9/11 The Conspiracy Files

[1927]

Oh, and seeing as some people seem to be drifting into some sort of fantasy land where enormous buildings can be felled with a few little explosives hidden away, here's a reminder of what was needed to bring down a building far smaller than the WTC:

Feel free to elaborate, 1927.

If steel framed buildings collapse so easily when on fire as evidenced by WTC 1,2 and 7 wouldn't it just have been easier to set it alight? you can't have it both ways.

 

[WouldBe]

They wouldn't need wires if remote-controlled detonation was used. Not as cheap as the wired stuff, but that's no object here.

If that's the case then you need to be able to show how

a) you prevent the remote detonators been triggered by interference?
b) you prevent the shock of the exploding aircraft setting off the explosive?
c) you prevent the ensuing fire burning off the explosive or remote detonator?

 

[WouldBe]

If steel framed buildings collapse so easily when on fire as evidenced by WTC 1,2 and 7 wouldn't it just have been easier to set it alight? you can't have it both ways.

That's what did happen. WTC 1 &2 were set alight by aircraft flying into them.

 

[Cid]

I think there are some double standards at play on this thread.

We are meant to believe that a passport survived the fireballs, after all posters have produced evidence that a mass of personal possessions survived. But on the other hand when questions are raised about the black boxes surviving, posters ask how many other planes slammed into skyscrapers!!

the official line is that the WTC was felled because the steel in the upper floors weakened and this caused a concertina effect, yet you ask if I have an idea how much explosives would be needed to fell them. Well probably not much if you only needed to weaken the upper floors.

I'm no expert on crash dynamics but lighter objects are often ejected on impact, the blast of the explosion forcing them out. This is not going to be the case with black boxes.

I know more about structure and had a lecture on how buildings collapse not long ago (I study architecture), the WTC was cited as an example of how steel deformation in high temperatures can result in a collapse. The guy who gave the lecture has been in the industry for around 30 years and probably knows a bit more about these things than college drop-outs and theology professors...

I probably should've remembered to take notes that day...

 

[1927]

That's what did happen. WTC 1 &2 were set alight by aircraft flying into them.

And I get called the fucking idot!!

 

[editor]

If steel framed buildings collapse so easily when on fire as evidenced by WTC 1,2 and 7 wouldn't it just have been easier to set it alight? you can't have it both ways.

Sorry, I can't be arsed to play, 'let's follow the ever-shifting 'argument' here.

Try reading this thread and you'll find lots of helpful links to expert analysis, well researched material from hugely qualified experts and credible sources.

But none in Jazzz's posts, natch.

 

[editor]

And I get called the fucking idot!!

Looks like you're doing a good job so far.

 

[1927]

I'm no expert on crash dynamics but lighter objects are often ejected on impact, the blast of the explosion forcing them out. This is not going to be the case with black boxes.

I know more about structure and had a lecture on how buildings collapse not long ago (I study architecture), the WTC was cited as an example of how steel deformation in high temperatures can result in a collapse. The guy who gave the lecture has been in the industry for around 30 years and probably knows a bit more about these things than college drop-outs and theology professors...

I probably should've remembered to take notes that day...

The WTC is the ONLY ever example in teh whole wide world, ever, ever, ever of collapse in such circumstances. Not one in a hundred years and then 3 come along all at once in the same afternoon!

 

[Jazzz]

That's what did happen. WTC 1 &2 were set alight by aircraft flying into them.

The point being made is that who needs to do all this fancy wiring when you can just light a fire and the whole thing is apparently guaranteed to come down like a house of cards anyway ('progressive collapse is inevitable').

 

[1927]

Sorry, I can't be arsed to play, 'let's follow the ever-shifting 'argument' here.

Try reading this thread and you'll find lots of helpful links to expert analysis, well researched material from hugely qualified experts and credible sources.

But none in Jazzz's posts, natch.

I'm not shifting the argument. You claim that the WTC weren't brought down by explosives because it would take too much. I merely pointed out that if the official fire weakened structure argument is true then why do demolition companies spent vast amount on all these explosives if a fire lit beneath the structure would do the job just as effectively.

please try to keep up.

 

[1927]

The point being made is that who needs to do all this fancy wiring when you can just light a fire and the whole thing is apparently guaranteed to come down like a house of cards anyway ('progressive collapse is inevitable').

Thank you atleast someone can keep up with the argument. It would seem that the non CTs are more confused than the rest of us!

 

[WouldBe]

The WTC is the ONLY ever example in teh whole wide world, ever, ever, ever of collapse in such circumstances. Not one in a hundred years and then 3 come along all at once in the same afternoon!

The WTC is the only building(s) in the whole wide world, ever, ever, ever to be built to the design of the WTC towers.

 

[1927]

The WTC is the only building(s) in the whole wide world, ever, ever, ever to be built to the design of the WTC towers.

Well you could apply that to every argument about everything ever couldn't you ya cock.

 

[WouldBe]

The point being made is that who needs to do all this fancy wiring when you can just light a fire and the whole thing is apparently guaranteed to come down like a house of cards anyway ('progressive collapse is inevitable').

Then how come no-one saw all the operatives carrying gallons and gallons of jet fuel into the building and spreading it about?

How come no-one could smell all this invisible, oudourless jet fuel?

 

[1927]

Then how come no-one saw all the operatives carrying gallons and gallons of jet fuel into the building and spreading it about?

How come no-one could smell all this invisible, oudourless jet fuel?

The jet fuel was in the jets that hit the WTC. see the word JET its a bit of a clue as to where the fuel was.

 

[Cid]

If steel framed buildings collapse so easily when on fire as evidenced by WTC 1,2 and 7 wouldn't it just have been easier to set it alight? you can't have it both ways.

Right, this would take me hours to explain, so here's a Royal society of Edinburgh paper on sept 11th and the implications for fire safety. When you've read through it and proved them wrong, please get back to me.

 

[WouldBe]

The jet fuel was in the jets that hit the WTC. see the word JET its a bit of a clue as to where the fuel was.

So you need a JET to crash into the building not simply set fire to place.

 

[Jazzz]

If that's the case then you need to be able to show how

a) you prevent the remote detonators been triggered by interference?
b) you prevent the shock of the exploding aircraft setting off the explosive?
c) you prevent the ensuing fire burning off the explosive or remote detonator?

a) This is not an area of expertise but I'll be damned if the USG can build star wars weapons and stealth bombers and not manage this. Perhaps you'd have a code just to arm the device and feedback so you'd know when they were armed.

b) & c) (theory) Where the perimeter is concerned, those not hit by the aircraft will still be there, so either way the columns get taken out. Insulate them to protect from the flash. Fix any that are on the core the other side from the direction of impact to protect them.

I don't see that this is impossible.

 

[Cid]

If you're going to fly a sodding plane into a building, why would you bother blowing it up too?

 

[WouldBe]

a) This is not an area of expertise but I'll be damned if the USG can build star wars weapons and stealth bombers and not manage this. Perhaps you'd have a code just to arm the device and feedback so you'd know when they were armed.

If digital radio controlled aircraft can crash due to interference then what's to stop the interference arming the detonators then further interference then setting it off?

b) & c) (theory) Where the perimeter is concerned, those not hit by the aircraft will still be there, so either way the columns get taken out. Insulate them to protect from the flash. Fix any that are on the core the other side from the direction of impact to protect them.

I don't see that this is impossible.

Insulation on the steelwork was stripped by the impact. What's to stop the insulation on the explosives being stripped as well?

You have shown that the NIST report records steel temp upto 250C. What temp does explosives melt / burn?

 

[Cid]

The WTC is the ONLY ever example in teh whole wide world, ever, ever, ever of collapse in such circumstances. Not one in a hundred years and then 3 come along all at once in the same afternoon!

It is not, however, the only fire in which deformation of structural steel members due to heat has been observed; see the broadgate fire.

 

[1927]

So you need a JET to crash into the building not simply set fire to place.

WTC7?

 

[1927]

If you're going to fly a sodding plane into a building, why would you bother blowing it up too?

Because there were no previous examples of buildings falling down just from a fire? possibly

 

[1927]

Right, this would take me hours to explain, so here's a Royal society of Edinburgh paper on sept 11th and the implications for fire safety. When you've read through it and proved them wrong, please get back to me.

What is there to prove wrong? It doesnt actually explain why they fell and is full of supposition ifs and buts. Totally irrelevant to the argument, but then yiou didn't actually expect me to read it did you?

 

[Cid]

Because there were no previous examples of buildings falling down just from a fire? possibly

Errr... you don't really need the building to collapse in order to generate the outcry they wanted for the war on terror, Iraq etc. It's a pointles risk to take. Anyway, would you like to:

a) respond to the the Royal society of Edinburgh, or the nist if you prefer
b) Tell me how these explosives survived the impact and the fires to explode 56 and 102 minutes after the collision
c) How the explosives were hidden and passed security

 

[DexterTCN]

You're comparing a living human child with a laminated passport - while accusing someone else of having flawed logic?!!

Fabulous stuff!

Well if you're at ad hominems already....it's not me who is running out of arguments.

As you well know...I was using a current advert on radio and tv to point out the differences in mass and power. To shit on your argument.

Nice to know you had a good comeback. Fabulous stuff.


As I say...it's both sides of this argument that are prone to talking rubbish.

 

[editor]

a) This is not an area of expertise but I'll be damned if the USG can build star wars weapons and stealth bombers and not manage this.

What a pissweak, pathetic argument.

"I have no proof at all, but I bet they're so clever they could have done it somehow because they can do everything!"

This is as laughable as your belief in the amazing sci-fi holographic planes from the makey uppey 'manual' set in 2012!

 

[8den]

a) This is not an area of expertise but I'll be damned if the USG can build star wars weapons and stealth bombers and not manage this. Perhaps you'd have a code just to arm the device and feedback so you'd know when they were armed.

b) & c) (theory) Where the perimeter is concerned, those not hit by the aircraft will still be there, so either way the columns get taken out. Insulate them to protect from the flash. Fix any that are on the core the other side from the direction of impact to protect them.

I don't see that this is impossible.

Or in English

Dick Cheney and Donalds Rumsfeld donned their cloaks of invisibilty, and using their magic carpets they flew to New York. And Then slipped on elven boots of speed, and ran around the twin towers over night on Sept 10th, planting the enchanted dwarf bombs. Sprinkling each with pixie dust to hide them from alllllllll the children, and whispering mystical binding spells to protect them from the mighty steel dragons that would hit the building, and ice particles from the snow queen to keep them cold while the flames licked and tickled them....

Then when they work was all done, Dick clicked his fucking ruby slippers together and said "There's no place like home, theres no place like home" and quick as jack split they ended up back in bed. Oh what a big surprise they had in store for the boys and girls tomorrow!

Because that makes about as much sense as the bollocks you posted.

 

[editor]

As you well know...I was using a current advert on radio and tv to point out the differences in mass and power. To shit on your argument.

Shame then that your analogy was so laughably flawed that you only succeeded in making something of an arse of yourself.

Far from "shitting on my argument," your "fragile human child vs laminated passport" argument really was a dud.

What's next? The differences in mass and power explained via the medium of custard tarts vs A4 paper?

But thanks for giving me a laugh, anyway. I loves it when people shoot themselves in the foot

 

[DexterTCN]

Oh please tell me why a difference in mass and speed doesn't have an extrapolated value?

Do tell why I'm wrong that if you increase mass, power, explosive quantities and heat that you cannot allege that an object of equal size in the 2 arguments will be similarly effected?

Instead of telling me it's flawed...show me. Explain it.