Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Karfar, more or less yes that's what I'm saying. 9/11 was a complete fraud on the American people. The three (not 2) towers were brought down by thoroughly planned and executed controlled demolitions.
Perhaps the planes also had high explosives on board detonated at impact that with the combination of heat brought about thier collapse. The big problem I have about 9/11 is how a handful of minimally trained people were able to hit the towers with such precision. I recall seeing a show about 3 years after 9/11 where 20 year veteran pilots discussed altitudes and the rapid descents and claimed it would have been difficult for them to make an aircraft behave like that even with thier experience.
They were educated people. Learning how to fly the planes into a buildings is all that was required, landing and safety really didn't matter. If they failed and landed in the water they still would have won. Lucky, skilled or easy it is what it is.
While it is more difficult to come up with a conspiracy theory for the twin towers (as long as we ignore the insider trading, the missing trillions, case of insurance of the buildings leading to the day), the collapse of WTC7 is indeed interesting, and the high rise come straight down on itself into a rubble that was 3 stories high. I believe this building was expected to collapse about an hour before it actually did. The argument made against the official report is that never in history has a building collapsed after fire, so why did that happen or was being expected (the ground was cleared well in advance) becomes a point.
The pentagon episode is very interesting as well. I've not understood why video footage of the plane approaching the structure was never released, which would have put all this speculation to rest. What has been released is a few photographs that doesn't really show an airplane.
Unless the hotel had massive amounts of airplane fuel stored in it the comparison is not valid.
Whenever one is discussing the effects of fire, one must always take into consideration the accelarant used.
Unless you just want to talk conspiracies that would make fox mulder shake his head in shame.....
Don't forget the duration of the burn + how long it was at temperature. Did the steel enter the austenite phase? Metallurgy is incredibly important... not to mention understanding (or not) the compressive properties of the concrete used in both situations.
Time to get on the conspiracy theory merry-go-round.
Quote:
My understanding is jet fuel burns at a low temperature and can not melt or pulverize steel.
It doesn't need to melt (jet fuel is essentially kerosene, but that's not the point). It needs to get to a minimum of 740 degrees C (depending on the level of dissolved carbon) to undergo a phase change at which point it becomes much weaker. Like a blacksmith working a piece of steel, they don't need to melt it to make something while at the same time they don't work it without heat. The steel is more workable at temperature without risking breaking the part by too much cold work.
Karfar, I looked up the Rumsfeld quote. It is in the form of an online news release dated 12/27/2004 from WorldNetDaily (_com). The byline reads "Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania". Below that a tertiary byline reads "During surprise Christmas Eve trip [*to Iraq to visit with troops], defense secretary contradicts official story".
WNDaily spins the story to make it sound like a big revelation and this reeks of tabloid journalism to me. I won't take the time to type in the whole article here.
Here's part of what Rumsfeld said while visiting troops in Iraq on 12/23/2004:
"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off people's heads on television to intimidate, to frighten - indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. It's purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
Here's my take on this. No defense secretary is going to be honest all the time. Part of the job involves direct knowledge of covert operations, quasi-legal operations, etc. So Rumsfled is giving what basically amounts to a political "rah rah" speech, not all of which may be factual, and then accidentally refers to what actually happened, i.e. the plane was shot down by US forces, but says it while referring to the supposed 9/11 hijackers.
I believe the basic theory here is that the US did not want to admit shooting down a plane full of Americans although that is the stated policy for addressing such a situation as allegedly occurred with United #93, i.e. a hijacked plane headed for Wash. DC.
Also there is the WTC owner Silverstein's original quote where he said they decided to "pull" the building, an obvious reference to a controlled demolition.
Well I waited and waited for somebody else to cover this but no one stepped up so here goes....
In early February 2009 the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing was ignited by fireworks and very thoroughly burned. Casualties were nominal because the hotel was under construction and almost finished but basically vacant when the fire struck.
According to the New York Times (02/11/2009), the responsible party, the China Central Television network, apologized to the nation for "the severe damage the fire caused to the country's property". According to the Times, the hotel was "destroyed".
Interestingly enough, unlike the World Trade Towers on 9-11, although the Mandarin hotel was severely and thoroughly burned and "destroyed", it did NOT collapse and implode into a "fine white powder" in nine seconds.
HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!
The NY Times article has an accompanying photo of the burned hotel. Although the fire clearly burned through every level of the steel-frame hotel, not a single floor of the hotel collapsed and in fact the steel frame was left completely intact, although severely blackened and charred.
I now open the floor to debate, as it were....
I love conspiracy theories, especially the Vince Foster and all the others surrounding the Clintons. I also like the ones surrounding the Oklahoma bombing. It really adds to the fear among the sheep. Nothing like reading this before bedtime. Good night all.
You all can say all you want about this issue
but there's ONE thing that nobody here will be able to say that it makes sense.
How do you explain that the building/s collapsed... and the top of the building fell to the ground at the speed of free fall?
But everybody says that the collapsed in a "domino effect" way. (floor falls on the one before, making the lower one collapse)
Oh, and if you could grab me a soda, too, I'd appreciate it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
