[Tinfoil hat] The Pentagon

[Maxgirth]

Well for a start there were famous people on those flights. The one I remember most clearly was the producer of "Fraiser". They had tributes to him from family and friends, they put a tribute to him at the end of a Fraiser episode.

Ah the obligatory loved by the American public death, this will get the general publics attention..... cute.

 

[tris-]

American doesnt even exist you know?

 

[JingleBells]

This is actually what happened:

 

[Bugz]

Manipulate something enough in maths and you can get the right answer through the wrong method.

Why do I think the same applies here?

 

[Maxgirth]

Maxgirth, until you can answer me this question, I will just presume you are a crap troll who needs to get out more.

What about the thousands of witnesses who said they saw planes crash into the towers. Where they bribed by the CIA?

There`s around 40-50 witnesses, most worked for the top 5 news companies.

Now answer me this, how the fuck was temperatures of 3k plus reached to melt tempered steel when aviation fuel burns at 1400, jeeeez did you look at the engineer video, again where is any proof whatsoever that Al Queadia done this?

Learning to fly Jumbo Jets on PC flight simulators lmfao, how blind are you guys.

Again any of you, go and find some hardcore evidence that guerillas that dwell in caves committed the most intricate act of terrorism ever.

Call me what the fuck you want, but at least back up your side of the arguement.

9O Million Americans believe their government done this.

Why is that^?.

 

[JingleBells]

90 Million Americans believe their government done this.

Why is that^?.

Because they're fucking stupid

As for the engineering questions, just read this:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

 

[tris-]

Now answer me this, how the fuck was temperatures of 3k plus reached to melt tempered steel when aviation fuel burns at 1400, jeeeez did you look at

How does Mangesium burn at 2200oC when you light it with a match?

Chemistry ower:

 

[Ch3tan]

oh you seem to think we are arguing a point, what you fail to realise is that we are poking fun at you.

 

[Maxgirth]

Manipulate something enough in maths and you can get the right answer through the wrong method.

Why do I think the same applies here?

Manipulate the public, and they back the war.

Why do I think the same applies here?

Maths is not the law of physics nor gravity.

110 storeys collapsing twice at freefall speed and bringing down a 3rd building also, building engineered to withstand a fleet of jets hitting them (hence the materials needing 1600 degrees more heat to weaken them than aviation fuel burns at), yep maths does fail here around about the part where you can learn to fly an airliner on a P.C.

 

[Marc]

There`s around 40-50 witnesses, most worked for the top 5 news companies.

LOLOL

40-50 thousand you mean obviously

Now answer me this, how the fuck was temperatures of 3k plus reached to melt tempered steel when aviation fuel burns at 1400, jeeeez did you look at the engineer video, again where is any proof whatsoever that Al Queadia done this?

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.

Again any of you, go and find some hardcore evidence that guerillas that dwell in caves committed the most intricate act of terrorism ever.

Call me what the fuck you want, but at least back up your side of the arguement.

Our arguments are documented million times over on the internet with facts. Its nerds like you who believe these stupid consipracy theories that have no proof for their laughable claims.

 

[Maxgirth]

Because they're fucking stupid

As for the engineering questions, just read this:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

One thing missing there, nano thermalite, i`ll let you work out why that was found in all dust particles.

 

[Ch3tan]

yep maths does fail here around about the part where you can learn to fly an airliner on a P.C.

Actually, Snakes on a Plane teaches us that you can fly and land an airliner using knowledge obtained from a PS2.

 

[Bugz]

One thing missing there, nano thermalite, i`ll let you work out why that was found in all dust particles.

No, no, no.

Don't avoid the post. Post your response to each of the points mentioned in that link. I'm genuinely interested to see how you argue them.

 

[Maxgirth]

LOLOL

40-50 thousand you mean obviously




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.




Our arguments are documented million times over on the internet with facts. Its nerds like you who believe these stupid consipracy theories that have no proof for their laughable claims.

Far from a nerd, i`ve looked at a lot of evidence and let the facts speak for themselves....

The Official Reports

In its official report the 9/11 Commission never once mentions the molten pools–––despite the testimony of the New York City commissioner.

In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the molten pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero–––a dismissal that is directly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already cited, not to mention the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.[9] After brushing aside the issue as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report then suggests that:

“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.” [my emphasis] [10]

The NIST never clarifies what the “certain circumstances” might be that produced molten steel after the collapse. Its statement about “long exposure to combustion” is absurd on its face, given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage remotely capable of melting steel. In fact, the NIST’s above statement is an affront to our intelligence, since the hot spots identified by the US Geological Survey immediately after 9/11 and the molten pools were surely one and the same. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the molten materials under the wreckage, as well as the smoldering fires, were a residual product of whatever caused the collapse of the WTC. Something on September 11, 2001 burned hot enough to melt steel in the basement of both towers. But such a deduction is too simple, evidently, or too provocative for the NIST, which made a decision not to go there.

When asked about what caused the molten pools Peter Tully suggested that perhaps jet fuel was responsible. But on this point, at least, the NIST report is surely correct. It’s easy to show that jet fuel was not the causative agent. There were reports that burning jet fuel leaked into the WTC elevators moments after the first impact. A descending fireball possibly caused explosions many floors below. Witnesses saw critically burned people emerging from elevators. Something ripped through the WTC 1 concourse lobby at about the time of the impact, blowing out windows and crumpling steel doors like they were paper. The same blast even knocked marble slabs off the walls in the lobby. Custodians also heard explosions in the WTC 1 basement. A machine shop was wrecked, as well as a car garage.[11]

But as serious as these explosions and fires were, jet fuel simply does not burn with sufficient energy to melt steel–––not even close. Many of the early reports by the US and world press erred in this respect. Indeed, in the emotional aftermath of the 9/11 attack the press often mangled the science as badly as the twisted steel beams of the WTC. One report posted by the BBC on September 13, 2001 quoted experts who stated matter-of-factly that the burning jet fuel actually melted the central columns, leading to the collapse.[12] Another report on The History Channel, The Anatomy of September 11th, claimed that the inferno turned the steel piers in in the WTC to “licorice.” A 2002 PBS NOVA special “Why the Towers Fell” showcased a similar theory, and suggested that the fires reached 2000°F, which caused the steel columns to lose 80% of their strength.[13]

Even trained professionals jumped on the bandwagon–––and got it wrong. The day after the attack the Sunday Times interviewed Hyman Brown, a civil engineering professor at the University of Colorado: “Steel melts,” Brown said, “90,850 liters of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed....to withstand that fire.” Years before, Brown had been involved in the construction of the WTC as a project engineer.[14] (He was later shown to be wrong about the amount of jet fuel. The NIST determined that the planes actually carried no more than 10,000 gallons–––about 40,000 liters).

The same day NewScientist.com asserted that “raging fires melted the supporting steel struts.”[15] On September 13, 2001 BBC radio interviewed Chris Wise, an engineer who explained that...

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted, and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other."[16]

 

[Calaen]

Actually, Snakes on a Plane teaches us that you can fly and land an airliner using knowledge obtained from a PS2.

clean the keyboard and monitor time!!!!!

 

[Marc]

Far from a nerd, i`ve looked at a lot of evidence and let the facts speak for themselves....

The Official Reports

In its official report the 9/11 Commission never once mentions the molten pools–––despite the testimony of the New York City commissioner.

In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the molten pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero–––a dismissal that is directly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already cited, not to mention the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.[9] After brushing aside the issue as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report then suggests that:

“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.” [my emphasis] [10]

The NIST never clarifies what the “certain circumstances” might be that produced molten steel after the collapse. Its statement about “long exposure to combustion” is absurd on its face, given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage remotely capable of melting steel. In fact, the NIST’s above statement is an affront to our intelligence, since the hot spots identified by the US Geological Survey immediately after 9/11 and the molten pools were surely one and the same. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the molten materials under the wreckage, as well as the smoldering fires, were a residual product of whatever caused the collapse of the WTC. Something on September 11, 2001 burned hot enough to melt steel in the basement of both towers. But such a deduction is too simple, evidently, or too provocative for the NIST, which made a decision not to go there.

When asked about what caused the molten pools Peter Tully suggested that perhaps jet fuel was responsible. But on this point, at least, the NIST report is surely correct. It’s easy to show that jet fuel was not the causative agent. There were reports that burning jet fuel leaked into the WTC elevators moments after the first impact. A descending fireball possibly caused explosions many floors below. Witnesses saw critically burned people emerging from elevators. Something ripped through the WTC 1 concourse lobby at about the time of the impact, blowing out windows and crumpling steel doors like they were paper. The same blast even knocked marble slabs off the walls in the lobby. Custodians also heard explosions in the WTC 1 basement. A machine shop was wrecked, as well as a car garage.[11]

But as serious as these explosions and fires were, jet fuel simply does not burn with sufficient energy to melt steel–––not even close. Many of the early reports by the US and world press erred in this respect. Indeed, in the emotional aftermath of the 9/11 attack the press often mangled the science as badly as the twisted steel beams of the WTC. One report posted by the BBC on September 13, 2001 quoted experts who stated matter-of-factly that the burning jet fuel actually melted the central columns, leading to the collapse.[12] Another report on The History Channel, The Anatomy of September 11th, claimed that the inferno turned the steel piers in in the WTC to “licorice.” A 2002 PBS NOVA special “Why the Towers Fell” showcased a similar theory, and suggested that the fires reached 2000°F, which caused the steel columns to lose 80% of their strength.[13]

Even trained professionals jumped on the bandwagon–––and got it wrong. The day after the attack the Sunday Times interviewed Hyman Brown, a civil engineering professor at the University of Colorado: “Steel melts,” Brown said, “90,850 liters of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed....to withstand that fire.” Years before, Brown had been involved in the construction of the WTC as a project engineer.[14] (He was later shown to be wrong about the amount of jet fuel. The NIST determined that the planes actually carried no more than 10,000 gallons–––about 40,000 liters).

The same day NewScientist.com asserted that “raging fires melted the supporting steel struts.”[15] On September 13, 2001 BBC radio interviewed Chris Wise, an engineer who explained that...

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted, and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other."[16]

What point are you trying to make? I said that the fire caused by the plane was sufficient to weaken the steel supports. I didnt claim it melted it. As for the molten metal, where is your proof it was the steel supports and not other types of metal found round the building used in everyday stuff?

 

[Sparx]

Who is this mug that dares enter OT? be off with you

 

[Maxgirth]

No, no, no.

Don't avoid the post. Post your response to each of the points mentioned in that link. I'm genuinely interested to see how you argue them.

I will look at this in greater detail later when I have time, one reply grabbed my attention though.....

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

http://webfairy.911review.org/video/ghostplane2.wmv

Somewhat contradictory all ready.

 

[Marc]

Burning fuel cant destory steel, oh no.

Tanker fire destroys part of MacArthur Maze / 2 freeways closed near Bay Bridge

Was this caused ny thermate too?

 

[Marc]

And anyway, im not going to comment any further until the small matter of the 1000's of witnesses has been cleared up. I want to know if they have all been bribed by the CIA and why hasnt even 1 come out and said "yeah, I didnt see no plane"

 

[tris-]

Somewhat contradictory all ready.

I am assuming you have a degree or something relating to collision investigation?

How else do you possess the expert knowledge required to say that other experts are wrong...

Burning fuel cant destory steel, oh no.

Tanker fire destroys part of MacArthur Maze / 2 freeways closed near Bay Bridge

Was this caused ny thermate too?

Dont you see, the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics are CONSPIRACY.

 

[Maxgirth]

What point are you trying to make? I said that the fire caused by the plane was sufficient to weaken the steel supports. I didnt claim it melted it. As for the molten metal, where is your proof it was the steel supports and not other types of metal found round the building used in everyday stuff?

Let me get this straight... A building built to withstand a jet liner hitting it, is built from materials that weaken from the temperature of aviation fuel, that`s right out of the Garry Glitter for babysitting duties logic, now look at the Nist report, that`s basically the whole ammo for your argument, they completely over looked the molten metal still liquified weeks after the attack, sounds a very thorough report the closed inquiry got together there.

So where were we at, metals that are melted by aviation fuel and are still at a melted status weeks later, nope you`ll have to help me on this one, they don`t exist.

 

[Maxgirth]

I am assuming you have a degree or something relating to collision investigation?

How else do you possess the expert knowledge required to say that other experts are wrong...



Dont you see, the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics are CONSPIRACY.

Mmmm what?, okay one Government guy clearly stated `Planes do not soak into a building like a cartoon would` this is the expert i`m quoting, not my opinion, nor anyone elses, when the videos of 9/11 clearly show the plane cutting through the building like a cartoon would, what`s it to be?, they do or they don`t.

Hardly have to be an expert of any sort to see through this.

 

[Maxgirth]

Burning fuel cant destory steel, oh no.

Tanker fire destroys part of MacArthur Maze / 2 freeways closed near Bay Bridge

Was this caused ny thermate too?

Was that 6 inch think tempered steel surrounded in asbestos?.

Did it also make a bridge next to it collapse also... oh wait.

 

[tris-]

So tell us then, what actually happened?

Tell uis that backed up with some proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but please, no youtube videos created by some kid for his science homework in primary school.

 

[Maxgirth]

Anyways i`ll leave you with this to ponder over, toodle pip, it`s been mmmm emotional....

CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11

Fancy that, Soldiers talking about planes hitting the towers, the day before it actually happened what a fucking coincidence, somewhat like the B.B.C. report a tower had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did.

Another guy who`s life has been threatened for standing up and telling the truth.

 

[Sparx]

So tell us then, what actually happened?

Tell uis that backed up with some proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but please, no youtube videos created by some kid for his science homework in primary school.

What you on about tris? i used to respect you. Everyone knows Conspiracy theorists dont have real proof, only what some other guy told them, they they work up a half arsed story around that, then refuse to listen to facts that prove them wrong. Like i said, try convince a priest God doesnt exist. You have more of a chance

 

[noblok]

What I always find most peculiar about these things is:

Why would anyone want to pretend it's planes flying into the tower instead of the towers being blown up by some different kind of explosion. It makes no sense: a normal explosion would have achieved roughly the same effect if the goal was to start a war on terror.

 

[tris-]

Anyways i`ll leave you with this to ponder over, toodle pip, it`s been mmmm emotional....

that means you have no answers.

 

[Calaen]

Anyways i`ll leave you with this to ponder over, toodle pip, it`s been mmmm emotional....

CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11

Fancy that, Soldiers talking about planes hitting the towers, the day before it actually happened what a fucking coincidence, somewhat like the B.B.C. report a tower had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did.

Another guy who`s life has been threatened for standing up and telling the truth.

You might as well of told my you're grandmother blew them up it would have been more believeable.


Random noob army guy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I was working on psyops commander's computer and next to his PC was a top secret document that was open, his neglect was my ally, I was sitting there working on his computer and was waiting for some patches to download and I look over and I'm reading the document, and it's the off order for the exercise that they are participating in."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow what a coincidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Chavez did not know the Lieutenant Colonel and so does not know his name, yet if he can be identified, then we have uncovered a direct link to the stand down order. If that man or any others who were present at CENTCOM on 9/11 can be identified and made to testify under oath, then the whole cover operation could be blown. A real independent investigation would have secured this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAHAHHAAHAHH it all just makes the people questioning this shit to look even more fucking retarded. I guess the colonel forgot his name badge that day.