9/11 Truth: Bush Admin. sets the towers to fall, raises military budget, Iraq for OIL

El_Kabong

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

but steel that is weakened due to excessive heat will collapse ......right??

according to the nist report they say the heat never got over 300degrees

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

great. what does this have to do with 9/11? those towers collapsed because huge jet liners crashed into them.

if el queda decided to use molotov cocktails to attack the trade center, those buildings would still be standing.

and dont reply with...."building 7" ?

yeah, don't bring up what he can't explain!!!

enharmonic

El, I work in the aerospace industry, and was not aware that much of your info was in the public domain. The details about the Boeing flight software are accurate. However, I am not convinced that the software cannot be defeated from inside the plane...which leads me back to the "supporting cast".

Those Boeing jets are not hard to get, and that particular software application would be standard fare on commerical offerings of those models. It is conceivable that the pilots were given access to other commerical models of the aircraft, and obtained the knowledge required to defeat that part of the technology. Again, not something that a terror organization could easily do on its own...but certianly not impossible.

Also not out of the realm of possibility that Bin Ladin could have bought one himself. He was an extremely wealthy man before 9-11, and no doubt had companies that could shelter the purchase of a jet or two...wouldn't even register as a questionable business transaction.

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i'm not one of the people that is going to sit here and tell people what happened from the beginning to the end...why not? because i don't know what happened. and, no one here knows what happened. it's all conjecture and opinion which is fueld by a person's leanings.

but, one can look, objectively, at the collapse and reasonably discern for themselves that it was NOT a controlled, internal, purposeful demolition.

Just because you say yours is the only reasonable and objective opinion doesn't make it true. Anyone can SAY that.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

El_Kabong wrote:

according to the nist report they say the heat never got over 300degrees

jet fuel burns at 800-1500 degrees right???

how did the heat never get to 300 degrees???

trappedinmyradio

El_Kabong wrote:

http://www.september11news.com/FlightPathsWashPost.gif


http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/planes-of-911-exceeded-their-software-limits

let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

you expect me to believe that these people conjured up this entire thing...and didn't consider these things?

what about...the passengers on the planes? has that been addressed?

software? we all know that ANY software can be compromised.

if you believe the government of this country to be capable of such things, why do you stay here? if they are capable of this don't you think that they're capable of more grand things, thus, rendering moot any efforts of change?

information - is it enough that people know what happened...or do people need to mobilize? what does it help to inform?

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Just because you say yours is the only reasonable and objective opinion doesn't make it true. Anyone can SAY that.

i never said it was the only reasonable conclusion - i merely said it was reasonable. take the chip off your shoulder...you might get something accomplished.

and, yes, the fire was hotter than 300...to believe that it was merely 300 F is ridiculous and illogical. a wood fire gets hotter than 300.

El_Kabong

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

jet fuel burns at 800-1500 degrees right???

how did the heat never get to 300 degrees???

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

my bad, forgot they use celsius in their report, go to nist's report and go to page 140 to the 2 observations of steel they studied:

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 permiter column panels only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250degrees celsius, which is 482F.......

...NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 <1112F>

but what temp does steel melt?

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060916064546AAQpn2w

...gasoline burns at a much higher temperature than jet fuel, which is comprised mostly of kerosene.

another site:
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html

Melting Point: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F)

then to
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.


It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i never said it was the only reasonable conclusion - i merely said it was reasonable. take the chip off your shoulder...you might get something accomplished.

Chip off my shoulder?? This coming from the person saying unintelligent people are only good for fixing your toilet and pressing your shirts... otherwise, you'd support killing them. :rolleyes:

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Chip off my shoulder?? This coming from the person saying unintelligent people are only good for fixing your toilet and pressing your shirts... otherwise, you'd support killing them. :rolleyes:

never studied satire? even though that is not an example of someone who has a chip on their shoulder, but, instead, is an example of an extremely arrogant person.

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, don't bring up what he can't explain!!!

I can and I have, heck, MANY people have. You just don't like the answer.

You have made up your mind and nothing will ever change that. So many half-truths passed on as fact when you have no credible evidence to back it up.

I forgot how frustrating it is trying to explain something to you. I'm glad some new poor bastards are having a go at it.

Have fun.

trappedinmyradio

hey man, i am not sure who you're really arguing with here...any intelligent person gave up on the steel melting argument a long time ago. anyone who hasn't is dumb. i do not question why or how the buildings fell. i do question how they got there...and, by "how they got there" you, certainly, know what i mean.

El_Kabong wrote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

my bad, forgot they use celsius in their report, go to nist's report and go to page 140 to the 2 observations of steel they studied:

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 permiter column panels only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250degrees celsius, which is 482F.......

...NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 <1112F>

but what temp does steel melt?

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060916064546AAQpn2w

...gasoline burns at a much higher temperature than jet fuel, which is comprised mostly of kerosene.

another site:
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html

Melting Point: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F)

then to
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.


It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

never studied satire? even though that is not an example of someone who has a chip on their shoulder, but, instead, is an example of an extremely arrogant person.

No, I can't say I've really studied satire but from the replies in that thread, honestly, it was hard to tell. I guess maybe it may have been easier to pick on with those who don't view the subject as emotionally as others do.

As for as the chip thing goes, it definitely seemed like trying to get to someone to me....once again, knowing how emotional some are about the subject.

Abookamongstthemany

69charger wrote:

I can and I have, heck, MANY people have. You just don't like the answer.

You have made up your mind and nothing will ever change that. So many half-truths passed on as fact when you have no credible evidence to back it up.

I forgot how frustrating it is trying to explain something to you. I'm glad some new poor bastards are having a go at it.

Have fun.

His evidence is just as credible as yours was. I do, however, remember your frustration, distinctly. It's gotta be a bitch being proven wrong so often.

El_Kabong

69charger wrote:

I can and I have, heck, MANY people have. You just don't like the answer.

You have made up your mind and nothing will ever change that. So many half-truths passed on as fact when you have no credible evidence to back it up.

I forgot how frustrating it is trying to explain something to you. I'm glad some new poor bastards are having a go at it.

Have fun.

is that what happened? i seem to remember you saying something like a peice of debris made it the gas lines blow up inside the building...then when i'd ask you to explain the video of it's collapse, of how it kinked in the middle then fell straight down at basically a floor per second...then you just started making personal attacks....

what do you have to back up your theory of this gas tank blowing up? plz reference this divine proof of yours.

what's frustrating is you don't explain anything...what did you explain? that you think i'm wrong? that doesn't explain a single thing. so what is it that caused the collapse?

El_Kabong

'The Improbable Collapse'

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4026073566596731782&hl=en-CA

dg1979us

El_Kabong wrote:

well, no, see you asked for what i thought happened, not what i could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. first it was called into question could this even happen, yes, it can...

i have no idea what happened, i just think ppl in our government and other spheres of influence as well as factions of certain foreign government<s> had a hand in it...

for all we know the hijackers could've been set up, thinking their just hijacking a plane...then control is taken over and coincendtaly 2 months earlier authority to intercept hijacked aircraft or aircraft that deviate from their filed flight path or don't respond to calls...from NORAD and the military, plz tell me why it took cheney up until right before the pentagon was hit to do anything about it? it's even in the official report, bush was kept isolated pretty much while cheney, rummy and others were calling the shots...are you saying your government is that inept that it takes over 90 minutes of being 'attacked' to fuckin do something? and what's the purpose of taking away that authority from NORAD and the military? according to Andrew's Air Force Base F-18's are stationed 10 miles from DC, why did it take so long?

and no, that special agent johnson skit is not how i imagined it

Did you consider that 90 minutes isnt really that long a period to try and distinguish which planes, out of probably hundreds in the air, had been hijacked? I have a friend whose dad was a pilot and was on his way to land in LA on 9.11, and the military forced him to land in Vegas. Im by no means an expert in airtraffic control, but I would think in only 90 minutes it would be at least somewhat difficult to distinguish which planes are hijacked and which are legit planes. I do think mistakes were probably made, but I personally dont buy the conspiracies.

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No, I can't say I've really studied satire but from the replies in that thread, honestly, it was hard to tell. I guess maybe it may have been easier to pick on with those who don't view the subject as emotionally as others do.

As for as the chip thing goes, it definitely seemed like trying to get to someone to me....once again, knowing how emotional some are about the subject.

having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean you are trying to get under someone's skin - it means that you are trying to prove something to someone or some group...instead of dealing with the issue at hand. you don't have anything to prove, so i don't understand the way you go about things sometimes.

you have no idea how emotional i am or am not about how animals are treated when they are raised particularly for slaughter and when they are taken to slaughter. i'm just realistic about it. when you take workers and pay them low wages, you are going to get shitty workers who do shitty work and fringe behavior. if you pay workers more, you would get better quality workers...if you change the process you to a more "friendly" one then that's good...but, both cost money and the consumer is the one that feels the cost hike...not the producer...so, who are you really helping?

if you want to talk about why planes flew into three buildings and a field in PA then we can talk because we probably, at least, agree that the 9/11 official story is fucking bullshit.

i'm going to play devil's advocate...that's what i do. it's fun.

trappedinmyradio

El_Kabong wrote:

is that what happened? i seem to remember you saying something like a peice of debris made it the gas lines blow up inside the building...then when i'd ask you to explain the video of it's collapse, of how it kinked in the middle then fell straight down at basically a floor per second...then you just started making personal attacks....

what do you have to back up your theory of this gas tank blowing up? plz reference this divine proof of yours.

what's frustrating is you don't explain anything...what did you explain? that you think i'm wrong? that doesn't explain a single thing. so what is it that caused the collapse?

there was no gas tank explosion...that's funny too. anyway, carry on. but, you won't convince that there was a controlled demolition of buildings 1 and 2. building 7...who fucking knows what happened there. but, if the u.s. government had some hand in this...they didn't need the buildings to fall to build their case. that was just icing on the already candle-blazing cake.

dg1979us

trappedinmyradio wrote:

there was no gas tank explosion...that's funny too. anyway, carry on. but, you won't convince that there was a controlled demolition of buildings 1 and 2. building 7...who fucking knows what happened there. but, if the u.s. government had some hand in this...they didn't need the buildings to fall to build their case. that was just icing on the already candle-blazing cake.

I dont really understand the governments motive if they did have a hand in it. Afghanistan was obviously not a priority, and there are no natural resources to benefit us. And I know they tried to tie it to Iraq, which was quickly debunked. But if it was the US govt who orchestrated it, my question is why not pin it on Iraq from the beginning, and why even bother with Afghanistan?