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.

drkpower

BB; that link is about swine flu

My name is URL

drkpower wrote: »

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.

So do many of the people arguing against the stuff posted here.. it's quite an annoying fact about this forum.. to borrow a line from someone else, it's like 2 opposing printers spewing copies at each other while the majority get drowned in paper

Brown Bomber

In all honesty I have an open mind with regard to 9-11. Its natural the US's imperialism will have negative side-effects. I just have yet to be convinced and it was "fanatical fundametalist" scary Muslims doesn't cut it for me.

To be honest killing 3000 people from across the world or killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan etc, etc based on confirmed lies, I know which is more important to me. I don't value American lives any higher than anyone elses.

Soveriegn

humanji wrote: »

It seem the fears they had (if the report is to be believed) was that a strike from a plane might topple the towers or that there would be a immediate collpase, hence the testing in wind towers etc etc. It doesn't appear that they were to concerned about structural damage bringing an eventual collapse. And no, they stupidly didn't take fire or fuel into account but hey, it doesn't get hot enough anyway.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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.

What I said to humanji

Soveriegn

drkpower wrote: »

BB; that link is about swine flu

Such a polite reply :eek:

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure either but it'd be a bit thick if they didn't to be honest. The towers were designed in 1960. WWII ended in 1945, The US was being attacked by kamikaze pilots who full speed with full fuel capacity and torpedoes and the like just 15 years earlier. The achitect who designed the towers was even American-Japanese.

drkpower

My name is URL wrote: »

So do many of the people arguing against the stuff posted here..

But those who believe the official theory support a theory. What is missing is an alternative.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

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

He wasn't a designer....he was a construction manager of the building. What about Leslie Robertson, one of the chief structural engineers during the building of the twin towers. He said:

Leslie Robertson wrote:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

from the horses mouth so to speak. Link Any thoughts on that?

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

BB; that link is about swine flu

Yeah swine-flu, did you get it?

DublinWriter

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

...and yet from the above carnage the FBI were able to produce the passport of one of the hijackers?

Reeeeeeeeeeight.

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah swine-flu, did you get it?

Yes; havent you noticed.....;)

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

BB; that link is about swine flu

Yeah but i quoted the important part as it relates to this thread and Diogenes as the OP.

Origanally posted by diogenes

You made the claim the onus is on you to support it. Thats the way grown ups behave.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot in this thread. No proof has been offered by the OP yet you still expect people to to provide evidence to disprove Diogenes claim. Whats all that about?

Black Swan

Soveriegn wrote: »

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

How many REAL skyscrapers have been used to test if they could withstand the impact of a fully loaded medium sized jet liner flying at cruising speed? How many buildings have survived this test, and how many have failed? I know of only two buildings, and they both collapsed at Ground Zero.

I have a aerospace engineer/scientist cousin that has worked for years at Jet Propulsion Labs on a NASA contract at the California Institute of Technology. When asked if these buildings could withstand the impact of a medium sized jet liner flying 200 plus MPH with passengers, baggage, cargo, and tanks topped off with highly explosive and flammable fuel, he said its anyone's guess. He then elaborated: The building designers were working off hypothesized structural models that have not been tested with real, existing buildings.

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

He wasn't a designer....he was a construction manager of the building. What about Leslie Robertson, one of the chief structural engineers during the building of the twin towers. He said:



from the horses mouth so to speak. Link Any thoughts on that?

Of course it is in his best interest as a structural engineer of the towers. Also it's 5 years after the attacks he speaks out. I prefer the video I posted it's dater prior to 9/11.

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Whats all that about?

It was simply a general observation; perhaps I should start a seperate thread.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure either but it'd be a bit thick if they didn't to be honest. The towers were designed in 1960. WWII ended in 1945, The US was being attacked by kamikaze pilots who full speed with full fuel capacity and torpedoes and the like just 15 years earlier. The achitect who designed the towers was even American-Japanese.

Forgive me as I have little knowledge of this particular area, but wouldn't kamikaze pilots mostly be attacking the west coast? For New York, the kamikaze pilots would have had to fly over the whole American continent. I'm very open to correction on this though.

Besides, I'm not saying they were right to design it as they did, if they didn't take these things into account. But these things are always clearer in hindsight

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

Of course it is in his best interest as a structural engineer of the towers. Also it's 5 years after the attacks he speaks out. I prefer the video I posted it's dater prior to 9/11.

Actually it was 2 months afterwards. So let me get this straight, the structural engineer who built the thing is telling porkies but one of the construction managers is 100% on the money. It seems you are dismissing the CHIEF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS comments because they don't agree with what you believe.

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Actually it was 2 months afterwards. So let me get this straight, the structural engineer who built the thing is telling porkies but one of the construction managers is 100% on the money. It seems you are dismissing the CHIEF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS comments because they don't agree with what you believe.

What I'm saying is, if he admitted to making mistakes, it wouldn't look good on his portfolio.

My name is URL

drkpower wrote: »

But those who believe the official theory support a theory. What is missing is an alternative.

Yeah, but my point is about the arguments which invariably break out between those on the extremes of both sides

I can only speak for myself of course, I'm neither a CTer nor a debunker as far as labels go, but enjoy reading the fringe ideas that people post here about stuff. You say what's missing is an alternative.. but if there wasn't as much bickering then most of the threads would be the alternative. Everyone knows what this forum is about, and nobody is forcing anybody to believe these alternative ideas.

I'm not for one minute saying that nobody should critique the stuff that's posted, but the people that do it incessantly; simply because they disagree with the general idea of CTs don't bring anything to the forum. If people only took part in the topics that they actually had an interest in and ignored the "loony troofers" then the more outlandish threads would quietly drop down the page and be replaced by the ones that are interesting on their own merits

drkpower

My name is URL wrote: »

.. but if there wasn't as much bickering then most of the threads would be the alternative. Everyone knows what this forum is about, and nobody is forcing anybody to believe these alternative ideas.

The problem is that the alternatives are often contradictory.