9/11 Conspiracy theorists...

Since my last post on this thread I have done my own research and have come to a conclusion, but first an apology...

Sorry if I was rude to anyone and I am also sorry (not to anyone really, more for myself) that my ignorance and, even though I couldnt admit it, my passion blinded me.

Now I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 are part of something bigger than I can even imagine. Im not posting this to get a rise out of anyone, I would just like to get as much more info as I possibly can. Thank you to everyone who tried to open my eyes on this thread.

reply to post by BloodRedSky


Glad to see an open mind!!

NOW....did you read ALL of the data??


I realize my azz is hanging out in the breeze, just for even posting....because a lot of dogs are going to come along, to bite at it!!

Please, folks! READ EVERYTHING!! Then draw your conclusions.

Thanks!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ya! And I brought my dog with me lol and my open mind as well.

I have to say I believe 911 was an inside job.
It is only my opinion.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by BloodRedSky

 

Glad to see an open mind!!

NOW....did you read ALL of the data??

Im still reading up on info on both sides of the debate, but so far what Ive been reading has led me to believe that it was an inside job. I do think its healthy for the mind to consider both sides of the coin, though.

Im going to pick up "The Terror Conspiracy" by Jim Marrs tomorrow. Cant wait to read it...

reply to post by BloodRedSky


There are a bunch of great other books....but I'm not 'shilling' for them.

I'm going ot look into, though, the one you just mentioned, since it's new to me.

I tend to wait, (being cheap) for them to come out in soft-cover....but, anyways, good to hear about a new book, I love to read!!!

Thanks....

Originally posted by BloodRedSky
Thanks, but I still don't buy it. I know that most theorists think that the government destroyed the buildings to invade Iraq with the intentions of getting Saddam, but think about it, theres so many other ways they could have done it without killing so many innocent people.

No I don't think there was. Think about it...war is no small thing. IT may seem like it now because we have been in one for so long, but I remember back then all of the people that are so for the war now never would have been before 9/11. The government had to get people to have no doubt that going to war was the right thing. Think Pearl Harbor...it is the same concept. We knew about the attacks from Japan but let them happen anyway so we could get into WWII...

Before I read this last page I was getting pissed off. All I was hearing from bloodredsky was that he didnt see any proof of anything mischievious going on. That 15 middle eastern people with boxcutters organized the most notorious crime to ever happen on our soil, penetrating the worlds greatest superpower of a country, The United States Of America and utilizing our machines against us and flying them into some of the most protected areas of our country. Kinda makes us look like a joke right?

So yeah, im gonna go rob a bank and blow open the safe tomorrow with a popsickle stick. (joke, of course)

Look at the facts, the official story, the UNofficial story and the bigger picture. Watch the videos slow motion of that fateful day. Use freeze frame and check the contours of the planes. Something else was going on... thats apparent to a lot of people and more and more people believe it everyday.

I appreciate u taking the time out to read up and check out whats going on bloodredsky. I think you came into this post with your mind made up and you're gonna leave still wondering... is this what really happened?

Not saying the government did it all, not saying its a conspiracy, just saying theres more than what meets the eye in this case.
-Z-

I find this interesting, its from the OP's link of the NIST report.

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers? NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

I think molten steel is "relevant" considering the temperature required to melt steel.

Indeed. Airplane jet fuel does not combust hot enough to melt steel, even at prolonged exposure. Not even close, matter of factly. Many steel buildings have caught fire plenty of times in history... only 3 buildings to ever fall because of a fire happened in NY on 9/11/01.
Thats a HELL of a coincidence for ya.
And thats just the tip of the iceberg... theres numerous anomalies and when I say numerous, I mean NUMEROUS ANOMALIES in every aspect of the attacks that day.
I would have to say that the movie "Loose Change" is one of the better videos to watch if you want some good irrefutable proof. "In Plane Sight" is another good one.
Cheers guys.
-Z-

reply to post by ZyPHeR


How hard is it to understand that the steel did not need to melt for it to fail and that the molten metal, if any was truly found, was ALUMINUM, which WILL melt in a jet fuel fire.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Swamp....I really didnt want to go there....I'm not a metallurgist...maybe there are some in the audience??


I know that Jet-A will not 'melt' steel....nor will it melt Titanium. That's part of the reason why Jet engines are built out of certain metals....depending on where the 'hot section' is, for instance.

The theory is....a very hot fire 'could' result in a weakening of the structure, to the point that the weight of the structure above could then cause so much distress, that a collapse occurs.....and once the collapse starts, well....nothing will stop it, becaue of the forces involved.

AND those forces could result in molten steel, at the bottom of the collapse. Lots of Kinetic and Potential energy, involved.....

BUT, again....we need a metallurgist to come here, and give testimony. Otherwise we're just talking......

I know that Jet-A will not 'melt' steel....nor will it melt Titanium. That's part of the reason why Jet engines are built out of certain metals....depending on where the 'hot section' is, for instance.

Actually, according to the engine guys in my unit, the temps in the combustion chamber DO get hot enough to melt steel. The chambers are perforated all over which lets air into the chamber to "insulate" the steel from the combustion.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Swamp, I was writing while you were writing....I do know for a FACT that aluminum will melt, in a fire....because I used to have a pices of molten aluminum from a crash on the runway at Hawthorne Airport....can't remember the exact year guessing between 1975 and 1978....because I used to fly the airplane....N8282F

NOW....this was regular aviation fuel....back then, about 87 Octane....kinda lke the 'regular' you buy....but refined differently than what you pump into your car, of course.

BUT, it still melted aluminum....that is a fact!!

EDIT because I have a very old keyboard....and I 'post', then see typos....





[edit on 8/21/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

I know that Jet-A will not 'melt' steel....nor will it melt Titanium. That's part of the reason why Jet engines are built out of certain metals....depending on where the 'hot section' is, for instance.

Actually, according to the engine guys in my unit, the temps in the combustion chamber DO get hot enough to melt steel. The chambers are perforated all over which lets air into the chamber to "insulate" the steel from the combustion.

Swamp....didn't want to 'ramp up' the debate....on this subject.

When I flew the engines, we were told about "EGT' values....that the Exhaust Gas Temperature....in fact, EVERY Turbine engine that I know of has a limitation in the 'EGT'

Some engines, such as Allison designs, might use 'ITT' as the determination about what's too hot!

Point is, the engine designers KNOW what is too hot.....and they then tell the pilots (the operators) via temperature sensors......

An engine, during the Start-sequence, on the ground, will have a different MAX EGT than it will have, while in flight....for example.

When we are startng an Engine, we watch for a MAX EGT...if EGT is rapidly rising, we discontinue the start, and call maintenance.

A rapidly rising EGT indicates a possible fuel control problem, from the FCU....or what ever problem.....you don't want to blow a multi-million engine, so they have limits set by the manufactures.

Here is how a typical jet engine stabilizes....just remember "2, 4, 6"

about 20 percent N1, about 40 percent N2 and about 600 pounds/hr, at idle.

THAT is a good start. It's pretty close, whether you're talking about a B737, or a B757....on the ground, starting.

Add a bit, for the B767.....but pilots know this already.

Having said that....now continue your 'discussions' about 9/11.....