9/11 Was an Inside Job

[vyo476]

the post was from a group in Germany. and threatened retaliation.
I don't think you understand this terrorism thing.
no, the feds pick up the IPs themselves, but you should keep a record for your own protection.

Don't worry about us, Admin has access to every post ever made to the site, even the ones we delete.

 

[Andy]

Here's why

why is it just so damn hard to believe that when a Giant 747 hits a large building at full speed loaded with fuel....that they may actually fall down and burn?

Physics, that's why. I believe in physics. I believe that when the laws of physics says jet fuel can't melt steel.. that ... jet fuel can't melt steel.

When physics says steel pillars at ground level are cut at 45º angles, that a random explosion 80 floors up, can't do that.

When Physics says steel melts at 1300º C, and physics says jet fuel and paper and wood products can not possibly reach that temp, and yet I see melted steel... then I know that jet fuel was not the only thing used.

My eyes. I believe that when I see a women standing in the hole where the plane struck, and waves for help, that she must be an invincible wonder woman, to not feel the melting heat of a fire that supposed to be 1650º F.

Finely, personal witnesses. The firefighters that charged into the building, reached the 80th floors and said there were 2 or 3 isolated fires, and 2 hoses would be all that's needed to put them out. Shouldn't they have been melting too?

All that other anti-bush political propaganda crap, yeah I ignore that. But physics? You want me to just ignore virtually every truth I learned in high school and college? You want me to believe that the physical laws that govern the universe were suddenly suspended on one day in September of 2000? That's a bit much.

 

[Andy]

I understand completely

Here is why I am skeptical of the conspiracies, especially those that involve shaped charges. Also, after doing a quick bit of research it was 767's that crashed into the respective towers.
A 767 is a twin engine, twin aisle cabin commercial jetliner. It is the third largest type Boeing makes currently, behind the 747 and 777.

Using cautious estimates, each of those buildings were struck by projectiles weighing 200,000lbs each, going at easily 350mph, carrying at minumum 5,000 gallons of jet fuel.

That is an extraordinary impact, and one that no highrise building in the world could survive. I think you are possibly overlooking the damage to the structure when that happens. Also, your assertion of the use of secondary explosives makes little sense. If you were going through the trouble of doing that,
why not set them off at the same time?
Why stagger them and allow more people to escape?
Why bother with the airplanes if the bombs would do?
Why bother with the bombs when the airplane alone would work?

Let's try and keep this out of the realm of 'why would they...'. Why? Because I am not looking at that, and it doesn't matter to this point. Why did Nero set fire to half of Rome and blame the Christians? I have no idea, but he did. (btw, those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it)

I'm looking at 'what really happened'. That's all I'm concerned with here.

Why they would use shaped charges is less important than, does the evidence suggest someone used shaped charges. The evidence does. A plane impact and fire ball 80 floors up, does not explain how a steel support beam at ground level has a perfect 45º cut.

To be honest, I completely understand your skepticism. For my part, whenever people start off on these theories, I assume them to be bogus. But in this case, I got tired of hearing about it, and thought I'd check it out in order to have reason to tell them they are wrong.

Unfortunately... I had to come to the conclusion they were right.

Back to your information. 200K lbs, lots of fuel, 3rd largest plane. Claim, this is extraordinary hit that no high-rise could survive.

Why? Who said? Ok, FEMA and the contractors, and Underwriters Laboratory, all disagree. Not one single report from anyone anywhere claims that direct damage from the plane caused mortal support damage to the building. Further, if it did... the building would have crumbled on impact.

Once the main load barring supports are cut from the impact, fire or heat of any kind would not be needed, the building would fall. So clearly they were not cut.

But as 'extraordinary' a hit as that might have been. Do you really think that hit to be on par with the force of a hurricane? Do you realize the sheer force of 100 MPH winds along the entire side of a building that tall? You think one little plane is more than all that? Not at all. If only I was that good at math, I'd calculate out the lbs/sq in of force that some of the storms the Twin Towers went through, and compare to the force of one plane. I would wager the difference being Sun vs. Moon.

Further, this building was designed with an external steel frame, designed like a metal mesh grid. Just like an aluminum screen door, if you punch through it with a pencil, does the entire screen fail? Of course not. Nor did the mesh steel frame of the towers.

The problem is, everyone knows there is no possible way that those planes could level those buildings. Everyone knows that. This is why FEMA and UL, and every report does NOT say that the planes impact did the damage.

That leaves us with the fire. Which again, as I have pointed out many times, from a scientific perspective, there is no possible way that fire brought the towers down. None. I realize science is poorly taught in American schools, but do a little research, it flat out isn't possible.

 

[vyo476]

Which again, as I have pointed out many times, from a scientific perspective, there is no possible way that fire brought the towers down.

No, you've pointed out that it was impossible for a mass of burning jet fuel to melt steel. Here's what the ASCE had to say about the collapse:

Our analysis showed that the impact alone did not cause the collapse of the
towers, but instead, left the towers vulnerable to collapse from any significant additional
force, such as from high winds, an earthquake, or in the case of the Twin Towers, the
fires that engulfed both buildings. Without that second event, the team believes the
towers could have remained standing indefinitely.
Although steel is very strong, it loses some of its strength when heated. To
prevent that loss of strength, structural steel is protected with fireproofing and sprinkler
systems. In the towers, fires raged throughout several floors simultaneously, ignited by
the jet fuel and fed by a mixture of paper and furniture. The impact dislodged some
fireproofing on the structural beams and columns, which made them vulnerable to fire
damage. With the sprinkler systems disabled, the fires raged uncontrollably, weakening
the steel and leading to the collapse of the buildings.

The fires weakened the steel, which is what caused the collapse.

http://www.asce.org/pdf/5-1-02wtc_testimony.pdf (pages 4-5)

 

[Andy]

Andy, the reason melted steel may have been found at the bottom might be becasue when it all collapsed the heat was trapped in a huge smouldering infero at ground zero, getting hotter than before? I don't know to be honest, I don't claim to be someone with any expertise in the field, and its why I don't go around making judgements about 9/11.

Physics again. You can't end up with more heat than what the fuel is capable of creating. If a fuel (jet fuel) burns at a max physical temp of say 900ºC, you can't end up with more heat than that under any circumstance.

Plus, the reverse would be more likely. All you have to do is watch a camp fire to know that when the fuel source (wood) is covered with the ash, the fire grows cooler, not warmer, and eventually dies out. This is because, the ash constricts the flow of oxygen to the fire.

After the buildings fell, the fire should have been out. All the dust and debris should have choked the fires out of oxygen... unless...

There is only one way a fire could continue while being smothered with steel, concrete, and dust.... just one. That, is if the fire was burning a self oxidizing fuel. A fuel that does not need oxygen externally. Namely, thermite. Thermite is a chemical burn that reaches temps far above 1300º C needed to melt steel, and can burn indefinitely without any external oxygen.

Thermite would explain the melted steel, the extreme heat found at ground zero, the white smoke that appears at the base of the towers just prior to collapse, and finely the smoldering fires that lingered under piles of concrete steel and dust of the collapse.

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

 

[Andy]

Which do I trust more?

No, you've pointed out that it was impossible for a mass of burning jet fuel to melt steel. Here's what the ASCE had to say about the collapse:

The fires weakened the steel, which is what caused the collapse.

http://www.asce.org/pdf/5-1-02wtc_testimony.pdf (pages 4-5)

I know what the ASCE says. But I'm not going to be spoon fed information by people who were not there, without at least questioning it. Does what they say stand up to physics? Does it mesh with eye witness accounts?

Steel does weaken at around 900ºC.
Was the fire 900ºC?

1. There's a picture, with woman, standing at the hole where the plane hit. She is not melting... So was the fire 900ºC? Use logic... this is easy.

2. Smoke. Smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire. Light a candle. Let it burn for a bit, then blow it out. When does the smoke appear? After the candles out. If the fire is starved of oxygen, it means that it is going out, not getting hot. This is simple stuff.

3. The color of the flames is an accurate determinate of temp. The flames were dark red. Dark red equals < 500ºC. This is not hard stuff here. This is high school level. I haven't even hit the college grade physics.

4. There were firefighters in the building... they were on the floor... they said in their radios that their fire suits were melting to their body from the intense heat from the inferno??? Is that what they said? NO!... They said there were 2 or 3 isolated pockets of fire and that two hoses should be able to put them out. Does this describe 'engulfed in flames' to you?

Now you can believe... well.. whatever. But you are asking me to believe a bunch of engineers sitting in a building somewhere, typing up a document, over logic... common sense.... physics.... and the testimony of people who were actually there. No.. sorry. Not good enough my friend.

 

[Andy]

Hope...

what does the above post mean?
hey mods... hope you got that IP, it was a threat.

You don't mean my post?
No one thinks I am threatening anyone do that?

 

[vyo476]

You don't mean my post?
No one thinks I am threatening anyone do that?

The post which bewitched is referring to was deleted; it was originally between yours and hers, and she commented on it before USMC got to it and removed it.

 

[Andy]

Good, that alarmed me just a bit. I'm about as harmless as one gets.

 

[vyo476]

Bunz is having posting troubles (again). He asked me to post this for him, so here it is.

Hi Andy, Ill do my best to respond, and will say that you are a good debater and respectful. I appreciate it and hope I respond in kind.

does the evidence suggest someone used shaped charges. The evidence does. A plane impact and fire ball 80 floors up, does not explain how a steel support beam at ground level has a perfect 45º cut.

Now in terms of evidence of what or who etc. The pictures that were shown, were at ground level but I didnt see any verification that part of the metal was not cut with plasma or whatever method in a purposeful manner in an effort to clear the debris.
My point being, is that those pictures could have been from a week later and show evidence of rubble being removed earlier.

Back to your information. 200K lbs, lots of fuel, 3rd largest plane. Claim, this is extraordinary hit that no high-rise could survive.
Why? Who said? Ok, FEMA and the contractors, and Underwriters Laboratory, all disagree. Not one single report from anyone anywhere claims that direct damage from the plane caused mortal support damage to the building. Further, if it did... the building would have crumbled on impact.

Well I would point you to this site:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...led_demolition
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center

As a side note, this site is in my opinion better and more informed than that PopMech one.

OK, firstly, again, I think you are greatly underestimating the impact of the jets into the structures. Those jets are large, according to the source provided those planes were:

North tower
American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER series, travelling at 470 miles per hour crashed into the North Tower (WTC1) at 8:46 a.m. The aircraft hit the building at the 94-98th floors, with ensuing fires. The aircraft was carrying approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, which is less than half of capacity.[12] At impact, the aircraft was banked 25° to the left, cutting a gash that was over half the width of the building and extended from the 93 to 99th floor.[12] 15-18 perimeter and 5-6 core columns were severed at the 95th and 96th floors.[13] A large section of the 96th floor slab, 40 ft wide and 80 ft in depth, was destroyed upon impact.[13] Insulation was knocked off nearly all the core columns and 40 foot portion of the floor trusses on the south side of the tower.[13] Twelve perimeter columns were severed on the 97th floor.[14] In all, 35 perimeter and six core columns were severed.[14] Fireproofing insulation was stripped off of 43 out of 47 core columns, as well as floor trusses covering 60,000 ft2 of area.[15]

South tower

Flight 175, just prior to the plane impact with the South towerUnited Airlines Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER series, travelling at 590 miles per hour crashed into the South Tower (WTC2) at 9:03 a.m, hitting the building at the 78-84th floors. With the impact of the plane, jet fuel was shot down elevator and utility shafts. There were also jet fuel fires on the 51st floor.[18]

Calls from people trapped in the upper floors to 9-1-1 relayed information about conditions. At 9:37, an occupant on a floor in the 90s, reported that a floor had collapsed.[19]

Deteriorating conditions were also reported by the NYPD helicopters.[20]

At 9:52 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit report over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there"
At 9:58 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reports that the South Tower is coming down.
After 56 minutes, the South tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m.

In this series of images from a video shot from outside Trinity Church, the columns can be seen bending and bowing inward in the moments before the collapse occurred.

Now buildings that experience incredible forces, not such as those that are hurricane strength across an entire building, but a force not experienced in known nature happens to a small but important part of the building. Those buildings often buckle under the stress as seen and described at the time.

Those with controlled demo come down much more uniformly.

As per the sounds people heard that sounded like individual explosions as the buildings collapsed can be attributed to the rush of air out of the structure as it fell on top of itself.

There is video comparing a controlled demo versus anything heard on 9-11 and the noise difference, tempo, and nature of the sound is different.

(Note to Bunz: I had to go back recode all the quotes so they'd show up right. I hope everything got to where it was supposed to be.)

 

[Bunz]

(Note to Bunz: I had to go back recode all the quotes so they'd show up right. I hope everything got to where it was supposed to be.

It looks good to me. Thanks for doing it. For the record, anything in that post is my thoughts.

In terms of being able to post:
I will explain that where I live is pretty remote. So basically, anything I try to post that is over about 8 paragraphs it will never load and the post never registered.
So, there are times when I will ask folks to be patient with me, my connection would be less than dial up speeds in the lower 48

 

[bewitched]

Kerik was chief at the time of 911 and he has strong Saudi ties, it's very possible he sacrificed his First Responders to cover a secret of inside explosives. that would have made him alot of money and saved him a place in heaven.

 

[Andy]

Saudis not likely.

Kerik was chief at the time of 911 and he has strong Saudi ties, it's very possible he sacrificed his First Responders to cover a secret of inside explosives. that would have made him alot of money and saved him a place in heaven.

I highly doubt that the Saudis had anything to do with this.

The reason is because the Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, was in the US at the time of the attack. The Prince and Bush were working together on a peace agreement for the middle east. If I remember correctly, they planned to announce the agreement on the 12th.

If the Saudis were in on the attack, they most certainly would not have been in the US during it. Plus, they would not bother to work on a peace agreement knowing it would never happen after the attack.

Now, I'm not saying it is impossible... but I'd say highly unlikely. I do not know much about Kerik. The truth will come up, but will anyone pay attention or even care?

 

[Bunz]

I highly doubt that the Saudis had anything to do with this.

The reason is because the Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, was in the US at the time of the attack. The Prince and Bush were working together on a peace agreement for the middle east. If I remember correctly, they planned to announce the agreement on the 12th.

If the Saudis were in on the attack, they most certainly would not have been in the US during it. Plus, they would not bother to work on a peace agreement knowing it would never happen after the attack.

Now, I'm not saying it is impossible... but I'd say highly unlikely. I do not know much about Kerik. The truth will come up, but will anyone pay attention or even care?

Hi Andy,
Now as far as conspiracies go, I believe the Saudis are the most likely to have something to do with it. Lets consider a few things. 15 of the 19 hijackers as you probably know were Saudis. OBL, obviously a Saudi, and a very well connected one. The House of Saud is a known supporter of terror groups. Seems awfully suspect if you ask me.
Also, even if they had something to do with it, what would the response have been? Not much different.
Even with us having bases in the KSA at the time, if you think the situation in Iraq was ever bad, the situation for American troops trying to occupy the KSA would make Iraq and Afghanistan look elementary.

Of course I have no proof, but while we are in conspiracy mode....

 

[bewitched]

I highly doubt that the Saudis had anything to do with this.

The reason is because the Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, was in the US at the time of the attack. The Prince and Bush were working together on a peace agreement for the middle east. If I remember correctly, they planned to announce the agreement on the 12th.

If the Saudis were in on the attack, they most certainly would not have been in the US during it. Plus, they would not bother to work on a peace agreement knowing it would never happen after the attack.

Now, I'm not saying it is impossible... but I'd say highly unlikely. I do not know much about Kerik. The truth will come up, but will anyone pay attention or even care?

and that crown prince and his group was flown out and never in any danger... when all other planes were grounded. he was here to fund and make the final pay offs, and make sure the operation was complete.

Kerik had access to construction and infrastructure of the WTC and NYC. he places first responders and had full control that day. look him up, see where his loyalties lie. and he was almost going to be the head of Homeland Security at one point. wonder what happened? oh a convient affair and scandal kept him from the position. hah. these con-jobs are transparent.