Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

If Uncle Sam came on the tv today and said the Grover Monster was a terrorist, and had cut his ties to the Peaceloving Sesame Street Regime, you fools would swallow it hook line and sinker, even though Grover Monster would still be on the same show still.


If Rense started posting on his site that there are pink elephants flying about, and that it is a coverup because it's not covered on tv, and the government is not giving any information about it, you would be the fool to believe it.....

Please do try to make your point by posting facts....not by trying to imply that believing in your wild conspiracies = being intelligent....


Another thing I have noticed, I haven't seen any "reliable" reports on the pools of melted steel that you mention....

Anyways... in order for a collapse to happen in buildings such as the WTC, you don't need to have a fire of 2,000 degree C.... if we use moderate figures as to the highest temperature of the fires in the WTC, it will be around 1,000 degree C.

Structural steel begins to soften at 425 degree C, it loses half it's strength at 650 degree C, but even that does not truly account for the collapse of the towers.

There is a known problem in structural fires called "yield level residual stress", which happens when there is a difference of 150 degree C between one location and another, this produces distortions in the steel which will result in structural buckling. Fires in any building are not uniform, and they differ in intensity from one location to another, more so when you add fuel from an aircraft which will make the fires even hotter in those places where the fuel is burning.

Taking these "facts" into account, and also the fact that all skyscrapers are built in a manner that they collapse straight down, and you have the real reasons why the WTC collapsed.

In a side note, skyscrapers do not fall sideways, unless the top of the building swings more than halfway the width of the building, which would be nearly impossible. This did not, and could not, occur when an aircraft hits a building.


[edit on 1-10-2004 by Muaddib]




posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
HowardRoark, you my friend are deluded. All that time and effort you put into typing a rebuttal was a complete waste of time, because NO FIRE HAS EVER CAUSED THE COLLAPSE OF A STEEL FRAMED HIGH RISE, ever. Name one case of fire bringing a building down. Oxygen starved means little or no oxygen available by the way, fuel rich or oxygen poor, either way it means cooler combustion temperatures.
Now, why is it you are so intent on arguing, when it is obvious that you are full of it? Do you honestly think fire fighters and eye witnesses are going to fabricate hearing and seeing explosions? Do you really believe that a oxygen starved, or even fuel rich fire melts steel into pools of molten steel? You already tried to say that was unsubstantiated and I have shown you to be incorrect, CDI reported molten steel pools themselves. As to the seismic data, dude wake up. The greatest seismic spikes come at the moment the towers begin to collapse, not when the rubble hits the ground. Now to the matter of twisting words around to make them fit the arguement, here you call the kettle black my friend. If the evidence I have presented here isn't enough to make you open your eyes, then you are sadly misled by the official story behind the WTC collapse beyond the point of recompense. Your whole argument is based on an impossibility, fire doesn't collapse steel high rise structures, at all. Address this simple fact, or at elast change your arguement, you'd be alot better off trying to argue that the planes caused the collapse than the ridiculous notion that fire did. Let me say this slowly adn carefully for you in case you don't get it once again, FIRE DOESN"T CAUSE STEEL HIGH RISES TO COLLAPSE, FIRE DOESN"T EXPLAIN POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL, FIRE DOESN"T CAUSE VAPORIZED STEEL, ad nauseum. Laugh, make slights, rearrange the information all you like, it still doesn't amount to an intelligible arguement.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I think people should focus on what brought down Seven WTC. It was not fire and it was not falling debris damaged, the place pancaked like an acoordian eight hours after debris stopped falling.

If there were bombs in the WTC then wow, those pilots did a hellajob flying into the exact right spot where the bombs were.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I think people should focus on what brought down Seven WTC. It was not fire and it was not falling debris damaged, the place pancaked like an acoordian eight hours after debris stopped falling.
If there were bombs in the WTC then wow, those pilots did a hellajob flying into the exact right spot where the bombs were.

Bombs may not be the correct term, squibs would be mroe accurate, of course Roark here has claimed the squibs you can see going off during the collapse are digital glitches in the cameras that shot the footage, which is so ridiculous it isn't worth addressing. The planes had little to do with the explosions in the basement, explosions reported by numerous reports from firefighters and eye witnesses that some here completely ignore. I'm sure it is pure cooincidence that it collpased moments after the order came to "pull it". The tv said that the fires caused the collapse...I saw it on tv so it must be true, let's not look into it any further cause we all know how honest and forthright our government is.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   
That's it?

that is the only response you can make?
What about all of the other points that I made? are you admitting that I am right?




[edit on 2-10-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
It is not true that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. While it isn't a multi-story building, the collapse of the McCormick building from fire is notable in that the roof trusses which failed were very much like the trusses in the WTC towers.


www.chipublib.org...


As for the two towers, the collapses were due to a combination of structural damage from the impact and fire. You have not provided any information to the contrary. and unless to can put the letters P.E. after your name, I doubt that you would ever be able to.


Here are a couple of rather interesting reports for your perusal.

Notice that the author of these reports can put the letters PhD, and P.E. after his name, something none of the authors that your like to cite can do.

irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca...

irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca...


one on WTC 3
www.house.gov...

and another


www.nibs.org...'s%20revised%20paper.pdf

The point of all of this is that all buildings are different. The fact that WTC7 collapsed after burning for 7 hours is not all that remarkable considering the circumstances.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Is this one of them?

www.libertyforum.org...






[edit on 2-10-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
hey, Twitchy, I found an author for you that is a "PhD."


www.xlibris.de...



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
FIRE DOESN"T CAUSE VAPORIZED STEEL,



www.tms.org...



Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a blacksmiths weld in a hand forge.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
What about the so-called seismic evidence?

Are you still standing by that or are you going to admit thatyou were wrong?



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
HowardRoark, you my friend are deluded. All that time and effort you put into typing a rebuttal was a complete waste of time, because NO FIRE HAS EVER CAUSED THE COLLAPSE OF A STEEL FRAMED HIGH RISE, ever. Name one case of fire bringing a building down.


Name one?Of course he can't name one because.....

A FULLY FUELED JET-LINER HAS NEVER BEEN CRASHED INTO A SKY-SCRAPER BEFORE LET ALONE TWICE IN A DAY.

Are you retarted?

Hello?? McFly?



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
1945 Plane Crash Rocked NYC
Army Air Corps B-25 bomber
Hit the Empire State Building
14 Killed




Sept. 11 The last time a plane crashed into a New York City skyscraper was July 28, 1945. A U.S. bomber flying through thick fog at about 200 mph crashed into the Empire State Building, one of the most recognized structures in the world.


On that day in 1945, an Army Air Corps B-25 bomber headed from Bedford, Mass., to Newark, N.J., was lumbering low over Manhattan in extremely thick fog, according to reports.
Lt. Col. William F. Smith Jr., the pilot of the B-25, was told to land at Municipal Airport in Queens (now known as LaGuardia). But he insisted for clearance at Newark, according to a New York Times report
abcnews.go.com...



[edit on 2/10/2004 by Sauron]


LL1

posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The WTC was built to form hollow tubes to allow for the most office space. Know what the going rate is for office space in NYC?!
Well check!
The more space the more RENT $$$$$ that can be collected!
The floors had no real support, just open space, an acre per floor.

Now 110 floors, an arce each, hit with planes filled with jet fuel, planes with enough fuel from east to west coast, with enough to circle if a gate is unavailable (FAA rules).

Remember it was engineers of urban design that designed the plan to fly the planes into the WTC.
11 of 19 hijackers had DEGREES in engineering. Don't you think they studied the blueprints first.
Temperatures reached 1300 to 1400 degrees!



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That's it?
that is the only response you can make?
What about all of the other points that I made? are you admitting that I am right?
[edit on 2-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

No, I am admitting that you are repetitive and deluded. What more do you need? The other points you made are all based on the impossible assumption that a building fire can melt structural steel into molten pools. Your statements and seismic references completely ignore the fact that the greatest energy readings came from the moment the collapse begins. In fact, oh wise one, the impact of the debris didn't show a reading as high as the spikes initiating the collapse. Not only do you fail to address this, you keep on rattling it off like it explains anything other than your blind faith in the official reports and the error of your argument. You address the squibs visible during the collapses as digital flukes. Admitting your right? Right about what? Magical super hot office fires that vaporize and melt structural steel? Right about multiple cameras all having the same magical digital flukes in the footage? Right about completely failing to address numerous reports of explosions? Failing to address the fact that WTC security pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out of the buildings, as well as failing to explain how the towers stood for hours after the impacts and appear sturdy enough that the fire fighters concluded that there was no danger of collapse and commence with normal rescue adn firefighting operations. Of course most fire fighters don't have PHD's so that makes them ignorant and proves that their reports of explosions are prue fabrications, I guess that is why they were excluded form testifying to the 9-11 comission. You also fail to address the blocking of investigations from the white house, why, in the face of the most horrific disaster to ever face this country would the white block investigations? WTC was a crime scene, and yet the evidence got hauled off as quickly as possible, I guess they didn't have letters after their names either. AS far as the blue prints from WTC, LOL what do you know, they won't release those either. Why were fighter jets ordered to stand down, this ought to be enough to make even the most skeptical person wonder, but not you. Why won't NORAD make any statements regarding their own terribly flawed time line? How about the scandals involving the Airline stocks, or the Patriot act magically being drafted in such a short amount of time. Why have you not addressed the wire transfers or the surge of trading through the WTC computers? Why are they supressing Sibel Edmonds? Why was the FBI pulled off the Bin Laden investigations? Why was CNN and other media outlets running stock footage fromt he first gulf war and claiming that it was live feed showing celebrating arabs on 9-11? How about the explosions in the building not impacted by planes? Why did Bush Lie about seeing the disaster unfold on television? Why did firefighters believe the flames were containable and the building was sturdy enough to commence with rescue operations? Why did you try to argue that the claims of molten steel were unsubstantiated, when that is a matter of public record? Why did seven of the reported terrorists turn out to be alive and well? You say that the guy that ran around cutting up tapes from ATC adn depositing them into seperate trash cans was bad judgement? Horse poop dude. The only issue you are even remotely capable of bringing to the table here is that fire gets hot, and there was seismic activity, other than that, you have little more than rhetoric. Why was FEMA already on location 9-10? Why are you avoiding the issue of eyewitness reports. Why are you trying so hard, yet failing so badly to explain an overwhelming amount of evidence? Swallowing the official story is your decision, but anybody who can read can see that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support demolition. The official accounts are ridiculous and it doesn't take a PHD to figrue that out.
How is the McCormick building relative? Similar?

Here again I ask you, why do you not address the explosions reported by fire fighters and witnesses, do they need a phd as well? Does it take a phd to know that CDI reported pools of molten steel? Does it take a phd to realize to understand this...
www.americanfreepress.net...
uscrisis.lege.net...
letsroll911.org...
I don't give a rat's butt what letters follow the names of your sources, as the information you present is not only irrelevant, but fails to address anything but your own pointed ignorance of thermodynamics and seismic data, your own source states quite clearly that the moment of greatest energy was before the collapse began. Experts, and especially you cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground. And by the way, Which is it dude, the fire or the impact that caused the collapses? If it was the impact, why did they stand for hours afterwards? IF it was the fires, then you live in a fantasy world where fuel rich, o2 starved office fires can melt structural steel. If it was both, then how did they fall into their foundations in a perfect footprint collapse with reporst of explosions. Do you have to have a phd to understand that you are ignoring the reports of explosions? Do you have to phd to know subsequent investigations of WTC were blocked by the White House? How many doctorates do you hold, and where does that lend any merit whatsoever to your arguement given your failure to address all but two issues on which I have shown you to be erroneous? How many PHD's do you need to have to realize that the official explination is full of holes? Big holes. And as far as your little slight, you really should try another tactic, you don't know me from adam and you have no clue what letters I can put after my name. Insulting me isn't going to do much but make you look like a bafoon. You are the one not addressing the issues, Why were the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out of the WTC, why do you not address the power down at WTC the weekend before. Why don't you address the real issues rather than going on and on trying to prove that normal fire melt steel? Why don't you answer the questions raised instead of droning on and on about seismic data, especially considering your data is a contridiction to your own argument because the seismic evidence clearly shows there was massive releases of energy causing 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes before ANY debris even hit the ground. Assuming you can only explain this away by shouting "that's not true" or "you have to have a PHD to say that" or by insulting me with personal remarks about what letters I can include after my name, then I have nothing further to say to you.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.

According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.

As seen on TV, the big fire, climbing higher and higher, is still more than 300 meters away from the base of the towers, not big enough to destroy the steels of the lower part.

He was surprised that a 40-storied supportive building beside the towers should collapse 6 hours later, for at that time the blast force by main towers should have been lost for a long time.

Professor Shi's conjecture coincides with a running rumor in the US that terrorists had planted explosives in advance and set them off on the sly after the airplane crash, so soon collapsed the twin towers.



thank you, professor shi for your expert(i have letters after my name, oooooo) testimony.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour.

The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour.

ten seconds! hardly the expected gradual collapse described above by professor shi, STEEL STRUCTURE EXPERT.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   
go twitchy, go. you fight big brother well, ....uh......brother.

"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."

Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.

ANOTHER source of heat BESIDES diesel fuel?!!



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

As seen on TV, the big fire, climbing higher and higher, is still more than 300 meters away from the base of the towers, not big enough to destroy the steels of the lower part.


The burning fuel also went all the way down to the lowest levels via air shafts. There were janitors burned by fire in some of the lowest levels of the buildings.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
1945 Plane Crash Rocked NYC
Army Air Corps B-25 bomber
Hit the Empire State Building
14 Killed


[edit on 2/10/2004 by Sauron]


Yes, very well known, but I said fully-fuel jet-liner, not piston-prop engine WWII plane. The Bomber that hit the ESB was hardly the size of a fully fueld jet-liner. When the second jet liner hit the WTC, the world saw wreckage of the plane come out the other side of the building, while the bomber was stopped cold by ESB.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Here again I ask you, why do you not address the explosions reported by fire fighters and witnesses, do they need a phd as well? Does it take a phd to know that CDI reported pools of molten steel? Does it take a phd to realize to understand this...
www.americanfreepress.net...
uscrisis.lege.net...
letsroll911.org...


This has been done to death here.

Those quotes by fire-fighters are being taken out of context over and over again. They "LIKENED" the sound of the collapsing buildings to the sounds of explosions. It is called a 'FIGURE OF SPEECH."

Geez.....





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join