9/11 conspiracy theories

[Abdul]

aye, seeing as the bin laden family own shed loads of property and businesses in the usa, he's probably ceo of a corp over there, shaven faced and a little plastic surgeried!

 

Well, they're always telling us we should integrate more

[SupraSteve]

With all due respect, take your head out of yours rrrrrs.

 

When was the last time a steel framed structure was grounded from fire ?

 

I have been unable to find 1, even after 10-20 hours of burning !

 

You need to know a little more about the subject before debasing it fella

 

Ok, read the post before yours by artisan who says he he's an engineer who's witnessed it happening! Maybe it's you who should know a little more about the subject.

[SupraSteve]

For the benefit of anyone hard of thinking;

"Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

 

Taken from a very good write-up taken from an engineering view, which can be found here;

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 

Enjoy.

 

EDIT - also check out the graph on this page, labelled "Figure 28. Steel strength decreases with temperature"

[venger]

I hold up my hands and admit that I cannot prove or mis-prove how the towers came down scientifically myself, no problem there, but that is the strongest link that the official story really has.

 

People are so brainwashed by what they experienced, they feel there is no reason too look any further.

 

You said ask a professional too show me Tony, I asked you.

 

What about all of the points that I have made through some of these nearly 50 pages so far.

 

I keep getting told that all my suggestions have been answered, what nonsense, I cannot address some of them and I wrote them so how comes you refuse too reply other than sometimes using, 'well it used to be' or 'I am not sure about that' and still know more about the subject than anyone else published or unpublished on the issue ?

[Pingpang]

Of course the steel met or exceeded the standards.

 

Firstly (AFAIA) nobody apart from conspiracists has claimed that the steelwork melted.

 

Secondly, the integrity of the steelwork was compromised by the fires and it was a matter of time before failure occurred under those circumstances. End of. There's nothing else to discuss. The message doesn't seem to be getting home though.

 

there's shed loads left to discuss buddy

 

how about the fact that either by some incrediblely unlikely cooincidence or some other more nefarious reason there were several unusual air traffic control exercises going on in the nw usa airspasce that related to hijacked aircraft, which is one of the reasons that the planes were not dealt with according to their standard procedure for planes suddenly veering off course

 

some of these exercises involved having the limited fighter plane cover for the area miles away north, others of these exercises involved involved putting ghost images onto radar which made it more difficult for air traffic operators to tell something was not right with those planes flight paths

 

it's far easier to believe the standard story spouted on mainstream news than to look at all the variables and recognise that something does not add up - it's difficult to draw conclusions, but things just don't add up when you look at the big picture

[Tony]

Venger, a lot of money is spent in buildings to fireproof steelwork. That's because steel suffers in a fire, even quite a low temperature one. Fireproofing is rated for how long it can be relied on, typically between 30 minutes and 2 hours. Fireproofing is designed primarily to give enough time to get people out, not to protect property.

 

Anything over 4 stories is designed with additional consideration to progressive collapse. That's where a failure in one place can cause a knock on failure elsewhere. The WTC is a dramatic albeit unusual example of progressive collapse.

 

 

incrediblely unlikely coincidence

Isn't that an oxymoron? All coincidences are unlikely by their very nature. Coincidences are not proof of anything else.

[KenH]

some of these exercises involved having the limited fighter plane cover for the area miles away north, others of these exercises involved involved putting ghost images onto radar which made it more difficult for air traffic operators to tell something was not right with those planes flight paths

 

This is complete rubbish, but then what elements of this aren't!

 

There were some fighters taking part in an exercise in Cananda and Alaska. If you check you will probbaly find that there are some there now. Last time I was in Goose Bay, Canada, it was full of the Lufwaffe but nobody used the opportunity to bomb Berlin.

 

Having extra aircraft, and simulated aircraft, in Canada doesn't have any bearing on New York whatsoever. I don't know exactly where in Canada they were but I do know that none of that airspace would appear on an ATC radar in New York in order to confuse them.

 

The idea that jets taken away from the North East and therefore being unable to defend New York, assumes they would have done just that. In fact they would have needed to be ready on the tarmac waiting for an attack, understood that they were being atacked, find someone to give the order to shoot down a civilian airliner full of Americans, and then manage to get to the area quick enough. Now that we have had 9/11 we know to expect such things and so there is more chance of that happening but in 2001 there was no chance of an interception. Let's not forget that, until 2001, hijacked airliners were usually taken for hostages not for suicide.

[Bartfarst]

there's shed loads left to discuss buddy

 

how about the fact that either by some incrediblely unlikely cooincidence or some other more nefarious reason there were several unusual air traffic control exercises going on in the nw usa airspasce that related to hijacked aircraft, which is one of the reasons that the planes were not dealt with according to their standard procedure for planes suddenly veering off course

 

some of these exercises involved having the limited fighter plane cover for the area miles away north, others of these exercises involved involved putting ghost images onto radar which made it more difficult for air traffic operators to tell something was not right with those planes flight paths

 

it's far easier to believe the standard story spouted on mainstream news than to look at all the variables and recognise that something does not add up - it's difficult to draw conclusions, but things just don't add up when you look at the big picture

I though Venger was suffering from wild delusions over this subject, but it would seem he's running a distant second now.

[Bartfarst]

With all due respect, take your head out of yours rrrrrs.

When was the last time a steel framed structure was grounded from fire ?

I have been unable to find 1, even after 10-20 hours of burning !

You need to know a little more about the subject before debasing it fella

Could you show a couple of examples please, when it may have previously happened ?

Venger, your record is stuck on the same questions as it was weeks ago.

 

And the answer is the same as it was then - there has to be a first time for everything.

[Bartfarst]

This is complete rubbish, but then what elements of this aren't!

There were some fighters taking part in an exercise in Cananda and Alaska. If you check you will probbaly find that there are some there now. Last time I was in Goose Bay, Canada, it was full of the Lufwaffe but nobody used the opportunity to bomb Berlin.

Having extra aircraft, and simulated aircraft, in Canada doesn't have any bearing on New York whatsoever. I don't know exactly where in Canada they were but I do know that none of that airspace would appear on an ATC radar in New York in order to confuse them.

The idea that jets taken away from the North East and therefore being unable to defend New York, assumes they would have done just that. In fact they would have needed to be ready on the tarmac waiting for an attack, understood that they were being atacked, find someone to give the order to shoot down a civilian airliner full of Americans, and then manage to get to the area quick enough. Now that we have had 9/11 we know to expect such things and so there is more chance of that happening but in 2001 there was no chance of an interception. Let's not forget that, until 2001, hijacked airliners were usually taken for hostages not for suicide.

All exactly right Ken - but don't expect the conspiracists to even vaguely grasp the real workings of an air defence environment - they won't.