PaWnOgRaFfItI wrote:Let me smoke some weed and then i'll get back to "MY FAVORITE"

saintdee wrote:9/11 was a result of the American Government

saintdee wrote:9/11 was a result of the American Government

bigstrads wrote:

saintdee wrote:9/11 was a result of the American Government

Ohh dear...............dont get me started on that.

That ISNT a conspiracy, because as Mig says, there is too much pure, scientific, in-disputable evidence (which I have spent years collating into a 4 gig file I have on my PC) for it to be a conspiracy.

If you guys want, I shall post a summary of this I made some time.

D4rk 0ne wrote:There is really not much evidence to suggest such a "theory" is even worth considering to be honest . . . There is some coincidental / circumstantial stuff that is extremely iffy. That's about it. I've yet to see anyone put together a decent argument to show why the US Government would destroy their own land, or how any supposed evidence suggests that they did so. And I've read a fair bit about it.

That is one of the theories that really annoys me, along with the Lunar landing. A good conspiracy theory (what an oxymoron ) requires some legitimate factual support. Neither of those theories have anything -- at least, nothing that hasn't been disproved or rebutted sufficiently in any discussion I've seen.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any conspiracy theory that I really find interesting or believable. I'm sure if I spent enough time thinking/caring about them I could come up with something though...

bigstrads wrote:

D4rk 0ne wrote:There is really not much evidence to suggest such a "theory" is even worth considering to be honest . . . There is some coincidental / circumstantial stuff that is extremely iffy. That's about it. I've yet to see anyone put together a decent argument to show why the US Government would destroy their own land, or how any supposed evidence suggests that they did so. And I've read a fair bit about it.

That is one of the theories that really annoys me, along with the Lunar landing. A good conspiracy theory (what an oxymoron ) requires some legitimate factual support. Neither of those theories have anything -- at least, nothing that hasn't been disproved or rebutted sufficiently in any discussion I've seen.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any conspiracy theory that I really find interesting or believable. I'm sure if I spent enough time thinking/caring about them I could come up with something though...

Ahh, a challenge...............ok dude, all I ask is that you dont take this as a conspiracy theory, and try to think of it as a presentation of scientific fact, with no suggestion as to what I am implying by it but just simple questioning via looking at the official statements of what happend and what is physically possible in the know universe.............heres one Ive used before =

The melting point of steel is 1510C..........fact.

The melting point of iron is 1535C...........fact.

For both towers to collapse, the official explanation is that the jet fuel and other combustables like paper/wood/plastics etc, reached such a temperature that it melted the steel structure and caused the crash (as evident by the pools of molten steel/melted steel found in the ruins)

So, more facts...........the maximum temperature achievable by a fully oxygenated jet fuel induced fire is 825C........fact............see a problem?..........and given that black smoke was pouring from the building, this means that the fires were oxygen starved and as such were not able to even reach there max temp of 835C.............just under half the temperature needed to melt the steel structure.

Finally..........the maximum temperature achievable of C4 explosives is around 1800C..........also, as is widely suggested, thermite was most likely used as it is the quickest and easiest way to melt steel...........it has a low temp of around 1230C and a high temp of 4556C

In conclusions, it is IMPOSSIBLE!!! and never before happend in human/steel/fire history that a steel can be melted by jet fuel and other available combustables in the building...........simply not possible...........so what does that mean?

One final one, in case you talk about damage to the stucture from the impact............the fact that the building fell at the same rate as gravity (proven and timed), meaning that from the beginning of the collapse, the rest of buildings structure was pulverised and there was no resistance (the official explanation was that the crash area collapsed onto the other un-affected floors and the weight caused the rest of the collapse)............is IMPOSSIBLE, as it would not have fallen without resistance, and at the same rate as gravity, as each floor hitting the other would have expelled energy and slowed it down, possibly causing it to fall to the side.............the only way this IS POSSIBLE is with explosives/thermite planted through the structure.

One more little one on the impact of the plane causing structural damage..............there are numerous records of wind sheer being equal to and in many case, far greater than the impact created by the planes hitting the towers.
.
.
.
.
I have many more but I hope you read that for what it is...........not a mud sling at anyone, just simple questioning of the official explanation and how easy they are to dis-prove with a few simple scientific facts.

I have more.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.