J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
You think the hijackers programmed in a flight plan to take them into the side of the WTC?AggiEE said: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.
And you think they were able to program the flight path being Saudis with no training on a 757?
AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
This is all speculation and conjecture.
It doesn't do anything to disprove the controlled demolition of WTC7. As crazy as you want to make any of it sound, that implausibility pales in comparison to the physical implausabiity of WTC7 being able to collapse at free fall speed under its own footprint.
I choose to lean on the side of the physical explanation for collapse setting up the explanation of what actually happened rather than choosing to believe that coordinated covert operations are impossible.
J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
This is all speculation and conjecture.
It doesn't do anything to disprove the controlled demolition of WTC7. As crazy as you want to make any of it sound, that implausibility pales in comparison to the physical implausabiity of WTC7 being able to collapse at free fall speed under its own footprint.
I choose to lean on the side of the physical explanation for collapse setting up the explanation of what actually happened rather than choosing to believe that coordinated covert operations are impossible.
You can assign whatever cause you'd like for WTC7 but the evidence there is definitely not settled. When a rational person zooms out the larger plot you're suggesting (or any plot besides what actually happened) becomes logistically impossible, negating any need to assign some sort of impossible-to-prove cause to one specific aspect of the attack.
J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
This is all speculation and conjecture.
It doesn't do anything to disprove the controlled demolition of WTC7. As crazy as you want to make any of it sound, that implausibility pales in comparison to the physical implausabiity of WTC7 being able to collapse at free fall speed under its own footprint.
I choose to lean on the side of the physical explanation for collapse setting up the explanation of what actually happened rather than choosing to believe that coordinated covert operations are impossible.
You can assign whatever cause you'd like for WTC7 but the evidence there is definitely not settled. When a rational person zooms out the larger plot you're suggesting (or any plot besides what actually happened) becomes logistically impossible, negating any need to assign some sort of impossible-to-prove cause to one specific aspect of the attack.
AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
This is all speculation and conjecture.
It doesn't do anything to disprove the controlled demolition of WTC7. As crazy as you want to make any of it sound, that implausibility pales in comparison to the physical implausabiity of WTC7 being able to collapse at free fall speed under its own footprint.
I choose to lean on the side of the physical explanation for collapse setting up the explanation of what actually happened rather than choosing to believe that coordinated covert operations are impossible.
You can assign whatever cause you'd like for WTC7 but the evidence there is definitely not settled. When a rational person zooms out the larger plot you're suggesting (or any plot besides what actually happened) becomes logistically impossible, negating any need to assign some sort of impossible-to-prove cause to one specific aspect of the attack.
It's not logistically impossible to wire up buildings with explosives
It is impossible that WTC7 fell for any reason other than controlled demolition
The reason is fire.AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
This is all speculation and conjecture.
It doesn't do anything to disprove the controlled demolition of WTC7. As crazy as you want to make any of it sound, that implausibility pales in comparison to the physical implausabiity of WTC7 being able to collapse at free fall speed under its own footprint.
I choose to lean on the side of the physical explanation for collapse setting up the explanation of what actually happened rather than choosing to believe that coordinated covert operations are impossible.
You can assign whatever cause you'd like for WTC7 but the evidence there is definitely not settled. When a rational person zooms out the larger plot you're suggesting (or any plot besides what actually happened) becomes logistically impossible, negating any need to assign some sort of impossible-to-prove cause to one specific aspect of the attack.
It's not logistically impossible to wire up buildings with explosives
It is impossible that WTC7 fell for any reason other than controlled demolition
And the idea that a Bill Kristol lead organization planned all of this to kill thousands of Americans is so ludicrous as to be infuriating.J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
AggiEE said: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.
And you think they were able to program the flight path being Saudis with no training on a 757?
snowdog90 said:
Those bringing up the heinous 19 hijackers that were so quickly identified, here's an interesting article from BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
And a short youtube video about the hijackers.
Basically saying some of the accused hijackers were still alive.
JJxvi said:
They used their own navigational aides that they brought themselves on the plane to pick their heading and make course corrections from long range. Atta is believed to have confirmed coordinates by actually visiting the observation decks of the towers.
CanyonAg77 said:snowdog90 said:
Those bringing up the heinous 19 hijackers that were so quickly identified, here's an interesting article from BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
And a short youtube video about the hijackers.
Basically saying some of the accused hijackers were still alive.
A video from Pravda?
Now you're just trolling
Which may answer one of the long-standing questions. Why that date? Maybe it was chosen at 11th hour based soley on weather conditions at that.CanyonAg77 said:JJxvi said:
They used their own navigational aides that they brought themselves on the plane to pick their heading and make course corrections from long range. Atta is believed to have confirmed coordinates by actually visiting the observation decks of the towers.
Not to mention the weather was exceptionally clear that day, you could navigate by simply looking out the window.
What is the flaw then, in this report? Fire seems pretty obvious for them to be aware since they are even going into all the interlocking structures. They seem fairly sure NIST came out wrong.double aught said:The reason is fire.AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:J. Walter Weatherman said: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.
So many incredible things here that I'm not even sure where to start. Remote controlled planes when there were live reports of the hijackers? People rigging up multiple buildings with explosives or installing remote controls on passenger airlines but they wouldn't have any questions about what it was for? Something to this magnitude would take hundreds of people, all never telling anyone and all ok with murdering thousands of innocent US citizens just to go war across the world. And if this PNAC group was responsible and did it because they wanted Sadaam out of power, why wouldn't they frame Iraq directly?
I'm afraid spending this much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet has broken your brain's ability to zoom out and think logically about what you are actually suggesting.
This is all speculation and conjecture.
It doesn't do anything to disprove the controlled demolition of WTC7. As crazy as you want to make any of it sound, that implausibility pales in comparison to the physical implausabiity of WTC7 being able to collapse at free fall speed under its own footprint.
I choose to lean on the side of the physical explanation for collapse setting up the explanation of what actually happened rather than choosing to believe that coordinated covert operations are impossible.
You can assign whatever cause you'd like for WTC7 but the evidence there is definitely not settled. When a rational person zooms out the larger plot you're suggesting (or any plot besides what actually happened) becomes logistically impossible, negating any need to assign some sort of impossible-to-prove cause to one specific aspect of the attack.
It's not logistically impossible to wire up buildings with explosives
It is impossible that WTC7 fell for any reason other than controlled demolition
How do you refute all my points about the properties of steel, structural damage, uncontrolled fire, no sprinklers, no firefighters, fire ratings, etc? A lightweight construction high rise built to 1980s NYC fire code was not designed to survive all of these assaults simultaneously. All those things are undisputed facts. I'm not talking about what people saw or heard or think they spotted on a video. I'm talking about fire attacking the structure of a building unabated for hours. That is infinitely more likely than a controlled demolition, because it is based on multiple factors that are based on logic, facts, testing.
J. Walter Weatherman said:snowdog90 said:J. Walter Weatherman said:AggiEE said:New World Ag said:
A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.
85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is?
No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.
85 tons of aluminum you say? Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.
The jet fuel is mostly burned up in the initial blast but then quickly becomes oxygen starved.
The molten metal was on the steel columns glowing red like lava (molten aluminum doesn't resemble that), it was not molten aluminum.
I choose to believe the designers of the WTC who compared a plane hitting them to a mosquito slamming into a massive 3D web of immense structure.
Have asked this to most of the conspiracy lunatics on this site and can never seem to get an answer - what, exactly, is your theory of what happened that day?
Yes, namecalling, so helpful. I'll be your lunatic.
911 was a crime. Unlike most crimes, the culprits, Osama bin Laden and the 19 hijackers, were tried and convicted the day of the crime, with no investigation. That seems odd. Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.
In an investigation, one looks at evidence and comes to a conclusion of what happened, or what probably happened.
This is not applied by people that call "truthers" lunatics. Instead, those people, you included I assume, start with the answer - the twin towers were brought down by two airplanes, and, oh yeah, so was tower 7, even though no plane hit it - and then believe whatever theory supports that outcome.
That is not science, that is not the Scientific Method. That is you being told what happened basrd on theories of how it happened being manipulated and formulated to fit the proper outcome.
Every theory, even the official one, is conjecture based on no real examination of the hard evidemce, because all that evidence was immediately removed.
So to answer your question, I'm not sure what happened that day, but I'm curious. My curiosity led me to do research of the officail story from NIST. My trust in NIST quickly dissolved when I found out that they didn't test for explosive residue because theres was no evidence of explosions. That's a blatant lie. I have seen lots of video evidence of eIxplosions and witness reports of explosions on 911. NIST lied about that, how can I now trust anything they say when I know they are liars?
I believe NIST created their report to fit the narrative that 2 planes brought down 3 buildings. There's tons of evidence to support my belief, but most people are so emotionally tied to the official story that they are blinded to that evidence.
Evidence like Barry Jennings, who was trapped on the 8th floor of tower 7 by an explosion in tower 7 before any tower fell.
Nobody on this thread will refute this evidence. Most, save titan, will not even admit that it has any relevance at all because it challenges their core belief in the official story.
Again, what do you think happened? The problem with the allegedly enlightened, "just asking questions" nutjobs is that any alternate theory is so insanely unrealistic that it makes any of the questions they are asking completely pointless. Which is why they will never propose an alternate theory of what happened.
Do you think the government blew up the buildings? Do you think the hijackers were undercover cia agents? Aliens? At least offer something up.
snowdog90 said:CanyonAg77 said:snowdog90 said:
Those bringing up the heinous 19 hijackers that were so quickly identified, here's an interesting article from BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
And a short youtube video about the hijackers.
Basically saying some of the accused hijackers were still alive.
A video from Pravda?
Now you're just trolling
It's an interview. Believe it or don't. I really don't have an opinion on it's veracity. It is curious that BBC was reporting some of the 19 hijackers as still being alive. Again, I don't know.
Duckhook said:snowdog90 said:CanyonAg77 said:snowdog90 said:
Those bringing up the heinous 19 hijackers that were so quickly identified, here's an interesting article from BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
And a short youtube video about the hijackers.
Basically saying some of the accused hijackers were still alive.
A video from Pravda?
Now you're just trolling
It's an interview. Believe it or don't. I really don't have an opinion on it's veracity. It is curious that BBC was reporting some of the 19 hijackers as still being alive. Again, I don't know.
In other words, "Here's some proof I'm offering to support my position. But I really don't know if it's true or not."
Supposedly to start a war. But if so, it wasn't handled that well the way being ready for it might suggest.mncag said:
Why would someone other than terrorists want to blow up the wtc. Far simpler ways to frame terrorists
occam's razor
fka ftc said:
I keep reading this thread to find out when the plans for 09/11 would be copied from laserdisc to DVD and all secrets revealed.
This has to be an epic troll to go on for 16 pages of nonsense. There is nothing unusual about high impact fuel bomb impacting a steel structure FULL of other combustibles.
Many, many reports AND video of the amount of jet fuel that did NOT immediately combust at impact.
If you ever have had a chance to stand in the WTC memorial, see the fire truck, place your hand on that twisted steal, you can feel the tremendous forces and energy that were in play that day.
I love a good conspiracy theory but this is just not well thought out if you think 9/11 was anything other than the terrorist scoring some haymakers on us when we were overconfident in ourselves and blind to our enemies.
You didn't answer my question.AggiEE said:agracer said:This.Tanya 93 said:
Yes
That a building was wired for explosion and no one noticed the equipment
The people claiming the building was wired for demo have no clue what it takes to demo a building with explosives. You don't just set explosives and hit the trigger. The building structure is partially demolished to the point where it's barely standing on its own anymore then it goes boom.
If all it takes to bring a building down At freefall speed is some office fires, it's a lot cheaper to simply do that than hire a demolition company
So why don't we do that?
Again, please turn in your degree.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.
Ed Harley said:fka ftc said:
I keep reading this thread to find out when the plans for 09/11 would be copied from laserdisc to DVD and all secrets revealed.
This has to be an epic troll to go on for 16 pages of nonsense. There is nothing unusual about high impact fuel bomb impacting a steel structure FULL of other combustibles.
Many, many reports AND video of the amount of jet fuel that did NOT immediately combust at impact.
If you ever have had a chance to stand in the WTC memorial, see the fire truck, place your hand on that twisted steal, you can feel the tremendous forces and energy that were in play that day.
I love a good conspiracy theory but this is just not well thought out if you think 9/11 was anything other than the terrorist scoring some haymakers on us when we were overconfident in ourselves and blind to our enemies.
It really is unbelievable that supposedly educated people believe a conspiracy on this level could happen without a single whistleblower ever speaking up. If the conspiracy were true, we're talking thousands and thousands of people involved (in killing Americans) and there is not one single person who has spoken up about it. It honestly pisses me off to think about how stupid you must be to continue this farce.
agracer said:Again, please turn in your degree.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.
You're right. It's never happened. September 11 was a unique situation (and hopefully remains so) for reasons I've mentioned that you haven't responded to. But your implication that the fires were "isolated to a few parts of a few floors" is completely disingenuous.AggiEE said:agracer said:Again, please turn in your degree.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.
I'll do that whenever you can name a single instance outside of those three buildings on 9/11 where a modern steel high rise building collapsed in its entirety at freefall speed from fires isolated to a few parts of a few floors.
It amazes me that some people think this is all it takes for such a collapse to happen and that modern buildings aren't designed for the load bearing core structure to withstand raging infernos of which there are numerous examples of. These buildings are charred to a crisp but the structures still stand solidly.
double aught said:You're right. It's never happened. September 11 was a unique situation (and hopefully remains so) for reasons I've mentioned that you haven't responded to. But your implication that the fires were "isolated to a few parts of a few floors" is completely disingenuous.AggiEE said:agracer said:Again, please turn in your degree.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.
I'll do that whenever you can name a single instance outside of those three buildings on 9/11 where a modern steel high rise building collapsed in its entirety at freefall speed from fires isolated to a few parts of a few floors.
It amazes me that some people think this is all it takes for such a collapse to happen and that modern buildings aren't designed for the load bearing core structure to withstand raging infernos of which there are numerous examples of. These buildings are charred to a crisp but the structures still stand solidly.
The examples you mention:
- How many of those buildings had the fireproofing blasted off by a sudden impact?
- How many were modern lightweight construction?
- How many didn't have functioning sprinklers?
- How many didn't have firefighters put water on the fire?
- How many of the fires had a massive head start due to literally tons of jet fuel?
Your supposed examples may meet one or two of those criteria, but not all or even most of them.
I am telling you again, fire collapsed those buildings. The evidence is there and you don't want to see it.
AggiEE said:double aught said:You're right. It's never happened. September 11 was a unique situation (and hopefully remains so) for reasons I've mentioned that you haven't responded to. But your implication that the fires were "isolated to a few parts of a few floors" is completely disingenuous.AggiEE said:agracer said:Again, please turn in your degree.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.
I'll do that whenever you can name a single instance outside of those three buildings on 9/11 where a modern steel high rise building collapsed in its entirety at freefall speed from fires isolated to a few parts of a few floors.
It amazes me that some people think this is all it takes for such a collapse to happen and that modern buildings aren't designed for the load bearing core structure to withstand raging infernos of which there are numerous examples of. These buildings are charred to a crisp but the structures still stand solidly.
The examples you mention:
- How many of those buildings had the fireproofing blasted off by a sudden impact?
- How many were modern lightweight construction?
- How many didn't have functioning sprinklers?
- How many didn't have firefighters put water on the fire?
- How many of the fires had a massive head start due to literally tons of jet fuel?
Your supposed examples may meet one or two of those criteria, but not all or even most of them.
I am telling you again, fire collapsed those buildings. The evidence is there and you don't want to see it.
None of those conditions, either collectively or in isolation, is sufficient to allow complete collapse of a modern steel structure due to office fires. As the studies mentioned previously note, the building required complete and near simultaneous failure of all load bearing columns to collapse in the manner that it did, which isn't explained by fire. Nor are the temps at the rubble that raged for weeks to extreme levels consistent with office fires.
That's why it's never happened.
There is much more evidence (eye witnesses on the planes), security footage, and actual pictures and videos that support this than the grand conspiracy. And the 22 were only the actors that completed the mission, think back at that time what the screening at airports were like.atmtws said:Ed Harley said:fka ftc said:
I keep reading this thread to find out when the plans for 09/11 would be copied from laserdisc to DVD and all secrets revealed.
This has to be an epic troll to go on for 16 pages of nonsense. There is nothing unusual about high impact fuel bomb impacting a steel structure FULL of other combustibles.
Many, many reports AND video of the amount of jet fuel that did NOT immediately combust at impact.
If you ever have had a chance to stand in the WTC memorial, see the fire truck, place your hand on that twisted steal, you can feel the tremendous forces and energy that were in play that day.
I love a good conspiracy theory but this is just not well thought out if you think 9/11 was anything other than the terrorist scoring some haymakers on us when we were overconfident in ourselves and blind to our enemies.
It really is unbelievable that supposedly educated people believe a conspiracy on this level could happen without a single whistleblower ever speaking up. If the conspiracy were true, we're talking thousands and thousands of people involved (in killing Americans) and there is not one single person who has spoken up about it. It honestly pisses me off to think about how stupid you must be to continue this farce.
I'm indifferent on this whole thing….but you say it's unbelievable that educated people believe this "conspiracy" bc it would've taken thousands of people to pull it off….when the theory you believe was that 22 Saudi born Al-Queda/Taliban/Isis terrorists pulled this off all by themselves?!?!
The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed. Popular Mechanics debunked this over a decade ago.AggiEE said:agracer said:Again, please turn in your degree.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.
I'll do that whenever you can name a single instance outside of those three buildings on 9/11 where a modern steel high rise building collapsed in its entirety at freefall speed from fires isolated to a few parts of a few floors.
It amazes me that some people think this is all it takes for such a collapse to happen and that modern buildings aren't designed for the load bearing core structure to withstand raging infernos of which there are numerous examples of. These buildings are charred to a crisp but the structures still stand solidly.
