Piece of 9/11 plane found

Locker10a

Chop Chop wrote: »

Can we get off the conspiracy stuff and discuss the topic at hand? I'm personally peeved at the amount of abuse in here.

So on topic, was it 175 or 11 the gear was from?

175, and apparently not a gear but part of the flaps mechanism!

paddy147

Mythbusters do Thermite...:D

Locker10a

Bruthal wrote: »

Maybe the conspirators put some dynamite in the wrong building by mistake.

Smart remarks aside it was odd that another part of the WTC collapsed despite no real damage of impact from bombing of planes!

paddy147

Locker10a wrote: »

Smart remarks aside it was odd that another part of the WTC collapsed despite no real damage of impact from bombing of planes!

Cheap labour perhaps????:pac:








or some dynamite.

Bruthal

Chop Chop wrote: »

Ahh I'm gonna leave now, it was probably the most life changing event I witnessed, and to come in here and have forks stuck into me from people that were not there is píssing me off, exactly why I stopped talking about it.

So, people should not post opinions, because you were there? You dont seem to mind laughing at others opinions, then complain of being stuck with forks.

Kneemos, I do like your posts in AH, but this is one subject we will go loggerheads at, and I'm not willing to do it, same reason I don't post in the 9/11 thread in CT. Too many armchair people

Armchair people? You seem to have this belief that being beside something gives you proof, while you lol at others who give credible opinions that fire weakened the steel structure, bringing it down.

that witnessed everything from their television sets and became experts on the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are no different in peoples living rooms than at the scene.

Did you become more of an expert on the laws of physics by noon that day than you were at 8am that day?

Locker10a

paddy147 wrote: »

Cheap labour perhaps????:pac:








QUOTE]

Shoddy shoddy shoddy workmanship! LoL :P

Chop Chop

Bruthal wrote: »

So, people should not post opinions, because you were there? You dont seem to mind laughing at others opinions, then complain of being stuck with forks.



Armchair people? You seem to have this belief that being beside something gives you proof, while you lol at others who give credible opinions that fire weakened the steel structure, bringing it down.


The laws of physics are no different in peoples living rooms than at the scene.

Did you become more of an expert on the laws of physics by noon that day than you were at 8am that day?

Grow up for Jaysus sake..

Bruthal

Locker10a wrote: »

Smart remarks aside it was odd that another part of the WTC collapsed despite no real damage of impact from bombing of planes!

Maybe there was some damage and fires from the collapsing towers. It was on fire all day, and fire weakens steel. The simple explanations are more often than not, the factual ones.

Bruthal

Chop Chop wrote: »

Grow up for Jaysus sake..

Is that what you say to anyone who has an opinion different to your own? Or is it the "I was there, I should know" one that emerges most often?

For someone who doesn`t want to talk about it, you are not very silent.

JJayoo

paddy147 wrote: »

Mythbusters do Thermite...:D

If you are interested in thermite and it's abilities to cut through steal then this video is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

endacl

Locker10a wrote: »

Smart remarks aside it was odd that another part of the WTC collapsed despite no real damage of impact from bombing of planes!

In fairness, buildings fall for all kinds of reasons, and usually in the absence of airplane impacts. Who knows why it happened. It doesn't need to be for sinister reasons. I'm happy to accept that its quite likely that there was stress caused to the structure by virtue of the fact that millions of tonnes of steel and concrete collapsed in the vicinity of WTC7. Twice.

'Odd' is a your subjective opinion. Mine would be 'unfortunate'. I don't have either the facts and figures, or the engineering background, to explain why that building fell. I'm not sure it needs odd to fill the explanation gap though.

Chop Chop

Bruthal wrote: »

Is that what you say to anyone who has an opinion different to your own? Or is it the "I was there, I should know" one that emerges?

For someone who doesn`t want to talk about it, you are not very silent.

Good lord, you're ribbing for an argument. I have my experiences of that day firmly in my mind. A poster asked about experiences so I replied with a video, coomon courtesy.

But obviously you'll come up with another slash back to get me vexed once again.

Locker10a

Bruthal wrote: »

Maybe there was some damage and fires from the collapsing towers. It was on fire all day, and fire weakens steel. The simple explanations are more often than not, the factual ones.

Yes that's true, I just always thought it odd that a simple fire would make a building built in 1987 and designed to withstand earthquakes collapse so easily! But I guess its not beyond the realms of possibility !

Chop Chop

Locker10a wrote: »

Yes that's true, I just always thought it odd that a simple fire would make a building built in 1987 and designed to withstand earthquakes collapse so easily! But I guess its not beyond the realms of possibility !

1977

Bruthal

Chop Chop wrote: »

Good lord, you're ribbing for an argument. I have my experiences of that day firmly in my mind. A poster asked about experiences so I replied with a video, coomon courtesy.

But obviously you'll come up with another slash back to get me vexed once again.

I wont. Obviously it was a horrendous experience.

But you have formed an opinion, and believe anyone not there can not have a valid opinion on how planes hitting buildings might cause their structural failure.

If you are going to lol at other posters with the opinion that steel weakened due to fire and impact, then tell yet another poster top grow up, then common courtesy doesnt seem that common here.

Chop Chop

Bruthal wrote: »

I wont. Obviously it was a horrendous experience.

But you have formed an opinion, and believe anyone not there can not have a valid opinion on how planes hitting buildings might cause their structural failure.

If you are going to lol at other posters with the opinion that steel weakened due to fire and impact, then tell yet another poster top grow up, then common courtesy doesnt seem that common here.

Mother if god, Jesus relax, I'm a bit touchy about it alright. I witnessed the event. I did hear what I thought were bombs, and the site rattled a fair bit before collapse.

I don't want to fall out with posters here, I'm just telling people my accounts of the day, nothing more. And obviously my opinion.

Can we leave it at that ?

Bruthal

Chop Chop wrote: »

Can we get off the conspiracy stuff and discuss the topic at hand? I'm personally peeved at the amount of abuse in here.

So on topic, was it 175 or 11 the gear was from?

Flight 11 went into the first tower while flying south I think? So if it was its landing gear, the gear would be south of the towers.

If the gear landed north of the towers, then it must be from flight 175.

Chop Chop

Bruthal wrote: »

Flight 11 went into the first tower while flying south I think? So if it was its landing gear, the gear would be south of the towers.

If the gear landed north of the towers, then it must be from flight 175.

Good observation there, I think you might be right.

Bruthal

Chop Chop wrote: »

Good observation there, I think you might be right.

Seems to be Murray street the landing gear is in. That's directly north of the WTC. So it would likely have to be from flight 175 if that's the case.

NuckingFacker

endacl wrote: »

In fairness, buildings fall for all kinds of reasons, and usually in the absence of airplane impacts. Who knows why it happened. It doesn't need to be for sinister reasons. I'm happy to accept that its quite likely that there was stress caused to the structure by virtue of the fact that millions of tonnes of steel and concrete collapsed in the vicinity of WTC7. Twice.

'Odd' is a your subjective opinion. Mine would be 'unfortunate'. I don't have either the facts and figures, or the engineering background, to explain why that building fell. I'm not sure it needs odd to fill the explanation gap though.

Never happened with a steel framed building. Excluding earthquakes or intentional demolition.

kneemos

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Never happened with a steel framed building. Excluding earthquakes or intentional demolition.

It war hit by steel girders which took out support columns and fires weakened the rest...simples.

NuckingFacker

kneemos wrote: »

It war hit by steel girders which took out support columns and fires weakened the rest...simples.

What was?

knucklehead6

NuckingFacker wrote: »

What was?

building 7.

It was hit by debris from one of the towers.

lanyard

knucklehead6 wrote: »

building 7.

It was hit by debris from one of the towers.

No, it was brought down by thermite and dynamite charges. A few lads I know spent a few days packing the internal supporting columns with the stuff - I saw their expense claims. It was due to be hit by a plane but the CIA focked that up. Larry Silverstein was pissed but decided to "pull it" anyway.

paddy147

JJayoo wrote: »

If you are interested in thermite and it's abilities to cut through steal then this video is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

WOW....interesting viewing.




So then,is George Bush responsible for killing over 3000 people on September 11th????

Did America kill its own to justify illegaly invading Iraq and getting all the oil??

knucklehead6

lanyard wrote: »

No, it was brought down by thermite and dynamite charges. A few lads I know spent a few days packing the internal supporting columns with the stuff - I saw their expense claims. It was due to be hit by a plane but the CIA focked that up. Larry Silverstein was pissed but decided to "pull it" anyway.

oh. Ooops.

I thought they were all being paid under the counter? With gold bars from fort knox???

JonathanAnon

That was some thorough investigation they did there... On a par with the banking "investigation" here... Whatever about towelheads, boxcutters etc etc, there is nobody that will convince me that Building 7 was not a controlled demolition..

knucklehead6

JonathanAnon wrote: »

That was some thorough investigation they did there... On a par with the banking "investigation" here... Whatever about towelheads, boxcutters etc etc, there is nobody that will convince me that Building 7 was not a controlled demolition..

good to see you have an open mind about it. And i LOVE the racial slurs in your post too

paddy147

JonathanAnon wrote: »

That was some thorough investigation they did there... On a par with the banking "investigation" here... Whatever about towelheads, boxcutters etc etc, there is nobody that will convince me that Building 7 was not a controlled demolition..

You know who also did very well out of the WTC falling (apart from George Bush)???


The man who owns and rents it all out....Larry Silverstein

He made billions of dollars in profit by cashing in on insurance policies if the buildings ever collapsed.And amazingily,he only took out those policies on WTC a few weeks before 9/11.

The policies stated......"In the event of a terrorist attack".

He also had to spend 1 billion dollars out to have the asbestos removed from the steel colums on the 2 WTC buildings aswell,so maybe Mr Bush and mr Silverstein had some thermite and explosives thrown in there while removing the asbestos.

Silverstein also had loads of empty floors in both WTC buildings,where he couldnt find any commercial tennants to move in,he was losing lots of money and income.



And then a few weeks later...WTC is eh "attacked"...and Mr Bush is on about attacking Iraq.



Come on like...we all aint fools here and we all aint believeing the "planes brought down the buildings story either".






"Ok lets Pull the buildings".....5,4,3,2,1......BOOM..:eek::pac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNtMZ0jEZwM

JonathanAnon

knucklehead6 wrote: »

good to see you have an open mind about it. And i LOVE the racial slurs in your post too

Well maybe I should say that nobody has convinced me so far..

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ........... the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

And that's the official FEMA report. I've heard the architects and engineers group asking "How can we still build with steel, when we dont know what brought this building down". And I think it's a fair question.

NuckingFacker

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Well maybe I should say that nobody has convinced me so far..



And that's the official FEMA report. I've heard the architects and engineers group asking "How can we still build with steel, when we dont know what brought this building down". And I think it's a fair question.

The only way tower 7 could fall like that is if the lower levels had their girders cut. The weight of the upper levels falling that 15-20 feet would then self sustain the demolition. Fires me hole. The fact tower 7 was being used as a repository for the incriminating Enron paperwork adds to the benefit.

--Kaiser--

paddy147 wrote: »

You know who also did very well out of the WTC falling (apart from George Bush)???


The man who owns and rents it all out....Larry Silverstein

He made billions of dollars in profit by cashing in on insurance policies if the buildings ever collapsed.And amazingily,he only took out those policies on WTC a few weeks before 9/11.

The policies stated......"In the event of a terrorist attack".

Yawn. Lies, damned lies and conspiracy theories. Just like everything else posted by the CTers on this thread, this kind of rubbish has been extensively debunked a long time ago.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/building-seven/

paddy147

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Yawn. Lies, damned lies and conspiracy theories. Just like everything else posted by the CTers on this thread, this kind of rubbish has been extensively debunked a long time ago.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/building-seven/

So can you prove it all wrong then??

Can you prove there were no explosives or thermite in any of those buildings???


You can say its all lies.

But a lie is only a lie when its proven to be wrong and a lie.

So can you prove it all to be lies????:pac:


Can you prove to us all that a plane fire brought down 2 skyscrapers??

And that a fire in building 7 (non plane fire) metled the entire steel structures and made it collapse so fast and so absolutely perfectly??


Even when you can clearly hear the authourities and people on the ground saying to evacuate the area and that they are pulling the building


EXPLAIN THAT

LivelineDipso

TheUsual wrote: »

Come brother.
Join us.

The Space ship is parked behind KFC in Dundalk.

]

CIVIL 'nice safe job make me mammy proud' SERVICE >>>>>>>>
That a away.

Whatever about 9/11 - Jim Corr is bang on this interview. The financial collapse was engineered. The bee in my backyard even knows this.

LivelineDipso

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Yawn. Lies, damned lies and conspiracy theories. Just like everything else posted by the CTers on this thread, this kind of rubbish has been extensively debunked a long time ago.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/building-seven/

'Debunking' is not really proof. Secondly, some of the pro-CT comments on this thread are very plausible. All you lot can come up with is South Park vids and mentions of Lizzards.

I think you need to understand that a person with an alternative opinion to yours is not always a nut case. Please try to understand this.

--Kaiser--

LivelineDipso wrote: »

'Debunking' is not really proof. Secondly, some of the pro-CT comments on this thread are very plausible. All you lot can come up with is South Park vids and mentions of Lizzards.

I think you need to understand that a person with an alternative opinion to yours is not always a nut case. Please try to understand this.

Nope, I've looked into awful lot of conspiracy theories around 9?11 and almost without exception they are flimsy, cobbled together bits of almost knowledge with an awful lot of misrepresentations of the truth, exaggerations and downright lies. CTers generally seem to be severely lacking in terms of critical thinking.

LivelineDipso

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nope, I've looked into awful lot of conspiracy theories around 9?11 and almost without exception they are flimsy, cobbled together bits of almost knowledge with an awful lot of misrepresentations of the truth, exaggerations and downright lies. CTers generally seem to be severely lacking in terms of critical thinking.

I agree in general. But not all.

The Buildng Seven one has yet to be debunked for me. Everything else I can more or less buy the official story. Not that.

Doctor Strange

paddy147 wrote: »

So can you prove it all wrong then??

Can you prove there were no explosives or thermite in any of those buildings???

Can you prove that there was? Burden of proof is on those claiming a positive.

paddy147

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Can you prove that there was? Burden of proof is on those claiming a positive.

Videos of detanations/explosions in the buildings.Molten steel/sparks showers flowing from buildings and buried steel still burning/melting 6-8 weeks after the buildings collapsed,as the diggers pulled the steel up and out of the rubble.

Evidence from firefighters on the ground,fire chiefs and explosives/steel experts.


Wonder why any of the goverment agencies wouldnt test for thermite/explosives and wouldnt mention it any their reports???

They have failed to show or prove that a plane fire could bring down 2 buildings and then also WTC 7 aswell.


I dont know who or what actually took down those buildings and killed over 3000 people.

Im just curious to know the real truth.....but somehow I dont think we ever will know.:(

Dimithy

paddy147 wrote: »

Videos of detanations/explosions in the buildings.Molten steel/sparks showers flowing from buildings and buried steel still burning/melting 6-8 weeks after the buildings collapsed,as the diggers pulled the steel up and out of the rubble.

Evidence from firefighters on the ground,fire chiefs and explosives/steel experts.


Wonder why any of the goverment agencies wouldnt test for thermite/explosives and wouldnt mention it any their reports???

They have failed to show or prove that a plane fire could bring down 2 buildings and then also WTC 7 aswell.


I dont know who or what actually took down those buildings and killed over 3000 people.

Im just curious to know the real truth.....but somehow I dont think we ever will know.:(

They didn't test for pixie dust either. Maybe there's something in that too?

lanyard

paddy147 wrote: »

Videos of detanations/explosions in the buildings.Molten steel/sparks showers flowing from buildings and buried steel still burning/melting 6-8 weeks after the buildings collapsed,as the diggers pulled the steel up and out of the rubble.

Evidence from firefighters on the ground,fire chiefs and explosives/steel experts.


Wonder why any of the goverment agencies wouldnt test for thermite/explosives and wouldnt mention it any their reports???

They have failed to show or prove that a plane fire could bring down 2 buildings and then also WTC 7 aswell.


I dont know who or what actually took down those buildings and killed over 3000 people.

You obviously havn't looked hard enough.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?


NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

paddy147 wrote: »

Im just curious to know the real truth.....but somehow I dont think we ever will know.:(

No you're not.

Bruthal

paddy147 wrote: »

So can you prove it all wrong then??

Can you prove there were no explosives or thermite in any of those buildings???


You can say its all lies.

But a lie is only a lie when its proven to be wrong and a lie.

So can you prove it all to be lies????:pac:


Can you prove to us all that a plane fire brought down 2 skyscrapers??

And that a fire in building 7 (non plane fire) metled the entire steel structures and made it collapse so fast and so absolutely perfectly??


Even when you can clearly hear the authourities and people on the ground saying to evacuate the area and that they are pulling the building


EXPLAIN THAT

Look at the second photo, after an office fire. Now add on hundreds of thousands of tons of building on top.

No doubt about fire bringing down a steel structure when the steel has inadequate fire proofing. It is no great mystery as to why a steel structured building might collapse while on fire.

EuskalHerria

paddy147 wrote: »

So can you prove it all wrong then??

Can you prove there were no explosives or thermite in any of those buildings???


You can say its all lies.

But a lie is only a lie when its proven to be wrong and a lie.

So can you prove it all to be lies????:pac:

So you can make up some mad $hit and the burden is on someone else to disprove your mad theories? Twisted logic is it not and a very juvenile form of argument.

I don't care about conspiracy theories or who's right and wrong. The buildings fell and I have a strong feeling that nothing on this forum is going to change that. Your logic above is beyond delusional though,

Jonny7

paddy147 wrote: »

You know who also did very well out of the WTC falling (apart from George Bush)???


The man who owns and rents it all out....Larry Silverstein

The Silverstein "pull it" conspiracy theory debunked if anyone is interested

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

Jonny7

paddy147 wrote: »

Im just curious to know the real truth.....but somehow I dont think we ever will know.:(

Well searching for the truth would actually involve actually engaging with experts, from demolition, engineering and so on, interviewing the firefighters, building a case with direct evidence, detailing a list of suspects, agencies involved, dates, names, times.. all the factors of the most basic court case

You want to be the first 911 conspiracy theorist to do that? if so you'd be a true trailblazer.

Unfortunately, if you do that, there's a slight possible risk you might discover it's not some giant nefarious conspiracy theory.. which would probably not go down too well in the truther community.. and you may get called a "shill"..

Choose wisely

JJayoo

The guy in this video shows how easily thermite can cut through steal. He starts the demonstration at the 5:55 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

Jonny7

JJayoo wrote: »

The guy in this video shows how easily thermite can cut through steal. He starts the demonstration at the 5:55 mark

What would be much more impressive.. is if he actually showed some evidence of which patriotic Americans actually wired their own buildings with thermite.. or who ordered such an astonishing plan of striking two of the world's largest buildings with jet-laden airliners.. that were already secretly rigged up with silent explosive from top to bottom..

What if one of the planes missed?

We need a video on critical thinking in here first.

JJayoo

Jonny7 wrote: »

What would be much more impressive.. is if he actually showed some evidence of which patriotic Americans wired their own buildings with thermite.. or who ordered such an astonishing plan of striking two of the world's largest buildings with jet-laden airliners.. that were already secretly rigged up with silent explosive from top to bottom..

What if one of the planes missed?

We need a video on critical thinking in here first.

You have a very random way of thinking. I mean what would be even more impressive would be if a giant whale came out of the ocean and painted a nice picture. The video isn't to impress people.

It's a simple demonstration that yes Thermite is very effective at cutting through steal. It also shows how both National geographic and myth busters used very poor logic in their demonstrations.

Jonny7

JJayoo wrote: »

It's a simple demonstration that yes Thermite is very effective at cutting through steal. It also shows how both National geographic and myth busters used very poor logic in their demonstrations.

Thermite is not effective at cutting steel for demolition, in fact it's rubbish. It's not used by any demolition company.

The video you posted is of a guy using thermate, in his own personal experiment. He's also a hardcore 911 conspiracy theorist.

kneemos

To use thermite you would have to strip the steel of it's concrete casing which would mean huge construction works.I think people would have noticed,also what would be the point if they had already flown two planes into them?