9/11 is a lie

[destruction]

The fact is, Non-pressurized hydrocarbon fire does not produce temperatures high enough to deform Steel. This alone refutes the fac that "Jet fuel" melted the steel structure in the WTC. And Towers 1&2 were both designed for each of them to take TWO impacts from a 707 and remain standing.

So what Caused the towers to collapse?

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.

fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.

fireman2: 2 blocks.

fireman1: and we started runnin'

fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch

fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..

fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..

fireman1: yea detonated yea

fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,

boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...

fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'

This is from the documentary that those two french brothers made.

http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/welcome.html

Heres another firemen who heard SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS

http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov

September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

Looks like a controlled demolition.

Here are some quick facts concerning Mr. Silverstein:

FACT: Larry Silverstein purchased the property rights of all 7 buildings of the WTC six weeks before September 11, 2001 with a single down payment of $100 million, despite high vacancy rates of offices at the WTC.

FACT: This was the first time that the WTC had changed hands in its thirty year history.

FACT: The WTC complex was not insured against an act of war, but new policies were added prior to 9/11 that insured against terrorist damage.

FACT: Silverstein sought to double his insurance payout to 7 billion dollars claiming the 2 planes were 2 separate attacks.

The decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have made a lot of people happy:

Quote:

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [in the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]

Silverstein: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B, Greg Levine, 12.06.04

Towers 1 and 2 collapsed in (approx) ten seconds. Which means they fell at (approx) the same speed as free fall (indicating that there was little or no resistance). Yet the floors themselves were 39" thick and the top 4" was a poured concrete slab that had interlocking vertical steel trusses underneath it.

If there weren't explosives used, this steel would have absorbed much of the kinetic energy as one floor fell onto another causing the 110-story towers to fall slower than ten seconds.

From the 2004 bookWaking Up From Our Nightmare

The 9/11/01 Crimes In New York City

by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman

DON PAUL: To tell the truth, I'm not sure. My book states: "Neither jet fuel's fire nor anything else that was in the Towers that morning burns hot enough (1022 degrees Fahrenheit)...to deform steel." And that: "to not topple sideways, but to instead fall straight-down within their foundations, the 110-story Towers had to be imploded by explosives set off against their load-bearing columns and beams."

I remain sure of those statements. I'm also sure that the Twin Tower's central columns must have been severed at their bases, 7 stories underground, by explosives comparable to nuclear devices. The largest seismic spikes that Columbia University's Laboratory record on the 9/11/01 morning, 2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter scale, came within the first five seconds of each Tower's fall, not at the moment of the collapses' impact with ground. Also, temperatures 7 stories underground of the Towers' sites remained above 2000 degrees F. three weeks after 9/11/01, suggesting that something very hot and independent of the need for oxygen must have continued to burn there. Recent analyses on the internet, however, suppose that the volume of dust in the Towers' in-air collapse--3 to 5 times each Tower's diameter--points to other, explosive causes in the Towers' collapse.

I can say for sure, too, that the U.S. Government's explanations for the collapse of both the Towers' and WTC Building 7 are grossly inadequate. In May of 2002 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued its "World Trade Center Building Performance Study." FEMA's group of professorial experts had a budget of only $600,000 to investigate the collapses that killed almost 3000--compared with the $40 million that was spent for investigation of Bill Clinton's activities with Monica Lewinsky in 1998-99. FEMA's Study states: "With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined."

FEMA's Study is even more waffling in regard to WTC Building 7, the 47-story Building 7 that fell straight-down in classic controlled-demolition fashion at 5:25 on 9/11 afternoon. FEMA's Study states: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."

What actually caused the initial fires at the World Trade Center buildings to start on September 11, 2001?

DON PAUL: So far as I know, collisions by airliners started the first fires in the Twin Towers on 9/11. Regarding WTC-7, the origin of its intern fires appears more mysterious.

FEMA's Study says that fires burned in WTC 7 for 7 hours before its collapse. That puts their start in the same hour as the North Tower, WTC 1, which fell at 10:29.

There's no evidence I know, however, that debris from 1 ignited anything inside 7. Video and photographs show that 7 remains wholly upright and scarcely marred at mid-afternoon of 9/11, only small fires visible on the 7th and 12th floors. Its upper floors begin to fall straight-down from its base at 5:25.

Before 9/11, no buildings of structural steel had ever collapsed due to fire. In February of 1991 a fire burned for 19 hours in the 38-story building at One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, spreading to 8 floors and causing the death of three firefighters. But this building stood

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0526_donpaul.html

So how could they get explosives inside the building????

George W. Bushes brother, marvin bush is head of security for security company for the trade center and United airlines at that time.

Several weeks prior to the "collapse" the WTC had a "bandwith update", and the bomb sniffing dogs were removed.....

Quote:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales.

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Science Friction.

Towers 1 and 2 collapsed in (approx) ten seconds. Which means they fell at (approx) the same speed as free fall (indicating that there was little or no resistance). Yet the floors themselves were 39" thick and the top 4" was a poured concrete slab that had interlocking vertical steel trusses underneath it.there weren't explosives used, this steel would have absorbed much of the kinetic energy as one floor fell onto another causing the 110-story towers to fall slower than ten seconds.

Not to make this a partisan issue. But MIT has been known to be a conservative school. As well as any tech school.

MORE SECOND EXPLOSIONS

http://reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov

Quote:

Firefighters struggled for nearly 24 hours before controlling one of Madrid's worst blazes, which reduced a 32-story office building to a blackened hulk of twisted wreckage.

Thick smoke and temperatures up to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit prevented firefighters from entering the Windsor building until late Sunday.

The fire, which slightly injured seven people, erupted Saturday night. Though badly damaged, the tower didn't collapse.

Madrid fire ^

Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions

Prison Planet | June 27 2005

Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.

David Shayler joined MI5 in October 1991 and worked there for five years. He started at F Branch (counter-subversion) in January 1992, and worked in T Branch (Irish terrorism) from August 1992 until October 1994. He left the organization in 1996.

Shayler appeared on The Alex Jones Show to kick off what will be a wider public campaign to educate the public on 9/11 issues and government corruption.

Shayler again risked jail by speaking out. The British government has a legal gag preventing him from speaking about his work during his MI5 tenure. Since what Shayler discussed was already on the public record (a consequence of which was his imprisonment on two separate occasions), he now feels safer in stepping back out into the limelight.

Shayler delved into his past investigations and the evidence that led some within MI5 to conclude that the Israelis bombed their own London embassy in July 1994. Shayler said that the Israelis framed two Palestinians who remain in jail to this day.

"The same thing has happened with two Palestinians who were convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Britain in 1994 but MI5 didn't disclose two documents which indicated their innocence. One document indicated another group had carried out the attack and the other document was the belief of an MI5 officer that the Israelis had actually bombed their own embassy and allowed a controlled explosion to try and get better security and these documents were never shown to the trial judge let alone the defense."

Shayler said that his suspicions were first aroused about 9/11 when the usual route of crime scene investigation was impeded when the debris was immediately seized and shipped off to China.

"It is in fact a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene and yet in the case of 9/11 all the metal from the buildings is shipped out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. Now that to me suggests they never wanted anybody to look at that metal because it was not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show people that it was Al-Qaeda."

Shayler then went on to dismiss the incompetence theory.

"The more I look at it, you realize that it's not incompetence. There were FBI officers all over the country, Colleen Rowley is obviously the one who managed to get a congressional hearing, but there was plenty of evidence certainly."

"There are so many questions that need to be answered, protocols being overridden within national defense, people actively being stopped from carrying out investigations. This wasn't an accident, they were aware there was intelligence indicating those kind of attacks, there were FBI intercepts saying it in the days before the attacks. When you look at it all, that is a big big intelligence picture and yet these people were crucially stopped from doing their jobs, stopped from trying to protect the American people."

Shayler elaborated by saying the evidence suggests the attack was originally meant to be much wider in scope and was an attempt at a violent coup intended to decapitate the entire government as a pretext for martial law.

"So you're looking at a situation in which you almost have a coup de'tat because you've got to bear in mind that there were weapons discovered on planes that didn't take off on 9/11. Now people have obviously postulated that they were going perhaps to attack the White House, Capitol Hill. That looks to me like an attempt to destroy American government and declare a state of emergency, in fact a coup de'tat, a violent coup de'tat."

"There are so very many questions about this and you realize again that none of the enquiries ever get to the bottom of any of these things, they don't take all the evidence, they don't often take any evidence under oath when they should be taking it under oath."

Shayler was forthright in his assertion that the attack was planned and executed within the jurisdiction of the military-industrial complex.

"They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they're trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria."

Shayler ended by questioning the highly suspicious nature of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, the first buildings in history, all in the same day, to collapse from so-called fire damage alone.

"I've seen the results of terroristic explosions and so on and no terrorist explosion has ever brought down a building. When the IRA put something like a thousands tonnes of home-made explosives in front of the Baltic Exchange building in Bishopsgate and let off the bomb, all the glass came out, the building shook a bit but there was no question about the building falling down and it doesn't obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down. So you have the comparison of the two, Building 7 compared with the north and south towers coming down and those two things are exactly the same, they were demolished."

David Shayler joins a spate of recent credible whistleblowers who share the same sentiments about the real story behind 9/11. Former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds publicly questioned the unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7 earlier this month. In addition, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, shared his concerns last week when he said the Bush Administration were making the same mistakes as the Nazis when they invaded Russia in the dead of Winter. Roberts seriously doubts the official explanation behind 9/11.

Towers 1 and 2 collapsed in (approx) ten seconds. Which means they fell at (approx) the same speed as free fall (indicating that there was little or no resistance). Yet the floors themselves were 39" thick and the top 4" was a poured concrete slab that had interlocking vertical steel trusses underneath it.

If there weren't explosives used, this steel would have absorbed much of the kinetic energy as one floor fell onto another causing the 110-story towers to fall slower than ten seconds.

From the 2004 bookWaking Up From Our Nightmare

The 9/11/01 Crimes In New York City

by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman

Quote:

Further, there was no point in bringing down the towers.

Justification for more military spending

Justification for invasion of afghanistan, and iraq (who next?)

Justification for a resource war

GOVERNMENTS HAVE ENACTED TERRORISM ON THERE OWN PEOPLE BEFORE

Quote:

"The Reichstag fire, a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany, began at 9:14 PM on the night of February 27, 1933, when a Berlin fire station received an alarm that the Reichstag building, assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire seemed to have been started in several places, and by the time the police and firemen arrived a huge explosion had set the main Chamber of Deputies in flames. Looking for clues, the police quickly found Marinus van der Lubbe, half-naked, cowering behind the building. Van der Lubbe was a mentally ill former Dutch Communist and unemployed bricklayer who had been floating around Europe for the last two years prior to 1933.

Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring arrived soon after, and when they were shown Van der Lubbe, a known Communist agitator, Göring immediately declared the fire was set by the Communists and had the party leaders arrested. Hitler took advantage of the situation to declare a state of emergency and encouraged aging president Paul von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, abolishing most of the human rights provisions*** of the 1919 Weimar Republic constitution. Historians generally agree that Van der Lubbe, sometimes described as a "half-wit," was involved in the Reichstag Fire. The extent of the damage, however, has led to considerable debate over whether he acted alone. Considering the speed with which the fire engulfed the building, Van der Lubbe's reputation as a mentally deranged fool hungry for fame, and cryptic comments by leading Nazi officials, it is generally believed the Nazi hierarchy was involved in order to reap political gain—and it obviously did.

Also, why did the government immediatley ship the steel outside the country?

* A September, 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century (cofounded by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle), entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources For the New Century, states the following:

o "To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs."

o "Further, the process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

* Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall said that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004.

* Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers, has written "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

* A June 13, 2005 article in the Washington Times, reported that former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

* Referring to Bush’s efforts to obstruct the 9/11 Commission’s access to critical documents, Senator Max Cleland said "disgusting . . . a scam. Americans are being scammed."

* Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the official 9/11 story in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."

* Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them.

* During the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, it was determined that the anthrax used in the attacks was a variant of the Ames strain, which was first researched by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland, but was later distributed to at least fifteen bio-research labs within the US and six overseas. Don Foster, who was enlisted by the FBI to profile the culprit, and others believe that the culprit was a US biodefense insider, though not necessarily an individual from USAMRIID. Other individuals, including at least one independent expert involved in the FBI's investigation, have been critical of the FBI's performance in the investigation, accusing the bureau of dragging its feet. This investigation has been largely abandoned and no one has been indicted.

What about Tower seven?

It had "isolated pockets of fire", and no structural damage from falling debris.

Larry silverstein himself said they "Decided to pull it, and whatch the building collapse".

And how come American airlines stocks fell right before september 11th?

FACT: Larry Silverstein purchased the property rights of all 7 buildings of the WTC six weeks before September 11, 2001 with a single down payment of $100 million, despite high vacancy rates of offices at the WTC.

FACT: This was the first time that the WTC had changed hands in its thirty year history.

FACT: The WTC complex was not insured against an act of war, but new policies were added prior to 9/11 that insured against terrorist damage.

FACT: Silverstein sought to double his insurance payout to 7 billion dollars claiming the 2 planes were 2 separate attacks.

[destruction]

Note the several "squibs" projecting out.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/squibs_and_streamers.mov

More squibs.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_1st24.mpg

Unfortunately, all of the debris from the collapses at ground zero was quickly removed, destroyed and shipped off to places like China and Korea before forensic examination could be performed.

Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe,By JOE CALDERONE Daily News Chief of Investigations, Friday, January 04, 2002

A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.

A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce."

The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately..."

...A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated.

www.cam.net.uk/home/Nimmann/peace/explosions.htm

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2= 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles

= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs

= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs

= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 which is about 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 which is about 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,

97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,

349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,

500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,

1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]

Nitrogen 1,038

Water Vapor 1,690

Carbon Dioxide 845

Lightweight Concrete 800

Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,

97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,

349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,

500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,

1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)

= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules

= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000

1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the first aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

The melting point of steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius, equal to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, although it will weaken and buckle at somewhat lower temperatures. But the absolute maximum that can be achieved with hydrocarbons, such as the kerosene-like mixture used for jet fuel is 825 degrees Celsius or 1517 Fahrenheit – unless the mixture is pressurized or pre-heated through the admixture of fuel and air, which in this case it could not be. Diffuse flames burn at a lower temperature, and fires fed by inadequate oxygen are cooler still. The best estimate is that the fires in the towers were burning at a temperature substantially less than 800 Celsius. The collapse of the towers through the effects of the fires is thus a physical impossibility.

Here what i'm suggesting, overall.

WTC 1, 2, and all the others - Set with explosives. What type? i don't know.

The pentagon - I don't know, possibly a drone, or some type of experimental aircraft and some other explosives

Flight 93 - Shot down. Even before all the ideas of the conspiracey theory. THink about it. It's a lot more comforting to think that the passengers in flight 93 took over the plane and crashed it themselves, then say - US Gov't shooting it down for security reasons. Thats extremely plausible even outside the non-official conspiracey theory.

All the other airlines - Operatives either actually took over the plane, possibly we worked in cohersion with some fundementalists, Possibly some type of ghost pilot system was enabled. Who knows. Possibly there were no people on board those planes, ever.

In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later, two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.

The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.

The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.

The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

the cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,

The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:44 am Post subject: COMMENTS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION. Reply with quote

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION.

On the 11th September, 2001, three steel framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per hour).

On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out anything at all, are close to zero.

It should be emphasized that World Trade Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Although the WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the collapses of WTCs One and Two.

THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767.

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later, two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.

The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.

The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.

The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.

Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.

Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one). Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,

The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is

= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174

= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is

= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174

= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

The official theory that was adopted by FEMA is the truss theory. That Jet fuel weakened and deformed the Towers, causing a catastrophic chain of events, leading to their collapse.

Also, if you think about it, the towers lasted a relatively short time before they fell. Only one hour.

Picture of the contruction of the WTC Towers

In 1975 a WTC fire on six floors for three hours. Building still stood

A B-52 Bomber Hit the Empire state building sometime between 1930-1950 (Not sure) and it still stood. Although, I must mention, B-52's are much lighter than the planes that hit the WTC.

Fire, Venezualas tallest building, 17 hours

Quote:

Massive Blaze Destroys Madrid High-Rise

LA Times Feb.14 2005

Firefighters struggled for nearly 24 hours before controlling one of Madrid's worst blazes, which reduced a 32-story office building to a blackened hulk of twisted wreckage.

Thick smoke and temperatures up to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit prevented firefighters from entering the Windsor building until late Sunday.

“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

- CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.

The fire, which slightly injured seven people, erupted Saturday night. Though badly damaged, the tower didn't collapse.

[destruction]

Alt. | attempts | succsess| %

2000 4 3 75%

4000 4 1 25%

6000 12 2 17%

8000 12* 1 18%

Phones that were used:

C1 Motorola i95cl - Telus Mike Network - 800 Mhz IDEN

C2 Motorola StarTac - Bell Mobility - 800 Mhz Analog

C3 Audiovox 8300 - Telus PCS Network - 1.9 Ghz CDMA / 800 MHz

C4 Nokia 6310i - Rogers AT&T - 1.9 Ghz GHz GSM. (Tri-Band - Has an 1.8 GHz and 900 Mhz GSM these are European frequencies)

IDEN - Integrated Digital Enhanced Network

CDMA - Code Division Multiple Access

GSM - Global Systems for Mobile Communications

http://www.911dossier.co.uk/hj08.html

That's his succsess. all the reports i've heard are that the phonecalls that were made were from 15,000 FT plus.

ALLEGED 9/11 HIJACKERS:

UNITED AIRLINES Flight 175

Crashed into WTC 2

1. Marwan Al-Shehhi: Date of birth used: May 9, 1978. Possible residence: Hollywood, Fla. Believed to be a pilot. Aliases: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah.

2. Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad: Possible residence: Delray Beach, Fla. Aliases: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu Dhabi Banihammad Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed.

3. Ahmed Alghamdi: Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi

4. Hamza Alghamdi: Possible residence: Delray Beach, Fla. Aliases: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi; Hamza Alghamdi Saleh.

The father of Alghamdi told Al Watan that the picture provided by the FBI was not that of his son. "It has no resemblance to him at all," he said. [

Washington Post]

5. Mohand Alshehri: Possible residence: Delray Beach, Fla. Aliases: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri.

ALIVE

Saudi Embassy has named Alshehri as a victim of mistaken identity [

CNN]

According to The Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian embassy confirmed that four of the five mentioned by Al-Faisal - Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari and Salem Alhazmi - are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington. [American Free Press]

Flight 175 passenger manifest

See also:

Flight 175's Precision Strike on WTC 2At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

[destruction]

http://www.911review.org/images/photorotor.jpg

There is one photograph of the debris, from [WWW]FEMA 1 that may be useful. A rotor (high pressure stage) coming from an jet engine can be seen in left-hand side photo above . On the top left of the image, what seems to be the housing of this engine. On the right, the leg of somebody working on the site gives approximately the scale, of less than a meter in diameter.

Jean-Pierre Desmoulins examines this photograph carefully, and notes that:

* this is a high pressure rotor element of a jet engine;

* the diameter of the housing is not much bigger than the diameter of this rotor,

* most of the witnesses heard a sound that they describe as the sound of a military aircraft (highly pitched and strident), not the sound of an airliner.

He concludes:

* this piece and the streamlining behind don't come from the engine of an airliner, which has low pressure fans of much larger size than the high pressure rotors, so that the streamlines are much larger than the diameters of the high pressure rotors.

* the engines of this plane had no low pressure fans: they are military engines, for which noise is not a problem.

Jet airliner

Airliner engine

^engine from a Britannia Airways Boeing 757 that crashed 14 September 1999 at Gerona, Spain. This aircraft (G-BYAG) had the same engine model as Flight 77 ( N644AA) - Rolls Royce RB211-535E4. Not only is the diameter of the Rolls Royce engine is much larger, the rotor configuration is totally different.

This debris photograph of the engine rotor, if the evidence was not planted, is consistent with a small jet aircraft such as the Navy S-3B, the F-15, the F-16 or the F-18; definitely not from a Boeing 757-223. One witness that reported seeing a 8-10 seat passenger plane, others reported a small rear-engined jet, which would be consistent with the Navy T-39 Sabreliner.

Here is a picture from the pentagon, before the wall collapses. http://members.visi.net/~gbraden/ar...11_pentagon.jpg

You're telling me a 767 made that?

Why doesn't the government release the videos? I mean, after all it's a 767 that hit it right?

Why werent the cameras working on the inside of the Trade centers 911?

Why were bombing sniffing dogs removed from the buildings days before 9/11?

WHY DID TOWER 7 COLLAPSE?

FEMA said that it was "unprobable that the diesel tanks had anything to do with the collapse of tower 7"

Not to mention, Tower 7 makes it the THIRD TOWER IN HISTORY to collapse from fire. Also note that there was no airplane that crashed into tower 7, and there was minor damage to the outer surface of the building from falling debris. If the diesel tanks ignited, there sure would of been a huge fucking explosion thats for sure, one that we didn't see. Firemen reported "isolated pockets of fire" You can hear the radio tranmissions of various sites.

And the gov't should release the vidoes, becuase they HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE?

How about the fact that the plane bounced on the ground before hitting the pentagon. Well sure as hell the grass didn't show any scuff

Pentagon after wall collapsed NOTE: perfect grass

WHen airplanes hit the ground, they fuck it up.

Also, If a 767 was flight 500 MPH over cars, jetwake would of been reported, but all that was heard were the "screaming of a missle" or the "high pitched noise of a jet airplane".

For a building to collapse into its own footprint, the way WTC-7 did, ALL the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment. This is acheived in controlled demolitions.

# The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.

# Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).

# Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."

# WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.

# Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

When you add to the above the fact that Madrid's Windsor Building remained standing after an 18+ hour 800°C fire.....C'mon.

The fires in WTC 7 were supposedly started by the collapse of WTC 1 meaning there would have been no time the rig the building for demolition on 9/11, therefore this had to have been done whilst the building was still occupied prior to 9/11.

You're fucking numb if you don't get anything out of this

Perfect collapse

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

[Felix_Leiter]

you are a lunatic

[sextoydave]

The amazing thing is that the people who destroyed the towers were soooo lucky to have done it on the same day that terrorists decided to fly planes into the building.

Now all those dumb people think a giant plane crashing into the building caused all the destruction!!! The real destroyers get off scott free because now everyone thinks Bin Laden is to blame just because the flew 2 planes into the building. Such a shame.

And poor Bin Laden has to take all the blame. All he did was crash a plane that had a full tank of gas into the building and now he has to take blame for the whole collapse. What rip off! Poor old man!!

Can you believe so many people were fooled by that? In fact, I have heard stories that the planes were not really real planes too. They were actually holograms. And the people who were supposedly killed in the plane are now hiding out at Hedonism III in Jamacia for their whole life. The whole thing is a trajedy!

[ou812]

The amazing thing is that the people who destroyed the towers were soooo lucky to have done it on the same day that terrorists decided to fly planes into the building.

Now all those dumb people think a giant plane crashing into the building caused all the destruction!!! The real destroyers get off scott free because now everyone thinks Bin Laden is to blame just because the flew 2 planes into the building. Such a shame.

And poor Bin Laden has to take all the blame. All he did was crash a plane that had a full tank of gas into the building and now he has to take blame for the whole collapse. What rip off! Poor old man!!

Can you believe so many people were fooled by that? In fact, I have heard stories that the planes were not really real planes too. They were actually holograms. And the people who were supposedly killed in the plane are now hiding out at Hedonism III in Jamacia for their whole life. The whole thing is a trajedy!

It doesn't really seem to matter when all is said and done since capturing OBL seems to be at the bottom of Bush's priority list since according to him:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him."

Sure, immediately siege the country to appease all the grieving people over here, insert a new leader to secure an oil pipeline, then march the majority of the troops out of the country and go invade someone else, leaving the country in the hands of warlords to control. Iraq we have to stay there and see things through and make sure the country remains stable, Afghanistan we go in shoot the place up a little, then turn around and march out with public enemy #1 still on the loose.

If he gave a shit about all the people and live that were apparently affected by this man in Afghanistan like we are lead to believe, he would have kept troops there and "resolved" (he loves to use that word I've found) to finish the job that was started there before starting up another shitstorm with some guy he had a vendetta with for trying to kill his daddy.

[Felix_Leiter]

It doesn't really seem to matter when all is said and done since capturing OBL seems to be at the bottom of Bush's priority list since according to him:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him."

Sure, immediately siege the country to appease all the grieving people over here, insert a new leader to secure an oil pipeline, then march the majority of the troops out of the country and go invade someone else, leaving the country in the hands of warlords to control. Iraq we have to stay there and see things through and make sure the country remains stable, Afghanistan we go in shoot the place up a little, then turn around and march out with public enemy #1 still on the loose.

If he gave a shit about all the people and live that were apparently affected by this man in Afghanistan like we are lead to believe, he would have kept troops there and "resolved" (he loves to use that word I've found) to finish the job that was started there before starting up another shitstorm with some guy he had a vendetta with for trying to kill his daddy.

sure base your WHOLE argument on that one quote.. obviously they are still hunting the guy.. last i heard we were chastised for killing some innocent Pakistani villagers after we thought we had # 2..

bottom line is its not as easy as we all want it to be

[ou812]

sure base your WHOLE argument on that one quote.. obviously they are still hunting the guy.. last i heard we were chastised for killing some innocent Pakistani villagers after we thought we had # 2..

bottom line is its not as easy as we all want it to be

Of course not, and I'm not trying to imply that it is. But the proof is in the pudding, the effort and energy that is put into each of those campaigns. We went into Iraq like a bat out of hell, blew the shit out the place and scoured the country like mad for just a few weeks before they flushed Sadaam out of a hole in some remote area.

I appreciate the fact that environment and factors are at play in Afghanistan and the area is more difficult to traverse and investigate, but doesn't that stand to reason that we would allocate more/better resources to the job if Bin Laden was even 1/2 as important to bring to justice as Bush thought Sadaam was? I really have to believe that if the deployment of troops into that area was the size and strength of the one into Iraq (and remained that way), Bin Laden would have been capture long ago, regardless of the extenuating circumstances of that theater of operation. So it's the actions that speak louder than the words.

[destruction]

you are a lunatic

Have you read any of the evidence? No. Jet fuel could not of brougth the twin towers down. You're a tard. This steel was strongest and highest grade construction grade steel keeping this tower up.

What about all the people reporting "bombs inside the building"? I suppose they are just tards too. read the whole fucking thread, you cretin.

and you have a lame avatar.

Secondly... Grow the fuck up.

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

ADVERTISEMENT

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5

Don't it just suck to get owned moron?

[sextoydave]

You still never addressed my point.

Lets say I agree that something other than the airplane brought down the trade center.

Do you agree that it is an amazing coincidence that the people who decided to blow it up, ended up doing it on the same exact day that Bin Laden decided to fly airplanes into the building?

[igloo]

Of course not, and I'm not trying to imply that it is. But the proof is in the pudding, the effort and energy that is put into each of those campaigns. We went into Iraq like a bat out of hell, blew the shit out the place and scoured the country like mad for just a few weeks before they flushed Sadaam out of a hole in some remote area.

I appreciate the fact that environment and factors are at play in Afghanistan and the area is more difficult to traverse and investigate, but doesn't that stand to reason that we would allocate more/better resources to the job if Bin Laden was even 1/2 as important to bring to justice as Bush thought Sadaam was? I really have to believe that if the deployment of troops into that area was the size and strength of the one into Iraq (and remained that way), Bin Laden would have been capture long ago, regardless of the extenuating circumstances of that theater of operation. So it's the actions that speak louder than the words.

Once again a simpleton thought process.......the military footprint, approach, resources, etc in Afghanistan required, and still requires, is a different look than Iraq.....you could not be more wrong that if we plowed more troops into Afghanistsan, then or now, it would have made a difference......100% incorrect, and not based on reality, but based on bullshit dogmatic rhetoric that you claim to dislike (unless it suits your purposes)

[igloo]

...... before starting up another shitstorm with some guy he had a vendetta with for trying to kill his daddy.

That says it all about your intelligence....keep trying to pretend that you are an objective evaluator of facts, and are above being in the "Bush hate" club...

You are just another blowhard

[ou812]

If Bush took a shit on your front doorstep you'd frame it and put it under your mantle wouldn't you? Do you even hear 1/2 the nonsense that you spew. It's so hate riddled and ridiculously skewed to the right, like I said it's not worth it to repsond to you.

You clearly don't base your opinions on what is right and wrong or logical or requiring any though, but with whatever falls in line with your political association you regurgitate. Sad.

I love how easy it is to get you all riled up. lol

[igloo]

If Bush took a shit on your front doorstep you'd frame it and put it under your mantle wouldn't you? Do you even hear 1/2 the nonsense that you spew. It's so hate riddled and ridiculously skewed to the right, like I said it's not worth it to repsond to you.

You clearly don't base your opinions on what is right and wrong or logical or requiring any though, but with whatever falls in line with your political association you regurgitate. Sad.

I love how easy it is to get you all riled up. lol

Riled up?? Mental midget, you bring me joy with your stupidity......Keep it going. I enjoy the nonsense that flows from you.

You are a blowhard, and it is enjoyable to take your bullshit, nonsense, and uneducated, ill-informed garbage and shove it up your ass...

I clearly don't base my opinion on what is right and wrong, or logic?? ........son, that was great. You are the very definition of that with your Bigfoot conspiracies, Bush hatred, daddy's vendetta, Michael Moore regurgitations (i.e. Bush let Bid Laden family members out of the country--you remember that blabber from you right), etc.....you are a living, breathing example of illogic, ignorance and stupidity who thinks he is smarter that he realli is because you try to use words liek dogmatic, or pretend you are "above" political persuasion...you are a jerkoff...

Listen up little boy.....here is a recommendation...spend a little less time investing your limited IQ in conspiracy theories, Starbucks hate-Bush penis tickling circle jerks, and uneducated banter, and a little more time on trying to gather some real knowledge to present yourself in a fashion that you unfortunately delusionally think you do...

Gotta run, I just heard A&E is showing a documentary that Haliburton hired the Loch Ness Monster to take Elvis underwater to Atlantis on behalf of Bush, where he is meeting with the Israeli intelligence group who plotted 9/11, to work their next scheme, which is to attack Iran, not for the nukes, but Laura Bush's affinity for rugs, and Bush wants his Presidential Library to look nice, based on the advice he just received from Jim Morrison, who is the sole carrier of the Da Vinci Code, where he stores it on his UFO, the same UFO that Bush used to secretely spy on Americans, not on conversations some in this country may have with Al Qaeda, but to get the real dirt on the Jessica Simpson-Nick Lachey breakup.

[ou812]

Igloo at his computer while posting......................

http://www.break.com/movies/angrygamer.html

[destruction]

hahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I strongly suspect that "igloo" is one or more of the following:

1) A young boy fooling around on the Internet.

2) A paid troll, given license to say anything at all.

3) A guy with real sexual-identity problems.

4) A mentally disturbed individual.

5) A former abused child, firing back at the world.

6) Someone whose wife left him for another guy.

7) A guy whose girlfriend told him he didn't have it.

8) An alcoholic.

9) A crack addict.

10) A career criminal.

11) Never made it past the 6th grade.

12) An imbecile who doesn't read anything else except for literature from the NRA.

13) Lives in a trailer park.

14) Owns illegal assult rifles.

15) Drives an SUV with 40 inch wheels and a gun rack so he can look tough.

16) An naiive dunce who watches Fox News and the 700 club because his cable or satellite company only provides two channels.

[sextoydave]

You still never addressed my point.

You still never addressed my point.

Lets say I agree that something other than the airplane brought down the trade center.

Do you agree that it is an amazing coincidence that the people who decided to blow it up, ended up doing it on the same exact day that Bin Laden decided to fly airplanes into the building?

[destruction]

You still never addressed my point.

You still never addressed my point.

Lets say I agree that something other than the airplane brought down the trade center.

Do you agree that it is an amazing coincidence that the people who decided to blow it up, ended up doing it on the same exact day that Bin Laden decided to fly airplanes into the building?

Yes, it is coincidential. Not that I was ignoring you. I overlooked your last post. Good point.

[oldtimer]

destructio... i just skimmed through your post so i could be wrong but it looks to me as if you are negating the claims that fires brought down the twin towers but then you go and post this in the same post??

http://www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

ive been watching videos on google "911 eyewitness" and "loose change" (2nd edition) and i must say it's pretty interesting stuff.. a lot of it is slanted but if you can filter out all the bs and concentrate on the facts it's pretty obvious that fire wasn't the reason behind the buildings collapsing... but also you have to take into account that eyewitness testimonials are often inaccurate so it's kind of hard to base an argument on what people are saying.. ahh regardless, it's a lot to take in.. good thread though

[oldtimer]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

that link basically disproves every conspiracy theory there is about 911...

i was talking to my stepbro who is getting his masters in aeronautical engineering and he learned about how the buildings fell in class.. they were teaching it all over the country in college classrooms.. so, it's safe to say it is scientific fact... everything sounds good on those sites but a lot of the information is inaccurate.. as far as the pentagon stuff... who knows..

[ou812]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

that link basically disproves every conspiracy theory there is about 911...

i was talking to my stepbro who is getting his masters in aeronautical engineering and he learned about how the buildings fell in class.. they were teaching it all over the country in college classrooms.. so, it's safe to say it is scientific fact... everything sounds good on those sites but a lot of the information is inaccurate.. as far as the pentagon stuff... who knows..

I still don't buy the explaination they give for building 7 because it seems inaccurate to me. They say the major cause is as a result of massive structural damage as a result of falling debris.

Here is what the building looked like normally:

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42166&stc=1&d=1139077011

Here is what it looked like at 3pm many hours after both buildings already fell:

http://911verses.com/graphics/building7.jpg

Massive structural damage? I don't see any. There's hardly even any windows blown out except for where the 2 small fires are at. I find it also surprising that the buildings internal sprinkler system did nothing of containing them. In the towers they claim the impact of the planes damaged the water systems, but I don't think that claim can be made for building 7.

- There is also no explaination given as to how Flight 93 could have caused a crash imprint in the ground of a near vertically impacted plane. Or the conspicuous lack of fire damage of the surrounding area given the planes 9,000 gallon fuel load.

Or why when the Flight 77 hit the Pentagon (at least from that 5 frames of security camera they showed) it created a white-hot explosion indicating much higher temps than jet fuel igniting, comparing it to the video of WTC or any other jetliner crash.

[sextoydave]

ur all freakin crazy!

The guy who started this thread is claiming that a giant airplane didn't bring down the building. In fact it was brought down by someone else who coincidentally brought it down on the day the plane hit the building.

then I read someone else who said they have other theories on why other buildings fell. Everyone, please listen: Two airplanes flying into buildings causes great damage!!! Why is this so hard to believe or understand?

The real question is what mental issue causes someone to concoct wacky stories to ignore the planes, and blame something else for the destruction. My only guess is that you conspiracy guys need to get laid badly!!

[destruction]

con·spir·a·cy Audio pronunciation of "conspiracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s)

n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[oldtimer]

I still don't buy the explaination they give for building 7 because it seems inaccurate to me. They say the major cause is as a result of massive structural damage as a result of falling debris.

Here is what the building looked like normally:

http://bbs.clubplanet.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42166&stc=1&d=1139077011

Here is what it looked like at 3pm many hours after both buildings already fell:

http://911verses.com/graphics/building7.jpg

Massive structural damage? I don't see any. There's hardly even any windows blown out except for where the 2 small fires are at. I find it also surprising that the buildings internal sprinkler system did nothing of containing them. In the towers they claim the impact of the planes damaged the water systems, but I don't think that claim can be made for building 7.

- There is also no explaination given as to how Flight 93 could have caused a crash imprint in the ground of a near vertically impacted plane. Or the conspicuous lack of fire damage of the surrounding area given the planes 9,000 gallon fuel load.

Or why when the Flight 77 hit the Pentagon (at least from that 5 frames of security camera they showed) it created a white-hot explosion indicating much higher temps than jet fuel igniting, comparing it to the video of WTC or any other jetliner crash.

im nto beign a dick here but are you basing your opinion on oen picture??

what about this one??

as for the pentagon debris who knows... again it's good in theory but they kinda have weak arguments as well.. a computer monitor still intact?? cable spools?? windows intact??? those are all extremely weak arguments IMO