Of course, an inside job by the cia being exposed would be a good thing now to strike a fatal blow to the deep state. Scrap all and rebuild.
Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
Proc92 said:
If an inside job to justify Mid East military action, why was it not exposed by the Obama admin once he had full control of the three letter agencies? What a way to knee cap his adversaries. He could have pinned that on either bush, Cheney, or the then Republican oriented military industrial complex.
Fine, call them "Government Planner 1" and "Government Planner 2" it doesn't matter. Your theory of who, what, and why will never make sense. Ask yourself "why"?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:Oh, now I see. Great theory.AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
In case you missed the question:Quote:
Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.
Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.
I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.
BUSH: I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
double aught said:Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
This is why steel has fireproofing added to it in every type 1 constructed high rise. And that fireproofing? It has fire resistant ratings assigned to it, depending on the method (Sheetrock, spray on insulation, concrete, etc): 1 hour, 2 hours, sometimes even 3 hours. But none of it claims to be indefinitely resistant to fire.
You are wrong regarding the properties of steel, building construction, and how these things relate to fire resistance.
Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
Shadowy, devious, people who are super-good at needlessly complicating plans and even better at keeping secrets.CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
RWWilson said:Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.
Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund
This is a classic red herring. Those guys are describing what they saw. Or what they thought they saw. Doesn't really matter. They're not talking about an engineering analysis of what caused the collapse. Those analyses talk about the steel weakening, not melting.AggiEE said:double aught said:Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
This is why steel has fireproofing added to it in every type 1 constructed high rise. And that fireproofing? It has fire resistant ratings assigned to it, depending on the method (Sheetrock, spray on insulation, concrete, etc): 1 hour, 2 hours, sometimes even 3 hours. But none of it claims to be indefinitely resistant to fire.
You are wrong regarding the properties of steel, building construction, and how these things relate to fire resistance.
No, it's not just "conspiracy theorists" talking about MOLTEN steel. You have COUNTLESS first hand reports of molten steel in ground zero from first responders and firefighters. I guess they're all lunatics and nutjobs like Barry Jennings, right?
In order to significantly weaken steel OF THE ENTIRE building, you're going to have to do a whole hell of a lot more than crash a plane into one portion of it where most of the jet fuel is burned off externally in the initial fireball. You had people standing in the crash zone, where is this intense heat necessary to compromise every single load bearing structure?
RWWilson said:I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.
Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund
double aught said:This is a classic red herring. Those guys are describing what they saw. Or what they thought they saw. Doesn't really matter. They're not talking about an engineering analysis of what caused the collapse. Those analyses talk about the steel weakening, not melting.AggiEE said:double aught said:Only these conspiracy theorists talk about melting steel. When we're talking about these buildings coming down, we're talking about the strength of steel. It didn't melt, it got weaker. Much weaker as its temperature rises. Steel resists fire, but it can't withstand it indefinitely and retain its strength. It saddens me that you try to refute this as an engineer.AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
This is why steel has fireproofing added to it in every type 1 constructed high rise. And that fireproofing? It has fire resistant ratings assigned to it, depending on the method (Sheetrock, spray on insulation, concrete, etc): 1 hour, 2 hours, sometimes even 3 hours. But none of it claims to be indefinitely resistant to fire.
You are wrong regarding the properties of steel, building construction, and how these things relate to fire resistance.
No, it's not just "conspiracy theorists" talking about MOLTEN steel. You have COUNTLESS first hand reports of molten steel in ground zero from first responders and firefighters. I guess they're all lunatics and nutjobs like Barry Jennings, right?
In order to significantly weaken steel OF THE ENTIRE building, you're going to have to do a whole hell of a lot more than crash a plane into one portion of it where most of the jet fuel is burned off externally in the initial fireball. You had people standing in the crash zone, where is this intense heat necessary to compromise every single load bearing structure?
You and I agree that the steel didn't melt….I think.
AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
In case you missed the question:Quote:
Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.
Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.
I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.
As I said, once a plane is in the air, it is easy to control direction and altitude. I've flown. You haven't and you don't know what you are talking about. Thousands of hours of training goes into thousands of scenarios that having nothing to do with controlling direction and altitude. That part is easy. So much so that you can give someone with no training controls once a plane is at altitude and with a short explanation they can turn the plane, steady on a heading, and control the altitude. It is far simpler than secretly wiring a building for demolition.AggiEE said:RWWilson said:I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.
Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund
If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.
J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
In case you missed the question:Quote:
Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.
Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.
I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the question. A few follow ups - how many people would you estimate would need to be involved in something like this? Why wouldn't they do something much simpler like bombing a building vs bringing planes into the equation? Why wouldn't someone like Trump, who hates the so called deep state, etc expose it when he would clearly have that information available to him?
RWWilson said:As I said, once a plane is in the air, it is easy to control direction and altitude. I've flown. You haven't and you don't know what you are talking about. Thousands of hours of training goes into thousands of scenarios that having nothing to do with controlling direction and altitude. That part is easy. So much so that you can give someone with no training controls once a plane is at altitude and with a short explanation they can turn the plane, steady on a heading, and control the altitude. It is far simpler than secretly wiring a building for demolition.AggiEE said:RWWilson said:I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.
Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund
If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.
Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.Martin Cash said:Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
Martin Cash said:Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
RWWilson said:He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.Martin Cash said:Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
Remote control? Why did they even take flying lessons if the planes were going to be remote controlled? Why did one plane crash after passengers said they were storming the cockpit if it was being remotely controlled? Why go to all the extra detail if the building were going to be demolished by explosions - which the same terrorists had attempted just years before. Just blow up the buildings, kill thousands, blame Al Qaeda, and go to war. Why all the unnecessary steps of remote controlled planes, Muslim men who believed they were flying them, hijacked planes, plane manuals, lessons, etc...?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.Martin Cash said:Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
Same reports that found Atta's passport in NYC?
They may have been on the plane, may have even taken them over. They weren't responsible for navigating the planes as that was done remotely. They were patsies at best.
He is mentally ill and it isn't funny. I was making fun of him before, but now see he inability to think rationally and reason are actually signs of serious mental illness. It's not funny. It's sad. I'm out.JJxvi said:
Man the government loves wiring things up. Now they managed to turn airplanes from three different airines into remote drones without the knowledge of the crews who normally worked on and flew them. You are a nutter.
RWWilson said:Remote control? Why did they even take flying lessons if the planes were going to be remote controlled? Why did one plane crash after passengers said they were storming the cockpit if it was being remotely controlled? Why go to all the extra detail if the building were going to be demolished by explosions - which the same terrorists had attempted just years before. Just blow up the buildings, kill thousands, blame Al Qaeda, and go to war. Why all the unnecessary steps of remote controlled planes, Muslim men who believed they were flying them, hijacked planes, plane manuals, lessons, etc...?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:He denies that Middle Eastern men took over the planes and flew them despite contemporaneous reports from people on the hijacked planes and audio recordings of their reports - so don't expect anything reasonable.Martin Cash said:Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
Same reports that found Atta's passport in NYC?
They may have been on the plane, may have even taken them over. They weren't responsible for navigating the planes as that was done remotely. They were patsies at best.
That's just the thing thought. Isn't the second plane that hits WTC-2 wobbling enough and at an angle where he damn near entirely missed it??Quote:
I have flown. It is not as easy as you claim to navigate precisely into a building a far distance away if you only have very basic training. I am not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE, but the idea that you saw both towers successfully hit by two amateurs seems implausible to me.
I agree, the idea is much simpler than wiring a building for demolition, but in the latter scenario you'd have actual experts doing it, with nearly a year of preparation. In the former example, you only have one shot at successfully hijacking the planes, and not only that, but navigating it successfully to the desired targets.
AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
OK. I'm through. You are truly whacked out.AggiEE said:Martin Cash said:Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
I've given you the answer: PNAC
RWWilson said:He is mentally ill and it isn't funny. I was making fun of him before, but now see he inability to think rationally and reason are actually signs of serious mental illness. It's not funny. It's sad. I'm out.JJxvi said:
Man the government loves wiring things up. Now they managed to turn airplanes from three different airines into remote drones without the knowledge of the crews who normally worked on and flew them. You are a nutter.
Martin Cash said:OK. I'm through. You are truly whacked out.AggiEE said:Martin Cash said:Still waiting for an explanation as to why this elaborate hoax was undertaken. You have no answer.AggiEE said:
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
I've given you the answer: PNAC
AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:double aught said:They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.AggiEE said:double aught said:
Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.
As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.
Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.
The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.
Fire brought down all three of those towers.
Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.
However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.
If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?
In case you missed the question:Quote:
Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.
Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.
I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the question. A few follow ups - how many people would you estimate would need to be involved in something like this? Why wouldn't they do something much simpler like bombing a building vs bringing planes into the equation? Why wouldn't someone like Trump, who hates the so called deep state, etc expose it when he would clearly have that information available to him?
My pure speculation is that the number of people with direct knowledge of what they were doing would not need to be very many. We are talking probably less than 50 people in total (maybe no more than 10-20), the rest of the operation is completely compartmentalized under the guise of doing something completely normal.
You'd need technical expertise to install equipment to remotely control the aircraft to their intended destination.
You'd need somebody to design and source the explosives, and design a plan for how they are to be installed and in a manner that is discrete. Nano-thermite can essentially be painted on steel structures.
You'd want to plan military drills for that same day in order to add to the chaotic nature to ensure things go as planned without external intervention.
PNAC says that they'd need the spectacle of a new pearl harbor. Another mere bombing of the basement doesn't have the hollywood production values of that. They wanted something jaw dropping.
As for Trump, he has actually gone on record saying we needed a real investigation into 9/11, but he was wrapped up in so much drama of everything else and all of his own personal investigations that it's not reasonable to expect that he'd be able to go after it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but flying those aircraft, especially without having to take off or land, is not difficult. I used to fly the simulator when I was young and my dad was a pilot with a major carrier. You only have to program the the flight path and the plane will do most of the flying. The skill comes in takeoffs, landings, weather, communications and just having the hours in the cockpit required by regulations. This is particularly true if your flying in clear whether and have large visible landmarks to direct your flight pathAggiEE said:RWWilson said:I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.
Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund
If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.
BluHorseShu said:Sorry to burst your bubble, but flying those aircraft, especially without having to take off or land, is not difficult. I used to fly the simulator when I was young and my dad was a pilot with a major carrier. You only have to program the the flight path and the plane will do most of the flying. The skill comes in takeoffs, landings, weather, communications and just having the hours in the cockpit required by regulations. This is particularly true if your flying in clear whether and have large visible landmarks to direct your flight pathAggiEE said:RWWilson said:I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?AggiEE said:RWWilson said:Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:Rothschilds?Quote:
I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved
Bilderbergers?
Trilateral Commission?
Masons?
Lizard People?
A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?
They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.
Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund
If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.