Unanswered 9/11 questions

[money tree]

no other building IN HISTORY has ever collapsed from fire. Some buildings using a similar tube design burned for over 24 hours and did not collapse.

Thermite was used to weaken the structure. Look at any footage of the event and you can see molten iron gushing out of the building.

99% of the kerosene burnt up in a fireball during impact.

the black smoke indicates a cool fire starved of oxygen.

people were able to walk freely around the crash zone because the fire had moved on quickly.

Thermite was also used to sever the central core in the sub-basement. This is why:

1. there was pools of melted iron 6 weeks after the event
2. infra-red sattelite images show hot spots around 1600 degrees
3. the central core did not protrude 300 ft upwards when the floors "pancaked"

There was a sub-basement explosion 9 SECONDS before the planes hit.......they hoped weakening the base would allow the towers to topple over when the planes impacted.

FIRE DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLAPSE

 

[Stan 101]

Hi Wayne, the only reason I say debunked is for the following reasons. Looking back I should maybe have used the words "probable and plausable."

1. A plane or something of great mass did hit the twin towers. I think even the theorists don't discount that.
2. Question 14 asked why did the tower collapse due to a small fire. I've seen the footage of that fireball. That is not what one would class as small.
3. Having passed passed this theory of mine to my colleagues, their response was basically the same as mine; extremely plausible and most probable. Some of these people work directly with the correction and modification of several Australian Standards in the construction industry.

I'd certainly like to hear some more rational conversation on the subject.
BTW, the Twin Towers is a magnificant example of why not to use steel frames in homes. It bends like licorice when heated.


cheers,

 

[Stan 101]

"Some buildings using a similar tube design burned for over 24 hours and did not collapse."
Can you name a building, please? Can you also please state what these buildings was hit by with the force and penetration of a jet liner? Let's compare apples with apples. That's the scientific way. You can't compare a building on fire to a building that had a monumental impact that clearly would have damaged any fire rating it once had.

"you can see molten iron gushing out of the building."
How can you be sure it is molten iron?

"99% of the kerosene burnt up in a fireball during impact."
Can you state your source for this information, plase? A second opinion of an authority would be great, too.

 

[money tree]

I think you should do your own research.

try looking at slowed down footage of the attacks, after you have studied controlled demolition techniques.

I will know you have, because you will be able to tell me the odd smell people named after the Pentagon attack.

I dont get paid for convincing you of the truth. If you want to be ignorant and believe whatever big brother says, fine.

 

[Stan 101]

i'll be ignorant if you can't state your "sources".

 

[money tree]

Ive pasted my sources

you were just too ignorant to click the links and read/view the stuff

 

[Julia]

Moneytree

I'd like to know if I'm actually understanding you correctly.

Are you, without all the various side accusations, basically suggesting that the USA government purposefully engineered the events of 11 September for their own nefarious purposes? Presumably to subjgate the population with a view to making them willing to accept the subsequent attack on Afghanistan and later on Iraq?

Julia

 

[Duckman#72]

9. why does TV footage and firemen eyewitness accounts prove the WTC was imploded by a demolition team?

ummmm........correct me if I'm wrong but if TV footage and firemen eyewitness accounts prove the WTC was imploded by a demolition team then.............it would already be proven that a demolition team imploded the WTC and we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

You might be a little loose with the use of your term "prove" Moneytree.

Working my way down the list.

Regards

Duckman

 

[Kauri]

Money Tree...
And hopefully this might answer some of your questions on the Pentagon

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

[dr00]

moneytree if you approached the subject with an open mind and looked as hard for arguments on one side as you did the other you would realise that it is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely the US gov had anything to do with it. its the internet, you can find things to support ANY argument.

 

[wayneL]

moneytree if you approached the subject with an open mind and looked as hard for arguments on one side as you did the other you would realise that it is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely the US gov had anything to do with it. its the internet, you can find things to support ANY argument.

Of course the exact same arguement can be applied to the opposing arguement.

In my experience, governments are rarely truthful, and any and all utterances should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

Governments have used agent provocatuers for centuries and there is no reason to doubt that modern ones would not do so as well.

An open mind needs to be kept all round.

Cheers

 

[money tree]

these are the facts of the case and they are indisputeable:

1. there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the Pentagon. The Government told us what happened and some believed it.
2. 80 tonnes of aircraft crashed into each tower and they barely moved because they were so strong
3. The U.S LIED and deceived the world about WMD's in Iraq
4. Too many people knew about the attacks in advance
5. There were many unexplained explosions on Sept 11, resulting in major damage to at least 2 other buildings not hit by aircraft or debri, and damage to the lower levels of both towers
6. The 4 flights hijacked were the only 4 planes that day with below 20% capacity. All other flights had at least 70% capacity
7. There are over 100 cameras filming the exterior of the Pentagon.
8. The claimed path of the plane into the Pentagon is impossible
9. The damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a commercial plane
10. Video footage from news cameras shows "squibs", molten iron, black smoke, and a lack of raging flames. It also shows floors exploding 30 stories BELOW the demolition wave.
11. The hijackers were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi. The U.S did not invade Saudi Arabia.
12. 9 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive
13. steel buildings do not collapse
14. debri from the towers was found in New Jersey. Only explosives could get it there
15. the alleged pilots could not fly a Cessna competantly let alone a 747
16. it was impossible to navigate and hit targets without the aid of air traffic control
17. the Pentagon has missile defense system
18. the part of the pentagon hit was the strongest, mostly vacant part and the pilot went out of his way to hit that side
19. you would think that having 2 planes already hit buildings, and that there were rumours of planes heading for Washington, that the public would be paying close attention to planes in a restricted airspace at low altitude. But nobody saw or filmed a thing.
20. the towers were incredibily strong. yet we are suppose to believe they crumbled under their own weight which they had supported for 30 years?
21. the force of a strong wind is more than the impact of a commercial plane
22. all evidence was destroyed
23. very little was spent on investigating the cause
24. the towers were designed to take this sort of impact
25. the U.S was friends with Bin laden in previous years

 

[nizar]

these are the facts of the case and they are indisputeable:

1. there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the Pentagon. The Government told us what happened and some believed it.
2. 80 tonnes of aircraft crashed into each tower and they barely moved because they were so strong
3. The U.S LIED and deceived the world about WMD's in Iraq
4. Too many people knew about the attacks in advance
5. There were many unexplained explosions on Sept 11, resulting in major damage to at least 2 other buildings not hit by aircraft or debri, and damage to the lower levels of both towers
6. The 4 flights hijacked were the only 4 planes that day with below 20% capacity. All other flights had at least 70% capacity
7. There are over 100 cameras filming the exterior of the Pentagon.
8. The claimed path of the plane into the Pentagon is impossible
9. The damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a commercial plane
10. Video footage from news cameras shows "squibs", molten iron, black smoke, and a lack of raging flames. It also shows floors exploding 30 stories BELOW the demolition wave.
11. The hijackers were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi. The U.S did not invade Saudi Arabia.
12. 9 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive
13. steel buildings do not collapse
14. debri from the towers was found in New Jersey. Only explosives could get it there
15. the alleged pilots could not fly a Cessna competantly let alone a 747
16. it was impossible to navigate and hit targets without the aid of air traffic control
17. the Pentagon has missile defense system
18. the part of the pentagon hit was the strongest, mostly vacant part and the pilot went out of his way to hit that side
19. you would think that having 2 planes already hit buildings, and that there were rumours of planes heading for Washington, that the public would be paying close attention to planes in a restricted airspace at low altitude. But nobody saw or filmed a thing.
20. the towers were incredibily strong. yet we are suppose to believe they crumbled under their own weight which they had supported for 30 years?
21. the force of a strong wind is more than the impact of a commercial plane
22. all evidence was destroyed
23. very little was spent on investigating the cause
24. the towers were designed to take this sort of impact
25. the U.S was friends with Bin laden in previous years

All good and valid points their moneytree.... except no.6??

How do u know about the airline capacity?

Number 11 is G-O-L-D; i wish somebody would like say that on TV or something

The US wanted an excuse to bomb Iraq; so bush can finish wat his dad started; and so 9/11 fell into place...

 

[dr00]

Of course the exact same arguement can be applied to the opposing arguement.

In my experience, governments are rarely truthful, and any and all utterances should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

Governments have used agent provocatuers for centuries and there is no reason to doubt that modern ones would not do so as well.

An open mind needs to be kept all round.

Cheers

i believe in the saying 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' and would like 'done unto me' the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[moXJO]

Here’s a little more on why the buildings collapsed: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Here’s a site that deals with the structure of metal. (interactive flash thingy)And what happens when you apply heat or force.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/metal.html#

There was investigation after investigation into what happened.If these theories were true evidence would have came out.This is not a case of everyone was looking the other way thousands of people died.Its not something that would be able to be kept quiet(especially in the U.S of A).Solid evidence would be unearthed.

There is a lot off the last list that can be discredited and by eyewitness accounts.Where did you get half of this information and did you check the background of your own statements.Or just get it off the one conspiracy theory site.

 

[Knobby22]

There are two basic problem with most conspiracy theories

1. They involve lots of people who have to keep a secret. Fortunately that is a human weakness.
Any conspiracy involving more than 20 people is doomed to fail.

2. They involve deep thinking involving amazing detail and need to be pulled off flawlessly. Anyone who has ever been in any human project of any magnitude including the building industry, government etc. can only be amazed at the incompetance of many people. Gee, if George Bush could organise this then why can't he successfully conduct anything else?

I find the latest 9/11 conspiracy laughable.

I also find it laughable that the country that landed the man on the moon has the most doubters that they didn't. That there was a space ship crash attended by hundreds of people. JFK etc.

Even so called facts like the dangerous Bermuda triangle is a complete furphy.
It is actually among the safest seas in the world and the ship that got lost was quite small and in a storm (not clear skys).

The are plenty of known facts about the corruption, dishonesty and incompetance of the existing US (and our) government that should be talked about by their populace rather than crackpot conspiracy theorys.

If there is a conspiracy theory that is true then it is that the government encourages them to keep the populace from thinking about the main game.

The fact that many people can be so easily distracted by such things is an
inditement to their wisdom and the ability of the human race to process facts.

A brief overview of the "facts".

1. there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the Pentagon. The Government told us what happened and some believed it.
No they were paper mache models we saw on TV.

2. 80 tonnes of aircraft crashed into each tower and they barely moved because they were so strong. True, does the person who wrote this undestand physics 101, what do you expect?

3. The U.S LIED and deceived the world about WMD's in Iraq
So, relevance?

4. Too many people knew about the attacks in advance
Good old conspiracys involving thousands of people always work. Just silly.

5. There were many unexplained explosions on Sept 11, resulting in major damage to at least 2 other buildings not hit by aircraft or debri, and damage to the lower levels of both towers

No easily explained by engineers (I am one), people don't want to listen.

6. The 4 flights hijacked were the only 4 planes that day with below 20% capacity. All other flights had at least 70% capacity

Proof???

7. There are over 100 cameras filming the exterior of the Pentagon.

So??

8. The claimed path of the plane into the Pentagon is impossible

Says who??

9. The damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a commercial plane

I thought you said it didn't happen?

10. Video footage from news cameras shows "squibs", molten iron, black smoke, and a lack of raging flames. It also shows floors exploding 30 stories BELOW the demolition wave.

The news cameras that show it didn't happen?

11. The hijackers were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi. The U.S did not invade Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia are an ally duh! Politics 101 need here!

12. 9 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive

Proof??

13. steel buildings do not collapse

Just a rubbish statement. Check the next earthquake or fire.

14. debri from the towers was found in New Jersey. Only explosives could get it there

Yawn

15. the alleged pilots could not fly a Cessna competantly let alone a 747

They didn't have to land the plane. I have flown planes and can tell you that anyone can point them with the modern controls. These guys had lessons, they would have easily done what they did.

16. it was impossible to navigate and hit targets without the aid of air traffic control

Gee, how do fighter pilots do it then, how did we do it is WW11. Rubbish

17. the Pentagon has missile defense system

Patriot missiles presumambly, they worked well in Israel did they not (they didn't work at all, it was just gov propaganda)

18. the part of the pentagon hit was the strongest, mostly vacant part and the pilot went out of his way to hit that side

Rubbish, there was no stongest side.

19. you would think that having 2 planes already hit buildings, and that there were rumours of planes heading for Washington, that the public would be paying close attention to planes in a restricted airspace at low altitude. But nobody saw or filmed a thing.

Says who?

20. the towers were incredibily strong. yet we are suppose to believe they crumbled under their own weight which they had supported for 30 years?

It was not the weight it was the fire fed by aviation fuel destroying the integrity of the steel beams.

21. the force of a strong wind is more than the impact of a commercial plane

Puch a person, same as a strong wind, see any difference? Physics 101 again.

22. all evidence was destroyed

Rubbish.

23. very little was spent on investigating the cause

Rubbish.

24. the towers were designed to take this sort of impact

Yes, but not with fully loaded avaition fuel tanks.

25. the U.S was friends with Bin laden in previous years

Yes, Bush is still friends with the family. Bushs family also were friends with the Nazis. Nice family, just the sort I would want to elect.

 

[visual]

sorry guys,some of you will think this is off topic,but I notice a lot of important sounding sites to do with the conspriracy theories on 9/11,as though that alone can lend these theories credibility.

So lets take the hijab or burqua or essentially muslim women told to cover up so muslim men dont find them so attractive that they will rape them on the spot.If you look throughthe internet or books you will find a lot of important sounding titled morons who will explain the wearing of this oppresive and offensive to humanity garb,yet at the end of the day,you have to think,do men really behave like that and should it be men changing their behaviour as opposed to women and how they dress?

Now,there`s a conspiracy

So 9/11 falls in that category for me,al qeda,told the world that they did,we know the names of the people who did ,where the hell is the conspiracy?
just asking?

 

[moXJO]

Of course keeping an open mind on the subject
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I have always thought the buildings collapsing was an odd moment.

I saw a documentary on the conspiracy and some answers I await.

 

[Kauri]

I heard that ELVIS was on one of the planes.....