Print

[xboxbox451]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)

Patriot act
fire in the buildings-> kerosene, simular to gasoline, burns extreamly fast. All the gas would have been
compleatly burnt up in less then 5 sec. all of it. The resulting fire that "heated up the support
structure", was from desks, paper, chairs etc.

The average swimming pool holds about 20,000 gallons of water, now picture half that amount of extremely volatile JET FUEL spilling, possibly even misting, and igniting. The fuel acted as a component in spreading the fire throughout the floors in order to create an even distribution of fire. I'm sure when they designed the Towers they didn't ever conceive it possible for such a disaster to ever occur.

QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)

That building had water sprinklers. It would have given the fireman more time to put out the fire.

Are you serious   . What makes you think the sprinkler system was still in tact after such an impact. Plus I'm sure the water pipes that supplied water to the above floors were severed, only making the fire spread without any type of retardant available. Even if water was available, jet fuel and water is not a great combination, the water would have just acted as a mobile carrier piggy backing the ignited fuel to other floors.

Damn I wouldn't want to see you ever put out a gasoline fire with your limited knowledge of flammable liquids   .

QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)

Hardly enough to produce 3000 degrees needed.

Awww, I think your a bit confused. The 3000 degrees you mention is a point at which steel can possibly start to melt. MELT!

You just need to heat steel up to around 500 degrees to start compromising its load capacity. Also take into account the structural damage it received from the impact of the plane, plus temps supposedly exceeded an estimated 1500 degrees.

 Once you reduce its load capacity there's no way it can continue to support the existing loads. Due to the impact the fire was capable of spreading throughout the floors affecting the structural supports as a whole.

QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 20 2006, 09:31 PM)

I don't know why they fell, but it wasn't from the jet fuel.

Correct, it was a combination of a massive impact and heat induced structural weakening propelled by jet fuel.

QUOTE('_iffy' date='Feb 20 2006 @  09:31 PM' post='3260678')

btw slightly off topic, but how much money has bush made since 9/11? Doesn't he own alot of stock in
haliburton? (<-spelling?) Oil companies?

Sounds like someone is a big fan of Michael Moore.

[xboxbox451]

QUOTE(slightly_damp @ Feb 21 2006, 01:48 AM)

Jet fuel is hardly "extremely volatile"  

True. Particularly if you compare jet fuels flash point to gasoline, though hurling a jet fuel container into a building at 100mph, I would then consider it highly volatile.

[throwingks]

abovetopsecret is hardly official. It is the biggest consipiracy theory site on the net. And, they found 757 parts. Don't be a moron. Even the "official" JFK findings have some truths.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(buckwheat @ Feb 21 2006, 06:47 AM)

Until somebody explains what happened to UA93, the ALLEGED hijackers, and WTC 7, then I guess your friends friend is apart of the conspiracy. I know both sides of the story and was stupid enough to believe the official story, but now I know what really happened on 911. Don't be mad because I don't believe your DEMIGODS, the media and the government. As for Micheal Moore all he did was WHITEWASH the masses to still believe some arabs were behind 911 and our Goverment is capitalizing on it. Though I'm still wondering how those Arabs would benifit like our gov. on 911. But hey, you gotta give it to them, they pulled it off and the masses fell for it. 911 is as much a psychological attack on the world as it was physically. Lives are still being lost right now as I type this.  But it doesn't matter cuz this is all a kooky, nutjob conspiracy theory.  Let's just live our lives like nothing happened. There isn't anything we can do about it anyway.
     

so do you believe that guy who said flight 175 was a missile with a hologram generator on it to make it look liek a plane? lol

[damam]

QUOTE(lordvader129)

so do you believe that guy who said flight 175 was a missile with a hologram generator on it to make it look liek a plane? lol

dont be absurd

it was a UFO with a hologram generator on it to make it look like a bird

[_iffy]

>first things first, they did incorporate a plane crash when they designed it. The close proximity to major airports, possibility of low visiblibilty in weather, They had to.
>second that steel wasn't ordinary, it was insulated and it would've had to have been tested for fire to be up to code. Lasting for only half an hour? I don't think so
>third the water pipes for the sprinklers, they're inside re-enforced concrete, located in the centre of the building near the elevators. Hardly possible for them to be "severed"

Micheal Moore's movies are extreamly one sided, but a good point is a good point. Money is the ultimate modivator.
Would you murder someone for a million dollars? 10 million? 1 billion? Your guarenteed to get away with it? That question becomes harder to answer when the money is real. And don't forget that people have mudered for less than that.

Jet fuel.
kerosene is a highly refined fuel, it's clear with a yellow hue, with additives to make it the equivilent of 140 octane. The gas you put in your car is 87 octane. Single engine aeroplanes use 110 octane.
I don't know if you've ever thrown a water balloon at a wall or a ceiling fan, but the water turns to a mist when you do that. Have you ever seen a fire breather at a fair or on tv? That's alcohol igniting as a mist.

A jet caries it's fuel in it's wings. The metal on those wings are less than a quarter of an inch thick.
Imagine the twin towers as a wall, and the jet as a balloon filled with gas.
Ka-boom. That fire ball you saw, that was it. All the jet fuel. I said 5 sec, because there would sure to be some drops of fuel which would take time to heat up and turn to vapor first. But NOTHING like a  bunson burner or a BBQ were it burns for hours. This wasn't a plane that skidded on a runway, it flew straight into
a wall. It's wings were toast.

Now, I hate to think that george bush junior (geor-ju) would murder his own countrymen, so I'm willing to give him the benifit of the dout, but 911 is just so undeniably fishy, I just don't know what to think.


btw did they give up looking for osama. What's up with that? They found Saddam fairly quickly, and he was in a hole in the ground.

[buckwheat]

Forgot to add: THEY DID IT ALL WITH THE POWER OF...boxcutters...

[damam]

did they not do the madrid bombing then?

[buckwheat]

QUOTE(damam @ Feb 21 2006, 04:21 PM)

did they not do the madrid bombing then?

Did I say they did or didn't do it? I'm talking about SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH.

[CattyKid]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 21 2006, 02:02 PM)

>third the water pipes for the sprinklers, they're inside re-enforced concrete, located in the centre of the building near the elevators. Hardly possible for them to be "severed"

Do you realize that a PLANE hit these buildings?  A plane?  
Max takeoff weight, 412.9 TONS.  That is a LOT of mass stopping quickly.  VERY quickly.  You mean to tell me that a plane /THAT size couldn't sever a concrete water pipe at the center of a building?
SOURCE

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Feb 21 2006, 01:02 PM)

>second that steel wasn't ordinary, it was insulated and it would've had to have been tested for fire to be up to code. Lasting for only half an hour? I don't think so

i already explained how it failed so fast, the fire proof insulation was stripped off by the initial impact of the plane, the steel underneath wasnt rated for high temperatures at all (it didnt need to be, it had the fireproof casing)

QUOTE

>third the water pipes for the sprinklers, they're inside re-enforced concrete, located in the centre of the building near the elevators. Hardly possible for them to be "severed"

the supply pipes didnt necessarily have to be severed, any number of things could have happened to disable the sprinkler heads, a peice of wreckage could have kinked a pipe, the system could have been damaged in the impact and failed to initialize at all

QUOTE(buckwheat @ Feb 21 2006, 01:52 PM)

Forgot to add: THEY DID IT ALL WITH THE POWER OF...boxcutters...

maybe i just have a more twisted imagination than everyone else but i can see exactly how they could have done it with boxcutters

stroll up to the first class bathroom (front of plane, near cockpit, also conveintly adjacent to first class kitchen) grab nearest flight attendant out of the kitchen and put the boxcutter to her neck, order the pilot and copilot out of the cockpit, get in and lock the door, if the door doesnt lock just hold on to your flight attendant hostage, or just execute the entire flight crew, not like you need them anyway

[damam]

they want us to leave the peninsula (and all other muslim lands) as they wanted spain to leave the peninsula.  The difference is that Spain buckled and left, we strengthened our position.  But they basically used the same strategy on both countries yet you seem to believe its plausible in one country and implausible in another.  They see us as a country that can be easily de-moralized and look to vietnam as proof as well as other events such as the attack on our marines in Beirut.  They believe that the steady drip of body bags and occasional high profile attack is all that it will take to remove our presence all together.  Who knows, maybe they are right.  It certainly worked well prior to 911.

Also if you do some research you will find that several successful skyjackings have used nothing more than knife like objects such as box cutters.  They also generally worked in groups of 1 - 6 people.  What 911 did was change our survival tactics in such a situation.  now any threat will be met with force, where as before the best survival tactic was compliance (which worked very well for over 50 years and more than 500 skyjackings world wide).  People who suggest this was impossible to do with box cutters seem to forget that.

[xboxbox451]

QUOTE(buckwheat @ Feb 21 2006, 02:52 PM)

Forgot to add: THEY DID IT ALL WITH THE POWER OF...boxcutters...

Nah, it was more like American naivete towards a homeland attack, our trusting nature, and lack of security.

This entire disaster could have been easily avoided if the cockpit doors were locked and pilots trained NEVER to open them UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. Pitiful that such a simple measure could have saved thousands lives.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(xboxbox451 @ Feb 21 2006, 07:12 PM)

Nah, it was more like American naivete towards a homeland attack, our trusting nature, and lack of security.

This entire disaster could have been easily avoided if the cockpit doors were locked and pilots trained NEVER to open them UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. Pitiful that such a simple measure could have saved thousands lives.

true, but as damam said the standard operating procedure was compliance because at the time no one expected a suicide attack

[throwingks]

That website says the trade centers fell as if in free fall, then their evidence videos for bombs show it falling apart piece by piece. Which happened?

Did any of these people do real world tests? Does anyone really know what is supposed to happen when a Jet full of fuel strikes a huge building?

I am gonna believe the videos when I see it melt from the inside out.  Read and believe what you are told, or watch and make your own decisions, its up to you.

You are no worse than the people you are arguing against, just believing main stream media. You are just believing conspiracy theorists.

Which conspiracy theories aren't true in your mind? Any?