9/11 what really happened?

Originally Posted by akbarhussain

No, but i'm sure you're gonna tell me that you have?

If so, i'd be intereste to know at what temperature aviation fuel burns? Then I can compare this with the temperature that the steel croe would melt (something like putting 2 and 2 togethor) to come up with 17.

So what about building 7?

Sorry couldn't get close enough to hold the thermometer there.

So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Look no-one knows why things exactly happen, they put the clues together and
ascertian a likely solution.

Originally Posted by DanDare

So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Please point out where I said any of those things?

Sorry couldn't get close enough to hold the thermometer there.

ridiculous.

Look no-one knows why things exactly happen, they put the clues together and
ascertian a likely solution.

Exactly what I am doing, my old fruit

So what about Building 7?

fraid i can't answer your q's re WTC7. was it hit by any debris from 1 and 2? the collapse of 1 & 2 would have created huge shocks and vibrations, did it effect the integrity of 7? any foundation collapse due to 1 & 2 going?

dunno.

[quote="akbarhussain"]

Originally Posted by DanDare

So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Please point out where I said any of those things?

[quote]quote]

In that case please for the rest of make your claim as to what you think happened.
I don't mean giving clues to suggest what might of happened....What do you believe happened on that day so as to lay this to rest! Then we understand where your coming form and leave it at that. Maybe lock the thread perhaps????

Originally Posted by keithd

fraid i can't answer your q's re WTC7. was it hit by any debris from 1 and 2? the collapse of 1 & 2 would have created huge shocks and vibrations, did it effect the integrity of 7? any foundation collapse due to 1 & 2 going?

dunno.

The official explanation is that fires were started in Building 7 due to the initial impacts on the Twin Towers - unfortunatley, the neo-cons have not had the luxury of 'aviation fuel' to fall back on here, so they never tried to explain it.

As with the Twin Towers, Building 7 fell in almost perfect free-fall. Almost like it was a controlled demolition.

Originally Posted by akbarhussain

What, and thats any less likely than three steel cored sky scrapers collapsing within 3 hours of one another from fire damage (the only three in history I might add)? Or that the CIA would have been conducting a simulation into 'what to do in the event of hijacked planes' on the morning of 9/11? Or that all NORAD procedures were discounted that day, and no fighter jets were dispatched. Even to the plane flying towards the Pentagon more than an hour later? Or a plane hitting the most guarded and recorded buliding in the world without being recorded on any camera? Or it being a coincidence that there was alarmingly high share dealing on American Airlines stock (enough for it to be checked out on Wall Street) in the weeks leading upto 9/11? Or that the FBI were able to name all 15 hijackers within hours of the events (despite the fact that some have since turned up alive)? Or that a supposed hijackers passport survived the crashes and was 'found' in the wreckage of the towers?

I won't continue....

No please continue. I still fail to see anything factual here that can be independantly verified and substantiated. By fact, I dont mean hearsay and rumour of "he said this" "they said that" "X is quoted as saying this" which is what seems to count as fact on conspiracy sites. I find it odd that everyone who questions the media and government spin which is perfectly reasonable, seemingly fails to question on an equal basis what is behind these theories.

Re the AA stock - some light reading for you to consider:

Not only does the relatively modest action belie some daring market conspiracy by those in touch with terror plans, but the pre-Sept. 11 market history is also consistent, more or less, with business as usual. Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC, a consulting company that does research on markets worldwide, has crunched the numbers and recently told Insight magazine:

"The market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway, and it would have been a good time to short them.”

The downward trend in the airline stocks was backed up in the pre-Sept. 11 trading picture.

Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072).

With United and American stock transactions, and across the board, there is an automated system called the CBOE Market Surveillance System, which automatically records information trades. The existence of this sophisticated surveillance system, designed to ferret out inside-traders, would have given federal investigators a pretty quick look at what, if anything, was untoward in the market just prior to 9-11.

The fact is that prior to 9/11 it WASNT being checked out on Wall St. Since then it has and to date nothing has been found to substantiate anything more than the fact AA stock was dropping anyway given the economic circumstances.

Im still waiting for a plausible reason why an airline would record people checking in and boarding then allow 3 planes to take off empty and what happened to over 500 people. Sorry but I live in the real world where the balance of probability of the people dieing on the planes is sadly more probable than a mass kidnap, mass murder and government conspiracy.

Re the steel core skyscrapers - well as far as Im aware these are the only ones in history to be hit by jet planes.
Is it really outside the realms of probablity that many engineers have explained the collapse based on engineering and physics principles it has to be a government conspiracy?

Re the CIA exercise - source please.

I seem to recall video of the plane hitting the pentagon being released recently. As for cameras on the WTC, I hardly think they would survive.

Like I said earlier, I dont think its a government conspiracy. I think its a US government/intelligence **** up and thats what theyre trying to hide, but by doing so giving all the anti-government people ammuntion for some downright improbable theories.

[quote="DanDare"][quote="akbarhussain"]

Originally Posted by DanDare

So Akbar me old fruit, where did you study into Aeronautics? How long have you been a structual engineer and architect. And whats it like being a Petrochemist and Composites engineer????

Please point out where I said any of those things?

[quote]

In that case please for the rest of make your claim as to what you think happened.
I don't mean giving clues to suggest what might of happened....What do you believe happened on that day so as to lay this to rest! Then we understand where your coming form and leave it at that. Maybe lock the thread perhaps????

Sorry Dan, but i'm afraid I am not Miss Marple in disguise. Lets just say that there are far too many gaping holes in the official story for me to beleive in it.... gaping holes that could have been closed in my eyes if proper procedure was follwed, as KeithD suggested with the Steel, tests carried out could have conclusively proved what happened that day. Wherever any kind of test/examination coul've been carried out...... it seems that they were not. To me that is not conspiracy theory, simply questions that could and should have been answered.

[Viney]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

This is no less valid than the rubbish posted in the mega thread. Don't like it, don't read it.

You know what you can do.

Originally Posted by lynw

No please continue.

Fine, I will come back to your post and answer your points one by one.

But to start with, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

[Viney]

Look, no one knows what the hell happened as most of the people inside are dead. Its all down the theorys and suchlike, so whats the god damn point of arguing over something that NONE of us know about. Blimey