100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: NEW PROOF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't claim to know exactly what happened or just who was involved and I have always thought most of the conspiracy theory surrounding the incident are just ludicrous, but the article you cite still leaves a few questions.
"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." If steel melts at 2750°F and reports form NIST that pockets of fire hit up to about 1832°F, then what of the reports of molten steel? And the PM article does explain the thermite findings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 06/03/09 09:32 AM
|
|
it is not like the plans to stage a false attack have never been made in the past
-------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba By David Ruppe N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- the declassified documentation http://www.scribd.com/doc/186729/1962-03-13-Operation-Northwood ----------------------------------------------------------------------- i can not prove that the govt did it nor could i convict them but they have made plans to stage a false attack in the past to justify the actions they wanted to take and that speaks multitudes |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Wed 06/03/09 09:36 AM
|
|
what we have here is people formulating a theory and then trying to fit facts to the theory thats not the way it's done and is dishonest you gather the facts and then formulate the theory and the facts taken as a whole do not support these outlandish theories I'll prolly have to say this a hundred times because people dont listen to things that don't fit their preconceived notions |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Wed 06/03/09 09:41 AM
|
|
I watched the second plane hit on live TV. I watched the jet fuel spread and engulf the whole floor of both building where the planes struck. I already knew how the buildings were constructed. I estimated that, in thirty minutes or less, the flames would raise the temperature of the steel to over 600F where the steel would start to lose it's strength rapidly. I knew that the steel would start to deform in a slow uniform manner redistributing stress as it went. Once the steel joists began to fail in shear, all the load they supported would be shifted to the adjacent joists which, almost about to fail themselves, would fail instantly in a chain reaction which appear as everything going at once.
The two towers failed in EXACTLY the manner which would be predicted by someone who understands the stress analysis of the building. The failure was caused by weakening of the steel structure by heat from burning jet fuel. Architects cannot, by law, design steel structures of this type because they are not trained in the physics and math to do so. A structural engineer is required. The video indicates something different. Whether or not this architect believes this garbage, who's to say? I know, and I don't need anyone to explain it to me, how and why the twin towers failed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steel would start to deform in a slow uniform manner redistributing stress as it went. Once the steel joists began to fail in shear, all the load they supported would be shifted to the adjacent joists which, almost about to fail themselves, would fail instantly in a chain reaction which appear as everything going at once. can you explain why columns just happened to shear at a perfect ancle without deformity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite. Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=87932 kinda nice straight cut that jet fuel made don't ya think it would not be the first time the govt planned a false attack to get what they want remember operation northwood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Wed 06/03/09 09:49 AM
|
|
steel would start to deform in a slow uniform manner redistributing stress as it went. Once the steel joists began to fail in shear, all the load they supported would be shifted to the adjacent joists which, almost about to fail themselves, would fail instantly in a chain reaction which appear as everything going at once. can you explain why columns just happened to shear at a perfect ancle without deformity nahhh I'm not a structural engineer. are you? you're still trying to fit facts to a theory. you can do that all day long but it's not a legitimate use of the scientific method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That could be where welds were?
I just have to know what on earth did anyone in the government have to gain by doing such a thing? Not only that but the millions paid out to the families and businesses? Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK Hijack 'suspects' alive and well Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Hijacking suspects Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco. Mistaken identity Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports. Abdelaziz Al Omari Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver' He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says. Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi. Khalid Al-Midhar Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. Update: st categories: Steve Herrmann | 11:33 GMT, Friday, 27 October 2006 A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI. . . . In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time. We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm While I'm not claiming this some sort of evidence for an inside job, it is curious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several sheared columns in that picture. I don't notice molten steel on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK Hijack 'suspects' alive and well Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Hijacking suspects Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco. Mistaken identity Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports. Abdelaziz Al Omari Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver' He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says. Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi. Khalid Al-Midhar Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. Update: st categories: Steve Herrmann | 11:33 GMT, Friday, 27 October 2006 A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI. . . . In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time. We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm While I'm not claiming this some sort of evidence for an inside job, it is curious. may be alive? could be? possibly? he says he had nothing to do with it. Good thing there arent more than one person in America that have the same name. Or there would be mistaken idintity cases all the time. oh there is. and there are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steel would start to deform in a slow uniform manner redistributing stress as it went. Once the steel joists began to fail in shear, all the load they supported would be shifted to the adjacent joists which, almost about to fail themselves, would fail instantly in a chain reaction which appear as everything going at once. can you explain why columns just happened to shear at a perfect ancle without deformity nahhh I'm not a structural engineer. are you? you're still trying to fit facts to a theory. you can do that all day long but it's not a legitimate use of the scientific method are you still in denial that the govt could falsify the record they have planned it in the past did they do it here who knows other than those involved but they have planned similar actions in the past and seeing as how you say your woords ""I'm not a structural engineer. are you?"" then you are no more qualified than i am to say are you  just a point not an attack |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steel would start to deform in a slow uniform manner redistributing stress as it went. Once the steel joists began to fail in shear, all the load they supported would be shifted to the adjacent joists which, almost about to fail themselves, would fail instantly in a chain reaction which appear as everything going at once. can you explain why columns just happened to shear at a perfect ancle without deformity I presume you are referring to the column cut at a 45 degree angle in the photograph. This isn't a shear failure or even a failure. It is a photograph of where some emergency worker has cut the column with a cutting torch to either remove debris for safety reasons or to search for survivors. The molten steel is dripping down the column just like it always does with a cutting torch. Explosive thermite "blows" the molten steel away from the cut and does not leave dripping evidence of this type. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several sheared columns in that picture. I don't notice molten steel on them. good luck with that look closer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Wed 06/03/09 10:00 AM
|
|
steel would start to deform in a slow uniform manner redistributing stress as it went. Once the steel joists began to fail in shear, all the load they supported would be shifted to the adjacent joists which, almost about to fail themselves, would fail instantly in a chain reaction which appear as everything going at once. can you explain why columns just happened to shear at a perfect ancle without deformity nahhh I'm not a structural engineer. are you? you're still trying to fit facts to a theory. you can do that all day long but it's not a legitimate use of the scientific method are you still in denial that the govt could falsify the record they have planned it in the past did they do it here who knows other than those involved but they have planned similar actions in the past and seeing as how you say your woords ""I'm not a structural engineer. are you?"" then you are no more qualified than i am to say are you just a point not an attack nope the difference is that I look up the research and findings objectively becasue I have no political agenda. And you look em up with the aim of finding details which will fit the template of your theory and that's not meant to be an attack either. just a pointing out of the flaws in your reasoning and conclusions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Wed 06/03/09 10:04 AM
|
|
having been immersed in a research environment for the last twenty years I am accustomed to hypothesis and results being submitted for peer review and this is kinda the way I approach all this. A nd it's a common thing even in that enviromnment for people to try to fit the facts to their conclusions instead of the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anyhoo, I'm late for dialysis and will be back later
later kids |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Luck?
It has nothing to do with luck. Its pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Wed 06/03/09 10:04 AM
|
|
not my theory
what makes it my theory and why is it that the research findings i find are less valid than yours after all i have posted proof the govt planned such an action in the past |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planned and actually carrying something out isn't the same thing. The biggest problem I have with the government did it theory is that I dont think they are competent enough to pull it off.
|
|
|
|
|
