the underground parking lot was full of it.
and yet fuel cannot melt steel.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top