9/11 conspiracy theories

[Bartfarst]

twiggy, your last posts have been speculative to the point of embarrasment, tony wouldnt answer my questions, bartfast has been too busy playing banjo, and meanwhile, the venger boys:hihi: have been tearing you lot a new asshole.

 

i left this post alone cos we nobbled you lot.

 

i guess this wont ever die. and GOOD STUFF!!!

 

it needs to continue for sure.

 

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[artisan]

So if the controlled explosion theory is correct I think it would be safe therefore to assume that numerous skyscrapers built post 1970's have explosives already in place for controlled explosions should the need arise.

 

Somehow I think somebody somewhere would have found out about this before now.

This information is probably common knowledge in the shady worlds of people who deal in multi billion property developments.

The likes of CDI who are hand in glove with these people are total and utter experts in these matters, the designs and drawings of these buildings are not the same ones as are in the public domain.

 

No matter what anyone says about this the towers were brought down by demolition, for them to just to fall down is beyond imagination.

Massive steel columns were no where to be seen, concrete was pulverised to dust, the buildings fell as if in a ballet without any obstructions.

Can you honestly think that a few half arsed arabs flying aircraft into the best designed buildings we have, could do this?

 

If you do you have a very poor opinion of what must have been at that time the best civil engineers in the world

[Bartfarst]

This information is probably common knowledge in the shady worlds of people who deal in multi billion property developments.

The likes of CDI who are hand in glove with these people are total and utter experts in these matters, the designs and drawings of these buildings are not the same ones as are in the public domain.

 

No matter what anyone says about this the towers were brought down by demolition, for them to just to fall down is beyond imagination.

Massive steel columns were no where to be seen, concrete was pulverised to dust, the buildings fell as if in a ballet without any obstructions.

Can you honestly think that a few half arsed arabs flying aircraft into the best designed buildings we have, could do this?

 

If you do you have a very poor opinion of what must have been at that time the best civil engineers in the world

 

I think I'm going to have a coronary over this. I will try to explain it below. Please believe me, or at least humour me by telling me that you believe me, or I will go mad.

 

- First, there are horrendously restrictive laws and regulations about the storage and use of explosives. You can’t just leave the stuff will nilly all over the place.

 

- Explosives and detonators are have finite lives, so you can’t just hide them in a building and expect them to go bang years later.

 

- The detonation gear is very sensitive, so much so that all electronic equipment is banned from around a demolition site to prevent inadvertent vaporisation of demolition workers, which is something they tend to try to avoid. It wouldn’t even be conceivable to leave live det-rigged explosives in a place where they would be exposed to mobile phones and office electrical equipment, let alone radio and broadcast gear.

 

- Massive steel columns were clearly evident in the rubble. Concrete does go to dust when things collapse. Have you ever watched other controlled demolitions? Noticed that the whole building collapses into a pile of dust? Yes it does, but only the lower level is rigged, the rest destroys itself as it comes crashing down, and mere concrete and steel behave like biscuit and tin foil when thousands of tons of mass build up momentum as they come down. The way the buildings collapsed is not beyond imagination, it is exactly the way I would expect them to collapse based on their structure and the method of failure.

 

- I can speak for engineers, as a chartered engineer. We build things with safety factors, which take into consideration the likely duress a structure will suffer, than we add on a ‘bit for luck’. For a heavy goods vehicle, that’s going to get a lot of hammer, that safety factor might be 700% in some cases. For a domestic car, it might be 100%. For aircraft, which won’t take off if they’re too heavy, it might be just 20% on a lot of components (which is reassuring to know if you're a nervous flyer!).

 

That’s just the same for buildings, as we consider the fatigue cycles of steel stressed members as the building moves in the wind, or what magnitude of distortion it can withstand in the event of an earthquake, for example. To allow for this, safety factors of around 500% for static loads and 300% for dynamic loads are typical. The twin towers was designed to resist the impact, at relatively low speed, of a 707 jet lost in bad weather but travelling at low speed, as all liners would do at low level, which was taken at the time of design as a reasonable example of likely ‘worst case’ disaster, especially seeing as when the towers were designed the 707 was the world’s largest airliner.

 

A higher speed jet, deliberately throttled up to maximise kinetic energy, was not designed for. As I am sure you will know, if you double the speed of an item you quadruple its energy. This simply overcame the design criteria, and took out too high a proportion of the metal structure for the building to survive the fire. The fire weakened, distorted and softened the steel and the reduced number of stressed members were eventually overloaded.

 

How it happened – interpreted by an engineer:

 

The structure of the towers was relatively innovative at the time in that it was in effect a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. Floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards. This actually makes for a much stiffer design than conventional skyscrapers and has since been employed on many more buildings.

 

The impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

 

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, (about 10,000 gallons or close to 50 tons which makes for more than the average wastebasket fire, I can assure you) which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

 

Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.

 

It is likely that this blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated for a typical office fire. These conditions would have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. The water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers would have been severed by the plane impact, not that they would have achieved more than firing a water pistol at a bonfire with so much burning kerosene if they had worked. Much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.

 

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

 

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

 

While the ways the two towers fell were slightly different, the basic cause is similar for both - a large number of columns were destroyed on impact, and the remaining structure was gradually weakened by the heat of the fire. Not much significance should be taken from the fact that one tower fell in 45 minutes and the other in 90 minutes. The exact nature of the damage caused by each aircraft was different.

 

The mass of the combined towers is close to 1,000,000 tons, and the gigantic dynamic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below is one of the biggest single releases of energy that have ever been man-made, except for nuclear explosions. Under the mind-numbing pressures and energies to which the concrete and steel were subjected, they would indeed be pulverised to dust.

 

Try dropping a brick just 60 or 70 feet off of a building onto a hard surface (preferably not next to a door where somebody might step out!) and see what happens to the brick, then imagine what happens to huge heavy sections falling much, much faster and having thousands of tons land on top of them, going faster still.

 

It really is that simple, and I regret to inform you that a few half-arsed Arabs really could, and did, bring the towers down.

 

If you don’t believe me, go and find any other mechanical engineer, civil engineer, architect, demolition expert, perhaps an experienced fireman with training in tall buildings, and ask them if what happened to those buildings was suspicious, and they’ll all give you the same answer, which is along the lines of ‘don’t be silly’.

[artisan]

In view of your in depth reply Bartfarst then all I can say is God help us if that is what they can do against us with a couple of aluminium tins, filled with petrol.

What will we do if they get hold of some real gear such as you and Tony are used to eh?

[venger]

Al Queda were responsible for the attacks, bin Laden does not have to declare his personal responsibility,as he is only the director. This is like saying the allies did not bomb Dresden as Churchill was not flying a bomber

 

There also seems to be some confusion by some people as to who was responsible for the demolition of the towers.

They were attacked in a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, no mistake.

They were demolished in a controlled explosion by the authorities, no mistake.

 

Any one who says otherwise is ignoring the evidence and fooling themselves

 

lol, what evidence are you presenting ?

[venger]

good stuff!!

 

totally walloped these sheeple in this one...since joining in on this thread i have learnt a great deal more about the subject.

 

i have also noticed that their aguments have been getting worse and worse, and ours actually improving in content and detail.

 

the 911 cover story is a nonsense.

 

its official:)

 

would be interesting if we could get the thread starter to create a poll on a new thread and ask the MODS to merge threads so we can get an opinion census

[venger]

Are you actually trying to tell us that the floors which collapsed did so not through a combination of impact damage from a 150 ton jet and fire softening the steel, but due to demolition explosives?

 

Aside from the video footage showing no evidence whatsoever of high explosive shockwaves, which would have been impossible to hide, do you not think that setting explosive charges in the middle of a 800-1000 degree fire is a bit of a tricky task?

Or getting tons of explosive up those floors while everybody else was running down?

Or actually getting hold of tons of explosives, in the middle of New York city, in time to get them to the towers, let alone up them?

How about the days it would take to set the charges to bring about a controlled explosion?

 

"They were demolished in a controlled explosion by the authorities, no mistake "- sorry, very big mistake indeed.

 

How can you debase some of the arguments presented if you have not read what has been put before you ?

 

You are clearly making untrue statements about points that I have previously raised rather than reply or challenge what I have written.

[artisan]

lol, what evidence are you presenting ?

In which sense do you mean, the attack or the demolition?

[Twiglet]

a couple of aluminium tins, filled with petrol.

 

Remember that statement next time you fly on a plane. Won't make you feel very safe will it. So you uphold the status of structural engineers but not the of those in aviation?

[venger]

You must be joking. The only arguments that have been getting worse and worse are for the conspiracy. There is no solid evidence to back up any of the claims. Lots of ideas and theories, but no SOLID proof. I've just given up because its going round in circles now. I've stated evidence for the official explanation but am just rebuffed with more theories, no-one can discount the real proof.

 

Nonsense, I have made several references to official US websites, quoted US officials and invited any questions, I can present SOLID proof.

 

Going around in circles ? I agree, how come you have more answers than questions ?the posters trying to defend the official story are now bickering amongst themselves and profered litle in the way of fact.

 

No solid evidence ? I invite you to ask for some, I have plenty