haight
Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure you're right.
911 conspiracy theory
- Thread starter guy incognito
- Start date
smokyadams
Active Member
Osama bin Laden publicly gloated about and repeatedly referred to al Qaeda's "success" on September 11, 2001. In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, "I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers ... with those raids..."
Of course, that is not enough proof for many. The most popular alternating theory in America is that 9/11 happened - either on purpose or by passive allowance - because the Bush administration was itching to go to war in the Middle East. Any official government denial would, of course, not be enough for truthers, so perhaps the words of one of the world's biggest skeptics would help. Noam Chomsky, the infamous "libertarian socialist" who had no fond feelings for George W. Bush nor America's global ambitions, thought truther theories to be utter nonsense, and not just because the science of their theories doesn't add up
Of course, that is not enough proof for many. The most popular alternating theory in America is that 9/11 happened - either on purpose or by passive allowance - because the Bush administration was itching to go to war in the Middle East. Any official government denial would, of course, not be enough for truthers, so perhaps the words of one of the world's biggest skeptics would help. Noam Chomsky, the infamous "libertarian socialist" who had no fond feelings for George W. Bush nor America's global ambitions, thought truther theories to be utter nonsense, and not just because the science of their theories doesn't add up
smokyadams
Active Member
The Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled explosion
This theory generally gets explained via a question: How could an airplane possibly bring down a building as large as the World Trade Center without explosives?
Perhaps it's best to let engineers answer this one. Popular Mechanics magazine writes: "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper... pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
This theory generally gets explained via a question: How could an airplane possibly bring down a building as large as the World Trade Center without explosives?
Perhaps it's best to let engineers answer this one. Popular Mechanics magazine writes: "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper... pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
smokyadams
Active Member
[h=2]
[/h]
A missile, and not a plane, hit the Pentagon
There are two main reasons this theory exists: One, the high security levels required at and near the Pentagon limited outside reporting from the disaster site; Two, all the public really saw were some small-ish holes in the building itself.
Never mind the fact that hundreds of thousands of people live near the Pentagon and therefore at least a few of them would have seen an airborne missile, or the jet that fired it, this is another one best explained by an engineer.
Popular Mechanics magazine writes: "Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says (Pentagon inspection) team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid
There are two main reasons this theory exists: One, the high security levels required at and near the Pentagon limited outside reporting from the disaster site; Two, all the public really saw were some small-ish holes in the building itself.
Never mind the fact that hundreds of thousands of people live near the Pentagon and therefore at least a few of them would have seen an airborne missile, or the jet that fired it, this is another one best explained by an engineer.
Popular Mechanics magazine writes: "Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says (Pentagon inspection) team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The 1832ºF number looks oddly precise until one remembers that it probably is a transcription of a thousand Celsius. cnThe Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled explosion
This theory generally gets explained via a question: How could an airplane possibly bring down a building as large as the World Trade Center without explosives?
Perhaps it's best to let engineers answer this one. Popular Mechanics magazine writes: "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper... pockets of fire hit 1832°F."
halfloaf
Active Member
In 3 1/2 min it can reach over 1100 degrees. Even in rooms that are not on fire the temp can reach over 300 degrees which will melt plastic and kill people.
The same shit that you said brought down the towers LMFAO.
In houses they have curtains and furniture and rugs may even have paper.
The same shit that you said brought down the towers LMFAO.
In houses they have curtains and furniture and rugs may even have paper.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
I tired researching your first fact and couldn't find any information supporting your claim. I called you out on it once before and you posted it again, to which I responded:
Please clear this up.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Do you understand the difference between dynamic and static forces?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Clearly proof. Precedent can never be set, only followed.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
I will evaluate the evidence on a case by case basis.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Do you understand how hard it is to orchestrate 911 as an inside job? Orders of magnitude harder than flying a plane. I know, I know, flying a plane is extremely difficult. It's not impossible though. I can see a fucking plane out the window right now. I see them all the time. Thousands of people can fly planes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States
[h=2]
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Explosives are a huge issue though. If it were a controlled demolition you would cut every support structure AT THE BASE and let gravity and the unfathomable amount of potential energy do the rest. You would not sever any supports other than near the ground. It would take far too much time and explosives to do anything else.
So if it falls into it's own footprint then its a controlled demo? And if it tips slightly and doesn't fall into it's own footprint it's ALSO proof of a CD? Isn't that pretty convenient for your wacky theory? And doesn't that also not make sense?
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Incorrect. The entire premise of a controlled demolition is to let gravity and potential energy do much of the work for you. Read the link above for some calculations. The potential energy just from the weight of the tower falling is equivalent to approximately 272 tons of tnt. Why add more explosives than you need to?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Ugh. Your ignorance is alarming. http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Oh you mean like a FUCKING 450 MILLION KG building falling down?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Not just an amateur welder, but a welder by trade. Wow. That is scary.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think it's sort a hot. cn
srh88
Well-Known Member
whats funny is i got a piece of 2nd tower that fell, they brought some of it to a yard i was working at in coatesville PA so i cut a little off, tell me how strong it was that i got some of a beam that i cut with an OA cutting torch. im not taking sides but i will say guy incognito is right on this one.. but i will say the government did play parts.. they found planted bombs and all that shit.. but it was 10 years ago, we're already deciding on a new president after the one after bush. its a done deal
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
The point is that we no longer live in a free democracy and that election coming up is as big a sham as if it were held in Iran.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
Dude, I can fly a plane dumbass. Im saying that it is extremely difficult to maneuver a 757 into a target as small as a building.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
I 2nd that, near impossible for Capt Sully even!