9/11, Bishop Williamson, Pope Benedict...

[gruntygiggles]

Having just chatted to a friend and my sister about the Popes visit, I have just been looking at exactly what Bishop Richard Williamson has said about the Holocaust as I never believe "bits" of information or little quotes taken out of context, I prefer to hear/see the whole thing.

So, Bishop Williamson has his own views on the holocaust, that not one single person perished in a gas chamber. He cites expert accounts for the basis of this belief, like the fact that the doors were not airtight and there were no tall chimneys in the chambers. Also that the people removing the bodies would have been killed by trapped gasses in the clothes of the victims???????????????????????????????????????????

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I do....but I'm interested in what others think.

Also, when you search for his videos on youtube, all of the 9/11 conspiracy theory videos come up. I have just sat and watched a few that have been made by morons. Others, I cannot believe some people are so dumb. This video for example shows the second impact in greater detail and the narator is seemingly shocked by the fact that the building gets hit before the impact of the plane. Literally when the plane is feet away. Again, I have my own views on this supported by the laws of physics, but wondered what your views were.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io&feature=related

[the_lone_wolf]

http://membres.multimania.fr/fredrichung/forum/i%20like%20were%20this%20thread%20is%20going.jpg

:eek:

[Wideboy]

the gas canisters were dropped in from the ceiling via small ducts, Doors dont need to be airtight and the victims were knaked as they were told they were going into a shower block to be cleaned so already bishop chats ****

seems he needs to work on his conspirator theory

[robh539]

the gas canisters were dropped in from the ceiling via small ducts and the victims were knaked as they where told they were going into a shower block to be cleaned so already bishop chats ****


Yep 110% back this, I have a few different documentaries all showing different accounts of this, and details. what a c*ck

[suzsv650]

There is defiantly something a little fishy about the twin towers, two planes cant take down buildings like that and even if they did they wouldn’t fall in such a uniform fashion as they did.

As for the other building (building 7 I believe) it was hardly damaged but that fell down too?

Also on the cleanup operation the heat from the rubble was meant to last for days/ weeks after stopping the rescuers, well aviation fuel won’t keep burning for that long...

As for the pentagon thing.... Well do you really think a plane crashed into it? Really?

[gruntygiggles]

http://membres.multimania.fr/fredrichung/forum/i%20like%20were%20this%20thread%20is%20going.jpg

:eek:


Haha +1

I have been missing the big discussions on here lately. Thought I'd see if anyone was in the mood. :-)

[MCN_LiamM]

the gas canisters were dropped in from the ceiling via small ducts, Doors dont need to be airtight and the victims were knaked as they were told they were going into a shower block to be cleaned so already bishop chats ****

seems he needs to work on his conspirator theory

This.

They were all striped ready for a 'shower' and they also had all their hair cut off.

I take it he's never been to Auschwitz?

[Daimo]

can't see the above image, so apologies if this is a pea-roast (or hitler post as called previously, which is ironic on this particular thread)..

http://images17.fotki.com/v1622/photos/4/48802/3111132/Popey-vi.jpg

[robh539]

There is defiantly something a little fishy about the twin towers, two planes cant take down buildings like that and even if they did they wouldn’t fall in such a uniform fashion as they did.

As for the other building (building 7 I believe) it was hardly damaged but that fell down too?

Also on the cleanup operation the heat from the rubble was meant to last for days/ weeks after stopping the rescuers, well aviation fuel won’t keep burning for that long...

As for the pentagon thing.... Well do you really think a plane crashed into it? Really?

Something very fishy lol. Building 7 housed loads of US records and investigation reports (finance mainly) and that's a blow :rolleyes:

There is a whole loads of suspicious things that happened. The US government knew it was going to happen, bush i don't think did.

The amount of money companies in the defence sector will have made since 9/11 will be crazy.

Or have i been watch to much 24 lol

[gruntygiggles]

This.

They were all striped ready for a 'shower' and they also had all their hair cut off.

I take it he's never been to Auschwitz?

It's the expert accounts of Auschwitz written by a man that designed and built gas chambers that he is getting the information from.

Yes, they were undressed and shaven, he seems to have just "forgotten" that!

Also, the so called expert was a man who designed and built gas chambers for US state correctional facilites, for the killing of one man at a time. He was hardly a person that designed and built for mass genocide.

At one point he talks about tall chimeys being needed to evacuate the gas away from the room. A low chimney will allow the gas to fall to ground level and kill people, so a tall chimney is needed and that would have been too easily seen by enemy aircraft, so it is, in his mind impossible for them to have existed!

[MCN_LiamM]

Something very fishy lol. Building 7 housed loads of US records and investigation reports (finance mainly) and that's a blow :rolleyes:

There is a whole loads of suspicious things that happened. The US government knew it was going to happen, bush i don't think did.

The amount of money companies in the defence sector will have made since 9/11 will be crazy.

Or have i been watch to much 24 lol

There's all sorts of evidence and conspiracy theory videos and such that apparently prove it was a set-up. I was reading something the other day about thermite found on supporting pillars or something similar.

TBH I wouldn't put it past Bush at all. The man is a first class idiot. The only thing I can't believe is when it happened he went on a golfing holiday.

[robh539]

It's the expert accounts of Auschwitz written by a man that designed and built gas chambers that he is getting the information from.



I have seen the this on tv a few weeks back on the history channel was awful and my impression was he dint think there was anything wrong with his work. He was promoted to the chief executioner. then was move to be incharge of a camp. not really something i wish to see again.

[suzsv650]

There's all sorts of evidence and conspiracy theory videos and such that apparently prove it was a set-up. I was reading something the other day about thermite found on supporting pillars or something similar.


Yeap exactly what i was on about with the heat days/weeks after.

I believe the American Government (well at least a small part of it) knew the attacks where happening and made sure the buildings came down to ensure maximum public outrage which will in turn allow them into iraq for Oil etc.

[MCN_LiamM]

Yeap exactly what i was on about with the heat days/weeks after.

I believe the American Government (well at least a small part of it) knew the attacks where happening and made sure the buildings came down to ensure maximum public outrage which will in turn allow them into iraq for Oil etc.


Sorry, I meant to expand.

You can essentially prove whatever you want about 9/11 and other events by only using specific evidence and leaving other evidence which doesn't support your theory out. That's what I meant to say.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist in anyway. But I do like watching/reading about them. Even if most of them are dreamt up by some 30-odd-year-old American who has completed everything on World of Warcraft and lives in his mum's basement waering a vest with ketchup stains.

Some of them are just ridiculous.

[Bri w]

Yeap exactly what i was on about with the heat days/weeks after.

I believe the American Government (well at least a small part of it) knew the attacks where happening and made sure the buildings came down to ensure maximum public outrage which will in turn allow them into iraq for Oil etc.


Stay off the mushrooms, and always wear the tinfoil hat when you go out.;)

[gruntygiggles]

There's all sorts of evidence and conspiracy theory videos and such that apparently prove it was a set-up. I was reading something the other day about thermite found on supporting pillars or something similar.

TBH I wouldn't put it past Bush at all. The man is a first class idiot. The only thing I can't believe is when it happened he went on a golfing holiday.

Google it. For Thermite to have been used to bring the towers down, there is no way it could have been hidden from the thousands of workers in and around the buildings.

The photograph they show to "prove" the Thermite theory is so called proof to them that the column was cut at the time of the attack because there are firemen in the photo, which means it was taken on the day. In fact, there were up to 150 firemen and policemen on site for the next two weeks, then up to 50 a day going into December, looking to recover the remains of their colleagues.
Want more proof than that? It is that EXACT same column seen in a photo taken a few days before......in the process of being cut at an angle to encourage the column to fall in a certain direction as they were ordered to make the site safe for workers to do the rescue/recovery/cleanup.

Some answers we will never get, but the Thermite argument is laughable. The same person that started it off shows a picture of a group of firemen looking into a hole where there is a glow. He says that glow is caused by 2000degree hot molten steel....due to Thermite cutting. One of the firefighters has his head hanging over it. You think you can hang your head over 2000 degree molten steel and walk away? No...it was just firefighters hanging a lantern in a hole to look for bodies.

[MCN_LiamM]

Google it. For Thermite to have been used to bring the towers down, there is no way it could have been hidden from the thousands of workers in and around the buildings.......

I'm not saying that's what happened. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories.

I just mentioned it as I only came across that theory the other day. I don't know owt about thermite or how it works etc.

I just mentioned it as one of the many conspiacy theories.

[suzsv650]

Stay off the mushrooms, and always wear the tinfoil hat when you go out.;)

LOL something is defiantly wired about the whole situation, cant put my finger on it just yet, but something is defiantly wrong.

[gruntygiggles]

Yeap exactly what i was on about with the heat days/weeks after.

I believe the American Government (well at least a small part of it) knew the attacks where happening and made sure the buildings came down to ensure maximum public outrage which will in turn allow them into iraq for Oil etc.


Here's a big old dampner to your heat days/weeks after theory. The aviation fuel was not the only fuel burned when those buildings were attacked. For starters, there were additional explosive devices in at least one basement and certain explosives do burn for much longer than fuel.

Secondly, each of the towers had 110 floors worth of rubble fall to the ground. This amount of rubble means that it becomes very difficult for heat to escape. Fires will stop burning when fuel is used up and oxygen is not available, but with that much flammable matter, the heat will reside for a very long time. The aviation fuel was not the only flammable matter at ground zero. Each of the offices on each of the floors was furnished with many types of material, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of computer monitors, filing cabinets fire extinguishers and other compressed gas canisters creating many many secondary smaller explosions long after the initial impacts.

[gruntygiggles]

I'm not saying that's what happened. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories.

I just mentioned it as I only came across that theory the other day. I don't know owt about thermite or how it works etc.

I just mentioned it as one of the many conspiacy theories.

I know.....I was just giving the other side. The side backed up by irrefutable evidence :-)

There is nothing wrong with people having theories, but I always think it's important to not just read something and believe it. In order to believe something fully, I think you need to be able to fully dispel all other possibilities and so I was giving the truth to dispel that particular theory.

[MCN_LiamM]

Very slight derail...
But for those of you are interested in what governments/the military get up to I highly recommend reading The Men Who Stare at Goats by Jon Ronson.

It's scary what some people with so much power seem to think as reasonable/possible.

[MCN_LiamM]

I know.....I was just giving the other side. The side backed up by irrefutable evidence :-)

There is nothing wrong with people having theories, but I always think it's important to not just read something and believe it. In order to believe something fully, I think you need to be able to fully dispel all other possibilities and so I was giving the truth to dispel that particular theory.

Fair does. I don't believe, but I'd never sen that theory before.

All i Know about thermite is that it looks pretty when they light it on Brainiac.

[suzsv650]

Here's a big old dampner to your heat days/weeks after theory. The aviation fuel was not the only fuel burned when those buildings were attacked. For starters, there were additional explosive devices in at least one basement and certain explosives do burn for much longer than fuel.

Secondly, each of the towers had 110 floors worth of rubble fall to the ground. This amount of rubble means that it becomes very difficult for heat to escape. Fires will stop burning when fuel is used up and oxygen is not available, but with that much flammable matter, the heat will reside for a very long time. The aviation fuel was not the only flammable matter at ground zero. Each of the offices on each of the floors was furnished with many types of material, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of computer monitors, filing cabinets fire extinguishers and other compressed gas canisters creating many many secondary smaller explosions long after the initial impacts.


Yeap good argument, Im assiding with both sides half of me thinks naaa don’t be ridiculous other half is like why are you being so stupid.

As for the fires yea sure loads of things are going to burn, office equipment etc, but is that enough to weaken steal? You don’t exactly expect your pots to melt when you put them on your hob < obviously a different situation, but just a point.

[MCN_LiamM]

Suz, just a side note.

I'm using the black background/layout and your text is black, so I can't see it.

Every single time I think you've posted nothing. Then I highlight it... lol

[suzsv650]

Suz, just a side note.

I'm using the black background/layout and your text is black, so I can't see it.

Every single time I think you've posted nothing. Then I highlight it... lol


I use the Default, so much nicer, + I can get away with it more in work the black is way to obvious.

[gruntygiggles]

Yeap good argument, Im assiding with both sides half of me thinks naaa don’t be ridiculous other half is like why are you being so stupid.

As for the fires yea sure loads of things are going to burn, office equipment etc, but is that enough to weaken steal? You don’t exactly expect your pots to melt when you put them on your hob < obviously a different situation, but just a point.


The steel did not have to melt in order for the building to collapse.

There are a few factors here that are important, I may be wrong, I am no expert, it's just something that really interests me, so here's what I've learned. All supported by evidence NOT theory.

The steel columns hit and damaged by the impact of the planes were part of the outer "tube" of columns. Not the main supporting columns of the building. However, they did still contribute to the support of the weight of each floor. There were a number of these columns damaged by the impact, meaning a greater portion of weight shifted onto the remaining columns. Add to that that each floor was only capable of supporting 1,300t and the plane hit 10 or so floors below the top, this compromised structure now had 10 or so floors worth of weight being supported by an already compromised structure. So, the collapse begins because the columns when broken, shift weight to other columns, but they will not be able to withstand weights that they were not designed to support. That's simple.

When the collapse starts, you get lots of questions around it falling straight down, not to the side. In order for something to fall to the side, it needs to have a lateral velocity. The collapse took 10 seconds, hitting bottom at around 200kmph. This does not allow for enough time for lateral velocity to have effect. Also, 500,000t of structure has too much inertia to fall anyway other than pretty much straight down. The impact of the plane was not enough to cause enough lateral velocity as these buildings were designed to withstand massive sidewinds. The impact of the plane was enough to make the upper floors move around 100ft to the side of the base outline of the building, but with the structure designed to stop the "swaying" motion, it had returned to a steady state long before the collapse began.

There are reports of molten pools of steel, yet there is no way of anyone knowing if the metal seen was indeed steel. Or indeed if it was seen at all. One of the main construction leaders who said he saw it, later admitted that he had seen nothing, just taken a report from someone on site that had seen it. Steel needs temperatures that could not be reached by burning aviation fuel in order to melt, but other metals, which the building was full of, do not need such high temperatures at all. So, you can deduce from the scientific evidence that no temperatures reached on site were high enough to melt steel that if any molten pools of metal were seen, they were not steel and not the columns. One of the only things that could have got the temperatures that high would have been Thermite, but again, the amount that would have been needed to do it, would have been far too big to have gone unnoticed.

[tactcom7]

MCN Liam that is a brilliant book, read it a few years ago, I love the first chapter with the high ranking US army officer trying to walk through the wall!! :)

[MCN_LiamM]

It is a really funny book. And then it dawns on you that the people that thought up some of the stupid ideas were extremely powerful generals etc within the army. How the heck does somebody who thinks you can kill a goat by thinking about killing it get that high up?! Scary

[hindle8907]

iv got a 2 part ... 2 hour long conspiracy 9/11 DVD. if anyone wants to lend it give me a shout its very interesting and I defiantly believe bush did it.

[tactcom7]

Very, although that little plastic disc they talk about that they use to get people to 'conform' sounds pretty cool!

And then there's the matter of playing Barney to the POW's, interesting stuff.

[tactcom7]

Hindle, I'll have a lend of that if you don't mind?

[hindle8907]

no worries dude pm me.

[simesb]

iv got a 2 part ... 2 hour long conspiracy 9/11 DVD. if anyone wants to lend it give me a shout its very interesting and I defiantly believe bush did it.

Unanswered questions a conspiracy does not make. Ignoring reasonable answers supported by the worldwide scientific/engineering community because they don't suit your argument just makes you an idiot. You cannot disprove a conspiracy which is what gives this **** legs...

I think Bush is a knob but I can't credit him with being able to organise such an attack and keep the thousands of necessary co-conspirators silent.

[Dicky Ticker]

I blame Albert Pike,he started it in 1871

[gruntygiggles]

I blame Albert Pike,he started it in 1871

Is he the guy that was charged for letting his soldiers scalp their victims, but the charge couldn't be held because there was zero evidence to support the theory? I think an American friend told me about him, but I may have the wrong guy.

[gruntygiggles]

Unanswered questions a conspiracy does not make. Ignoring reasonable answers supported by the worldwide scientific/engineering community because they don't suit your argument just makes you an idiot. You cannot disprove a conspiracy which is what gives this **** legs...

I think Bush is a knob but I can't credit him with being able to organise such an attack and keep the thousands of necessary co-conspirators silent.

Very true.

Alex Jones is a professional conspiracy theorist and he's at the forefront of many of the 9/11 theories.

The main one of his is about Thermite. He believes that substances found at ground zero prove the existance of Thermite. He even published a quote from a leading scientist supporting this claim. What he failed to let his readers know was that before publishing this quote, he edited out the part that said, "It was most likely caused by the tens of thousands of burning computers". Jones didn't feel his readers needed to hear that bit. Not exactly someone I will trust.

Like I said, you can and should only believe something when you have dispelled any doubts. To ignore fact and expert opinion makes you an idiot. To hide that from your readers makes you a charlatan. He's making a living for himself by supporting his theories by hiding the truth!

[slark01]

9/11 My theory :- I think a bunch of time travellers got onto the planes, replaced the occupants and then crashed them into the buildings by mistake. The mistakes were caused by over zealous security guards trying to stop the time travellers.
The reason for hijacking the passengers was because the time travellers needed them for the far future, due to the earth being seriously polluted, and that the human race could not procreate.

Makes sense to both of us. ;-)

Ste.

[gruntygiggles]

9/11 My theory :- I think a bunch of time travellers got onto the planes, replaced the occupants and then crashed them into the buildings by mistake. The mistakes were caused by over zealous security guards trying to stop the time travellers.
The reason for hijacking the passengers was because the time travellers needed them for the far future, due to the earth being seriously polluted, and that the human race could not procreate.

Makes sense to both of us. ;-)

Ste.


Oooooh, that's a good 'un!

[Bluefish]

well i've seen pictures and there are no twin towers in them, therefor the whole idea of there ever being twin towers is a conspiracy, they never existed and therefor they never fell down.

[yorkie_chris]

The main one of his is about Thermite. He believes that substances found at ground zero prove the existance of Thermite.

Iron and f*cking aluminium?
A plane crashes into a skyscraper and people think that proves anything? Bloody hell...

I despair sometimes.

Lot of people looking for stuff that isn't there... like on all footage. If this was some sort of conspiracy involving the finest minds in the subversive action wing of the CIA or whoever it's meant to be... fairly sure they wouldn't leave such a massive amount of evidence on show. :rolleyes:

[robh539]

Iron and f*cking aluminium?
A plane crashes into a skyscraper and people think that proves anything?

thermite is as above in a fine power mix. Needs a alot of energy to ignite, like magnesium witch burns at about 1000c.

Also the light is intense and would be hard to miss, if the towers were brought down with this there would be a fair few blind people in NY too. As it was used a early welding technique, will cause arch eye.

I have see this amazing stuff.

[yorkie_chris]

You don't really know what arc eye is do you? ;)

You can start thermite off with a few other concoctions as well, some of which can be fired electrically.
The light, from a distance is no more intense than any other large fire.

It's still used as a welding technique, but arc eye is caused by the intense UV light emitted by an electric ARC (geddit?) like an electric welding set, thermite will hurt your eyes, but only because it's very bright and you're close to it when you see some ignited in science class :-P


For a graphic demonstration, you can do little bits of gas welding with no goggles, it's just hard to see, not that damaging like arc welding is. And that's an oxyacetylene flame at 3300 degrees.



Just fyi, to cut a big steel beam like that, you'd need a pound or so of thermite, as it's so hot and direct you'll never just warm the whole thing up to soften it. Imagine how many beams there are to cut to make it collapse?
Plus, it just slowly melts away, has to be directed with a crucible. If you were going to do that, you'd use high explosives which can be directed to slice steel beams like butter.

Same argument applies, how many beams you need to cut? How much det cord you need to string all over the place to set them all off at once? How many people to rig that many charges?
Go watch a program on controlled demolition and see how much effort they put into controlling blast damage when they've got months to prepare for the bang!

[robh539]

no but my suntan is great :) dam cant see were I put my sunglasses down

[gruntygiggles]

Iron and f*cking aluminium?
A plane crashes into a skyscraper and people think that proves anything? Bloody hell...

I despair sometimes.

Lot of people looking for stuff that isn't there... like on all footage. If this was some sort of conspiracy involving the finest minds in the subversive action wing of the CIA or whoever it's meant to be... fairly sure they wouldn't leave such a massive amount of evidence on show. :rolleyes:

:notworthy:

The best is this video, it shows supposed proof that the plane had something additonal on it or was a military plane....but look at the shape of the tail. The plane they show in their picture is NOT the plane that they then show going into the tower. How, when they want to share this with the world as proof that they are right, overlook something as obvious as this???

You see the pic I am talking about at 20s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc&feature=related

[anna]

Plane crashes into building = building collapses

Buildings arent designed for this eventuality.

GG you forgot, the Princess D car crash and the first trip to the moon in this thread!

[gruntygiggles]

Plane crashes into building = building collapses

Buildings arent designed for this eventuality.

GG you forgot, the Princess D car crash and the first trip to the moon in this thread!


Haha, so I did, but it all started when talking about the Pop with my friend and sister and how some of his doctrines are so damaging to those that feel they have to listen to him. One of the things he has been criticised for is for lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson last year. A lot of Catholics have left the church in Mainland Europe over this.

When I was looking into that, I saw vids for 9/11 and couldn't resist. :cool:

[MisterTommyH]

There's a lot of theory to it, but at the end of the day it comes down to some thing called disproportionate collapse.

The stories above the impact held up as long as they could with the number of damaged columns. Eventually that gave way and the dead weight of those top few stories dropping down onto the next intact story (especially in a sudden impact) caused that storey to collapse, which started the whole thing over again, over every storey very very fast.

Buildings just aren't designed to have whole storey drop onto the rest of it, and stay standing. It's amazing it stayed up as long as it did.

And building 7 wasn't damaged? what even with all the debris that fell from the adjacent towers - key element design hasn't been around forever.

[yorkie_chris]

When I was looking into that, I saw vids for 9/11 and couldn't resist. :cool:

rzwNvmRgl5k

[Specialone]

You don't really know what arc eye is do you? ;)

You can start thermite off with a few other concoctions as well, some of which can be fired electrically.
The light, from a distance is no more intense than any other large fire.

It's still used as a welding technique, but arc eye is caused by the intense UV light emitted by an electric ARC (geddit?) like an electric welding set, thermite will hurt your eyes, but only because it's very bright and you're close to it when you see some ignited in science class :-P


For a graphic demonstration, you can do little bits of gas welding with no goggles, it's just hard to see, not that damaging like arc welding is. And that's an oxyacetylene flame at 3300 degrees.



Just fyi, to cut a big steel beam like that, you'd need a pound or so of thermite, as it's so hot and direct you'll never just warm the whole thing up to soften it. Imagine how many beams there are to cut to make it collapse?
Plus, it just slowly melts away, has to be directed with a crucible. If you were going to do that, you'd use high explosives which can be directed to slice steel beams like butter.

Same argument applies, how many beams you need to cut? How much det cord you need to string all over the place to set them all off at once? How many people to rig that many charges?
Go watch a program on controlled demolition and see how much effort they put into controlling blast damage when they've got months to prepare for the bang!


Although i dont think we know eveything about that day, there is no fooking way they could rig that for demo without anyone in the building seeing or hearing whats going on.
I have watched demo programs on tv and it takes months of planning with shaped charges which are copper angled thingys which are fired at the beams and slice though with unbelievable ease.

The only reason the beams gave way in the twin towers is simple, they had no fire protection, fire got very hot, beams melted and buckled, thats it.
I do think there is something regarding the pentagon plane crash though, no plane debris etc.

Finally arc eye is bad, avoid it at all costs, when i used to do a lot of welding, my mask had a crack to one side and used to get me regular.
It will also give you a nice tan on your unprotected arms so imagine what it can do to your eyes :smt120

[gruntygiggles]

Although i dont think we know eveything about that day, there is no fooking way they could rig that for demo without anyone in the building seeing or hearing whats going on.
I have watched demo programs on tv and it takes months of planning with shaped charges which are copper angled thingys which are fired at the beams and slice though with unbelievable ease.

The only reason the beams gave way in the twin towers is simple, they had no fire protection, fire got very hot, beams melted and buckled, thats it.
I do think there is something regarding the pentagon plane crash though, no plane debris etc.

Finally arc eye is bad, avoid it at all costs, when i used to do a lot of welding, my mask had a crack to one side and used to get me regular.
It will also give you a nice tan on your unprotected arms so imagine what it can do to your eyes :smt120

The beams wouldn't have melted as not even aviation fuel would get hot enough for that to happen, but yes, they would most definately have just buckled under the pressure as has been mention already.

As for the pentagon, I don't believe any of the theories around that. It's not one that I have looked into in any depth, I probably will in the next few days, but here's one for you. Lots of people say that the roof tar would have burned for days and days if it had been a plane with an explosion like the one at the WTC with all that aviation fuel. People are saying that this tar would have taken days to melt because that's what they've seen in house fires and they should know...they are builders! Yeah right, whatever. When has an average Joe builder seen aviation fuel at work? It cannot get to the temperatures required to melt massive steel columns, but it sure as hell can cause the roof tar to be burned off in a matter of minutes and hours, not days!

Also, there was plenty of plane debris at the site, but the argument that "how come there is no plane debris at the pentagon when at the WTC there is loads?" is ridiculous. Two completely different structures.

The WTC was made up of 95% air with glass windows and steel columns making up the basic structure. When a plane hits something as "soft" as that, it will go into it, in the same way a piece of pine 2x4 can penetrate a brick wall in a tornado. However, when a plane hits a structure that has 18" (I think) reinforced walls...I think there are 10 of them, it is the plane that will break up. The velocity will see it break through the first few walls, but after the initial impact, the plane, being the "softer" of the two objects will be the one that collapses.

[suzsv650]

The beams wouldn't have melted as not even aviation fuel would get hot enough for that to happen, but yes, they would most definately have just buckled under the pressure as has been mention already.

As for the pentagon, I don't believe any of the theories around that. It's not one that I have looked into in any depth, I probably will in the next few days, but here's one for you. Lots of people say that the roof tar would have burned for days and days if it had been a plane with an explosion like the one at the WTC with all that aviation fuel. People are saying that this tar would have taken days to melt because that's what they've seen in house fires and they should know...they are builders! Yeah right, whatever. When has an average Joe builder seen aviation fuel at work? It cannot get to the temperatures required to melt massive steel columns, but it sure as hell can cause the roof tar to be burned off in a matter of minutes and hours, not days!

Also, there was plenty of plane debris at the site, but the argument that "how come there is no plane debris at the pentagon when at the WTC there is loads?" is ridiculous. Two completely different structures.

The WTC was made up of 95% air with glass windows and steel columns making up the basic structure. When a plane hits something as "soft" as that, it will go into it, in the same way a piece of pine 2x4 can penetrate a brick wall in a tornado. However, when a plane hits a structure that has 18" (I think) reinforced walls...I think there are 10 of them, it is the plane that will break up. The velocity will see it break through the first few walls, but after the initial impact, the plane, being the "softer" of the two objects will be the one that collapses.


So you think a plane hit the pentagon? A plane hitting a building like that would have caused loads more damage. Before the building partially collapsed there was hardly none. Where was those two ginormorse jet engines? Im expected to believe that a whole place disintegrated into a building?! Come on.... I dont know what hit the pentagon but for sure it wasn’t a whoopping plane.

The WTCs were designed to take a plane hit of similar size that was around when they were designed.... 60/ 70's wasn’t it? They were also designed so that if a plane did hit it only said number of floors would collapse, not entirely sure how many. But after these floors collapsed the rest of the building would survive.

As said before im not entirely sure what happened but for sure I don’t believe the official statement. Maybe in a few years time it will come out.

[tactcom7]

When the building was designed no-one took into account the explosive force of the impact and fuel igniting. The steel beams would have survived much longer if there fireproofing hadn't been blown off. This left the steel exposed to the heat and flames, something which the engineers didn't think would happen.

[Bri w]

As has been said by many, the steel beams wouldn't have melted (1500c reqd) as the jet fuel burns at 650c. Even the fire 'drawing' air wouldn't increase the temperature enough to melt the steel. However, the modular method of construction requires the integrity of each component to maintain the box - 'house of cards.'

The stresses between one end of a steel girder and the other, brought about by the temperature difference, caused the girder to soften and bend, and the module(box) to collapse. Once several boxes had collapsed there was enough weight on non-load bearing structures to accelerate the process irrespective of the integrity of the girders on the lower floors.

Why didn't it tip to one side? That would require a lateral force, and the force was vertical, i.e. from floors above.

The question(s) raised about the lower columns looking like they had be blown by a shaped charge are at best farcical. The force vector of approx 500,000 tonnes of building falling at 200km/hr would give you enough force to shear/snap/explode the reinforced concrete any which way you fancy.

It is well documented that the US intelligence (oxymoron?) agencies knew something was 'in the wind' but the scale of it, and the co-ordination and planning involved caught them out.

For the conspiracy theorists; Were the US agencies involved in a co-ordinated plot with the terrorists to give the US an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Turn that on its head and ask yourself would the terrorists ally themselves with the US that would end with those invasions? Sometimes you find it difficult to believe what some people actually give credence to - stronger meds reqd.

[simesb]

So you think a plane hit the pentagon? A plane hitting a building like that would have caused loads more damage. Before the building partially collapsed there was hardly none. Where was those two ginormorse jet engines? Im expected to believe that a whole place disintegrated into a building?! Come on.... I dont know what hit the pentagon but for sure it wasn’t a whoopping plane.


Er

--_RGM4Abv8

[suzsv650]

Solid concrete wall, pentagon is offices corridors etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2rlAoKiy4&feature=fvst

[simesb]

Solid concrete wall, pentagon is offices corridors etc.

There are walls around the corridors you know :D


Following the Oklahoma bombing, they were renovating the side of the Pentagon that was hit;

"It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire."

[gruntygiggles]

So you think a plane hit the pentagon? A plane hitting a building like that would have caused loads more damage. Before the building partially collapsed there was hardly none. Where was those two ginormorse jet engines? Im expected to believe that a whole place disintegrated into a building?! Come on.... I dont know what hit the pentagon but for sure it wasn’t a whoopping plane.

The WTCs were designed to take a plane hit of similar size that was around when they were designed.... 60/ 70's wasn’t it? They were also designed so that if a plane did hit it only said number of floors would collapse, not entirely sure how many. But after these floors collapsed the rest of the building would survive.

As said before im not entirely sure what happened but for sure I don’t believe the official statement. Maybe in a few years time it will come out.


I won't believe it was anything other than a plane. The evidence supports this. If you hear someone say something like, "a 757 is 44ft tall, yet the hole in the wall was only 16-20ft around, so there is your proof"....go and do your own research. In actual fact a 757 body is 12'4" wide and 13'6" high. Yes, the Top of the tail is 44ft tall when the landing gear is down, but to believe that this means that there would be a 44ft tall hole in the wall means you are assuming that the plane suffered no damage before the tail hit.

So, forget about the tail and wings for a second and think about just the body of the plane. Is it or is it not perfectly plausible that an object (the 757) that is 12'4" x 13'6" can create a hole that is 16-20ft wide? Yes it is, more than plausible.

Another thing that people say is "why didn't it go straight through the walls like it went straight through the WTC towers?". Now, I have to state here than in a previous answer I eluded to this being due to the 18" reinforced concrete walls. I have just found out that the impact wall of the pentagon was nearing completion of major restructuring works. It did in fact have steel columns, it had a structure put into it to bring it in line with the structural safety requirements of a building like this. It was in fact those steel columns, that stayed up for over half an hour, that saved hundreds of workers from being crushed.

So, the plane had enough force to penetrate the building, but it only managed to penetrate a few of the walls. The inertia carried the back end of the plane through and into the hole, on itself. The difference with the pentagon and the WTC is that the pentagon was a solid structure to hit, the WTC was hitting mainly glass, with air inside. So, at WTC you see the wings leave impact damage before being further damaged by the steel columns inside. When the plane comes out the other side, it is no longer a plane, it is now debris. At the pentagon, it hits a solid object and so the momentum of the plane is seriously reduced before the wings hit, therefore it is the wings that break upon impact and not the walls. This is why there are no wing shaped holes on the wall....do the math. Reinforced concrete that is 18" thick vs sheet aluminium layered, that is only 5mm thick. Same goes for the tail section....they simply smash upon impact.

Now, people talk about there being no engine parts found.....wrong. There are engine parts seen in many of the pictures. Some part of the plane, and due to the amount of damage caused it was most likely the engine that made impact, hit a large deisel generator before hitting the building. Now. This generator had moved 45ft from it's original position in front of the building. Think about this. If a bomb had hit the pentagon, the resulting explosion would have moved the engine away from the building, but it did not do that. It was moved 45ft towards the building. Not a single missle would be able to do that, and still make the kind of damage in the pentagon that is so clearly visible.

I could go on for ages. There is so much cold, hard evidence that it was a plane that it is hard for me to believe that anyone can still think it was something else.

[hindle8907]

what gets me is why did the Pentagon, one of the most secure military facilities in the United States, only make available to the public one low res videotape ?

[gruntygiggles]

When the building was designed no-one took into account the explosive force of the impact and fuel igniting. The steel beams would have survived much longer if there fireproofing hadn't been blown off. This left the steel exposed to the heat and flames, something which the engineers didn't think would happen.

When the building was designed is irrelevant at the crash site as it had undergine major reconstruction works. It even had Kevlar woven into the structure to prevent the possibility of an explosion being able to send debris shooting out everywhere, in the same way they work on bulletproof vests.

[simesb]

I could go on for ages. There is so much cold, hard evidence that it was a plane that it is hard for me to believe that anyone can still think it was something else.

Meh, evidence doesn't count for anything in the land of the tin foil hat. Some people will never believe that a plane hit the Pentagon because a cartoon plane outline wasn't left in the wall of the building.

[simesb]

When the building was designed is irrelevant at the crash site as it had undergine major reconstruction works. It even had Kevlar woven into the structure to prevent the possibility of an explosion being able to send debris shooting out everywhere, in the same way they work on bulletproof vests.

He's talking about WTC, not the pentagon.

The WTC did have design parameters for a strike by a 707, substantially slower and lighter than the 767.

Of course, it may be logical to suspect that the building was designed for an accidental strike where a pilot is making best efforts to avoid hitting the hard hurty thing, not speeding directly into it. Or maybe it isn't...

Engineers cannot cater for all eventualities.

[Daimo]

:lol: Gotta love the conspiracy nutcases.

Indeed, lets trash our own trader centre buildings, plunging our economy...

But then some poeope do have to find things to prove things that can't fully explained..

Hence leading me onto religion......

[suzsv650]

Hence leading me onto religion......


Dont get me started on that one LOL:D

[gruntygiggles]

He's talking about WTC, not the pentagon.

The WTC did have design parameters for a strike by a 707, substantially slower and lighter than the 767.

Of course, it may be logical to suspect that the building was designed for an accidental strike where a pilot is making best efforts to avoid hitting the hard hurty thing, not speeding directly into it. Or maybe it isn't...

Engineers cannot cater for all eventualities.

Ah cool, my head was in pentagon mode...lol. Yeah, the WTC were designed for a hit of smaller magnitude and they failed in that design in the sense that they didn't have the stee girders protected against heat the way they should have been, but that is a moot point anyway as no heatproofing will stop steel giving under 500,000t of pressure. :rolleyes:

[gruntygiggles]

Meh, evidence doesn't count for anything in the land of the tin foil hat. Some people will never believe that a plane hit the Pentagon because a cartoon plane outline wasn't left in the wall of the building.

Solid concrete wall, pentagon is offices corridors etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2rlAoKiy4&feature=fvst


Is that what this video is meant to show....that there should have been the shape of a plane hole in the wall? Because I can't see it shows anything at all.

[gruntygiggles]

:lol: Gotta love the conspiracy nutcases.

Indeed, lets trash our own trader centre buildings, plunging our economy...

But then some poeope do have to find things to prove things that can't fully explained..

Hence leading me onto religion......

Dont get me started on that one LOL:D


Haha, yeah, I left that out of the thread title.....or did I? Seems Bishops Williamsons claims of his "evidence" against the holocaust got slamdunked on the first page or two :-)

[hindle8907]

http://engforum.pravda.ru/forumdisplay.php?21-The-9-11-Forum
I have found the above forum has some interesting information in the past.

[simesb]

http://engforum.pravda.ru/forumdisplay.php?21-the-9-11-forum
i have found the above forum has some interesting information in the past.

2 + 2 = 911? :scratch:

[gruntygiggles]

http://engforum.pravda.ru/forumdisplay.php?21-The-9-11-Forum
I have found the above forum has some interesting information in the past.

Can't see any bit of "proof" in there from the conspiracy theorists that cannot be countered by fact and disproved very very easily.

The thread with all the links is full of links to other conspiracy theory sites or 3rd party sites, not exactly trustworthy sources.

There's a reason the government isn't running around trying to prove themselves here....it's that they simply don't need to. The attitude is, if you want to believe that, go right ahead, because they don't care what tin hat wearers think.

[Sid Squid]

Never forget that history is written by the victors.

Which is not to say I don't believe the Holocaust happened, but I'm also well aware of the need for the history of any given event to support the victor's actions, so the loser's side will always be painted as badly as is possible.

[gruntygiggles]

Never forget that history is written by the victors.

Which is not to say I don't believe the Holocaust happened, but I'm also well aware of the need for the history of any given event to support the victor's actions, so the loser's side will always be painted as badly as is possible.


Which is precisely why you have to do your own research and go from fact, not speculation.

The UK Government wants us to believe Dr. David Kelly killed himself....they won't convince me of that though...it doesn't add up.

[tactcom7]

Yeah I was talking about the WTC sorry I should have stated that. I was agreeing with you GG!

Although the point I was trying to make about the fire proofing etc was that had it not been blown off and the steel exposed to the flames, the building would have survived a lot longer. Perhaps long enough to evacuate everyone.

[gruntygiggles]

Yeah I was talking about the WTC sorry I should have stated that. I was agreeing with you GG!

Although the point I was trying to make about the fire proofing etc was that had it not been blown off and the steel exposed to the flames, the building would have survived a lot longer. Perhaps long enough to evacuate everyone.


Yep, agree with that. I think it would only have given the trapped another 5 or so minutes but that's a lot of people that oculd have got out.

[tactcom7]

It beggars belief when the people in the second tower stayed there after it was confirmed what had happened to the first. I know there was a lot of confusion at first, but be it bomb, plane or gas leak explosion, I've pulled a sicky for far less!

[Daimo]

It beggars belief when the people in the second tower stayed there after it was confirmed what had happened to the first. I know there was a lot of confusion at first, but be it bomb, plane or gas leak explosion, I've pulled a sicky for far less!

They were not allowed to leave IIRC?

Same way we were kept in the building when the 7/7 bombing happened. I was not impressed.

[tactcom7]

If i'd just seen a plane fly into the building next to me then I don't think anything could make me stay inside if I didn't want to.

[gruntygiggles]

They were not allowed to leave IIRC?

Same way we were kept in the building when the 7/7 bombing happened. I was not impressed.

Containment until information becomes available. It's a tough one. Keep them in when there might be explosives outside, (remembering that there were so many secondary explosions from tower 1) would have been deemed the safest option. At the initial stages it was thought to be an horrific accident, not an attack. It was when the second tower was hit that people really began calling it a terrorist attack.

Lesson learned on that one I think.

[gruntygiggles]

If i'd just seen a plane fly into the building next to me then I don't think anything could make me stay inside if I didn't want to.

I don't think anyone in tower 2 did see that it was a plane. The general concensus from survivors was that they thought it was another bomb. The WTC was bombed before remember and was left relatively undamaged. For Tower 2, it was not as it appeared to the outside world.

That said, yeah, I agree with you, regardless of seeing a plane, you wouldn't keep me in a building if I'd heard such a massive explosion next door. I'm too nosey, I'd be out as soon as I could be to see what was happening.

[Specialone]

Actually GG the fire was hot enough to damage the beams cos that's exactly what happened!
As Bri said, the fire was enough to distort the structure of them and then it was game over.
Discovery showed a program where they heated beams up which were the same size as common beams in the towers, they distorted quite easily when heat from a normal fire was applied which these were under load.

These are facts about the beams not speculation.

I'll never be convinced of the pentagon tbh, cameras everywhere, 1 grainy vid of impact.
The fuselage of the plane would disintegrate because its made of nothing, but there would be a lot more debris as there is when planes face plant from great heights into solid ground, there is still debris.

[Sid Squid]

Natural Law - by Voodoo Master. (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-%26-technology/allow-me-to-explain-natural-law%2c-says-celibate-voodoo-witch%11doctor-201002022430/)

[Milky Bar Kid]

I don't believe any of the conspiricy theories on 9/11 be it the WTC or the Pentagon or the other flight that went down before it could reach the Whitehouse.

People seem to want to look for things that just aren't there.

Specialone, GG wasn't saying the heat wasn't enough to cause a weakness in the steel, she was responding to you saying they melted, they didn't. They were weakened and due to the sheer extra load they were supporting because of the damage floors, they distorted and eventually collapsed. I don't really get why people seem to think the building should have gone sideways? What would possibly have caused it to fall over? The plane hit, the building initially withstood the impact so it was stablised. It didn't have any other force which would have caused it to "fall over". I'm no physics boffin but I would say that it was a fairly obvious result?

Bloody hell, these buildings were specifically designed NOT to fall over sideways. They are not trees....!

Anyway, as for the Pope. Well. Even if he is a head of state, still think we are spending far too much money on having him here.

[punyXpress]

The UK Government wants us to believe Dr. David Kelly killed himself....

He may have done, but some barsteward was leaning on him pretty heavy to make him do that.

[gruntygiggles]

Actually GG the fire was hot enough to damage the beams cos that's exactly what happened!
As Bri said, the fire was enough to distort the structure of them and then it was game over.
Discovery showed a program where they heated beams up which were the same size as common beams in the towers, they distorted quite easily when heat from a normal fire was applied which these were under load.

These are facts about the beams not speculation.

I'll never be convinced of the pentagon tbh, cameras everywhere, 1 grainy vid of impact.
The fuselage of the plane would disintegrate because its made of nothing, but there would be a lot more debris as there is when planes face plant from great heights into solid ground, there is still debris.


Firstly, I never said the fire wasn't hot enough to damage the beams, I said it wasn't hot enough to melt steel. I also said it would have made little difference as they would have given way anyway due the additional load being put upon them.

Secondly, when a plane face plants the ground, it has nowhere else to go. It hits a fully solid object, there is nowhere for the debris to go but onto the surrounding land. When something seemingly solid like a plane comes into contact, under force with a more solid object, it literally pours like water as it breaks up into all the many pieces. Now, when that happens as it hits a totally solid object like the ground, it can only pour out to the sides or bounce off the surface it has hit as it breaks up.
However, when it hits an object that is more solid than it is, yet not a totally solid matter, it will pour through it. At the pentagon, the fusilage penetrated the wall in much the same way a piece of 2x4 can penetrate a brick wall in a tornado. A hole had been created, so space had been created and with nothing to stop it, the following parts of the aricraft, still carrying the momentum will simply break up and pour into the hole created by the initial impact. This is why the WTC planes disappeared. Their mass (the mass of the towers) was not enough to slow the progress of the planes enough, they simply went in and were broken by both the beams and the explosion, but they did not then stop. The debris poured out of the other side of the towers like water coming from a jug.

[gruntygiggles]

This can easily be shown in your kitchen. Take a jug of water and hold it 3ft above the work counter. Pour it on and it will go everywhere because it does not have the force to break the surface it is hitting, so has nowhere else to go. Then pour that same amount of water from the same hight into a bowl of a more solid, but not totally soild matter, like a bowl of dry cous cous or pasta. The water will, through force penetrate the surface of the contents of the bowl and the penetration creates a hole, which is space in which the rest of the water will follow. You will get small bits of water splashing out, but the majority of the volume of water will fill the hole and come to rest inside the object it has hit, not outside it.

[tactcom7]

http://noorslist.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pentagon_plane3d.jpg

dunno if this works using iPhone...

[slark01]

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.
What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?

1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.
3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?

Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.
No building we can construct today would have been able to withstand the impact of the terrorist airplanes that struck the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001. We can, however, learn from the collapse of the towers and take steps to construct safer buildings and minimize the number of casualties in the event of a disaster.
When the Twin Towers were constructed in the 1970s, the builders were granted some exemptions from New York's building codes. The exemptions allowed the builders to use lightweight materials so the skyscrapers could achieve greater heights. But, the consequences were devastating. According to Charles Harris, author of Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (compare prices (http://erclk.about.com/?zi=1/23j3)), fewer people would have died on September 11, 2001 if the Twin Towers had used the type of fireproofing required by older building codes.
A tragic legacy of September 11 is that buildings in New York City must now adhere to more demanding building codes. Tall office buildings are required to have more durable fireproofing, an extra emergency exit, and many other safety features. Based on suggestions outlined in a lengthy government report published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), New York's building codes have been adopted by cities across the United States.

[gruntygiggles]

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.
What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?

1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.
3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?

Before the terrorist attack, the twin towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, the World Trade Center towers were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.
No building we can construct today would have been able to withstand the impact of the terrorist airplanes that struck the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001. We can, however, learn from the collapse of the towers and take steps to construct safer buildings and minimize the number of casualties in the event of a disaster.
When the Twin Towers were constructed in the 1970s, the builders were granted some exemptions from New York's building codes. The exemptions allowed the builders to use lightweight materials so the skyscrapers could achieve greater heights. But, the consequences were devastating. According to Charles Harris, author of Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (compare prices (http://erclk.about.com/?zi=1/23j3)), fewer people would have died on September 11, 2001 if the Twin Towers had used the type of fireproofing required by older building codes.
A tragic legacy of September 11 is that buildings in New York City must now adhere to more demanding building codes. Tall office buildings are required to have more durable fireproofing, an extra emergency exit, and many other safety features. Based on suggestions outlined in a lengthy government report published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), New York's building codes have been adopted by cities across the United States.


Ste, you killed the thread with truth :rolleyes: :cool:

[beabert]

I don't believe any of the conspiricy theories on 9/11 be it the WTC or the Pentagon or the other flight that went down before it could reach the Whitehouse.

People seem to want to look for things that just aren't there.

Specialone, GG wasn't saying the heat wasn't enough to cause a weakness in the steel, she was responding to you saying they melted, they didn't. They were weakened and due to the sheer extra load they were supporting because of the damage floors, they distorted and eventually collapsed. I don't really get why people seem to think the building should have gone sideways? What would possibly have caused it to fall over? The plane hit, the building initially withstood the impact so it was stablised. It didn't have any other force which would have caused it to "fall over". I'm no physics boffin but I would say that it was a fairly obvious result?

Bloody hell, these buildings were specifically designed NOT to fall over sideways. They are not trees....!

Anyway, as for the Pope. Well. Even if he is a head of state, still think we are spending far too much money on having him here.

Well said MBK :-)

I have no idea why people try to look for things that arent there either, people need to start thinking independantly.

[Specialone]

This can easily be shown in your kitchen. Take a jug of water and hold it 3ft above the work counter. Pour it on and it will go everywhere because it does not have the force to break the surface it is hitting, so has nowhere else to go. Then pour that same amount of water from the same hight into a bowl of a more solid, but not totally soild matter, like a bowl of dry cous cous or pasta. The water will, through force penetrate the surface of the contents of the bowl and the penetration creates a hole, which is space in which the rest of the water will follow. You will get small bits of water splashing out, but the majority of the volume of water will fill the hole and come to rest inside the object it has hit, not outside it.
Great theory :)
The reason i mentioned the face plant thing because people were saying how tough the pentagon was, ie immovable object.
Where your theory loses a bit of fact is, did you see the size of the crater the lockerbie 747 left? Yet there was loads of identifiable debris :smt045

Im bored with this now, 9 out of 10 conspiracies can be explained very easily, except the pentagon imo.

Some are laughable tbh.

[simesb]

Where your theory loses a bit of fact is, did you see the size of the crater the lockerbie 747 left? Yet there was loads of identifiable debris :smt045

Soil and residential buildings != building designed to be bomb proof (literally)

[gruntygiggles]

Great theory :)
The reason i mentioned the face plant thing because people were saying how tough the pentagon was, ie immovable object.
Where your theory loses a bit of fact is, did you see the size of the crater the lockerbie 747 left? Yet there was loads of identifiable debris :smt045

Im bored with this now, 9 out of 10 conspiracies can be explained very easily, except the pentagon imo.

Some are laughable tbh.

Soil and residential buildings != building designed to be bomb proof (literally)


Simesb, I like your argument, but it is not needed in this case, see below.

Specialone, the crater left by the Lockerbie distaster, in fact anything to do with the Lockerbie disaster has nothing to do with, or is able to be used to compare with anything that happened on 9/11.

The reason for that is, Pan Am flight 103 expolded in air, due to a bomb planted on the plane. There was no face plant. The plane had already broken into many many pieces well before it hit the ground in Lockerbie. What fell to the ground was the debris left after the explosion.

Yes, there would have been a crater, without researching this (as I haven't done), a single engine hitting the ground from such height would easily cause a large crater. Debris falling would fall across a huge area, as it did. Look it up.

There was no face plant with Pan Am flight 103. Totally different situations, so the Lockerbie disaster cannot be used to justify conspiracies around the Pentagon disaster.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Great theory :)
The reason i mentioned the face plant thing because people were saying how tough the pentagon was, ie immovable object.
Where your theory loses a bit of fact is, did you see the size of the crater the lockerbie 747 left? Yet there was loads of identifiable debris :smt045

Im bored with this now, 9 out of 10 conspiracies can be explained very easily, except the pentagon imo.

Some are laughable tbh.

Seriously, go and do your bloody research before you make a post like that.

Pan Am 103 DID NOT face plant the ground, or even hit any object on the ground. It exploded MID AIR and its thought that the debris from the plane travelled a distance of 1 nautical mile. The crater was caused, from what I know, was caused by the fuselage (sp) landing on Sherwood Cresent. As far as I am aware, an engine also landed within the town. It is an entirely different sitation and is in no way comparible to any of the 9/11 incidents.

A plane exploding mid air, 21 and a half years ago, is SLIGHTLY different from a plane flying PURPOSELY into a REINFORCED building in 2001. Significant differences there.:rolleyes:

[BanannaMan]

As for the holocaust ...

A local fellow (now deceased) was an army photograher in WWII .
Took some photos of several concentration camps as and after they were being taken by the US. Unbelievable horrors.
Nude bodies from the gas chambers stacked up like firewood waiting to be burned. There were some mass graves dug but the nazi's had to retreat before they could use them.
Few prisoners freed so starved they looked like skeletons.
Obvious torture victims and deaths. Huge piles of teeth pulled out to later extract the filings.

Hard to believe people could be so cruel.




As for 9/11...

I think Elvis is still alive was behind the whole thing. ;)

[gruntygiggles]

As for the holocaust ...

A local fellow (now deceased) was an army photograher in WWII .
Took some photos of several concentration camps as and after they were being taken by the US. Unbelievable horrors.
Nude bodies from the gas chambers stacked up like firewood waiting to be burned. There were some mass graves dug but the nazi's had to retreat before they could use them.
Few prisoners freed so starved they looked like skeletons.
Obvious torture victims and deaths. Huge piles of teeth pulled out to later extract the filings.

Hard to believe people could be so cruel.




As for 9/11...

I think Elvis is still alive was behind the whole thing. ;)

Darn that Elvis!

[Sid Squid]

I think Elvis is still alive was behind the whole thing. ;)
There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1HnrcyACY&feature=related)

[Specialone]

Seriously, go and do your bloody research before you make a post like that.

Pan Am 103 DID NOT face plant the ground, or even hit any object on the ground. It exploded MID AIR and its thought that the debris from the plane travelled a distance of 1 nautical mile. The crater was caused, from what I know, was caused by the fuselage (sp) landing on Sherwood Cresent. As far as I am aware, an engine also landed within the town. It is an entirely different sitation and is in no way comparible to any of the 9/11 incidents.

A plane exploding mid air, 21 and a half years ago, is SLIGHTLY different from a plane flying PURPOSELY into a REINFORCED building in 2001. Significant differences there.:rolleyes:
Missed this yesterday Nic, i do know about this actually, i remember it well but a plane is still a plane, because it exploded there was less of it that actually hit one spot and it still caused a big crater.
So there is a lot of similarities as with any plane crash.
Stop trying to pick bones out of my post, my reference to lockerbie was just stating to GG that a mass of a plane impacting on a immoveable object, ie the ground, doesnt just disintergrate, it leaves a bloody big hole with lots of debris.
Why is everyone lately always taking posts the worst ****ing way?
Its starting to pi55 me off.

I suggest you read my posts a bit first next time before jumping down my throat and dont assume i know nothing about what im posting about, cos i do most of the time.

[BanannaMan]

There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.




:takeabow:

See, I knew it!!!! He is still alive!

And there is video proof (begining about 1:45 mins. in) that he had the capability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYAHmjaeoTA





Yep,
There were two shooters on the grassy knoll.
Man never landed on the moon. 9/11, the halocaust, Elvis, all of it.
It's just a conspiracy by the government!!!!

And with all that cosmetic surgery, how do we know Michael Jackson is really dead?
He's probably filling in at the chip shop when Elvis is out with his muslim friends.

[Bri w]

:takeabow:

See, I knew it!!!! He is still alive!

And there is video proof (begining about 1:45 mins. in) that he had the capability:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYAHmjaeoTA





Yep,
There were two shooters on the grassy knoll.
Man never landed on the moon. 9/11, the halocaust, Elvis, all of it.
It's just a conspiracy by the government!!!!

And with all that cosmetic surgery, how do we know Michael Jackson is really dead?
He's probably filling in at the chip shop when Elvis is out with his muslim friends.

Bill, absolutely spot on............. apart from the Michael Jackson thing. Rumour has it that as the Catholic priest sex scandal broke he decided it was an opportunity he couldn't miss. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-NkJm3T-qc

[arc123]

2002 called - wants it's thread back...

[gruntygiggles]

Missed this yesterday Nic, i do know about this actually, i remember it well but a plane is still a plane, because it exploded there was less of it that actually hit one spot and it still caused a big crater.
So there is a lot of similarities as with any plane crash.
Stop trying to pick bones out of my post, my reference to lockerbie was just stating to GG that a mass of a plane impacting on a immoveable object, ie the ground, doesnt just disintergrate, it leaves a bloody big hole with lots of debris.
Why is everyone lately always taking posts the worst ****ing way?
Its starting to pi55 me off.

I suggest you read my posts a bit first next time before jumping down my throat and dont assume i know nothing about what im posting about, cos i do most of the time.


I do see the point you're making Specialone about a plane being a plane and similarities in all crashes, but and I won't speak for Nic, she can do that herself, the reason I went into more detail is simply that when you look at the physics of each crash, there really is no comparison that is significant enough for it to be used to cast doubt on the fact that it was a plane that hit the pentagon. I put in an experiment you can do with water, go do it. Exact same amounts of water from the exact same height, one poured onto a solid, immovable surface, another poured onto a semi-solid surface. The resulting debris (water in this case) will be undeniably different. It's the same with a plane. If you want to use the word crater, then yes, at the pentagon, the plane created a crater (hole) in which the rest of the plane, through the forces of motion followed and came to rest...because the Pentagon is not a solid object. It is semi solid, it contains air and so there was space for the plane to move into.
At the Lockerbie crash site, the plane was already in bits before impact. The crater would have been made by the larger, heavier (more solid) parts of the plane, but the crater there was in no way sufficent in size or depth to have allowed the rest of the plane to flow into it. Also, this would never have happened because the plane was not a complete object hitting the ground. The debris there was caused by some inpact damage and some scattering of parts as they fell from the sky.

It is, in no doubt at all, a totally different scenario to the Pentagon Crash.

I am not interested in proving people wrong, there is no wrong, there is just the forming of opinion based on teh facts available, but I would hope that anyone with even a small grasp of physics, gravity, motion etc would be able to look at the Lockerbie site and totally disregard it when trying to use it as evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

It's a discussion, no more. Feel the love, just keep your mind open :-)