 |  |  |  |  |
9/11 conspiracies are wrong.
September 11th. He thinks the government was behind it, I think the government is too
incompetent to pull something like that off. I honestly believe that the federal bureaucracy
whose mission it is to protect us failed miserably through either gross negligence of blatant
incompetence.
I got lots of emails on Friday and Saturday. Let's get to it.
My problem with this “solution” is that it relies on the adiabatic temperature of jet fuel. To
my knowledge, adiabatic means without losing or gaining heat. As the towers, with a hole
punched in the side, is not a closed system, how then is it possible to achieve anything close to
“adiabatic”? Some heat will be lost through conduction, no? Whether to the surrounding
physical environment (steel, chairs, tables, etc.) or the natural (cooling air, etc.) it’s lost. What
am I missing here?
Thanks!
Dennis
from fire are a form of energy release in and of themselves. If the fire in the WTC towers were just one
flash I doubt the temperature of the flame would matter much at all but since the fire was a continuous,
fuel-fed fire that lasted (with jet fuel) at least 30 minutes the flame temperature was essentially continuous.
Since energy cannot be lost or gained in a system the chemical energy contained in the fuel whether it be
Jet-A or matter from within the two buildings was transferred to the building itself through heat or escaped
into the New York sky.
The Twin Towers themselves would have worked very much like crucibles in that they were climate
controlled buildings that insulated the fire while allowing air to enter the system from below. Crucibles can
be made to melt steel and iron that operate on cooking oil and spent motor oil--both of which have much
lower adiabatic flame temperatures than refined jet fuel.
Here is an example on one of these crucibles.
more powerful than simple dynamite.
The only thing that I know of that crystallizes due to an explosion is quartz. Examples of which
come from nuclear blasts that are hotter than the Sun and astroblemes (craters created by a
meteoric impact. The type of crystal is a rare one called "shocked quartz," and requires
temperatures in the tens of thousands of degrees. Something that cannot be achieved by any
conventional explosive like TNT, C4 or C5 as they actually contain less chemical energy per kilo
than even conventional gasoline but can achieve an excellent blast effect because of the
nitrogen inside the compounds themselves
A structural failure wouldn't have severed the steel supports in uniform 30 foot lengths and
ejected them 300 feet from the structure while the building collapsed at "freefall" speed as if
there was no resistance as each floor "collapsed" upon the other.
-Chris
Just read Friday's page again. I already explained how the buildings did not fall at free fall
speeds. As for the "30 foot lengths" part: a chunk of the building falling out 300 feet is not
much at all, especially considering that it may have been falling from a height of as much as a
quarter mile or so.
If a piece of steel from one of the buildings originated at 1000 feet up and landed 300 feet away
that is only a difference of about 18° or so. Not much at all considering all the debris that was
flying around during the collapse.
If the beams were designed to be 30 feet long and the joints are what failed I don't see why the
structure wouldn't come apart that way. The beams are not the weakest point, the joints are
easily the weakest point.
Bush been involved it would’ve been bungled. However, if the Secret Service had no
knowledge of the attack, why did they allow the president of the United States, who could have
possibly been a target of terrorists attacks himself that day (unless they knew he wasn’t), been
allowed to endanger the lives of every person in that school by his very presence. Wouldn’t a
safer place for the president been an immediate evacuation to Air Force 1? Furthermore, as
president of the U.S., and Commander in Chief, why the HELL wasn’t he IMMEDIATELY on the
phone, or whatever to SOMEBODY to do ANYTHING…Why has he repeatedly asserted that he
saw the first plane hit the tower, which nobody in the public saw until days later?
Anyway, I’ve got a ton more to go if you would like to continue…
Dennis
Simple, because he's incompetent. Did Bush's aid (was it Andy Card?) that whispered in his ear
that a second plane had struck the WTC also inform the Secret Service agents that the US was
"under attack?"
Bush was struck with his first real tragedy and showed that he has no clue what to do in that
situation. He's a fool surrounded by fools.
practising and doing manuvers for incase a plane was hijacked
They intercepted Payne Stewart in 1999? NORAD, USAF, etc...whoever was spose to be
defending the skies of America for some strange coinkydinky failed 4 times in 2 hours. I have
doubts 19 nutjobs with boxcutters thwarted a 5 trillion dollar defense system without some kind
of standown.
Ya might know about structural engineering, but have you fully studied the exact runtime of the
air traffic response that day, or the testimony of what Cheney was up to?
Oh, this is another huuuuuuuuuuge misconception (or lie) that keeps getting passed around in
the 9/11 conspiracy sites. NORAD never even monitored domestic airspace until after
September 11th, 2001 when their mission was redefined. It is right there on their website:
http://www.norad.mil/about_us.htm.
Payne Stewart's tragic last flight is another example of misconception/lie that gets spread
around on these conspiracy boards. All one needs to do is look at any news reports from that
incident and you will see that it was the FAA and air traffic control that called in the military
intercept of Payne's plane, not NORAD:
"Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m.,
when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine
training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it."
Most of this stuff is easy to research on one's own. Don't trust me 100% and definitely don't
treat those conspiracy sites like they are the gospel because if you do you are going to be as
brainwashed towards the events of 9/11 as a follower of Pat Robertson is towards Jesus.
Be cynical about all of this, Challenge the assumptions made by me and by those other sites. It
is healthier for you and all of us that way.
“pulled”, how did WTC 7 come down. It being the third steel structure building ever (the first
two being WTC 1 and 2) to fall because of fire damage…Ol’ Charlie says if there’s a problem with
WTC 7, there’s a problem with the whole story, as I’m sure you’ve seen recently on the news...
Here’s a link to some video of that day:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
Dennis
I refer to Friday's page about this. Many people like to cite the Madrid fire and a fire in Philly a
few years back as to steel structures that survived complete gutting by fire and didn't collapse.
Two things these buildings did not have:
1) Passenger jets crash into them at speeds in excess of 400MPH.
2) Upwards of 20,000 liters of jet fuel spill into them.
The impacts of the jets crashing into the World Trade centers stripped the steel structure of its
insulating coating. This allowed heat to easily be passed to the steel itself making it expand
and become brittle.
As for Building 7 it seems that most conspiracy sites ignore the evidence that amply point out
that the structure of the building had been massively damaged by debris from the collapse of
the two towers. Not only did beams in excess of 600,000 pounds slam into Building 7, but it was
also attached via a sky bridge that funneled debris at hundreds of miles an hour into the
bottom floors the building.
Steel buildings collapse from earthquakes and fire all the time. In Kobe, 50 such structures
collapsed. Considering that the impacts of the two jets were easily identified in seismic data;
likewise with the collapse of both towers it is not out of the realm of possibility that the two
types of events can be compared.
As I said, most conspiracy sites about Building 7 either misinterpret or ignore key evidence
about damage to the building and what Silverstein said about "pulling" the building.
Here.
Excerpt:
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked
on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.
Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would
say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said
nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never
saw him again that day.
also, from the same site:
Exerpt:
Hayden: ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in
the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure
she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It
came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing
was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire
to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was
just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story
building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the
towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal
and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned
for their safety.
"The book suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which also collapsed on September
11, was intentionally demolished, citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.”
The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save
lives because it appeared unstable."
I know many who believe the conspiracy sites hook-line-and-sinker won't trust what the state department
has to say....
all the "theories" like they are the word of God.
The planes can't both be remote controlled and missiles.
The buildings can't be demolished with explosive and thermite.
Building 7 couldn't have been "pulled" by the Port Authority and blown by the CIA.
Enron couldn't have been the mastermind behind it as well as the Israelis...
There are just too many contradicting "theories" out there most of which don't have anything to support
them escept speculation in lieu of actual evidence.
because it made it all the way through the E-ring. A plane travelling some 500MPH isn't a missile?
Conspirators claim that there is no evidence or pieces of an aircraft in the hole of the Pentagon. Well,
there might not be any evidence of such wreckage on the conspiracy sites but there are plenty everywhere
else...
Conspirators may ask. Well, These guys seem to do a pretty good job of reconstructing what happened
here and here.
support HoustonWade.com at the
same time. Thank you.
Pentagon. That it was a smaller plane like a Bombardier or something with missiles on the front of it...
What the...? How redundant. Just like why it would be pointless and redundant to plant explosives in the
WTC because you are already crashing passenger jets into them, it seems to be pointless and redundant
to disappear a hundred passengers and their jet somewhere and then take a completely different plane,
put missiles on it and fire the missiles into the Pentagon just before crashing into it.
When has making a plane more complicated ever been the best idea?
What is so hard for people to accept that there are international elements and terrorist organizations out
there that mean us harm? Why can't people accept that individuals planned these attacks via taking box
cutters (razor blades) onto a plane and to use them as kamakazi weapons against American targets? That
seems to me to be a complicated enough plan to me.
The same people who reject the above find it easier to swallow the fact that our government who can't get
Katrina, Iraq and the economy right used thousands of insiders to disappear hundreds of passengers, fly
remote planes and missiles into the WTC towers and the Pentagon, told NORAD to "stand down" and not
follow those planes but still shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania anyway... It is almost as if they don't
even comprehend their own contradictions. It befudles me to no end.
please fire away. I will address what you send to me--and not, I am not a Bush-lover defending the
administration. I am a liberal Democrat who thinks this massive movement of people who are fooling
themselves into buying these conspiracy theories are doing the left much harm. I honestly believe that the
Bush administration and federal bureaucracy at large were incompetent and negligent in the events
leading up to September 11th, 2001 and that they are incompetent and negligent today.
Incompetence and active participation are two vastly different things and so far all the "evidence" that
points to active participation doesn't hold up under rather easy scrutiny.