9/11 Attacks

Clawdeeus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Origanally posted by diogenes


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?

I offered some evidence, to the 911 commission for a start.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

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

The guy is retired...he's 81! And they did make mistakes, they never considered the effect of a full fuel load. They only considered a slow flying aircraft lost in fog on a landing pattern. The reason they did this was because the only example of such a thing happening was the B25 that hit the Empire State Building in 1945 i.e. a slow flying aircraft, low on fuel, lost in fog. The idea of someone deliberately crashing a fully loaded aircraft at full speed into the buildings was never considered in the 1960's - different times.

meglome

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.

I'd agree with this. I also add that the US government admits they had some info the hijackers were in the country. They say the security services didn't share it so it's significance wasn't realised. Now this is where it's possible they knew more than they are saying however the security agency's in the US had a long history of not sharing info with each other. So it's an interesting idea but not one shred of actual evidence to back it up.

Is anyone supporting the CT going to give their view of what happened?

squod

I liked these threads more when Mysterious was here.
The OP will never attempt to back up his claim. / Thread.

meglome

squod wrote: »

I liked these threads more when Mysterious was here.
The OP will never attempt to back up his claim. / Thread.

The OP is based on an extensive official report which took thousands of people and some years. Not only that but it's consistent.

Torakx

What about when George Bush mispoke and said he saw the first plan hit as he walked into the classroom.
What actualy happened as i heard was that he was in the classroom already and was told the first plane hit before he waited 7 minutes to go out and then see the second one hit on tv.
The first hit wasnt televised until later.

joebucks

Torakx wrote: »

What about when George Bush mispoke and said he saw the first plan hit as he walked into the classroom.
What actualy happened as i heard was that he was in the classroom already and was told the first plane hit before he waited 7 minutes to go out and then see the second one hit on tv.
The first hit wasnt televised until later.

Probably just a mistake ,like the 'mistake' made by the BBC and Fox news reporting the collapse of building 7 before it actually fell..go back to watching UFC..All is good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

gizmo

squod wrote: »

I liked these threads more when Mysterious was here.
The OP will never attempt to back up his claim. / Thread.

The counter problem being, the people who believe it is a conspiracy will not post what they believe actually happened in the same manner. Without a unified alternative all that seems to have is hole poking in the "official" story.

alastair

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.

Let me guess - if you were presented with the ships construction manager stating that the Titanic was unsinkable - a proposition fully endorsed by the clever design of the time, prior to it's maiden voyage, would you prefer his opinion over the expert who poured over the wreck at the bottom of the ocean?

The building was designed to survive the impact of a 707. Maybe it might have, maybe it wouldn't. We'll never know. What's certain is that it didn't survive the jets on 9/11. That's jets, not missiles, holograms, thermite, controlled explosions, secret technology orbs, or greedy property developers in league with the NYFD.

alastair

Torakx wrote: »

What about when George Bush mispoke and said he saw the first plan hit as he walked into the classroom.
What actualy happened as i heard was that he was in the classroom already and was told the first plane hit before he waited 7 minutes to go out and then see the second one hit on tv.
The first hit wasnt televised until later.

What about it? Did George Bush have anything to do with any of the events on 9/11? he had about as much input as any other poor sod watching the telly.

alastair

DublinWriter wrote: »

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

Reeeeeeeeeeight.

Yes, along with a variety of other flammable/paper objects thrown clear of the fires. So hard to believe?

meglome

DublinWriter wrote: »

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

Reeeeeeeeeeight.

You know this is one of the things i find very strange. Not that it happened but that people think it's odd.

In 1922 during the Irish civil war the Public records office in the Four Courts blew up after a bombardment by the Free State forces. The rebels had been using it to store ammunition.

As we stood near the gate there was a loud shattering explosion … The munitions block and a portion of Headquarters block went up in flames and smoke … The yard was littered with chunks of masonry and smouldering records; pieces of white paper were gyrating in the upper air like seagulls. The explosion seemed to give an extra push to roaring orange flames which formed patterns across the sky. Fire was fascinating to watch; it had a spell like running water. Flame sang and conducted its own orchestra simultaneously. It can’t be long now, I thought, until the real noise comes.

Ernie O’Malley, The Singing Flame

There was paper all over the place from what I've read.

Now in 2001 Americans didn't need a passport to board a plane. So after the plane crashed they found one passport belonging to a hijacker, who would need it for ID. They found several other ID's and personal effects of the other passengers. Given the right conditions items that are light should be blasted away by the explosion, it's what would be expected not the other way around. See why I find the CT odd.

old_aussie

Soveriegn wrote: »

. When they said the towers were built to withstand several hits from a Boeing 707 jet

Can you tell me who "they" are.

Can you post a link for me to read about this.

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

You know this is one of the things i find very strange. Not that it happened but that people think it's odd.

It's not that odd that people find it hard to believe.. the odds of it happening are low, and I don't need a degree in physics or mathematical probability to see that. The passport was encased within a plane.. for something that small to be ejected from (instead of embedded in) the building or destroyed is very unlikely.

Even if it did happen, which to I have an open mind.. you can't possibly say that it's strange that people find it odd

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

It's not that odd that people find it hard to believe.. the odds of it happening are low, and I don't need a degree in physics or mathematical probability to see that. The passport was encased within a plane.. for something that small to be ejected from (instead of embedded in) the building or destroyed is very unlikely.

Even if it did happen, which to I have an open mind.. you can't possibly say that it's strange that people find it odd

The records in Dublin were encased in a large stone building and next to a store of exploding ammo, yet there was paper all over the place.

I could understand if it was the only ID or personal effect that was found, that might be odd. However they found several others. So were they all planted? Since we know as a fact light objects get thrown clear of explosions it's very plausible and very believable..

My name is URL

meglome wrote: »

The records in Dublin were encased in a large stone building and next to a store of exploding ammo, yet there was paper all over the place.

I could understand if it was the only ID or personal effect that was found, that might be odd. However they found several others. So were they all planted? Since we know as a fact light objects get thrown clear of explosions it's very plausible and very believable..

Well I'm not saying that everything was planted or even that the passport was. There's no way to test it really is there? I don't think even Mythbusters would touch it with a 20ft Chicken Gun! Though, if a fish tank is filled with water and blue confetti and you fire a (scaled) plastic capsule filled with red confetti into it at a scaled speed.. which color would have the most ejected material? And how would someone have been able to find the few pieces of "red" stuff in such a rushed and panic filled situation?

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

Well I'm not saying that everything was planted or even that the passport was. There's no way to test it really is there? I don't think even Mythbusters would touch it with a 20ft Chicken Gun! Though, if a fish tank is filled with water and blue confetti and you fire a (scaled) plastic capsule filled with red confetti into it at a scaled speed.. which color would have the most ejected material?

Of course there is no way to be sure. The point I'm making is it isn't quite as outrageous to believe as the CT would have us believe. I've been told you'd have to be an idiot to believe such a thing. But when you look at it there are examples from other places showing that paper objects get blasted away. So for me it's very plausible especially as the items from the other passengers were found too.

Popquiz_hotshot

I was in Washington during the Summer and went out to the pentagon..What amazes me is that it has so many cameras etc (and prob had the same 9 yrs ago) so why was there only one piece of flash footage ever released???
There are airports either side and the "plane" must have been off its flight track for ages and to land a plane there would in my view require some skill!!!!!

As someone who groans at the word "conspiracy" these days, and seen as most threads in this forum are usually just ridiculous, I do have to admit that I do feel that the buildings wouldn't collapse with that plane impact.

One thing that struck me as a bit odd, if nothing else, is that, I know they had a no fly zone for five miles surrounding the towers, but why didn't they instantly have Fire & Rescue planes and helicopters shooting past the towers dropping and throwing water and stuff to try and get rid of the fire?

I'd have assumed that with a fire in such a tall building, an ariel approach would be the first thing to come to mind?


Anyway, I don't think I believe that the towers could collapse that easily. It seemed a little too over the top. Had the plane crashed lower into the tower, or even hit it at a downward angle, where it could have damaged the foundations (which were what? 20 stories underground or something?) then I'd find it more credible.


That said, I struggle to find it as a conspiracy theory. It just doesn't make sense. Firstly, there's no real reason to drop the towers, in my opinion. I remember reading that there were structural issues with the towers or that there were chemicals or some such that were causing issues (can't think of the name of it) but that it was going to cost them more money to fix up the towers than they'd make off them in rent, etc. for many years to come?

But sure if that's true, then surely just a "ladies and gents, enjoy the towers while you can, we'll be knocking them on 11/9/01" notice would suffice?


Anyway, the biggest conspiracy theory killer for me, is that there would have to be far too many people involved to make it work, and you'd never be able to keep that many people quiet.

There are a lot of resources required. Between demolition experts, people who can, not only fly planes, but are trained highly enough to hit such a narrow targets dead centre, you'd need security people in the building letting the demolition people in, airport people would have to not stop the hijackers as that would ruin the plan, etc. etc.


It just doesn't seem feasible that it could happen. You'd never get that many to stay quiet, and if they were americans, what the hell do you offer to the person flying the plane?

Fair enough, you can approach mr demolition expert and offer him 20 million, or a billion or whatever, and he'll be in, but what do you say to the bloke who's getting killed? I don't see many people volunteering for that role, to be honest.

And if it was a case of "fly the plane into the building, or you'll be killed by us anyway", then surely he'd just fly off somewhere outside of the US, tell everyone what was going to happen and blow their cover?

Even if Bush & Co. denied it, they'd never be able to continue with the plans (besides, if someone did say it was all a Bush plan to take down the towers, surely the explosives that are all in place would be uncovered by the media and such?


There are just too many people needed to do it, and I don't think it's credible.


The only thing that pisses me off is that they're not rebuilding the towers. They were a huge part of the New York cityscape. It's a disgrace that replicas aren't being put in their place.

meglome

Popquiz_hotshot wrote: »

I was in Washington during the Summer and went out to the pentagon..What amazes me is that it has so many cameras etc (and prob had the same 9 yrs ago) so why was there only one piece of flash footage ever released???
There are airports either side and the "plane" must have been off its flight track for ages and to land a plane there would in my view require some skill!!!!!

You know this is another one of the old chestnuts about the 911. People say there was hi-res cameras all over the building in 2001. Yet not once have i seen a picture of these cameras, in 9 years. When you have armed guards all around a building cameras don't need to be a priority. And as I have pointed out on many occasions security cameras point downward not up into the sky. The gate camera was lucky to catch anything at all, even a partial frame.

Deleted User wrote: »

As someone who groans at the word "conspiracy" these days, and seen as most threads in this forum are usually just ridiculous, I do have to admit that I do feel that the buildings wouldn't collapse with that plane impact.

Well to be fair they didn't, they collapsed from the impacts and subsequent fires.

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing that struck me as a bit odd, if nothing else, is that, I know they had a no fly zone for five miles surrounding the towers, but why didn't they instantly have Fire & Rescue planes and helicopters shooting past the towers dropping and throwing water and stuff to try and get rid of the fire?

I'd have assumed that with a fire in such a tall building, an ariel approach would be the first thing to come to mind?

A plane flying at 500mph covers 5miles in how long?

The fires were inside the buildings, dropping water on the roof would have no impact whosoever.

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, I don't think I believe that the towers could collapse that easily. It seemed a little too over the top. Had the plane crashed lower into the tower, or even hit it at a downward angle, where it could have damaged the foundations (which were what? 20 stories underground or something?) then I'd find it more credible.

No one did. However the engineer of the buildings say they designed them to take the impact of a 707 without fuel. They were hit by bigger planes, with way more fuel and at a high speed. They were not designed for that and failed.

Deleted User wrote: »

That said, I struggle to find it as a conspiracy theory. It just doesn't make sense. Firstly, there's no real reason to drop the towers, in my opinion. I remember reading that there were structural issues with the towers or that there were chemicals or some such that were causing issues (can't think of the name of it) but that it was going to cost them more money to fix up the towers than they'd make off them in rent, etc. for many years to come?

But sure if that's true, then surely just a "ladies and gents, enjoy the towers while you can, we'll be knocking them on 11/9/01" notice would suffice?

Anyway, the biggest conspiracy theory killer for me, is that there would have to be far too many people involved to make it work, and you'd never be able to keep that many people quiet.

I struggle to find one that makes sense myself. There was a problem with asbestos but from the newspaper articles of the time it looks like it was manageable. Plus the towers were mostly full.

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, the biggest conspiracy theory killer for me, is that there would have to be far too many people involved to make it work, and you'd never be able to keep that many people quiet.

There are a lot of resources required. Between demolition experts, people who can, not only fly planes, but are trained highly enough to hit such a narrow targets dead centre, you'd need security people in the building letting the demolition people in, airport people would have to not stop the hijackers as that would ruin the plan, etc. etc.

It just doesn't seem feasible that it could happen. You'd never get that many to stay quiet, and if they were americans, what the hell do you offer to the person flying the plane?

You've hit the nail on the head... to accept even half the CT's there would need to thousands involved and like you I think it would be pretty impossible to keep them all quiet.

Penn

With regards to the finding of the passport, my issue with that was always that, if the government were going to plant some sort of evidence, or claim they had some sort of evidence that the proposed hijacker was on the plane, there would have been better, more obvious ways to do it. While I believe it is possible that the passport could be found, it's also pretty unlikely and very dependent on a number of factors.

Whereas if they did something like plant loads of witnesses in the airport who saw him get on the plane and could recognise him, or fake a call from the hijacker on the plane before the plane struck or something. Things like that would likely be easier to prove and harder to disprove than the finding of his passport. Let's face it, the theory is that the government had been planning this for years. Surely they could have come up with something better than that.


With regards to an air drop of water, as said previously, the fires and damage were several stories below. Very little water would have reached it. Not to mention that with the structure damaged by the impact of the plane and weakened by fire, the additional force of impact and weight of the water could have actually caused more damage and caused the building to collapse quicker

alastair

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

With regards to the finding of the passport, my issue with that was always that, if the government were going to plant some sort of evidence, or claim they had some sort of evidence that the proposed hijacker was on the plane, there would have been better, more obvious ways to do it. While I believe it is possible that the passport could be found, it's also pretty unlikely and very dependent on a number of factors.

Whereas if they did something like plant loads of witnesses in the airport who saw him get on the plane and could recognise him, or fake a call from the hijacker on the plane before the plane struck or something. Things like that would likely be easier to prove and harder to disprove than the finding of his passport. Let's face it, the theory is that the government had been planning this for years. Surely they could have come up with something better than that.

What would the government have to gain by planting a passport exactly? The guy was videoed getting on the plane, his name was on the plane's manifest, the recorded calls from the United flight attendent explicitly stated that he was one of the hijackers. There's no need for a passport to establish his involvement.

Penn

I agree. I'm saying that if they were going to go to the trouble of planting a passport amongst the rubble to implicate that person, there would be easier and more believable ways to do it.

stevejazzx

meglome wrote: »

The records in Dublin were encased in a large stone building and next to a store of exploding ammo, yet there was paper all over the place.

I could understand if it was the only ID or personal effect that was found, that might be odd. However they found several others. So were they all planted? Since we know as a fact light objects get thrown clear of explosions it's very plausible and very believable..

It's odd first of all that your comaprison point is a Dublin stone building in a 1922 explosion.
This was a plane engulfed by fire from an exposed fuel tanks inside a building.
It seems the 1922 explosion would have sent material outward rapidly as part of the explosion? The explosion inside a plane inisde the building as resulting from fuel seems as if it would've been far more contained and burns for hours; to find the one of the passsports you were looking after all that was truly remarkable -

alastair

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's odd first of all that your comaprison point is a Dublin stone building in a 1922 explosion.
This was a plane engulfed by fire from an exposed fuel tanks inside a building.
It seems the 1922 explosion would have sent material outward rapidly as part of the explosion? The explosion inside a plane inisde the building as resulting from fuel seems as if it would've been far more contained and burns for hours; to find the one of the passsports you were looking after all that was truly remarkable -

It's not really that remarkable at all - it was thrown well beyond the the fires - just as the scores of lifejackets, paper documentation, cushions etc that were reported by people on the ground at the wtc and nearby. Suqami was in row ten, and then outside the cockpit, so he (and his passport) would have been at the front of the impact - presumably the best position to have small objects thrown clear of the building and fireball.

stevejazzx

alastair wrote: »

It's not really that remarkable at all - it was thrown well beyond the the fires - just as the scores of lifejackets, paper documentation, cushions etc that were reported by people on the ground at the wtc and nearby. Suqami was in row ten, and then outside the cockpit, so he (and his passport) would have been at the front of the impact - presumably the best position to have small objects thrown clear of the building and fireball.

I take your point; but you say scores of other material? Much of this material would indistinguisable from the building material no? Obviously we can exclude things like passports and plane parts!! but documents, cushions, seat attachments? My point that the scores of material you mention might may well not all be from the plane.
How many passports were recovered in total - I've google can't seem to find that? if this is the only one then I tihnk people would have reason to be suspicious.

Di0genes

stevejazzx wrote: »

I take your point; but you say scores of other material? Much of this material would indistinguisable from the building material no? Obviously we can exclude things like passports and plane parts!! but documents, cushions, seat attachments? My point that the scores of material you mention might may well not all be from the plane.
How many passports were recovered in total - I've google can't seem to find that? if this is the only one then I tihnk people would have reason to be suspicious.

Seat cushions, life vests, personal ID, and even mail carried in the plane's hold were all recovered from ground zero.

stevejazzx

Di0genes wrote: »

Seat cushions, life vests, personal ID, and even mail carried in the plane's hold were all recovered from ground zero.

Fair enough point conceeded somewhat but I can't find a passport count, you've been embroiled in this 9/11 stuff for gaes perhaps you've seen it before? surely not just one of the hijackers?

alastair

stevejazzx wrote: »

Fair enough point conceeded somewhat but I can't find a passport count, you've been embroiled in this 9/11 stuff for gaes perhaps you've seen it before? surely not just one of the hijackers?

Just the one passport afaik - but keep in mind a lot of the passengers wouldn't have had passports on them - even the non-US passengers at the time - various other ID was fine for internal flights.

alastair

stevejazzx wrote: »

Fair enough point conceeded somewhat but I can't find a passport count, you've been embroiled in this 9/11 stuff for gaes perhaps you've seen it before? surely not just one of the hijackers?

Just the one passport afaik - but keep in mind a lot of the passengers wouldn't have had passports on them - even the non-US passengers at the time - various other ID was fine for internal flights.

Di0genes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Fair enough point conceeded somewhat but I can't find a passport count, you've been embroiled in this 9/11 stuff for gaes perhaps you've seen it before? surely not just one of the hijackers?

As Alastier pointed out the majority of the passengers were US citizens on internal flights. Even today only 22% of US citizens own passports. A driving licence (which most americans possess) was sufficient ID. A driving licence in the US is credit card sized and can fit into your wallet (unlike ours) so it's the most likely piece of ID that most passengers used. The hijackers not being US citizens wouldn't possess driving licence, and were more likely to use passports for their ID.

Di0genes

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.

Just going out on a limb here, I think in 1960 the architects would have been less worried about Japanese suicide pilots crossing the pacific, and then y'know the entire continent of North America before flying into the towers, and perhaps more concerned about the USSR's Atomic bombs.

meglome

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's odd first of all that your comaprison point is a Dublin stone building in a 1922 explosion.
This was a plane engulfed by fire from an exposed fuel tanks inside a building.
It seems the 1922 explosion would have sent material outward rapidly as part of the explosion? The explosion inside a plane inisde the building as resulting from fuel seems as if it would've been far more contained and burns for hours; to find the one of the passsports you were looking after all that was truly remarkable -

As Alastair said the blast wave will push light objects ahead of it. But you're right it's likely a lot less paper would have survived the 911 crash and explosion than would have in 1922. However the principal is the same, light objects can get blasted away. Like ID's, like mail, like life vests, like seat cushions etc. Given the number of light objects that were blown clear it seems very plausible it happened as officially stated.

squod

Once upon a time there were nineteen magical jihadists from a far away land..........


http://tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf

Di0genes

squod wrote: »

Once upon a time there were nineteen magical jihadists from a far away land..........


http://tyrannyalert.com/9-11%20fairy%20tale.pdf

1. Intercepts were launched. It takes more than 90 minutes to "scramble" a plane.

2. Steel frames structures have collapsed due to fire.

3. Black smoke doesn't equal a fire going out.

4. As has been pointed out the fire didn't need to melt the steel.

Shall I go on?

CrackisWhack

Can anyone explain why there was no fuselage, engine debris et. found at the pentagon crash site?

meglome

CrackisWhack wrote: »

Can anyone explain why there was no fuselage, engine debris et. found at the pentagon crash site?

No need to as there were. Though ramming a plane at high speed into a reinforced concrete building isn't going to leave much.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Di0genes

CrackisWhack wrote: »

Can anyone explain why there was no fuselage, engine debris et. found at the pentagon crash site?

Because they were actually found at the pentagon?









Furthermore this




Thats an 8 lane highway, the plane flew so low that it clipped lamp posts, at 9 o'clock in the morning. The middle of rush hour. Simply put it would be like flying a 737 over your head at the red cow roundabout while you're in a traffic jam.

RGDATA!

CrackisWhack wrote: »

Can anyone explain why there was no fuselage, engine debris et. found at the pentagon crash site?

I don't think you're right in saying there was no engine debris found at the pentagon.

CrackisWhack

In fairness those pictures are not the best(of the crash site)







Isn't there usually large sections of th plane (i.e tail section & engine) usually found intact? the photos you have posted are tiny pieces.

CrackisWhack

like so

Di0genes

CrackisWhack wrote: »

In fairness those pictures are not the best(of the crash site)

Any thoughts on the location and time of day?

Isn't there usually large sections of th plane (i.e tail section & engine) usually found intact? the photos you have posted are tiny pieces.

I posted a photo of the engine. And "Usually" Most plane crashes don't usually involve the pilot intentionally ramming a massive reinforced concrete building at speed.

CrackisWhack

more

CrackisWhack

would it make much of a difference hitting a building at 500mph as opposed to a mountain etc.?

meglome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

In German but this is a test that was done to test what would happen if a plane hit a nuclear power station. Obviously this concrete is thicker but you see the plane is literally shredded.

CrackisWhack wrote: »

would it make much of a difference a huge difference hitting a building at 500mph as opposed to a mountain etc.?

Of course with most buildings the plane will penetrate to some degree, with a mountain that's much less likely. Though it would depend very much on the building and the mountain. And not mention did the plane skim along the side of the mountain or plow straight into it.

Di0genes

CrackisWhack wrote: »

would it make much of a difference a huge difference hitting a building at 500mph as opposed to a mountain etc.?

Yes. The pilot in the plane crashing into the mountain is doing everything in their power to avoid hitting the mountain or to maximise the plane's chance at a soft landing. On 9/11 the pilot was intentionally ramming a building.

Penn

It's more than that. A mountain is an extremely solid surface to crash into, with a lot of weight behind it. A steel frame building is exactly that, a frame. While it is of course a solid frame, the impact of a plane would a) likely knock out or damage steel members, thereby compromising the structural integrity of the steel members surrounding it, and b) while a mountain is a solid surface, a plane hitting a column straight on means that the plane is only meeting resistance from the lines where the steel members are. The rest of the plane would continue with less resistance further into the frame

The two are almost incomparable without knowing several factors and variables

squod

Di0genes wrote: »

1. Intercepts were launched. It takes more than 90 minutes to "scramble" a plane.

2. Steel frames structures have collapsed due to fire.

3. Black smoke doesn't equal a fire going out.

4. As has been pointed out the fire didn't need to melt the steel.

Shall I go on?

Hmmmm, yeah. Fairy tales like the OPs are real convincing. To a five year old:rolleyes:

Di0genes

squod wrote: »

Hmmmm, yeah. Fairy tales like the OPs are real convincing. To a five year old:rolleyes:

Before I go on do you concede on the above points?

1. Fighter Jets


Read
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608 on NORAD and 911.

You can even listen to the conversations between NORAD and the FAA. Do you admit it takes longer than 90 minutes to scramble a fighter?

2. Steel framed building collapse

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

3. Black Smoke

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke
indicates nothing meaningful.

http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

4. Fire melting Steel

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

---

So Squod before I go on do you accept the above? If you don't please explain why.

squod

Meh, this topic has been done to death on these forums. Believe what you will. At the end of the day I'm not bothered.

I would say though that the examples given don't add up to a convincing story.