9/11 Attacks

Di0genes

I believe that 19 hijackers working for Al Qaeda, boarded four planes on the morning of September 11th. A few minutes after take off, they seized control of the planes through force and through the thread of force. Several of these hijackers had some training as pilots, and took charge of the cockpit.

One plane flew into the towers at approx 8:50. A second flew into the 2nd tower approximately 15 minutes later. A third struck the pentagon 25 minutes later. Passengers on the 4th flight, contacted loved ones on cellular and airphones, realised that their hijackers were on a suicide mission, fought back in the process control was lost of the plane and it crashed into the ground.

Around the same time in New York the 1st tower fell, due to the extreme heat of the fires generated by thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, and the structural damage from the planes impact which also weakened and dislodged fire resistant material around the steel. Half an hour later the 2nd tower collapsed for the same reason. The towers collapse threw huge amounts of debris over the surrounding area, critically damaging several large building in the area. Firecrews more concerned with rescuing trapped and injured victims, ignored these fires. One of these buildings, Building 7, collapsed due to the massive damage it received from the collapse of the WTC towers, and several other buildings damaged.

The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

Soveriegn

Di0genes wrote: »

I believe that 19 hijackers working for Al Qaeda, boarded four planes on the morning of September 11th. A few minutes after take off, they seized control of the planes through force and through the thread of force. Several of these hijackers had some training as pilots, and took charge of the cockpit.

One plane flew into the towers at approx 8:50. A second flew into the 2nd tower approximately 15 minutes later. A third struck the pentagon 25 minutes later. Passengers on the 4th flight, contacted loved ones on cellular and airphones, realised that their hijackers were on a suicide mission, fought back in the process control was lost of the plane and it crashed into the ground.

Around the same time in New York the 1st tower fell, due to the extreme heat of the fires generated by thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, and the structural damage from the planes impact which also weakened and dislodged fire resistant material around the steel. Half an hour later the 2nd tower collapsed for the same reason. The towers collapse threw huge amounts of debris over the surrounding area, critically damaging several large building in the area. Firecrews more concerned with rescuing trapped and injured victims, ignored these fires. One of these buildings, Building 7, collapsed due to the massive damage it received from the collapse of the WTC towers, and several other buildings damaged.

The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes:

The jet fuel would have burned out in the initial impact/explosion. Fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel girders. Thats why it hadn't happened prior to 9/11.

It's ridiculous to suggest building 7 would pancake like a controlled explosion had occurred, due to damage and fires, it would part collapse or topple over. You would not see the penthouse sink first, with structural damage or fires.

Theory closed.

Brown Bomber

What about Barry Jennings?

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes:

The jet fuel would have burned out in the initial impact/explosion. Fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel girders. Thats why it hadn't happened prior to 9/11.

And what about the other fuel??? Paper, carpets, flooring, ceiling. I suppose in CT land these things don't burn at all.

Also the steel was damaged in the original impact and did not need to be melted, just compromised sufficiently that it could no longer bear the weight of the upper floors.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

I believe that 19 hijackers working for Al Qaeda, boarded four planes on the morning of September 11th. A few minutes after take off, they seized control of the planes through force and through the thread of force. Several of these hijackers had some training as pilots, and took charge of the cockpit.

One plane flew into the towers at approx 8:50. A second flew into the 2nd tower approximately 15 minutes later. A third struck the pentagon 25 minutes later. Passengers on the 4th flight, contacted loved ones on cellular and airphones, realised that their hijackers were on a suicide mission, fought back in the process control was lost of the plane and it crashed into the ground.

Around the same time in New York the 1st tower fell, due to the extreme heat of the fires generated by thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, and the structural damage from the planes impact which also weakened and dislodged fire resistant material around the steel. Half an hour later the 2nd tower collapsed for the same reason. The towers collapse threw huge amounts of debris over the surrounding area, critically damaging several large building in the area. Firecrews more concerned with rescuing trapped and injured victims, ignored these fires. One of these buildings, Building 7, collapsed due to the massive damage it received from the collapse of the WTC towers, and several other buildings damaged.

The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

Why did they do it?

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

And what about the other fuel??? Paper, carpets, flooring, ceiling. I suppose in CT land these things don't burn at all.

Not hot enough.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Also the steel was damaged in the original impact and did not need to be melted, just compromised sufficiently that it could no longer bear the weight of the upper floors.

It was built to withstand the impact from a jet liner.

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why did they do it?

Probably because they believe the US and her western allies are "butchers, liars and hypocrites" and need to be destroyed.

What I'd like to see come from this thread is one unified alternative theory to the OP which can be debated. So far all I've ever seen from the Truther side is a series of disjointed theories which end up contradicting each other and form no plausible alternative.

Soveriegn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BbN_2tAUCU

Case closed.

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

Now we just need any Cter -even just one - to post their detailed version of what happened....

Anyone............anyone............nooone at all..............?............

**** that ****. Diogenes is making the claims here, I want to see him prove it.

Especially this bit.

hey seized control of the planes through force and through the thread of force

Whats that some superpower **** like this

Brown Bomber

What is your favourite superpower diogenes?

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BbN_2tAUCU

Case closed.

He said 707. The 767 is a much larger aircraft than the 707 with an increased fuel capacity.

Do you believe that the steel structure of the building was compromised in any way when the aircraft slammed into it?

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

Those numerous western intelligence agencies just happened to miss the whole thing until it happened

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

He said 707. The 767 is a much larger aircraft than the 707 with an increased fuel capacity.

Do you believe that the steel structure of the building was compromised in any way when the aircraft slammed into it?

Well, the 707 is almost 100mph faster. One would expect it to cause more internal structural damage.

You really think a few feet in size made the difference ?

They were built to withstand several hits from a 707 but only 1 hit from a 767 because it's a couple of feet bigger ?

We already know the fuel burned out in the initial impact, so it doesn't really matter how much fuel there was, for the most part it exploded outside the buildings.

Penn

Soveriegn wrote: »

The jet fuel would have burned out in the initial impact/explosion. Fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel girders. Thats why it hadn't happened prior to 9/11.

The fire didn't have to be hot enough to melt steel. It only had to be hot enough to weaken the steel. If the fireproofing around the steel was damaged as a result of the impact of the plane, the fire could have been acting directly on the steel, causing it to lose its strength. Steel is designed to certain limits with an additional safety factor. But the impact of the plane, the damage sustained to structural members and fireproofing on other members, means that the resultant fire could weaken the steel enough to make them lose their structural integrity. This adds more loading onto other steel members which weren't damaged. Even with the safety factors, the additional loading and directional forces could cause these steel members to fail too.

And steel-framed buildings had collapsed prior to 9/11, just on a smaller scale, where fireproofing regulations would not be as stringent or important. Steel frame buildings are required to have fireproofing to ensure safe evacuation of the building and to attempt to extinguish the fire.

Soveriegn wrote: »

It's ridiculous to suggest building 7 would pancake like a controlled explosion had occurred, due to damage and fires, it would part collapse or topple over. You would not see the penthouse sink first, with structural damage or fires.

Theory closed.

You could with an internal collapse. If interior structural columns failed, any structural members above it wouldn't have the support it is supposed to, causing the interior steel members to collapse as they're being pulled down. This is why the penthouse could have sank first. The steel members beneath could have failed, pulling the columns supporting the penthouse down. As this is happening, due to the internal collapse, the steel members throughout the building would have additional loading and directional forces, thereby providing little resistance when the entire building began to collapse

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

Well, the 707 is almost 100mph faster. One would expect it to cause more internal structural damage.

You really think a few feet in size made the difference ?

They were built to withstand several hits from a 707 but only 1 hit from a 767 because it's a couple of feet bigger ?

We already know the fuel burned out in the initial impact, so it doesn't really matter how much fuel there was, for the most part it exploded outside the buildings.

The max takeoff weight of a 767 is nearly 180 tonnes compared to the average of 120 tonnes for the 707 (even the largest 707 variant was nearly 30 tonnes lighter). So do you think that 180 tonnes of metal and fuel crashing at a few hundred miles per hour into a building would compromise that building in any way??

Soveriegn

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

The fire didn't have to be hot enough to melt steel. It only had to be hot enough to weaken the steel. If the fireproofing around the steel was damaged as a result of the impact of the plane, the fire could have been acting directly on the steel, causing it to lose its strength. Steel is designed to certain limits with an additional safety factor. But the impact of the plane, the damage sustained to structural members and fireproofing on other members, means that the resultant fire could weaken the steel enough to make them lose their structural integrity. This adds more loading onto other steel members which weren't damaged. Even with the safety factors, the additional loading and directional forces could cause these steel members to fail too.

And steel-framed buildings had collapsed prior to 9/11, just on a smaller scale, where fireproofing regulations would not be as stringent or important. Steel frame buildings are required to have fireproofing to ensure safe evacuation of the building and to attempt to extinguish the fire.



You could with an internal collapse. If interior structural columns failed, any structural members above it wouldn't have the support it is supposed to, causing the interior steel members to collapse as they're being pulled down. This is why the penthouse could have sank first. The steel members beneath could have failed, pulling the columns supporting the penthouse down. As this is happening, due to the internal collapse, the steel members throughout the building would have additional loading and directional forces, thereby providing little resistance when the entire building began to collapse

Oh, now I get it. When they said the towers were built to withstand several hits from a Boeing 707 jet, they didn't take into account that the jet might courteously remove some fireproofing on entry. :rolleyes: Silly beggers

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

The max takeoff weight of a 767 is nearly 180 tonnes compared to the average of 120 tonnes for the 707 (even the largest 707 variant was nearly 30 tonnes lighter). So do you think that 180 tonnes of metal and fuel crashing at a few hundred miles per hour into a building would compromise that building in any way??

It might compromise a building that was not built to withstand several hits from 707 jets, yes.

Soveriegn

2 or 3 hits from 707 jets is worse than 1 hit from a 767 no ?

Much heavier, much more fuel, much more speed etc etc

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

It might compromise a building that was not built to withstand several hits from 707 jets, yes.

And what about a 767 fully loaded with 90,000 litres of fuel?

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

And what about a 767 fully loaded with 90,000 litres of fuel?

What about 2 or 3 fully loaded 707's ?

Thats 180,000 litres of fuel dawg. In each tower. Faster missiles etc

They were built to withstand that sh!t

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

**** that ****. Diogenes is making the claims here, I want to see him prove it.

Exactly; none of you CTers seem capable of providing a rational coherent non-contradictory theory yourselves. For conspiracy theorists, you are pretty poor at theorising.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

What about 2 or 3 fully loaded 707's ?

You might show me that study that concluded multiple aircraft would not have any effect on the buildings. Thanks.

gizmo

drkpower wrote: »

Exactly; none of you CTers seem capable of providing a rational coherent non-contradictory theory yourselves. For conspiracy theorists, you are pretty poor at theorising.

This is going to turn into the Bohemian Groove saga where TalkieWalkie refused to provide a scan or picture of his invitation.

humanji

Soveriegn wrote:

Oh, now I get it. When they said the towers were built to withstand several hits from a Boeing 707 jet, they didn't take into account that the jet might courteously remove some fireproofing on entry. Silly beggers

There's a detailed explanation here made by people smarter than I'll ever be: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

Soveriegn

drkpower wrote: »

Exactly; none of you CTers seem capable of providing a rational coherent non-contradictory theory yourselves. For conspiracy theorists, you are pretty poor at theorising.

Must make you feel pretty powerful, agruing with a bunch of irrational non-coherent looneys.

Whatever turns you on..

humanji

humanji wrote: »

There's a detailed explanation here made by people smarter than I'll ever be: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

Drkpower, if you just want to throw blanket insults at people, do it somewhere else. You won't be warned again!

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

You might show me that study that concluded multiple aircraft would not have any effect on the buildings. Thanks.

I showed you a video of one of the designers stating it. The are other video's of others stating it also. Google it

drkpower

Soveriegn wrote: »

Must make you feel pretty powerful, agruing with a bunch of irrational non-coherent looneys.

Not really; if there was a rational coherent non-contradictory theory, i'd be able to take a look at it and balance it against the official theory. Until then, there's only one game in town.

But why is it that none of you have come up with an all-encompassing theory? Many of you spend an awful lot of time on this stuff.

Edit: is asking for a theory an insult now?

Penn

Soveriegn wrote: »

Oh, now I get it. When they said the towers were built to withstand several hits from a Boeing 707 jet, they didn't take into account that the jet might courteously remove some fireproofing on entry. :rolleyes: Silly beggers

I'm not 100% sure, so I'm open to correction on this, but I believe the buildings were designed to withstand a plane hitting it accidently (basically the link humanji posted above). A plane which would be trying to avoid hitting the building, or hitting it accidently. The planes on 9/11 were flown directly into the building at higher speeds in order to cause maximum damage. When the towers were designed, I doubt the threat of people purposefully flying large commercial planes at high speeds into the building was that big a risk.

However, without seeing how they were designed to withstand the impact and what regulations or calculations were used at that time, it's very hard to compare the two.

For example, if two identical towers were being built today. There might be a lot more fireproofing required by todays standards as opposed to the standards back then. Same with the calculations and safety factors. Things like that are revised and improved upon constantly.

So without having the majority of that information, it is very difficult to establish things like what they were capable of withstanding.

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

Exactly; none of you CTers seem capable of providing a rational coherent non-contradictory theory yourselves. For conspiracy theorists, you are pretty poor at theorising.

Originally posted by Diogenes

You made the claim the onus is on you to support it. Thats the way grown ups behave.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61175000&postcount=87

Clawdeeus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Originally posted by Diogenes

Proof then of the official theory?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I guess that will do for now.