Just wondering, 9/11..

[Dave586]

Not this shit again.

Facts are Facts, and theories are theories. I'm with Ceyko - I deal with technical problems every day that should not have happened but they do - and after investigation it's determined that a certain set of events caused the issue to happen when someone thought before it could not happen.

We don't know everything about physics so it is more possible that the buildings structural integrity was weakened by a 100 ton object crashing into it at 300 mph. Rather to think the Government and George W. Bush ordered it.

Now as for the skill to fly a 757/767 into a building - These pilots would have needed training - the fact they did hit buildings on their first attempt proves they were familiar with the aircraft and possibly its Flight Management Systems. I'm a private pilot and aviation enthusiast. I have walked into SimuFlight and flown in one of their business jet simulators. It's a night and day difference from a C-172. I have tried flying a 757 into the WTC buildings on a flight sim and into the Pentagon..and I didn't do it on the first attempt..more like the 10th attempt. It's hard. These pilots knew exactly what they were doing and were trained specifically for it.

I'm more inclined to believe that the Capitalistic American business played into the construction of the WTC- cheapest contractor, cheapest materials, probably paid off the quality assurance people to say it was "safe" and so on. This is how we get things done in America

No doubt about it - The Government used the event to pass legislation in the name of providing a safer America like the establishment of the TSA and broader monitoring by the CIA/NSA on Americans. It's a double edge sword - there are people out there that want to scare other Americans into thinking their Government is out to get them and they are willing to stretch the facts and make up their own to get their agenda across - we call these people conspiracy theorists. So who are you going to believe? The Government with all its resources and has all the facts? Or the conspiracy theorists that don't have all the facts and don't have all the resources? I don't believe 100% of what the Government says because they have to lie to us to keep things going..on the other hand the conspiracy theorist just wants to make you believe the sky is falling and the world is going to end tomorrow. I just use common sense..and look at the proven facts.

[WildBill]

Exactly. If you look at just fire on steel, possibly have a point. You add in the impact of a 747 AND heat and the combustibles found in a typical office such as paper, chemicals and such, to add to that AND the load of the structure above the impact area, you get structural failure.

fixed

[WildBill]

Especially people who believe the media.

What the hell happened to thinking for yourself?
Has simple logic flown out the window?
I'm simply amazed at what some people come up with.

[Forever_frost]

The steel did not melt, and anybody saying melting steel caused the collapse is wrong. It was heated to the point that it lost rigidity and integrity, and therefore could not support the weight of the structure above it.
People relying on the jet fuel as the only source of heat to affect the structural steel are either stupid, blind, or trying to misguide people.
Have you ever seen what happens to concrete when it's exposed to high heat? It pops, explodes, and crumbles. No way this would have any effect on the support structure!
There have been so many instances where witnesses who were actually in the midst of the crisis have been quoted saying things that they later changed or recanted altogether. Unless they had some sort of experience in architecture, structural engineering, explosives, or some other related field then they are unreliable...at best.

Exactly. If you look at just fire on steel, possibly have a point. You add in the impact of a 747 AND heat and the combustibles found in a typical office such as paper, chemicals and such, to add to that, you get structural failure.

[GhostTX]

Anychance you have a chart like that comparing it to the barrel price of crude oil over time?

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/13/oil-prices-1861-today-real-vs-nominal_flash2.html

Edit:
Another source:

[helosailor]

The building was made of structural steel with varying thicknesses and grade. Depending on the carbon content of the steel... the LOWEST melting point is much higher than the heat created by a jet fuel fire.
<snip>

The steel did not melt, and anybody saying melting steel caused the collapse is wrong. It was heated to the point that it lost rigidity and integrity, and therefore could not support the weight of the structure above it.
People relying on the jet fuel as the only source of heat to affect the structural steel are either stupid, blind, or trying to misguide people.
Have you ever seen what happens to concrete when it's exposed to high heat? It pops, explodes, and crumbles. No way this would have any effect on the support structure!
There have been so many instances where witnesses who were actually in the midst of the crisis have been quoted saying things that they later changed or recanted altogether. Unless they had some sort of experience in architecture, structural engineering, explosives, or some other related field then they are unreliable...at best.

[mustangguy289]

Anychance you have a chart like that comparing it to the barrel price of crude oil over time?

[GhostTX]

Gas is at, what, $3.50 a gallon? Ya...where's the natural resources?

W-T-F ever.

Gas has hockey-sticked since 2001.

[Forever_frost]

if you want a country's resources just make it your enemy so you can justify its occupation. it was an inside job, no doubt. who benefited all the 80% of our government that is in the oil business. dick cheney, ceo of halliburton which owns KBR, which is the company who got the contract to feed and house all the troops overseas in the sandbox.

plus you're saying that the "terrorists" that planned this whole thing did precision flying dive maneuvers in huge aircraft when just before the attack one of the alleged pilots could barely fly a private plane? also, why did they just commit the one attack then stop? if they were really terrorist attacks don't you think that there would have been more attempts by now?

look at the size of the hole in the pentagon pics. there is no way a commercial airplane made that tiny hole and left no debris. planes just don't disappear after hitting a building. planes have hit mountains and left more debris than what was left at the pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[2] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

And your argument fails right here. What resources have we gotten? Afganistan has none and we have gotten zero Iraqi oil

[mustangguy289]

I am not saying this was an inside job. I am saying there is more to it then just a airplane crashing into the building. That is all.

[Forever_frost]

The building was made of structural steel with varying thicknesses and grade. Depending on the carbon content of the steel... the LOWEST melting point is much higher than the heat created by a jet fuel fire.


Here is a summary for you:

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/how-hot.htm

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.

You're ignoring the structural damage of an impact of a 747 on a building combined with heat

[mustangguy289]

Some people will swallow anything.

Especially people who believe the media.

[WildBill]

Yeah, I don't want to get into a debate either, it is generally pointless.

Some people will swallow anything.

[ceyko]

I don't really care that much to get into a large debate, but a few days before this happened there was a lot of maintenance work done on the building during off hours.

How oftern in your root cuase analysis of glitches and miscalculations did two things fail IDENTICALLY and PERFECTLY ( similar to planned implosion of buildings) right after each other?


There is nothing wrong with question theories is there?

Yeah, I don't want to get into a debate either, it is generally pointless.

[mustangguy289]

I'm just a dumb guy that sits around camp fires and burns stuff. Granted, we don't have "structural steel" for anything, but nearly everything we put in the camp fire eventually turns red hot and/or melts. Glass, steel stuff and aluminum.

That's just a camp fire that we get nice and hot.

Is it possible that things other then the beams themselves let lose? Bolts, rivets etc? Concrete and so forth collapsing causing shifts in weight?

I deal in other technologies and often see things that are not technically possible. However, when spending a lot of time doing a root cause analysis we find glitches and other miscalculations (or bugs) that caused the problem. I just find it plausible that the massive amounts of fuel and exposure to prolonged heat in those towers could've caused the issues.

Otherwise, you feel like charges were detonated in just the right places? Were they kept there for just the right event?

I don't really care that much to get into a large debate, but a few days before this happened there was a lot of maintenance work done on the building during off hours.

How oftern in your root cuase analysis of glitches and miscalculations did two things fail IDENTICALLY and PERFECTLY ( similar to planned implosion of buildings) right after each other?


There is nothing wrong with question theories is there?