9/11 Attacks

drkpower

BB; that link is about swine flu

My name is URL

drkpower wrote: »

Not really; if there was a rational coherent non-contradictory theory, i'd be able to take a look at it and balance it against the official theory. Until then, there's only one game in town.

But why is it that none of you have come up with an all-encompassing theory? Many of you spend an awful lot of time on this stuff.

So do many of the people arguing against the stuff posted here.. it's quite an annoying fact about this forum.. to borrow a line from someone else, it's like 2 opposing printers spewing copies at each other while the majority get drowned in paper

Brown Bomber

In all honesty I have an open mind with regard to 9-11. Its natural the US's imperialism will have negative side-effects. I just have yet to be convinced and it was "fanatical fundametalist" scary Muslims doesn't cut it for me.

To be honest killing 3000 people from across the world or killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan etc, etc based on confirmed lies, I know which is more important to me. I don't value American lives any higher than anyone elses.

Soveriegn

humanji wrote: »

It seem the fears they had (if the report is to be believed) was that a strike from a plane might topple the towers or that there would be a immediate collpase, hence the testing in wind towers etc etc. It doesn't appear that they were to concerned about structural damage bringing an eventual collapse. And no, they stupidly didn't take fire or fuel into account but hey, it doesn't get hot enough anyway.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure, so I'm open to correction on this, but I believe the buildings were designed to withstand a plane hitting it accidently (basically the link humanji posted above). A plane which would be trying to avoid hitting the building, or hitting it accidently. The planes on 9/11 were flown directly into the building at higher speeds in order to cause maximum damage. When the towers were designed, I doubt the threat of people purposefully flying large commercial planes at high speeds into the building was that big a risk.

However, without seeing how they were designed to withstand the impact and what regulations or calculations were used at that time, it's very hard to compare the two.

For example, if two identical towers were being built today. There might be a lot more fireproofing required by todays standards as opposed to the standards back then. Same with the calculations and safety factors. Things like that are revised and improved upon constantly.

So without having the majority of that information, it is very difficult to establish things like what they were capable of withstanding.

What I said to humanji

Soveriegn

drkpower wrote: »

BB; that link is about swine flu

Such a polite reply :eek:

Brown Bomber

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure, so I'm open to correction on this, but I believe the buildings were designed to withstand a plane hitting it accidently (basically the link humanji posted above). A plane which would be trying to avoid hitting the building, or hitting it accidently. The planes on 9/11 were flown directly into the building at higher speeds in order to cause maximum damage. When the towers were designed, I doubt the threat of people purposefully flying large commercial planes at high speeds into the building was that big a risk.

I'm not sure either but it'd be a bit thick if they didn't to be honest. The towers were designed in 1960. WWII ended in 1945, The US was being attacked by kamikaze pilots who full speed with full fuel capacity and torpedoes and the like just 15 years earlier. The achitect who designed the towers was even American-Japanese.

drkpower

My name is URL wrote: »

So do many of the people arguing against the stuff posted here..

But those who believe the official theory support a theory. What is missing is an alternative.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

I showed you a video of one of the designers stating it. The are other video's of others stating it also. Google it

He wasn't a designer....he was a construction manager of the building. What about Leslie Robertson, one of the chief structural engineers during the building of the twin towers. He said:

Leslie Robertson wrote:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

from the horses mouth so to speak. Link Any thoughts on that?

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

BB; that link is about swine flu

Yeah swine-flu, did you get it?

DublinWriter

Di0genes wrote: »

Around the same time in New York the 1st tower fell, due to the extreme heat of the fires generated by thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, and the structural damage from the planes impact which also weakened and dislodged fire resistant material around the steel. Half an hour later the 2nd tower collapsed for the same reason. The towers collapse threw huge amounts of debris over the surrounding area, critically damaging several large building in the area.

...and yet from the above carnage the FBI were able to produce the passport of one of the hijackers?

Reeeeeeeeeeight.

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah swine-flu, did you get it?

Yes; havent you noticed.....;)

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

BB; that link is about swine flu

Yeah but i quoted the important part as it relates to this thread and Diogenes as the OP.

Origanally posted by diogenes

You made the claim the onus is on you to support it. Thats the way grown ups behave.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot in this thread. No proof has been offered by the OP yet you still expect people to to provide evidence to disprove Diogenes claim. Whats all that about?

Black Swan

Soveriegn wrote: »

It was built to withstand the impact from a jet liner.

How many REAL skyscrapers have been used to test if they could withstand the impact of a fully loaded medium sized jet liner flying at cruising speed? How many buildings have survived this test, and how many have failed? I know of only two buildings, and they both collapsed at Ground Zero.

I have a aerospace engineer/scientist cousin that has worked for years at Jet Propulsion Labs on a NASA contract at the California Institute of Technology. When asked if these buildings could withstand the impact of a medium sized jet liner flying 200 plus MPH with passengers, baggage, cargo, and tanks topped off with highly explosive and flammable fuel, he said its anyone's guess. He then elaborated: The building designers were working off hypothesized structural models that have not been tested with real, existing buildings.

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

He wasn't a designer....he was a construction manager of the building. What about Leslie Robertson, one of the chief structural engineers during the building of the twin towers. He said:



from the horses mouth so to speak. Link Any thoughts on that?

Of course it is in his best interest as a structural engineer of the towers. Also it's 5 years after the attacks he speaks out. I prefer the video I posted it's dater prior to 9/11.

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Whats all that about?

It was simply a general observation; perhaps I should start a seperate thread.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure either but it'd be a bit thick if they didn't to be honest. The towers were designed in 1960. WWII ended in 1945, The US was being attacked by kamikaze pilots who full speed with full fuel capacity and torpedoes and the like just 15 years earlier. The achitect who designed the towers was even American-Japanese.

Forgive me as I have little knowledge of this particular area, but wouldn't kamikaze pilots mostly be attacking the west coast? For New York, the kamikaze pilots would have had to fly over the whole American continent. I'm very open to correction on this though.

Besides, I'm not saying they were right to design it as they did, if they didn't take these things into account. But these things are always clearer in hindsight

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

Of course it is in his best interest as a structural engineer of the towers. Also it's 5 years after the attacks he speaks out. I prefer the video I posted it's dater prior to 9/11.

Actually it was 2 months afterwards. So let me get this straight, the structural engineer who built the thing is telling porkies but one of the construction managers is 100% on the money. It seems you are dismissing the CHIEF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS comments because they don't agree with what you believe.

Soveriegn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Actually it was 2 months afterwards. So let me get this straight, the structural engineer who built the thing is telling porkies but one of the construction managers is 100% on the money. It seems you are dismissing the CHIEF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS comments because they don't agree with what you believe.

What I'm saying is, if he admitted to making mistakes, it wouldn't look good on his portfolio.

My name is URL

drkpower wrote: »

But those who believe the official theory support a theory. What is missing is an alternative.

Yeah, but my point is about the arguments which invariably break out between those on the extremes of both sides

I can only speak for myself of course, I'm neither a CTer nor a debunker as far as labels go, but enjoy reading the fringe ideas that people post here about stuff. You say what's missing is an alternative.. but if there wasn't as much bickering then most of the threads would be the alternative. Everyone knows what this forum is about, and nobody is forcing anybody to believe these alternative ideas.

I'm not for one minute saying that nobody should critique the stuff that's posted, but the people that do it incessantly; simply because they disagree with the general idea of CTs don't bring anything to the forum. If people only took part in the topics that they actually had an interest in and ignored the "loony troofers" then the more outlandish threads would quietly drop down the page and be replaced by the ones that are interesting on their own merits

drkpower

My name is URL wrote: »

.. but if there wasn't as much bickering then most of the threads would be the alternative. Everyone knows what this forum is about, and nobody is forcing anybody to believe these alternative ideas.

The problem is that the alternatives are often contradictory.

Clawdeeus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah but i quoted the important part as it relates to this thread and Diogenes as the OP.

Origanally posted by diogenes


Now, the shoe is on the other foot in this thread. No proof has been offered by the OP yet you still expect people to to provide evidence to disprove Diogenes claim. Whats all that about?

I offered some evidence, to the 911 commission for a start.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

What I'm saying is, if he admitted to making mistakes, it wouldn't look good on his portfolio.

The guy is retired...he's 81! And they did make mistakes, they never considered the effect of a full fuel load. They only considered a slow flying aircraft lost in fog on a landing pattern. The reason they did this was because the only example of such a thing happening was the B25 that hit the Empire State Building in 1945 i.e. a slow flying aircraft, low on fuel, lost in fog. The idea of someone deliberately crashing a fully loaded aircraft at full speed into the buildings was never considered in the 1960's - different times.

meglome

Di0genes wrote: »

I believe that 19 hijackers working for Al Qaeda, boarded four planes on the morning of September 11th. A few minutes after take off, they seized control of the planes through force and through the thread of force. Several of these hijackers had some training as pilots, and took charge of the cockpit.

One plane flew into the towers at approx 8:50. A second flew into the 2nd tower approximately 15 minutes later. A third struck the pentagon 25 minutes later. Passengers on the 4th flight, contacted loved ones on cellular and airphones, realised that their hijackers were on a suicide mission, fought back in the process control was lost of the plane and it crashed into the ground.

Around the same time in New York the 1st tower fell, due to the extreme heat of the fires generated by thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, and the structural damage from the planes impact which also weakened and dislodged fire resistant material around the steel. Half an hour later the 2nd tower collapsed for the same reason. The towers collapse threw huge amounts of debris over the surrounding area, critically damaging several large building in the area. Firecrews more concerned with rescuing trapped and injured victims, ignored these fires. One of these buildings, Building 7, collapsed due to the massive damage it received from the collapse of the WTC towers, and several other buildings damaged.

The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

I'd agree with this. I also add that the US government admits they had some info the hijackers were in the country. They say the security services didn't share it so it's significance wasn't realised. Now this is where it's possible they knew more than they are saying however the security agency's in the US had a long history of not sharing info with each other. So it's an interesting idea but not one shred of actual evidence to back it up.

Is anyone supporting the CT going to give their view of what happened?

squod

I liked these threads more when Mysterious was here.
The OP will never attempt to back up his claim. / Thread.

meglome

squod wrote: »

I liked these threads more when Mysterious was here.
The OP will never attempt to back up his claim. / Thread.

The OP is based on an extensive official report which took thousands of people and some years. Not only that but it's consistent.

Torakx

What about when George Bush mispoke and said he saw the first plan hit as he walked into the classroom.
What actualy happened as i heard was that he was in the classroom already and was told the first plane hit before he waited 7 minutes to go out and then see the second one hit on tv.
The first hit wasnt televised until later.

joebucks

Torakx wrote: »

What about when George Bush mispoke and said he saw the first plan hit as he walked into the classroom.
What actualy happened as i heard was that he was in the classroom already and was told the first plane hit before he waited 7 minutes to go out and then see the second one hit on tv.
The first hit wasnt televised until later.

Probably just a mistake ,like the 'mistake' made by the BBC and Fox news reporting the collapse of building 7 before it actually fell..go back to watching UFC..All is good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

gizmo

squod wrote: »

I liked these threads more when Mysterious was here.
The OP will never attempt to back up his claim. / Thread.

The counter problem being, the people who believe it is a conspiracy will not post what they believe actually happened in the same manner. Without a unified alternative all that seems to have is hole poking in the "official" story.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Of course it is in his best interest as a structural engineer of the towers. Also it's 5 years after the attacks he speaks out. I prefer the video I posted it's dater prior to 9/11.

Let me guess - if you were presented with the ships construction manager stating that the Titanic was unsinkable - a proposition fully endorsed by the clever design of the time, prior to it's maiden voyage, would you prefer his opinion over the expert who poured over the wreck at the bottom of the ocean?

The building was designed to survive the impact of a 707. Maybe it might have, maybe it wouldn't. We'll never know. What's certain is that it didn't survive the jets on 9/11. That's jets, not missiles, holograms, thermite, controlled explosions, secret technology orbs, or greedy property developers in league with the NYFD.

alastair

Torakx wrote: »

What about when George Bush mispoke and said he saw the first plan hit as he walked into the classroom.
What actualy happened as i heard was that he was in the classroom already and was told the first plane hit before he waited 7 minutes to go out and then see the second one hit on tv.
The first hit wasnt televised until later.

What about it? Did George Bush have anything to do with any of the events on 9/11? he had about as much input as any other poor sod watching the telly.