9/11 conspiracy theories

[Bartfarst]

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?

 

Those aluminium tins filled with petrol are huge incendiary bombs, coupled with the kinetic energy of 150 tons of jet travelling at something like 500mph.

 

That works out to a kinetic energy of 3.7 GJ, and as TNT has a rough equivalence of 4500KJ/kg, so to throw that much KE at the building you would need over 820Kg of high explosive.

 

A 1000lb bomb is 1000lb in total including the steel case, and has a 183kg Torpex/TNT mix filling, so we’re looking at four 1000lb bombs and a 500lb bomb to do the same kinetic energy damage as the TWOC'ed airliner.

 

Considering that one 1000lb bomb will utterly shred a hardened aircraft shelter made of 3 foot thick reinforced concrete, or take out the foundations of a major road bridge tower, or sink a ship, this starts to put into perspective what the equivalent of more than four of these bombs would do to a soft building.

 

Then, we have the fact that a third of that 150 ton mass was made up of kerosene – one HELL of a firebomb.

 

So, overall, a tin can filled with fuel is in fact an extremely potent weapon.

[artisan]

As you seem to be an expert in this, I give way.

But to go back to the title of this thread, Yes, I do support an independent inquiry

[Bartfarst]

As you seem to be an expert in this, I give way.

But to go back to the title of this thread, Yes, I do support an independent inquiry

 

It's what I do, I'm a military engineer and my career has included aircraft maintenance, airworthiness, and flight safety, crash investigation, various aspects of weapon and explosive engineering, policy projects, training roles and a few detachments to interesting parts of the world between the desk jobs.

 

I don't intend to sound off as a 'know-all', but on this subject I can speak with some degree of confidence.

 

And - also getting back to the thread - I think an independent enquiry would be a shameful waste of money.

[Jake01]

:hihi: :hihi: sorry, no really,sorry

 

 

just thinking of the 24 virgins promised to be waiting for the muslim terrorists after death, (sorry again,you walked straight into that one )

ehem,right,back on topic........

 

T'would be so funny and "justice" if Jesus was to meet them at the gates.

 

As for an independant investigation.... well yeah as long as those who want it would be willing to pay for it.... It's still not gonna change what happened.

[Tony]

Just to put a bit of reality into the discussion here's what can happen when an aircraft his concrete at 500mph.

 

http://www.electronicaviation.com/downloads.php?action=counter&id=61

 

I don't intend this as a definitive explanation (every situation is different of course) but I hope that this will inject a little 'extraordinary science' to show that odd things are quite easy to explain.

[Bartfarst]

Sorry Tony, that's a conspiratorial video, made up by the FBI to fool people into thinking that high speed crashes might destroy aircraft - the Forum won't fall for such an unsubtle ploy!

 

On a serious note, that's a cracking site - the Rafale near miss is the closest I've seen.

[artisan]

Ive seen that bit of film before and it is truly impressive, the transfer of energy is terrific. It looks exactly like the piece of film of the WTC where the plane seems to 'morph' into the building.

If you notice I have never disputed the fact that aeroplanes crashed into the buildings. How could anyone when the evidence is there before your eyes.

The dispute lay in the manner in they collapsed, as far as I am concerned this matter has been settled by you and bartfarst.

However in the public domaiin there are many points which need clearing up, or this will end up another Kennedy fiasco.

[venger]

Just to put a bit of reality into the discussion here's what can happen when an aircraft his concrete at 500mph.

 

http://www.electronicaviation.com/downloads.php?action=counter&id=61

 

I don't intend this as a definitive explanation (every situation is different of course) but I hope that this will inject a little 'extraordinary science' to show that odd things are quite easy to explain.

 

I have seen this footage before and do not quetion what happened on that experiment.

 

It does not however show what the wall looked like after the impact, I think would would agree that the concrete wall would be a little if not probably very heavily scarred, unlike the small hole at the Pentagon.

 

This also does not explain so many other factors to suggest that the Boeing 757 was not even in Washington that day.

[artisan]

One of the major points on which the Al Qeda bloke in Noo Yark is going to be topped on is wether the aeroplanes were 'methods of mass destruction'

I kid you not.

Does this mean they could not find them in Iraq, because they could not see the Wood for the trees.

According to the USA judiciary the WMD are all around us, aeroplanes!!

[johnbradley]

a few questions for you:

 

1. how does the 'pancake theory' allow for the near-free-fall speed of the collapses?

 

2. why does the 911 commission report claim the centre of the twin towers was a 'hollow shaft', when it actually contained 47 steel supports?

 

3. why did the commission not find any explanation for WT7's collapse?

 

4. why were there so many people claiming to have heard/felt/seen explosions prior to the collapse?

 

5. why, although a 'crime scene', was ground zero cleared immediately (by a demolition company, no less) and the metal taken, WITHOUT analysis, off to the far east to get melted down.

 

6. why is it that there has never been a skyscraper before or since wtc7 which has collapsed soley due to fire damage?

 

can these questions be answered? do the answers all look reasonable?