proof that 9/11 was planned by us gov.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't disagree that the tail could have broke off when it hit the building leaving very little visible damage, But in that case I would expect pieces of the tail section laying in the yard which they are not.

Do you know anything about aluminum? It's worth looking up before posting something like that....

I bet you can even find some slow speed video of test aircraft crashed into concrete walls - just like with cars

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[no7rosman 0]

I know a little about aluminum and alot about other airplane crashes. I have never (not say they don't exist) seen any airplane crash where you couldn't make out one single part.

Another thing I noticed was if you look at the picture...there isn't even a mark.

Also...The whole airplane is pretty much made of the same stuff. Why was the front part of the airplane strong enough to pucture a bunch of concrete walls, then when it got to the tail (the plane should have been going slower) it just disentigrated into nothing leaving no marks on the building.

You haven't convinced me.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You haven't convinced me.

that would be impossible - this is just for exercise

but - I won't continue a discussion that first requests me to assume a solid steel aircraft, and then, when that doesn't work, shift to a brittle balsa wood airframe assumption.

blue skies

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[no7rosman 0]

Whatever dude...There are no marks on the building where the wings, engines, or tail section could have hit it. Each piece would have made a mark.

That is all I am trying to say.

I didn't mean to be a dick...Sorry.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Whatever dude...There are no marks on the building where the wings, engines, or tail section could have hit it. Each piece would have made a mark.

That is all I am trying to say.

I didn't mean to be a dick...Sorry.

Not sure what happened that day BUT, the pics I've seen show no wing imprints on the wall. Did the wings just fold backwards and go into the neat little hole w/ the fusilage?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[sundevil777 94]

The second pic I posted shows several missing columns at the lowest level - damage across a wide area.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[no7rosman 0]

Quote

>Since no steel frame buildings had ever collapsed due to fires . . .

Incorrect. I listed three steel frame buildings that did collapse above.

>the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis.

It was. It was moved to the Fresh Kills landfill and analyzed extensively by the FBI and CIA. Only after they were satisfied was it carted off to be recycled.

Here is something very interesting regarding the steel that supposedly broke or melted. This letter is from:
Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site - www.ehl.cc)

A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc

They are the people who certified the steel...Long story short they say that steel was fine and contest to this day there was no problem. Of course they need to cover their ass, but the letter is interesting.

http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm


As far as the inspection of the steel goes, I showed earlier that they only had a chance to look at 20% of the damaged steel. The letter above also talks about this a bit too.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Whatever dude...There are no marks on the building where the wings, engines, or tail section could have hit it. Each piece would have made a mark.

That is all I am trying to say.

I didn't mean to be a dick...Sorry.

Not sure what happened that day BUT, the pics I've seen show no wing imprints on the wall. Did the wings just fold backwards and go into the neat little hole w/ the fusilage?

yep. or so it would seem. like the 1945 crash of the B25 bomber in the Empire State building that had a 67 foot wingspan, fit itself into an 18 X 20 foot hole.

Obvioulsy Bigfoot and Elvis and the Tri-Lateral commission were involved.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

>Since no steel frame buildings had ever collapsed due to fires . . .

Incorrect. I listed three steel frame buildings that did collapse above.

>the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis.

It was. It was moved to the Fresh Kills landfill and analyzed extensively by the FBI and CIA. Only after they were satisfied was it carted off to be recycled.

Here is something very interesting regarding the steel that supposedly broke or melted. This letter is from:
Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site - www.ehl.cc)

A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc

They are the people who certified the steel...Long story short they say that steel was fine and contest to this day there was no problem. Of course they need to cover their ass, but the letter is interesting.

http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm


As far as the inspection of the steel goes, I showed earlier that they only had a chance to look at 20% of the damaged steel. The letter above also talks about this a bit too.

That letter appears to be full of shit. there is no www.ehl.cc website, there was no certification of the steel by UL, the letter claims that the steel should have seen temps no higher than 500 F - which if true would mean that no fireproofing of the steel would have been needed. All of this is of course pure bullshit.

From the NIST FAQs:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Quote

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Whatever dude...There are no marks on the building where the wings, engines, or tail section could have hit it. Each piece would have made a mark.

That is all I am trying to say.

I didn't mean to be a dick...Sorry.

you weren't a dick at all (my bad if my exit came across harsh) only this is just an 'impressions' type of discussion rather than having any engineering content so no point in going on.

Impressions? - marks of the main fuselage (most of the volume, large depth, but light weight type materials) and both engines (lots of mass, density) seems obvious. the thin stuff like the tail, remainder of the wings etc would show less building damage or none at all (relative to the general damage in those areas which certainly is apparent) and certainly are very "crumpleable" as well.

If you've ever seen how a parachute line can actually cut through a Cessna's elevator (aluminum) - I have just last year and that jumper went right up again with that rig, but he did owe quite a repair bill for his poor landing accuracy -, you'll realize the fragility of that stuff when it doesn't have any mass behind it.

Cartoon bubble of Wile E Coyote outlined hole in a wall - only the outline is a perfect airplane profile and the wall is cinderblocks.

(BTW, I have a degree in aerospace engineering, have designed airplanes, worked as program manager for an aircraft turbine engine company, have a masters in nuc e so structures and materials have been pounded into it, and hang around airplanes quite a bit. Since I also asked you what you knew about aluminum it's only fair I respond too....)

also, I have a personal friend that was actually driving by the pentagon when it happened (she works at the Navy Annex just nearby) - she and her husband are puppets to no one. another reason why these types of thread are so funny.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freefallin14 0]

Quote

CT's have a humongous blind spot to anything that contradicts their desired belief. And a huge gaping hole in their judgement that allows absolute garbage in if it supports their desired belief. They basically have the whole critical thinking thing backwards, or sideways at best. Their criteria for credibility is whether or not they like the evidence. Any evidence they do not like is automatically part of the conspiracy. It's an airtight system.

Hard evidence is not their criteria for belief. Desire is their criteira for belief. Look at the whole crop circles fiasco. Even after hooligans admitted to creating them (including those that were supposedly proven to be of alien making) the true believers still won't budge. They just keep repeating tired old ages ago debunked references about how the circles show features like nothing else on Earth. So much BS.

I seriously had a CT get in my airplane a while back and ask me where the "Chem Trail" button was... http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/, http://www.workingtv.com/chemtrails.html

I wish I was kidding. I am not the only airline guy who has had this happen. Apparently there is a sizable amount of people who actually believe airlines (mine included I guess) are part of a conspiracy to spray them with....something. I had so many great responses brewing in my head for this wackjob but choose a more diplomatic (and HR safe) response .

[watchdog2 0]

WOW...all these aruguments....and yes, we are all still on page on...

I remember years ago i was flying a King Air 90 over New Mexico, 15,000 feet uo heading northbound, when I saw a shiny disk from the east come up stay on my right wing. It went up, down, and then vanished over the horizon.

When I witnessed that, at that time I realized that this world is NOT what we think it is. We have so much to learn, and yes, I believe it would be SO EASY for the Government to pull off ANYTHING behind out backs. WHY?? Because 1. 99% of the people out there DONT CARE. all they care about are feeding their families. 2. They dont believe it. If someone came up to them and said, I am from another world, would they believe it? NO. They would just laugh and shrug it off. All because they are programmed the brainwashed to believe that something like that is not possible.

:) Welcome to the Matrix.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

I believe it would be SO EASY for the Government to pull off ANYTHING behind out backs.

if the government was able to pull off a faked 9/11 with as many thousands of witnesses, video, and data as this, then thats the most amazing thing in all of human history. Faking 9/11 would not be "SO EASY".

Quote

WOW...all these aruguments....and yes, we are all still on page on...

and we always will be. Its way too easy to make a video using half-science to convince ignorant people into believing something. Its no different than advertising... you can turn a lot of BS into something convincing pretty easily. Weight loss pills have been shown to be mostly BS, but watch one of their infomercials and suddenly they sound pretty convincing. Unfortionately, CTs believe this stuff.

I bet the CTs who claim the entire "But the steel never got to its melting point, therefore it will hold the same amount of force before failing" haven't taken structoral materials coursework in college. Otherwise they would see how silly that statement is. But does that statement sound convincing to a structural materials -ignorant type? yes. and thats how it works.

Me, I'll stick with what trained scientists and engineers PROVE. And my professor and lab instructors proved to me what steel and other metals do with heat and stress.

And billvon and kallend have shown excellent proof in this thread... but as soon as they do, the issue gets dropped and another is brought up. then the issue comes back later.

CTs are no different than most people in that they don't want to get proved wrong. But its easy for the CTs to have a way out... just claim whatever proof the other side offers is obviously done by the secret government. And then they don't get proven wrong, which is so embarrissing.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[skinnyflyer 0]

enough with cts' are crazy and stupid.
we understand that you think anyone who questions the official story is a crazy ct. you didn't have to post it hundreds of times. and posting it another hundred times isn't going to refute the facts presented.

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" -- Einstein on the book "100 Authors Against Einstein"


the flat earth society;
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
i couldn't find any debunking flat earth society websites.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Because 1. 99% of the people out there DONT CARE.

perhaps, but the other 98.01% really care a lot - or at least think that toasted sandwiches are good with a spicy sauce

either way - I could care less

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[bch7773 0]

Quote

enough with cts' are crazy and stupid.
we understand that you think anyone who questions the official story is a crazy ct. you didn't have to post it hundreds of times. and posting it another hundred times isn't going to refute the facts presented.

actually I didn't say CTs were crazy or stupid.
I said they were ignorant. Them posting crap like the steel melting stuff, without knowing any of the proven science behind it, makes them ignorant.
Also posting very misleading quotes, without bothering to check sources, makes them source-ignorant.

I also said they don't like be proven wrong... like most people. But the difference is CTs can hide behind the "those facts you presented are lies by the government" BS line. Normal people have to just admit they are wrong.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[no7rosman 0]

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
The letter is not bullshit...
and UL's website is
www.ul.com

Basically what happened is he sent this letter before the NIST bullshit was complete...During the investigation when they were saying it was fire. His story is that UL knew he was sending the letter, and UL discredits everything he says. Long story short he got fired immediately after writing it.

Quote

the letter claims that the steel should have seen temps no higher than 500 F - which if true would mean that no fireproofing of the steel would have been needed. All of this is of course pure bullshit.

The reason the steel didn't get that hot was because most of the jet fuel exploded outside the building and fires only burned for less than an hour. This can be seen on all videos.

All steel is certified to something. UL may have only been involved in certifing the fire proofing (which they deny), but when steel leaves its plant it is documented to withstand certain conditions and meet certain criteria. To think that steel is sold to people that are going to use it to build buildings...and have no idea what that steel is made of or capable of withstanding is silly.

[no7rosman 0]

Yet another great post by an idiot with no facts.

[billvon 2,463]

Your one warning.

[no7rosman 0]

Quote

yep. or so it would seem. like the 1945 crash of the B25 bomber in the Empire State building that had a 67 foot wingspan, fit itself into an 18 X 20 foot hole.

Obvioulsy Bigfoot and Elvis and the Tri-Lateral commission were involved.

Good point...but you missed some of the other important ones.
-----------------------------------------
Damage to the building and the surrounding area was extensive. An 18-by-20 foot hole was gouged by the B-25, and one of the plane's engines plowed through the building, emerging on the 33rd Street side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building.
------------------------------------------
WOW They found the engine? It didn't disentigrate into nothing?
-------------------------------------------
One plane motor went right through the bottom of the car equipment, hitting one of our guide rails (3-1/2 x 5"), doubling it in a 'V' shape. The motor then went through the building, tore a hole 20 feet wide, took the windows and wall down with it (78 floors) and landed in a building across the 33rd Street side
----------------------------------------------
And WOW again...you seemed to have not mentioned this 20 foot hole the engine left. I would say you have proved our (CT's) point stronger when compared to the Pentagon. This is what actually happens when an airplane hits a building. There is wreckage everywhere.

http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9603-002.htm

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm
The letter is not bullshit...
and UL's website is
www.ul.com

Basically what happened is he sent this letter before the NIST bullshit was complete...During the investigation when they were saying it was fire. His story is that UL knew he was sending the letter, and UL discredits everything he says. Long story short he got fired immediately after writing it.

Quote

the letter claims that the steel should have seen temps no higher than 500 F - which if true would mean that no fireproofing of the steel would have been needed. All of this is of course pure bullshit.

The reason the steel didn't get that hot was because most of the jet fuel exploded outside the building and fires only burned for less than an hour. This can be seen on all videos.

All steel is certified to something. UL may have only been involved in certifing the fire proofing (which they deny), but when steel leaves its plant it is documented to withstand certain conditions and meet certain criteria. To think that steel is sold to people that are going to use it to build buildings...and have no idea what that steel is made of or capable of withstanding is silly.

The Environmental Health Laboratories website doesn't exist (www.ehl.cc).

Ryan's letter says "UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F". This is of course obvious and irrelevant. Steel becomes weak at much lower temperatures that are typical of the WTC fire. To claim that the fire exposed the steel to just 500 F is ridiculous.

I also would expect UL to fire the guy. I wouldn't want such a crackpot in my organization. A scientist should be able to make better judgements.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

To claim that the fire exposed the steel to just 500 F is ridiculous.

500 F wouldn't even broil a steak.

I've seen large bonfires at the DZ that were hot enough to melt beer bottles, which melt at about 1000C (1832F) . Do you think a passenger plane full of fuel burning in an enormous building full of flammables wouldn't burn as hot a bonfire set up by some drunk skydivers?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[no7rosman 0]

Quote

500 F wouldn't even broil a steak.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C".

[SpeedRacer 1]

excerpt from NIST:

Quote

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[no7rosman 0]

That is interesting...It seems in the beginning of the investigation Dr. Brown from NIST was saying something different.

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.