911 conspiracy on tv 16 december

[pervert]

Werent passengers on that plane, on cell phones at the time of the impact?

Another very interesting point, it has been proven that cell phones have a very low rate of success when used in flight, yet they all allegedly worked so well on that day?

If people were going to go to all this trouble, making a plane and a few hundred people dissapear would be the easiest part.

[Blairos]

Another very interesting point, it has been proven that cell phones have a very low rate of success when used in flight, yet they all allegedly worked so well on that day?.

Given the huge quantities of Cell Phone users in the US, I would suspect that coverage would not have really been a problem, especially given the lower altitudes involved?

[jetboy]

Yeah I saw this but am a bit skeptical. The presenter was a rather wierd looking guy too.
Got me thinking but I dont think even George Bush would go as far as to destroy the twin towers (and murder all those people) just to wage a war.

[pervert]

Given the huge quantities of Cell Phone users in the US, I would suspect that coverage would not have really been a problem, especially given the lower altitudes involved?

People were allegedly making calls when at cruising altitude of 32,000 feet, which under tests had a success rate of less than 0.01%.

[placidfemme]

I've read and watched so many things on this matter. I have no doubt that the planes flew into the Twin Towers. However, I DO NOT believe that alone caused the towers to collapse.

I also believe that whatever hit the pentagon was NOT a plane.

I don't know who did it, but I do believe the american government was involved to some degree. They are hiding something, and sad as it is, I doubt we will ever find out... kinda like Roswell and Crop Circles etc...

[pervert]

I've read and watched so many things on this matter. I have no doubt that the planes flew into the Twin Towers. However, I DO NOT believe that alone caused the towers to collapse.

I also believe that whatever hit the pentagon was NOT a plane.

I don't know who did it, but I do believe the american government was involved to some degree. They are hiding something, and sad as it is, I doubt we will ever find out... kinda like Roswell and Crop Circles etc...

I fully agree with you.

Did they know it was going to happen and do nothing to prevent it?

Did they assist?

...or did they plan and implement the whole thing?

[placidfemme]

...or did they plan and implement the whole thing?

Thats what I believe, but I have no proof or whatever to prove it, just a gut feeling I get from it

[SPman]

Ultimately, regardless of who planned it (Venusians, I reckon), lots of people lost their lives, the special effects were awesome and the shock value enabled dubya and his cronies (including that criminal Blair and the naive half wit Howard) to instill their own brand of paranoia world wide. Osama won, George won, the rest of the planet lost!

[geoffm]

They sure do, but they don't dispute that the Airliners hit the WTC buildings, just the Pentagon.

Like many others I find it strange that 3 buildings (let's not forget tower 7) all collapsed on the same day, allegedly due to fire weakening the structural steel...when not once has that ever happened in history before. Even when similar design buildings have burned for over 20 times longer.

I don't know what happened or who organised it, and I don't claim to. One thing is for sure though, the official 911 commission organisation and subsequent findings are not even close to the truth.

I have to comment on this, as it is something I know a fair bit about. The WTC fires have been extensively studied and modelled, and I have talked to some of those involved in the investigation. The SFPE had an interesting presentation on the WTC collapse at the last meeting.
You are quite correct that other steel framed buildings have survived major fires without structural collapse - Broadgate being a well known example. A common feature is they didn't have a fully loaded airliner flying into them, loaded with 70,000l of fuel - many times the expected building fuel load. Around 1/3 of the fuel was lost in the fireball, with the remainder burning inside the building. and running into the floors below.
The WTC was an interesting design. The building consisted of a central core containing the services and liftshafts, with an exterior steel frame and curtain wall. The wall and the core were connected by the floor slabs, which were supported on lightweight steel trusses, bolted at each end. The fireproofing of the structural steel was originally by spray asbestos in part of the 1st tower, with spray mineral fibre/ plaster (IIRC) in the rest. Steel has the advatage fo rhigh rises that it is strong, and lightweight (comapretively). .Unfortunately it weakens with increasing temperature, with the strength starting to diminish around 200 degrees, and by 500 degrees, it is at 40% of it's cold strength. Steel framed buildings often have insulation added to the steel members so they don't reach the failure temperature. ALternatively, if the steel is large enough, it won't get hot enough to fail in the time available - for the design conditions, which don't include a huge additional fuel load.
The impact of the airliner sheared off a lot of of the outer frame, along with the fire sprinkler riser pipes, so there was no sprinkler control of the fire, although the fuel load would be far in excess of what the sprinklers could handle. The impact also knocked off the fire protection insulation - a key factor in the collapse The fire weakened the remaining connections, so that the end connections of the trusses failed and the floors collapsed, leading to the pancake stacking you saw at the end.
Buildings are designed to handle certain fire conditions, based on the expected usage, fuel load, openings, etc. Office buildings are not designed to take 5-600kph impacts combined with a full load of jet fuel, as well as the extra fuel provided by the airliner itself. The design usually takes some consideration of the benefits of a sprinkler system, and is assumes there is at least most of the applied fire protection to the structure. All fair assumtions for an accidental fire. No fire protection system can prevent arson or terrorism, except security.
The only buildings designed to handle a jet airplane fire are large hangers at airports, and they have big chemical foam monitors to drown the whole lot in foam.
Geoff

[pervert]

I have to comment on this, as it is something I know a fair bit about. The WTC fires have been extensively studied and modelled, and I have talked to some of those involved in the investigation. The SFPE had an interesting presentation on the WTC collapse at the last meeting.
You are quite correct that other steel framed buildings have survived major fires without structural collapse - Broadgate being a well known example. A common feature is they didn't have a fully loaded airliner flying into them, loaded with 70,000l of fuel - many times the expected building fuel load. Around 1/3 of the fuel was lost in the fireball, with the remainder burning inside the building. and running into the floors below.
The WTC was an interesting design. The building consisted of a central core containing the services and liftshafts, with an exterior steel frame and curtain wall. The wall and the core were connected by the floor slabs, which were supported on lightweight steel trusses, bolted at each end. The fireproofing of the structural steel was originally by spray asbestos in part of the 1st tower, with spray mineral fibre/ plaster (IIRC) in the rest. Steel has the advatage fo rhigh rises that it is strong, and lightweight (comapretively). .Unfortunately it weakens with increasing temperature, with the strength starting to diminish around 200 degrees, and by 500 degrees, it is at 40% of it's cold strength. Steel framed buildings often have insulation added to the steel members so they don't reach the failure temperature. ALternatively, if the steel is large enough, it won't get hot enough to fail in the time available - for the design conditions, which don't include a huge additional fuel load.
The impact of the airliner sheared off a lot of of the outer frame, along with the fire sprinkler riser pipes, so there was no sprinkler control of the fire, although the fuel load would be far in excess of what the sprinklers could handle. The impact also knocked off the fire protection insulation - a key factor in the collapse The fire weakened the remaining connections, so that the end connections of the trusses failed and the floors collapsed, leading to the pancake stacking you saw at the end.
Buildings are designed to handle certain fire conditions, based on the expected usage, fuel load, openings, etc. Office buildings are not designed to take 5-600kph impacts combined with a full load of jet fuel, as well as the extra fuel provided by the airliner itself. The design usually takes some consideration of the benefits of a sprinkler system, and is assumes there is at least most of the applied fire protection to the structure. All fair assumtions for an accidental fire. No fire protection system can prevent arson or terrorism, except security.
The only buildings designed to handle a jet airplane fire are large hangers at airports, and they have big chemical foam monitors to drown the whole lot in foam.
Geoff

Maybe so, but for every knowledgable person (in that particular field) like yourself, there is another who is just as credible, if not more, who disagrees with that explanation.

Especially when it comes to how the building's managed to fall at near free fall speed, and the unexplained collapse of tower 7, which suffered no impact which kinda fucks up your pattern, guess that could be why they won't release that report on tower 7's collapse aye?

Even the experts can't agree, research will discover that.

[Ixion]

I have to comment on this, as it is something I know a fair bit about....
{lotsa facts snipped}

Oh, well, of course if you're gonna bring FACTS into it, ...

[Skyryder]

Maybe so, but for every knowledgable person (in that particular field) like yourself, there is another who is just as credible, if not more, who disagrees with that explanation.

Especially when it comes to how the building's managed to fall at near free fall speed, and the unexplained collapse of tower 7, which suffered no impact which kinda fucks up your pattern, guess that could be why they won't release that report on tower 7's collapse aye?

Even the experts can't agree, research will discover that.

Yes and it's called the Andy Warhol factor, or better known as the 15 minute fetish. Experts always disagree with experts. They write papers criticising collegues, theorys etc. It's how they become experts. The building collapsed becasue a plane flew into it. The Pentigon cought fire becasue a plane flew into it. There's a fucking great big hole in the building where the fuselage and a lower breach on both sides where the wings pentrated the building.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...on.html#damage

Skyryder

[pervert]

The Pentigon cought fire becasue a plane flew into it. There's a fucking great big hole in the building where the fuselage and a lower breach on both sides where the wings pentrated the building.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...on.html#damage

Skyryder

Computer generated images for proof...ouch...

Suppose you believe Santa's fueling up his Reindeer about now too?

[Skyryder]

Computer generated images for proof...ouch...

Suppose you believe Santa's fueling up his Reindeer about now too?

If that was the case then they would have been exposed by now. I don't know much about 'dressing up photos but there are plenty around who do. Doctored photo's can be detected. No one has made the claim that you suggest and proven it.



Santa Of course. How else do you think he flies.

Skyryder

[Squiggles]

airliners have a large portion of magnesium in them... the one that hit the pentagon will have all but burned up in an instant (correct me if im wrong)

ah, conspiracy's, unless you actually saw it then theres always room for one.