The great 9/11 magic trick

[muddyfrog]

skyeagle, you didn't respond to anything I said except the fires being big or small??

My main point was the middle part, about giving you guys my perspective... I did it rather creativley I might add.

If you pick what you want, then you get what you want. What do you want?

Trusting magazines and websites, who speculate after the fact, over firefighters who were there is just insane to me. I guess I am just surprised.

"They can't survey a fire, they're only firefighters."

"How could they know how hot the fire was, they were confused."

"what we need is some people to tell us what they think happened, because they're experts, so we can know how far off those silly firefighters were."

"silly fluffybunny, your just a firefighter, and obviously don't know what a fire is."

"I mean why the heck would a firefighter have to know anything about buildings or fire for that matter... Just point the hose at the fire, duh."

"I rest my case."

Or should you guys give them some credit?

-Muddy

[Jim88]

Tell me how much of the floorspace got hot enough to weaken the steel and collapse the floors? How do we know? Who's specuation is that?

You have made it quite clear that you believe the magazine regarding the heat of the fire; I am not going to waste time trying to get you to cosider anything else. I could make calls and get people who were actually in the building relaying messages to command and have them explain it all, but it still would not make a difference and I realize that. I don't type all this material for the benefit of folks that wouldn't believe what I say and assume I am speculating. I could sit here and type for hours on what I know of the matter, but it wouldn't make a difference as there are just some folks that can't get their minds in a different perspective to see the possibility that maybe the fires weren't hot enough to do the damage claimed by the official story.

Depending on how it was manufactured, engineers can examine steel under a microscope and tell if it was heated above the temperature where it becomes weaker. They can examine the steel and determine how it failed. Each kind of failure leaves tell tale signs. Aluminum melts at 1218°F. That's below what they say some of the fires in the World Trade Center were. It's not speculation. They had experts study the world trade center. They came to their conclusion based on the evidence they found. If you want to know how much of the floorspace got hot enough to weaken the steel then you will have to ask the people who studied it. Look it up on the Internet and see if they have anything up on the web.

If you want people to believe you then you will have to provide evidence that supports what you're saying. I'm not going to believe it just because you tell me somebody told you that. I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion, but the evidence you showed me doesn't support it. I still think you're doing a lot of speculating.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Jim88

[skyeagle409]

skyeagle, you didn't respond to anything I said except the fires being big or small??

My main point was the middle part, about giving you guys my perspective... I did it rather creativley I might add.

If you pick what you want, then you get what you want. What do you want?

Trusting magazines and websites, who speculate after the fact, over firefighters who were there is just insane to me. I guess I am just surprised.

It just not a matter of presenting information from magazines or from other sources, it is what I know from past experience in regards to aircraft accidents and structures. In addition, the aircraft were built mostly of aluminum, but what is aluminum also used for? Rocket fuel!

["Aluminum burns at over 4,100 K (6920°F), which is two-thirds the temperature at the surface of the Sun. At these temperatures, the burning aluminum releases a large amount of energy that significantly expands the gases within the combustion chamber."]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0246.shtml

And, we have learned lessons in warfare as well.

["Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong. Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships. However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water or regular fire extinguishers. In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel."]

http://www.g2mil.com/aluminum.htm

"They can't survey a fire, they're only firefighters."

"How could they know how hot the fire was, they were confused."

"what we need is some people to tell us what they think happened, because they're experts, so we can know how far off those silly firefighters were."

Firefighters are not experts when it comes down to the kind of knowledge that I am talking about and that is why I've posted information from structural experts to make a point.

In regards to structural components, heat is used to soften (anneal) metals from their original state so they can be reworked, but the metal must undergo a heat-treating process before it can be used as a structural component after the annealing process. Structural components can be examined to determine how hot the fire was, and during the tunnel fire near Oakland, CA., which was caused by gasoline, the fire was hot enough to melt brass, and steel blanking plates within the turnnel had to be replaced because they buckled under the heat.

[Jim88]

Fluffy bunny, I can give you this much. World Trade Center building 7 may not have collapsed the way Popular Mechanics and the investigators told us it collapsed. Senator Kerry said it was demolished. We now have two conflicting stories on how that building collapsed. Which one is true I don't know.

The question is if the building was demolished then does that prove the government was behind 9/11?

[K-D]

Fluffy bunny, I can give you this much. World Trade Center building 7 may not have collapsed the way Popular Mechanics and the investigators told us it collapsed. Senator Kerry said it was demolished. We now have two conflicting stories on how that building collapsed. Which one is true I don't know.

The question is if the building was demolished then does that prove the government was behind 9/11?

To me it's a no-brainer...conflicting reports, Kerry admit's its a "demilishion job", never been a true invesigation into what happened just conflicting crap-o-rama reports and then the "supposed tape" that has Bin-Laden on it...strange how "Bin-Laden" in that video looks bloated and fat...nothing really like the real version.

My opinion is it was a government job..maybe for control of the oil supply or something else..but damn sh!t just doesn't add up it's as simple as that!

[skyeagle409]

My opinion is it was a government job..maybe for control of the oil supply or something else..but damn sh!t just doesn't add up it's as simple as that!

That's a statement that is a bit peculiar, since the Pentagon was also damaged in the attacks, and, what is the Pentagon? It is a government building! Are you implying that the government also set charges at the Pentagon as well?! I don't think so! In your words, the government decided to crash three airliners into buildings, including a government building, and crash another airliner into an open field just so we could have an excuse to bomb Osama bin Laden! President Clinton never went that far when he hit bin Laden back in 1998!

As noted earlier, not even more than 1000 pounds of explosives could bring down a World Trade building in 1993, so what does that tell you?

Edited April 27, 2007 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The question is if the building was demolished then does that prove the government was behind 9/11?

Perhaps, we should take a survey of government workers and ascertain how many of them are capable of fomenting the kind of horrendous destruction on the level that we saw on 9/11/2001, and do so against their own countrymen, not knowing that their own relatives or friends might be in the general area, just so we can have an excuse to bomb a terrorist in another country.

[Jim88]

Perhaps, we should take a survey of government workers and ascertain how many of them are capable of fomenting the kind of horrendous destruction on the level that we saw on 9/11/2001, and do so against their own countrymen, not knowing that their own relatives or friends might be in the general area, just so we can have an excuse to bomb a terrorist in another country.

I agree with you the government conspiracy theory doesn't add up.

We now have two conflicting stories from government officials as to why WTC7 collapsed. They can't both be true. I don't know which is true. We will have to wait and see.

I don't know how long it actually takes to demolish a building, so I don't know if it means they would have had to plant the explosives in advance of the attack or not. According to the article I read about Senator Kerry saying the building had been demolished it takes months. I don't believe that. Maybe due to regulations it takes months. It doesn't take months to determine how to knock the building down. It isn't that complicated. I think it could be done in less time than months, but I don't know if it could be done in the time between the collapse of the twin towers and the collapse of WTC7.

[cyrus11]

dewd.. the Bush's people knew about the attack and they allowed the terrorists a free goal kick. they've always waited for a chance to go back into iraq ever since bush sr. started the first gulf war... it was all Bush sr's Agenda.....electing his son right after his own term would be too obvious.... right after clinton would be the best choice to get it done, fast.. i wouldnt be surprised that monica lewinski was hired by the CIA to get Clinton out of the office.... anyhow...I think iraq might hold something that the Bush's do not want the rest of the world to eventually find out. It's not about the oil, iraq doesn't have the oil everyone claimed it does...The oil thing is it's all reverse-conspiracy smokescren to dilute the real truth.. G W Bush knew about the 911 attack beforhand.. his reaction caught on camera that day, his 7 minutes of silence is the face of realization that what they planned indeed happened and that he is responsibel for the death of all those in the accident.. thats the face of "omg" i just killed someone look.. the look, im sure of most people who committed murder for the first time and they stand there shocked beside themselves...realizing finally what they really have done... but of course, being the son and puppet of the former head of CIA can get away with a lot of things.. indeed, We the people do not run the country or elect our officials anymore, it's the secret services and the CIA and the military that truly has the power.

[skyeagle409]

I agree with you the government conspiracy theory doesn't add up.

We now have two conflicting stories from government officials as to why WTC7 collapsed. They can't both be true. I don't know which is true. We will have to wait and see.

I don't know how long it actually takes to demolish a building, so I don't know if it means they would have had to plant the explosives in advance of the attack or not. According to the article I read about Senator Kerry saying the building had been demolished it takes months. I don't believe that. Maybe due to regulations it takes months. It doesn't take months to determine how to knock the building down. It isn't that complicated. I think it could be done in less time than months, but I don't know if it could be done in the time between the collapse of the twin towers and the collapse of WTC7.

Demolishing a steel building is a complex and difficult task requiring a lot of skill, time, planning and preparation, so there is no way that anyone could carry out demolition of the World Trade Towers and not be noticed. And, any planted explosives would have detonated during the explosive impact of the aircraft and resultant fire anyway. Look how much preparation is needed for demolition of a steel building.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/buildi...mplosion-20.jpg

I doubt very much that anyone could carry ten times or more, the amount of that material all the way up to where some think the explosions took place and not be noticed. Here is a typical description on what is involved.

Demolishing A Steel Building

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

These days, blasters often use an electrical detonator instead of a traditional fuse. An electrical detonator fuse, called a lead line, is just a long length of electrical wire. At the detonator end, the wire is surrounded by a layer of explosive material. This detonator is attached directly to the primer charge affixed to the main explosives. When you send current through the wire (by hooking it up to a battery, for example), electrical resistance causes the wire to heat up. This heat ignites the flammable substance on the detonator end, which in turn sets off the primer charge, which triggers the main explosives.

To control the explosion sequence, blasters configure the blast caps with simple delay mechanisms, sections of slow-burning material positioned between the fuse and the primer charge. By using a longer or shorter length of delay material, the blasters can adjust how long it takes each explosive to go off. The length of the fuse itself is also a factor, since it will take much longer for the charge to move down a longer fuse than a shorter one. Using these timing devices, the blasters precisely dictate the order of the explosions.

Blasters determine how much explosive material to use based largely on their own experience and the information provided by the architects and engineers who originally built the building. But most of the time, they won't rely on this data alone. To make sure they don't overload or under-load the support structure, the blasters perform a test blast on a few of the columns, which they wrap in a shield for safety. The blasters try out varying degrees of explosive material, and based on the effectiveness of each explosion, they determine the minimum explosive charge needed to demolish the columns. By using only the necessary amount of explosive material, the blasters minimize flying debris, reducing the likelihood of damaging nearby structures.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

That is what it takes and if such explosives were already planted during the time of the impacts, the explosives would have been detonated then, not an hour or so, later. In addition to the amount of aluminum and fuel involved, there are combustible office furniture, hydralic fluids, and gas lines.

Edited April 28, 2007 by skyeagle409

[contactismade]

dewd.. the Bush's people knew about the attack and they allowed the terrorists a free goal kick. they've always waited for a chance to go back into iraq ever since bush sr. started the first gulf war... it was all Bush sr's Agenda.....electing his son right after his own term would be too obvious.... right after clinton would be the best choice to get it done, fast.. i wouldnt be surprised that monica lewinski was hired by the CIA to get Clinton out of the office.... anyhow...I think iraq might hold something that the Bush's do not want the rest of the world to eventually find out. It's not about the oil, iraq doesn't have the oil everyone claimed it does...The oil thing is it's all reverse-conspiracy smokescren to dilute the real truth.. G W Bush knew about the 911 attack beforhand.. his reaction caught on camera that day, his 7 minutes of silence is the face of realization that what they planned indeed happened and that he is responsibel for the death of all those in the accident.. thats the face of "omg" i just killed someone look.. the look, im sure of most people who committed murder for the first time and they stand there shocked beside themselves...realizing finally what they really have done... but of course, being the son and puppet of the former head of CIA can get away with a lot of things.. indeed, We the people do not run the country or elect our officials anymore, it's the secret services and the CIA and the military that truly has the power.

Just a few errors in your statement.

Sadam invaded Kuwait because he thought he could take their oil, which obligated the states to come to the Kuwaity leaderships aid. This aid was requested by the government of Kuwait, it wasn't a unilateral power move. Clinton was elected in a lopsided victory, by voters. Irag does have huge oil reserves because the amount of oil there has been known about for twenty years. Its an established fact not conspiracy.

Get your facts straight.

[Jim88]

Demolishing a steel building is a complex and difficult task requiring a lot of skill, time, planning and preparation, so there is no way that anyone could carry out demolition of the World Trade Towers and not be noticed. And, any planted explosives would have detonated during the explosive impact of the aircraft and resultant fire anyway. Look how much preparation is needed for demolition of a steel building.

I didn't say the twin towers were destroyed by demolision charges. I don't believe that. The demolition charge theory doesn't add up. I believe the fire caused those two buildings to collapse.

I was talking only about building 7 of the World Trade Center complex. It didn't collapse when the twin towers collapsed, but later on that day. According to Popular Mechanics and the government agency responsible for investigating the World Trade Center building 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage caused by the debris from the twin towers that fell on it. Acording to Senator Kerry building 7 was demolished. We have two conflicting stories. I don't know which story is true.

If building demolision takes as long as I've heard they wouldn't have had time do all the preparations necessary to demolish a building in the time between the collapse of the twin towers and the collapse of building 7. There is only two ways Sentor Kerry could be right. Either they were making preparations to demolish building 7 before the attack or building demolision doesn't really take as long as I've heard.

[skyeagle409]

I didn't say the twin towers were destroyed by demolision charges. I don't believe that. The demolition charge theory doesn't add up. I believe the fire caused those two buildings to collapse.

I never believe explosives were responsible either, and that fire was the cause of the collapse.

I was talking only about building 7 of the World Trade Center complex. It didn't collapse when the twin towers collapsed, but later on that day. According to Popular Mechanics and the government agency responsible for investigating the World Trade Center building 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage caused by the debris from the twin towers that fell on it. Acording to Senator Kerry building 7 was demolished. We have two conflicting stories. I don't know which story is true.

I won't side with Senator Kerry on that issue.

Edited April 28, 2007 by skyeagle409

[cyrus11]

Just a few errors in your statement.

Sadam invaded Kuwait because he thought he could take their oil, which obligated the states to come to the Kuwaity leaderships aid. This aid was requested by the government of Kuwait, it wasn't a unilateral power move. Clinton was elected in a lopsided victory, by voters. Irag does have huge oil reserves because the amount of oil there has been known about for twenty years. Its an established fact not conspiracy.

Get your facts straight.

so the media which is run by the government said they are there to free Kuwait, you believed it? just like the current administration said they were there to fight terrorism? to free the people? please. everything about the bush's are cloak and dagger... there was a past issue on the discovery magazine that there was this one oil investor, forgot who he was, he plainly said we weren't there for the oil.. there just isn't much oil in iraq..something like 10%? 15%? who knows but he clearly stated that it wasn't for the oil.. so whatever it was it has to have some connection to Bush sr.... so im not sure where you got your facts from but it obviously was fact released into the major media by the administration.. they want you to know what they want you to know... since you have no way of proving what they say is not true you and the rest of the public will just take it as truth... maybe clinton was elected in a lopsided victory, maybe it was a long drawn out plan to have his own son be his successor in the not so immediate future so that it would draw less attention.. imagine had GWbush ran for president after his father retires or even after clintons first term? it would be obvious to everyone that its fixed had GWbush won and then immediately allow 911 happening and head straight back to iraq... iraq had always been the objective.. bin laden was just a pawn used by the cia to create a reason for war in iraq. sure he might have been directly or indirectly responsible for the planes that crashed into the wtc, we don't know all the details.. because it's classified and the government will not allow us to know. it will never allow us to know. the major public is not allowed to know whats the real truth.. we are here to keep the economy engine turning. that's all. anyways, you don't believe that GWBush's dad didn't have a hand in his son's election? he's the reason al gore lost the election.. and 911 might not have happened ..maybe it will still...but im sure we wouldn't be attacking iraq.

Edited April 30, 2007 by cyrus11

[contactismade]

Hows your math?

10-15% of the worlds oil reserve is quite a chunk.

Do you have any idea what that would be worth tinfoil?

Of course not to judge by your statements. Its simple the way this is going to work. The last twenty years of oil will be worth as much as the last two hindred years of oil sales in dollar figures. I don't have to use an abacus to figure out that its a large sum of money somewhere in the hundreds or thousands of billions.

And it was the king of Kuwait on TV himself asking for aid from his alllies, in front of this this little group called the United Nations.

And you have no proof as to anything you are saying as well, but at least my infromation is confirmable in several different ways. I doubt you even want to look it up as it may shatter your delusion.

[Beren Erchamion]

I find it interesting that I saw nothing mentioned in these comments about the fact that the engine nfrom the plane that hit the Pentagon was never found. (that and the fact that the whole was way too small for an airplane)

[skyeagle409]

I find it interesting that I saw nothing mentioned in these comments about the fact that the engine nfrom the plane that hit the Pentagon was never found. (that and the fact that the whole was way too small for an airplane)

Engine parts from the B-757 were in fact, found in the wreckage of the Pentagon.

And, here's a section from the American Airline aircraft and note the paint scheme. Definitely not part of any missile. Other parts of the aircraft found wthin the Pentagon have be identified as those coming from only a B-757.

Edited June 2, 2007 by skyeagle409

[Moon*Ghost]

Alright, so this article claims 9/11 was set up by the government. So, what did they do with the people that actually boarded the planes that morning and were never heard from again?

People on the street described hearing bomb-like explosions. Ofcourse they heard numerous booms after the impact. That was the sound of the floors smacking down on top of eachother as the building came down.

Edited July 8, 2007 by xymox1971

[Drego]

Hah, I knew it! Eisenheim was behind 9/11!!!

Edited July 8, 2007 by Drego