WTC--Conspiracy Theory

dhermesc · 01-24-2006, 08:44 AM

The WTC did withstand the impact of the airplanes with a great degree of sturdiness, it was the FIRE from over 24,000 gallons of jet fuel that doomed both structures. The same fire that continued to smolder for weeks after the collapse (red hot metal anyone?). As pointed out earlier, for the building to be "prepared" the "engineers" would have also needed to know where the planes would strike and have spent weeks installing charges and cutting the metal supports.

The Empire state building was hit by a B25 (not a B29), a twin engine plane that weighs only 27,000 pounds, an EMPTY 767 weighs in at 227,400lb (at full load its over 400,000lbs) and moves over twice as fast. Comparing the two strikes is like wondering why a loaded semi causes more damage in a wreck then a Yugo.

troylaplante · 01-24-2006, 09:26 AM

dhermesc-
Precisely my point. Thanks for the correction on the plane type, as well. I am certainly no aviation buff and I was going from memory. The Empire State Building was built much more securely from a structural standpoint and from a fire safety standpoint, and it still suffered a great deal of damage. How much more would the WTC suffer from structural damage followed by intense fire? That was my point, which you further illustrated.

Ctwo · 01-24-2006, 11:33 AM

How do you explain away the complete and symmetrical free-fall of WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, and the squibs clearly seen going off in methodical fashion, all around the building? And no other buidlings in the area collapsed like that either.

As I've said, the large upper block of floors just turned to powder, all at the same time, in mid air, and that both towers collapsed perfectly evenly all the way down, at a complete free-fall rate. Wouldn't the unburned structure of some 100 floors with 47 huge steel colums slow down the collapse? Wouldn't the some 170 steel beams around the perimiter slow things down a bit? Wouldn't the collapse be just a little random and not so even all the way down? Why would not that large upper block just continue to rotate and fall down as it was moving, rather than turn to baby power in mid air?

Why would the explosives have to be placed at the exact impact points? NOPE, they were planted through out the entire building. Would not matter where the plane hit.

What about all the police and firefighter testimony of rapid succesion of explosions in the lower decks? What about reporters on the scene reporting the same thing? What about the audio evidence of same? What about the video of explosions at ground level?

Rufus Rhastus J · 01-24-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctwo

How do you explain away the complete and symmetrical free-fall of WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, and the squibs clearly seen going off in methodical fashion, all around the building? And no other buidlings in the area collapsed like that either.
As I've said, the large upper block of floors just turned to powder, all at the same time, in mid air, and that both towers collapsed perfectly evenly all the way down, at a complete free-fall rate. Wouldn't the unburned structure of some 100 floors with 47 huge steel colums slow down the collapse? Wouldn't the some 170 steel beams around the perimiter slow things down a bit? Wouldn't the collapse be just a little random and not so even all the way down? Why would not that large upper block just continue to rotate and fall down as it was moving, rather than turn to baby power in mid air?
Why would the explosives have to be placed at the exact impact points? NOPE, they were planted through out the entire building. Would not matter where the plane hit.
What about all the police and firefighter testimony of rapid succesion of explosions in the lower decks? What about reporters on the scene reporting the same thing? What about the audio evidence of same? What about the video of explosions at ground level?

but, on the flip side, if folks just won't see what is clearly before thier eyes.....or, they just cannot believe because they don't ever think the government could be so evil......Well, that person won't ever believe until they are witness to the evil of government. To the flag waver, we are just right wing whack-Os argueing over who gets the last piece of tin-foil to make a hat out of.

dhermesc · 01-24-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctwo

As I've said, the large upper block of floors just turned to powder, all at the same time, in mid air, and that both towers collapsed perfectly evenly all the way down, at a complete free-fall rate. Wouldn't the unburned structure of some 100 floors with 47 huge steel colums slow down the collapse? Wouldn't the some 170 steel beams around the perimiter slow things down a bit? Wouldn't the collapse be just a little random and not so even all the way down? Why would not that large upper block just continue to rotate and fall down as it was moving, rather than turn to baby power in mid air?

Ever witness what happens when you drop 30 or 40 stories of a building 10 to 20 feet? Of course the entire undamaged structure is going to shake rattle and pop as the support system is struck by an impossible load that it was never designed to carry. Kind of like wondering why you can step on a full beer can and it will bear your weight, empty the can and jump on it and it crushes without even coming close to bearing the weight.

Ctwo · 01-24-2006, 04:50 PM

So you honestly would expect it to ALL turn to baby powder, at the SAME time, rather than break apart into chunks?

Burning jet fuel and office materials is not hot enough to liquify and vaporize steel. The gross quantity of jet fuels was oxidized shortly on and after impact.

Stopper · 01-24-2006, 05:09 PM

It was my understanding that JetA when burned does not reach temps high enough to melt steel, not even close is my understanding.

Outriderdark · 01-24-2006, 05:57 PM

You are right, Stopper.
And apparently people aren't reading the paper, just responding blindly. Which is precisely what I did when the thread started. Then I started researching.
A crushed beer can has nothing to do with the rate of descent. The matter at hand is the rate at which something falls in freefall compared to the rate it falls when it meets resistance (like the majority of an enormous skyscraper below it.) Dropping a brick off a bridge and dropping a brick through the branches of a tree would be a better way to put it.
The jet fuel could have been twice that amount and still not been able to reach steel melting temperatures. Not to mention that the second hit (the first building to fall) almost missed, hit the corner of the building and the majority of the Jet fuel burned in a fireball outside the building.
Steel requires at least 2500 degrees F to melt. It just wasn't that hot in the buildings.
The Empire State building crash is certainly incomparable considering the size of the plane, but it wasn't built to higher specs than the WTC. Both buildings are steel grid anchored to bedrock, the WTC had the advantage of reinforced central pillars (6), modern fire supression systems and fireproofing and elevator shaft and floor designs to prevent fire spread.
The problem was not red hot metal. It was molten, liquid metal. Again the temperature problem.
It would appear that detonations would need to occur right where audio, video, and eye witness evedence suggests. Below the impact zones and in the sub basements and subway below the trade center to not only "unzip" the building as it collapsed but "knock the feet out from under it". Which would explain the rate of descent as well.
It really isn't inconceivable that the buildings were prepared.

If the official story from the beginning was that in conjuction with the planes, terrorists planted explosives in the buildings, no one would have a problem with it. "Smart bastids those terrorists" we'd all say. We say there's no way the buildings were prepared. Of course they could have been. Just like all the other advance planning required for this. But since it isn't part of the official story, we reject the very idea.
The problem is even though a large amount of evidence suggests just that, the official story contradicts it.
Are we just balking at the idea of conspiracy because we don't like the word or the lame-brained stuff it gets associated with? Or would we just rather not go through the stress of having to reexamine this and start looking for liars.

I speak as someone that is really struggling with this. I think I'd rather crawl back under my rock and enjoy blissful ignorance. But after 54 hours of non-stop research, I just can't.

troylaplante · 01-24-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

The jet fuel could have been twice that amount and still not been able to reach steel melting temperatures. Not to mention that the second hit (the first building to fall) almost missed, hit the corner of the building and the majority of the Jet fuel burned in a fireball outside the building.
Steel requires at least 2500 degrees F to melt. It just wasn't that hot in the buildings.
The Empire State building crash is certainly incomparable considering the size of the plane, but it wasn't built to higher specs than the WTC. Both buildings are steel grid anchored to bedrock, the WTC had the advantage of reinforced central pillars (6), modern fire supression systems and fireproofing and elevator shaft and floor designs to prevent fire spread.

A few problems with what you wrote. First, the idea of jet fuel being burned in a fireball is sheer conjecture. I don't buy it for a moment. Any such claim is nothing more than speculation. The claims that office materials and jet fuel can't burn hot enough to vaporize and melt steel are absurd, since it is not necessary to deform and cause structural failure. AGAIN, a fire could reach that temperature in a confined space and in a fast burn. Yes, atomized jet fuel can burn at very high temperatures. Normally, kerosene does not openly burn. Atomize it or use a wick and you will be able to burn just fine. The same with diesel fuel. Diesel is not volatile on its own to run an engine. Add adiabatic compression and a heat source, and it will burn fine. Just a trashcan and sofa have been recorded to burn with a ceiling temperature of over 1200 degrees in ordinary fires.
Yes, the Empire State Building WAS built differently with a higher spec than the WTC. "Steel grid anchored to bedrock" does not necessarily determine upper floor structural stability in a crash or fire situation.
Fireproofing? Such as? The method of construction of the WTC is simply just not as fire safe as the Empire State Building, following the example. The WTC relied more on structural steel whereas the ESB relied more on concrete for compression strength. Reinforced concrete is simply better fire protection wise than exposed and covered steel. Steel is better for open space than concrete, which is why it was used more in the WTC.
Modern fire suppression systems like? Such systems are not designed to withstand plane crashes. Unless I know what they were, I can't speak towards the systems. I know what they should have been, but again, that is not the design. Sprinkler systems are not designed with a 747 or 767 incursion in mind.
Reinforced central pillars, depending upon the construction materials, is relative in a crash and fire situation. I am telling you as one who studied this stuff and was a fire marshall, fire educator, and a firefighter for a living that a lot of the speculation just doesn't hold up. :guitar:
I keep hearing about molten metal, squibs, and symmetrical collapse, and stuff "burning to powder". Again, speculation and mostly unproven. I have seen much on the topic, but most of what I am reading here is from conspiracy theorist web sites, research papers, and the like. Keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is like the question of "How does the Concorde handle in a crash?" That was pure speculation until it actually happened...and it only happened once so far. We have only had one incident like this...EVER.

Outriderdark · 01-24-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troylaplante

A few problems with what you wrote. First, the idea of jet fuel being burned in a fireball is sheer conjecture.

Most people saw the fireball out the other side of the buillding on the second hit

Quote:

Originally Posted by troylaplante

The claims that office materials and jet fuel can't burn hot enough to vaporize and melt steel are absurd, since it is not necessary to deform and cause structural failure. AGAIN, a fire could reach that temperature in a confined space and in a fast burn. Yes, atomized jet fuel can burn at very high temperatures.

Any hydro-carbon (jet fuel, paper,gas, deisel, etc.) has a maximum diffuse flame temp. increase of 1830F. Steel will not melt until about 2780F. What you're missing is the presence of MOLTEN steel in the wreckage and slag after it was cooled. Even the FEMA report admits there were't temperature high enough to melt steel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by troylaplante

Yes, the Empire State Building WAS built differently with a higher spec than the WTC. "Steel grid anchored to bedrock" does not necessarily determine upper floor structural stability in a crash or fire situation.
Fireproofing? Such as? The method of construction of the WTC is simply just not as fire safe as the Empire State Building, following the example. The WTC relied more on structural steel whereas the ESB relied more on concrete for compression strength. Reinforced concrete is simply better fire protection wise than exposed and covered steel. Steel is better for open space than concrete, which is why it was used more in the WTC.
Modern fire suppression systems like? Such systems are not designed to withstand plane crashes. Unless I know what they were, I can't speak towards the systems. I know what they should have been, but again, that is not the design. Sprinkler systems are not designed with a 747 or 767 incursion in mind.
Reinforced central pillars, depending upon the construction materials, is relative in a crash and fire situation. I am telling you as one who studied this stuff and was a fire marshall, fire educator, and a firefighter for a living that a lot of the speculation just doesn't hold up.

The Empire State building isn't a concrete building. It is steel framed with 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, 10 million bricks, and 730tons of aluminum and stainless steel. The WTC was steel and concrete faced with steel and aluminum. The difference is the Empire State building is a steel 3d grid and the WTC was a steel tube grid with a reinforced steel core. Also, the WTC was built so the upper floors core and peripheral columns were narrower and became gradually wider and stronger as you descend, again the lack of collapse resistance comes up.
All of this is moot since I already said the two incidents were incomparible considering the planes that hit them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by troylaplante

I keep hearing about molten metal, squibs, and symmetrical collapse, and stuff "burning to powder". Again, speculation and mostly unproven. I have seen much on the topic, but most of what I am reading here is from conspiracy theorist web sites, research papers, and the like. Keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is like the question of "How does the Concorde handle in a crash?" That was pure speculation until it actually happened...and it only happened once so far. We have only had one incident like this...EVER.

While it may be true that there were so many variables that it would be impossible to predict everything, we are looking at an event that has already occured and can look upon clearly.
Molten metal and the resulting slag in the wreckage is a fact, not speculation. Squibs (whether natural or caused by charges is the debate) are fact not speculation. symmetrical collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are fact not speculation. It was all televised, photographed, recorded and seen by a billion people. And the problem is concrete pulverizing into powder, not "burning" into powder. The fires were on several floors, not the whole 110 story building.
This isn't the only time an fire or collision of this magnitude or greater has occured. The individual events - plane crashes (even into buildings), intense fires (including the Windsor fire in Madrid that burned at over 1500F and lasted almost 24 hours. It was a steel high rise that didn't collapse incidentally) and collapses are nothing new. The suggestion that the individual events and even the collaboration of them is brand new to science isn't valid
Also I prefer the opinions of scientists and their research than politicians. These are legitimate studies.

troylaplante · 01-24-2006, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

Most people saw the fireball out the other side of the buillding on the second hit

As did I. I saw it live as it happened. However, it is PURE SPECULATION that it all disippated and burned off in the fireball. A fireball doesn't mean it all freakin' burned then and there.

Quote:

Any hydro-carbon (jet fuel, paper,gas, deisel, etc.) has a maximum diffuse flame temp. increase of 1830F. Steel will not melt until about 2780F. What you're missing is the presence of MOLTEN steel in the wreckage and slag after it was cooled. Even the FEMA report admits there were't temperature high enough to melt steel.

Will you stop with the "melt" issue? MELTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID! It does NOT take melting to cause structural collapse. How many times do I have to say that? Ever use a blowtorch to bend metal? You don't have to melt it in order to bend it or distort its shape. You are just being obtuse and not paying attention to what I wrote. There is a difference, as ANYONE who has a fire background will be able to tell you. I am talking about structural failure, not about the claims of molten metal at the base of the rubble.

Quote:

The Empire State building isn't a concrete building. It is steel framed with 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite,

OK, none the less, it is STILL better built with its masonry use and design. Period. That is a well accepted fact in the fire protection field.

Quote:

This isn't the only time an fire or collision of this magnitude or greater has occured.

Yes, it is. Plane crashes have happened before, but never to this magnitude. Period. Collapses are not so new, but as a result of airliners, yes.

Outriderdark · 01-24-2006, 09:32 PM

Please....plane crashes of this magnitude are new? They're plane crashes. They happen all the time. And you're right. Collapses from plane strikes are pretty unusual if not unheard of.
It is most certainly NOT speculation that the majority of the fuel burned in the fireball that exited the other side of the building. What did it do? Go back in and burn again?

Melting has EVERYTHING to do with what is being discussed here. If there wasn't any melted metal in the wreckage then we wouldn't be having this conversation! If the steel had only warped or bent, then we could all feel cozy. Why do you continue to talk about warping and bending when the issue is MELTING. THERE WAS MELTED STEEL. We all know it doesn't take melting to cause a structural collapse. I was a firefighter. The problem is THERE WAS MELTING THAT OCCURED. HOW!
That's the whole point!

Outriderdark · 01-24-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhermesc

As pointed out earlier, for the building to be "prepared" the "engineers" would have also needed to know where the planes would strike and have spent weeks installing charges and cutting the metal supports.

You don't necessarily have to cut supports with Thermite (I thought you did, too)
"......high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report."

Thermite burns at around 4000F.

troy2000 · 01-24-2006, 11:21 PM

A plausible-sounding conspiracy case can be made for any major event in history, if you work at it.

I prefer to work at a simpler level. Were the people accused of the deed capable of it? I think the answer is yes, regardless of the scientific quibbling.

Did anyone else have more to gain than they did? No.

Bush and the government certainly didn't need 9/11 to kickstart their agenda; look at the way they just flat lied our way into Iraq. Lies are cheaper, easier, more dependable than disasters, and they don't backfire nearly as bad as physically getting caught creating a disaster.

And if someone wanted to FAKE an attack, there are definitely easier ways than rigging two highrises with explosives, somehow without anyone from the maintenance workers to the cleaning staff noticing the activity or the mess.

I think the operative word is "common sense," which is usually the first casualty of a conspiracy theory. I don't need to refute all the pseudo-scientific evidence, to know that this particular conspiracy theory doesn't pass the smell test.

Nor do I need to accept someone else's explanation for something just because I can't explain it. I can just say, "OK. I can't explain this, but I'll bet there's a reasonable explanation that doesn't involve a conspiracy.

Outriderdark · 01-24-2006, 11:39 PM

troy2000 - we're discussing the science of the collapses here, not the who or why. There's nothing in anything I've posted to suggest it was a government plot or that the attack was fake. My only quarrel with the government so far is denying secondary explosions which could be for any number of reasons.
I know some others tried to take the conversation that way, but not I.
The "smell test" and "common sense" don't have much in the way of factual validity.

Outriderdark · 01-24-2006, 11:43 PM

How is the melting temperature of steel "pseudo-science"?

7mmag6 · 01-24-2006, 11:59 PM

its ok out rider carry on

troy2000 · 01-25-2006, 12:04 AM

Science improperly applied or quoted becomes pseudo-science when it's used to support untenable positions.

I'm highly skeptical of much of the supposed information in this thread. I don't even necessarily believe the claims that the hijackers had stolen identities, although it's possible and doesn't mean anything one way or another. Both of the sources you (Outriderdark) quoted for that were British, and one has a reputation only slightly higher than that of the National Inquirer.

But I'm not arguing with you in particular, Rider, nor am I claiming that you personally are advancing a particular viewpoint. However the title of this thread is "WTC--Conspiracy Theory," and I'm expressing my opinions about whether any such theory is reasonable.

Outriderdark · 01-25-2006, 12:23 AM

I'm about out of wind on this anyway.
All this scientific stuff is giving me a headache. I'm much more comfortable with history.
Now if you wanna get historical AND conspiratorial....look up Operation Northwoods.

7mmag6 · 01-25-2006, 12:57 AM

deleted some posts - there are some things I do not want to talk about --leave it at that .this post kept me up late, edited, not that im an !!!!!! there are some things I will not talk about specifically
vietnam hope that helps

01-24-2006, 08:44 AM	#61
dhermesc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: East Central Kansas Posts: 2,136	The WTC did withstand the impact of the airplanes with a great degree of sturdiness, it was the FIRE from over 24,000 gallons of jet fuel that doomed both structures. The same fire that continued to smolder for weeks after the collapse (red hot metal anyone?). As pointed out earlier, for the building to be "prepared" the "engineers" would have also needed to know where the planes would strike and have spent weeks installing charges and cutting the metal supports. The Empire state building was hit by a B25 (not a B29), a twin engine plane that weighs only 27,000 pounds, an EMPTY 767 weighs in at 227,400lb (at full load its over 400,000lbs) and moves over twice as fast. Comparing the two strikes is like wondering why a loaded semi causes more damage in a wreck then a Yugo. __________________ Liberty is for those that claim it.

01-24-2006, 05:09 PM	#67
Stopper Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Kansass Posts: 2,209 Images: 1	It was my understanding that JetA when burned does not reach temps high enough to melt steel, not even close is my understanding. __________________ They should have stopped at "Congress shall make no law"

01-24-2006, 05:57 PM	#68
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,126	You are right, Stopper. And apparently people aren't reading the paper, just responding blindly. Which is precisely what I did when the thread started. Then I started researching. A crushed beer can has nothing to do with the rate of descent. The matter at hand is the rate at which something falls in freefall compared to the rate it falls when it meets resistance (like the majority of an enormous skyscraper below it.) Dropping a brick off a bridge and dropping a brick through the branches of a tree would be a better way to put it. The jet fuel could have been twice that amount and still not been able to reach steel melting temperatures. Not to mention that the second hit (the first building to fall) almost missed, hit the corner of the building and the majority of the Jet fuel burned in a fireball outside the building. Steel requires at least 2500 degrees F to melt. It just wasn't that hot in the buildings. The Empire State building crash is certainly incomparable considering the size of the plane, but it wasn't built to higher specs than the WTC. Both buildings are steel grid anchored to bedrock, the WTC had the advantage of reinforced central pillars (6), modern fire supression systems and fireproofing and elevator shaft and floor designs to prevent fire spread. The problem was not red hot metal. It was molten, liquid metal. Again the temperature problem. It would appear that detonations would need to occur right where audio, video, and eye witness evedence suggests. Below the impact zones and in the sub basements and subway below the trade center to not only "unzip" the building as it collapsed but "knock the feet out from under it". Which would explain the rate of descent as well. It really isn't inconceivable that the buildings were prepared. If the official story from the beginning was that in conjuction with the planes, terrorists planted explosives in the buildings, no one would have a problem with it. "Smart bastids those terrorists" we'd all say. We say there's no way the buildings were prepared. Of course they could have been. Just like all the other advance planning required for this. But since it isn't part of the official story, we reject the very idea. The problem is even though a large amount of evidence suggests just that, the official story contradicts it. Are we just balking at the idea of conspiracy because we don't like the word or the lame-brained stuff it gets associated with? Or would we just rather not go through the stress of having to reexamine this and start looking for liars. I speak as someone that is really struggling with this. I think I'd rather crawl back under my rock and enjoy blissful ignorance. But after 54 hours of non-stop research, I just can't. __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-24-2006, 09:32 PM	#72
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,126	Please....plane crashes of this magnitude are new? They're plane crashes. They happen all the time. And you're right. Collapses from plane strikes are pretty unusual if not unheard of. It is most certainly NOT speculation that the majority of the fuel burned in the fireball that exited the other side of the building. What did it do? Go back in and burn again? Melting has EVERYTHING to do with what is being discussed here. If there wasn't any melted metal in the wreckage then we wouldn't be having this conversation! If the steel had only warped or bent, then we could all feel cozy. Why do you continue to talk about warping and bending when the issue is MELTING. THERE WAS MELTED STEEL. We all know it doesn't take melting to cause a structural collapse. I was a firefighter. The problem is THERE WAS MELTING THAT OCCURED. HOW! That's the whole point! __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-24-2006, 11:21 PM	#74
troy2000 Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 14,554 Images: 9	You're a voice crying in the wilderness, LaPlante A plausible-sounding conspiracy case can be made for any major event in history, if you work at it. I prefer to work at a simpler level. Were the people accused of the deed capable of it? I think the answer is yes, regardless of the scientific quibbling. Did anyone else have more to gain than they did? No. Bush and the government certainly didn't need 9/11 to kickstart their agenda; look at the way they just flat lied our way into Iraq. Lies are cheaper, easier, more dependable than disasters, and they don't backfire nearly as bad as physically getting caught creating a disaster. And if someone wanted to FAKE an attack, there are definitely easier ways than rigging two highrises with explosives, somehow without anyone from the maintenance workers to the cleaning staff noticing the activity or the mess. I think the operative word is "common sense," which is usually the first casualty of a conspiracy theory. I don't need to refute all the pseudo-scientific evidence, to know that this particular conspiracy theory doesn't pass the smell test. Nor do I need to accept someone else's explanation for something just because I can't explain it. I can just say, "OK. I can't explain this, but I'll bet there's a reasonable explanation that doesn't involve a conspiracy. Last edited by troy2000; 01-24-2006 at 11:23 PM.

01-24-2006, 09:26 AM	#62
troylaplante Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Selma, NC Posts: 2,220	dhermesc- Precisely my point. Thanks for the correction on the plane type, as well. I am certainly no aviation buff and I was going from memory. The Empire State Building was built much more securely from a structural standpoint and from a fire safety standpoint, and it still suffered a great deal of damage. How much more would the WTC suffer from structural damage followed by intense fire? That was my point, which you further illustrated.

01-24-2006, 11:33 AM	#63
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	How do you explain away the complete and symmetrical free-fall of WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, and the squibs clearly seen going off in methodical fashion, all around the building? And no other buidlings in the area collapsed like that either. As I've said, the large upper block of floors just turned to powder, all at the same time, in mid air, and that both towers collapsed perfectly evenly all the way down, at a complete free-fall rate. Wouldn't the unburned structure of some 100 floors with 47 huge steel colums slow down the collapse? Wouldn't the some 170 steel beams around the perimiter slow things down a bit? Wouldn't the collapse be just a little random and not so even all the way down? Why would not that large upper block just continue to rotate and fall down as it was moving, rather than turn to baby power in mid air? Why would the explosives have to be placed at the exact impact points? NOPE, they were planted through out the entire building. Would not matter where the plane hit. What about all the police and firefighter testimony of rapid succesion of explosions in the lower decks? What about reporters on the scene reporting the same thing? What about the audio evidence of same? What about the video of explosions at ground level?

01-24-2006, 04:50 PM	#66
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	So you honestly would expect it to ALL turn to baby powder, at the SAME time, rather than break apart into chunks? Burning jet fuel and office materials is not hot enough to liquify and vaporize steel. The gross quantity of jet fuels was oxidized shortly on and after impact.

01-24-2006, 11:39 PM	#75
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,126	troy2000 - we're discussing the science of the collapses here, not the who or why. There's nothing in anything I've posted to suggest it was a government plot or that the attack was fake. My only quarrel with the government so far is denying secondary explosions which could be for any number of reasons. I know some others tried to take the conversation that way, but not I. The "smell test" and "common sense" don't have much in the way of factual validity. __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-24-2006, 11:43 PM	#76
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,126	How is the melting temperature of steel "pseudo-science"? __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-24-2006, 11:59 PM	#77
7mmag6 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 6,052 Images: 1	its ok out rider carry on

01-25-2006, 12:04 AM	#78
troy2000 Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 14,554 Images: 9	Science improperly applied or quoted becomes pseudo-science when it's used to support untenable positions. I'm highly skeptical of much of the supposed information in this thread. I don't even necessarily believe the claims that the hijackers had stolen identities, although it's possible and doesn't mean anything one way or another. Both of the sources you (Outriderdark) quoted for that were British, and one has a reputation only slightly higher than that of the National Inquirer. But I'm not arguing with you in particular, Rider, nor am I claiming that you personally are advancing a particular viewpoint. However the title of this thread is "WTC--Conspiracy Theory," and I'm expressing my opinions about whether any such theory is reasonable.

01-25-2006, 12:23 AM	#79
Outriderdark Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,126	I'm about out of wind on this anyway. All this scientific stuff is giving me a headache. I'm much more comfortable with history. Now if you wanna get historical AND conspiratorial....look up Operation Northwoods. __________________ "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown outta windows?"-Archie Bunker

01-25-2006, 12:57 AM	#80
7mmag6 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 6,052 Images: 1	deleted some posts - there are some things I do not want to talk about --leave it at that .this post kept me up late, edited, not that im an !!!!!! there are some things I will not talk about specifically vietnam hope that helps Last edited by 7mmag6; 01-25-2006 at 02:40 AM.