Thread: The lid is OFF 9/11/01!!!

Interesting information and pictures....

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Originally Posted by gofer

Interesting information and pictures....

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Thanks, gofer. It occurs to me that many people here don't have a good understanding of what physically occurs when a lightweight aluminum shell (the airframe and wings) partially filled with combustible liquid smashes into reinforced concrete at 500 mph. The get a good idea, fire a hollowpoint bullet from a .45 caliber pistol at a cinderblock wall 100 yds away and see what remains. Then consider how much more brittle and less dense aircraft aluminum is than the lead and the copper jacket of a hollowpoint.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Once again I'll say this, and I'll say it S L O W L Y so people can understand it.

I have yet to state my opinion on this subject.

I will however, state my opinion of some of the responses.

1. Anyone that ridicules anyone else for asking questions about the issue is doing a disservice to the asker and to themselves. The search for truth should be afforded great latitude, and reasonable people should be allowed to explore ALL avenues and express ALL opinions without fear or favor.

For my part, I am not ridiculing the idea of asking questions. I am ridiculing the idea that some people posting on this topic have made declaratory statements of fact based upon poor understanding of the facts and other misconceptions and, in some cases, propaganda. Too many people are too easily led around by the nose with disinformation and propaganda that is not meant to answer questions, but rather to muddy the water and to achieve specific political and other goals. That's an ongoing complaint for me.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

2. Given our government's history of corruption, collusion and concealment, it is NOT unreasonable to question it's motives or doubt it's responses.

True. It is not, however, reason to believe that the government's hand is in every piece of evil that is hurled our way. The nation does have Islamist enemies and they had engaged in repeated and escalating acts of terrorism agains the United States leading up to 9/11.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

3. Re: The Pentagon. While glued to the television that day, it was easy to see the impact areas on WTC 1 & 2. The outline of an airplane, wings and all, is clearly visible on both buildings. Why is there no such outline on the Pentagon? If the reinforcement of that building was strong enough to prevent the wings from penetrating the structure, where is the debris? As hard as I've looked I can't seem to locate it.

Answer above in gofer's post. You have to understand the difference between a glass building with spaced steel supports and a concrete and steel structure designed to survive bomb attacks. A simple application of physics answers your questions.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

4. Some responders have said that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, yet we all saw that jet fuel explode on impact. I don't think I've ever seen a bigger fireball, have you? How much jet fuel do you think remained in liquid form after the initial impact? If any, how did it remain in liquid form, un-ignited, as it poured through a burning building?

It would have been impossible for all the fuel to burn in the initial impact. The flash ignition of the aerosolized fuel cloud that resulted from the immediate rupture would have consumed all the available oxygen within seconds or less, leaving the fuel that remained liquid free to slosh all over the impact area and reignite, burning as a liquid for a protracted period of time. The exact amount of time the fuel would burn would be dependent on factors that cannot be easily calculated due to the many variables such as depth of pooling, total quantity of liquid fuel, avenues of ventilation to provide oxygen for the burn, etc.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

5. Assuming that somehow this highly flammable liquid was not completely consumed by the initial explosion, and assuming that it did in fact pour down stairwells and elevator shafts, how did it manage to burn hot enough to weaken the building's structural integrity to the point of collapse? The maximum temperature of burning kerosene is still several hundred degrees colder than the temperature required to cause such damage.

I have explained that it would be impossible for all the fuel to burn in the initial explosion. You have made an error in your statement when you say that the maxiumu burn temperature of jet fuel is "still several hundred degrees colder than the temperature required to cause such damage." Its burn temperature is in fact several hundred degrees below the melting point of steel, however, steel is weakened and can begin to bend and stretch before it melts. Its elasticity is compromized. When a steel structure begins to sag, the stresses are compounded by leverage and the chance for failure of the fasteners that maintain the integrity of the structure greatly increases. The official explanation is that the sagging structure pulled the external steel members inward. Leverage stressed the fasteners beyond their failure point, causing the floors to collapse in an increasing debris mass. As each successive floor collapsed, the effect was multiplied.

While I understand the official explanation, I run into unresolved questions relating to the complete collapse of the lower floors and the speed with which the collapse occurred, which was at about the acceleration of gravity. The unweakened lower floors should have been able to provide at least a minimal braking effect. Instead, what you see (video) is that the falling upper floors meet no resistance whatsoever from the lower floors. At the very least, the collapsing debris from the upper floors should have forced the structure below outward as the expanding mass of debris encountered undamaged steel members. This did not occur. Also, as the debris field forms a cascading and expanding cloud, another rising plume can be seen forming vertically. What could cause such a vertical plume? One would surmise that only superheated gases could cause such a vertical plume , but what would be superheating gases on these lower floors? You know what my theory is, and the witnessed phenomena are in accord with that theory.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

6.

Would Bush destroy the government and his own house??

This is one question I'd like to address. Given the history of the Bush family, is it not conceivable? Prescott Bush was in bed with the Nazi's from the start. What event led to the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany? What event solidified Hitler's control over the populace?

Can you say 'Reichstag Fire'?

And how many other Bush family members have been engaged in less than reputable pursuits?

George H.W., CIA spook (in Dallas?) when Kennedy was killed. Head of the CIA 12 years later.

Neil, Silverado Savings and Loan.

Marvin, head of security at WTC.

W, admitted drug and alcohol abuser, lost his N.G. flight status when he failed to take his physical. What was it he was afraid the physicians would find, more cocaine?

Well, with some of this stuff it is evident that you have ben feeding at the rumor mill. While the basics of the information may be more or less accurate, the spin is straight out of a Michael Moore screed.

Having said that, I agree that the question you address has little merit. If, and I say "if," the administration was complicit, then sacrificing a few of its own would have scarcely been an impediment.

Darlene- thank you for posting all the links. I was an avid reader of alot of these sites right after 9/11 occured. As horrible as it sounds, I really believe that 9/11 was planned. There is just too much reliable evidence that points in that direction.
My number one concern was the way President Bush sat calmly through reading a children's book to an elementary class. No one acts calmly during a time when America is being attacked.
Then after looking at all of the films, and listening to the witnesses accounts of what happened, I started to believe.
I've seen the planes shoot "missles" before they crashed. I have listened to the witnesses say that they heard explosions before any plane hit the buildings. I have also heard that explosions occured in stairways and other places that shouldnt have gone off.
Then there is the collection of wallets, drivers lisences and other id's that should have been destroyed and burned to smithereens by the jet fuelage and fire. And they were the id's belonging to none other but the Islamists -not id's of anyone else were discovered. And copies of the "Koran" and suicide notes were found as well. And what about the "quickness" of finding out WHO exactly rammed the planes into the buildings?
I am sorry, but I believe this was a planned effort on behalf of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group, and other NWO members.

Originally Posted by firecracker

Darlene- thank you for posting all the links. I was an avid reader of alot of these sites right after 9/11 occured. As horrible as it sounds, I really believe that 9/11 was planned. There is just too much reliable evidence that points in that direction.
My number one concern was the way President Bush sat calmly through reading a children's book to an elementary class. No one acts calmly during a time when America is being attacked.
Then after looking at all of the films, and listening to the witnesses accounts of what happened, I started to believe.
I've seen the planes shoot "missles" before they crashed. I have listened to the witnesses say that they heard explosions before any plane hit the buildings. I have also heard that explosions occured in stairways and other places that shouldnt have gone off.
Then there is the collection of wallets, drivers lisences and other id's that should have been destroyed and burned to smithereens by the jet fuelage and fire. And they were the id's belonging to none other but the Islamists -not id's of anyone else were discovered. And copies of the "Koran" and suicide notes were found as well. And what about the "quickness" of finding out WHO exactly rammed the planes into the buildings?
I am sorry, but I believe this was a planned effort on behalf of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group, and other NWO members.

I am surprised that so many people were upset about the President's reaction. Would everyone be satisfied if he screamed and cried in front of a bunch of little children? When you are in the public, you need to get your thoughts together. If anything, his reaction seemed unplanned to me. If it was planned, I am sure that he would have acted more heroic. In your opinion, what was the motive for this tragedy? I will be the first to admit that our government is troubled, but I think that they could have made their point on a much smaller scale, if indeed it was planned. My other concern is that if our citizens truly believe that our government could do something like this, how can they live here? I do believe that skepticism is healthy but this seems so extreme to me.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Once again I'll say this, and I'll say it S L O W L Y so people can understand it.

I have yet to state my opinion on this subject.

I will however, state my opinion of some of the responses.

1. Anyone that ridicules anyone else for asking questions about the issue is doing a disservice to the asker and to themselves. The search for truth should be afforded great latitude, and reasonable people should be allowed to explore ALL avenues and express ALL opinions without fear or favor.

For my part, I am not ridiculing the idea of asking questions. I am ridiculing the idea that some people posting on this topic have made declaratory statements of fact based upon poor understanding of the facts and other misconceptions and, in some cases, propaganda. Too many people are too easily led around by the nose with disinformation and propaganda that is not meant to answer questions, but rather to muddy the water and to achieve specific political and other goals. That's an ongoing complaint for me.

I tend to agree with you on this point.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

2. Given our government's history of corruption, collusion and concealment, it is NOT unreasonable to question it's motives or doubt it's responses.

True. It is not, however, reason to believe that the government's hand is in every piece of evil that is hurled our way. The nation does have Islamist enemies and they had engaged in repeated and escalating acts of terrorism agains the United States leading up to 9/11.

I never said "The government's hand is in every piece of evil that is hurled our way." I'm surprised that you would insinuate that, my friend. What scares me more than the Islamist enemy is the Islamist's business partner. Again I will say 'BCCI'.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

3. Re: The Pentagon. While glued to the television that day, it was easy to see the impact areas on WTC 1 & 2. The outline of an airplane, wings and all, is clearly visible on both buildings. Why is there no such outline on the Pentagon? If the reinforcement of that building was strong enough to prevent the wings from penetrating the structure, where is the debris? As hard as I've looked I can't seem to locate it.

Answer above in gofer's post. You have to understand the difference between a glass building with spaced steel supports and a concrete and steel structure designed to survive bomb attacks. A simple application of physics answers your questions.

You're not trying to tell me that the metal vaporized, are you?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

4. Some responders have said that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, yet we all saw that jet fuel explode on impact. I don't think I've ever seen a bigger fireball, have you? How much jet fuel do you think remained in liquid form after the initial impact? If any, how did it remain in liquid form, un-ignited, as it poured through a burning building?

It would have been impossible for all the fuel to burn in the initial impact. The flash ignition of the aerosolized fuel cloud that resulted from the immediate rupture would have consumed all the available oxygen within seconds or less, leaving the fuel that remained liquid free to slosh all over the impact area and reignite, burning as a liquid for a protracted period of time. The exact amount of time the fuel would burn would be dependent on factors that cannot be easily calculated due to the many variables such as depth of pooling, total quantity of liquid fuel, avenues of ventilation to provide oxygen for the burn, etc.

However, regardless of how much remained, it never burned higher than a certain temperature, did it?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

5. Assuming that somehow this highly flammable liquid was not completely consumed by the initial explosion, and assuming that it did in fact pour down stairwells and elevator shafts, how did it manage to burn hot enough to weaken the building's structural integrity to the point of collapse? The maximum temperature of burning kerosene is still several hundred degrees colder than the temperature required to cause such damage.

I have explained that it would be impossible for all the fuel to burn in the initial explosion. You have made an error in your statement when you say that the maxiumu burn temperature of jet fuel is "still several hundred degrees colder than the temperature required to cause such damage." Its burn temperature is in fact several hundred degrees below the melting point of steel, however, steel is weakened and can begin to bend and stretch before it melts. Its elasticity is compromized. When a steel structure begins to sag, the stresses are compounded by leverage and the chance for failure of the fasteners that maintain the integrity of the structure greatly increases. The official explanation is that the sagging structure pulled the external steel members inward. Leverage stressed the fasteners beyond their failure point, causing the floors to collapse in an increasing debris mass. As each successive floor collapsed, the effect was multiplied.

Regardless Crocket, no steel framed structure has EVER collapsed due to fire, regardless of how long they've burned. You're asking me to believe that 3of them fell on the same day WITHOUT help, when you've argued previously that they could have been 'pulled' with suitcase nukes.

While I understand the official explanation, I run into unresolved questions relating to the complete collapse of the lower floors and the speed with which the collapse occurred, which was at about the acceleration of gravity. The unweakened lower floors should have been able to provide at least a minimal braking effect. Instead, what you see (video) is that the falling upper floors meet no resistance whatsoever from the lower floors. At the very least, the collapsing debris from the upper floors should have forced the structure below outward as the expanding mass of debris encountered undamaged steel members. This did not occur. Also, as the debris field forms a cascading and expanding cloud, another rising plume can be seen forming vertically. What could cause such a vertical plume? One would surmise that only superheated gases could cause such a vertical plume , but what would be superheating gases on these lower floors? You know what my theory is, and the witnessed phenomena are in accord with that theory.

No argument there.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

6. [quote:1wno1q02]Would Bush destroy the government and his own house??

This is one question I'd like to address. Given the history of the Bush family, is it not conceivable? Prescott Bush was in bed with the Nazi's from the start. What event led to the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany? What event solidified Hitler's control over the populace?

Can you say 'Reichstag Fire'?

And how many other Bush family members have been engaged in less than reputable pursuits?

George H.W., CIA spook (in Dallas?) when Kennedy was killed. Head of the CIA 12 years later.

Neil, Silverado Savings and Loan.

Marvin, head of security at WTC.

W, admitted drug and alcohol abuser, lost his N.G. flight status when he failed to take his physical. What was it he was afraid the physicians would find, more cocaine?

Well, with some of this stuff it is evident that you have ben feeding at the rumor mill. While the basics of the information may be more or less accurate, the spin is straight out of a Michael Moore screed.

Having said that, I agree that the question you address has little merit. If, and I say "if," the administration was complicit, then sacrificing a few of its own would have scarcely been an impediment.[/quote:1wno1q02] I didn't notice any spin, I thought I kept it simple enough that spin would be un-applicable. Did I do any more than state unvarnished facts? Was there something I left out that could be considered 'mitigating'?

Pinestraw, you appear to be confusing my premise.

First, I didn't mean to indicate that you see the evil hand of government in everything. Again, I was responding generically to the multitude of comments made by those who believe that the government planned 9/11.

Next, I am saying that the wings of the plane that hit the Pentagon first folded back and then disintegrated. The explanation provided in that Snopes link did a better job of explaining it than I am likely to do. As I mentioned, I have actually seen a crash site of a large aircraft (F-4) firsthand and was myself shocked at how completely some parts of the plane disintegrated. The debris from the wings would have been among that scattered on the lawn, while larger pieces would have floded and then followed the other wreckage into the impact area. Remember also that the wings were full of fuel which would have exploded, casting fragments over a large area under normal circumstances but, given the velocity of the aircraft at impact, in this case shattering them inside the breached building.

In response to the fuel comment, I was merely answering your question as to whether it would have all burned with the initial explosion. It would not have even come close. I also addressed the fact that the temperature would not have had to reach the melting point of steel in order to compromise the structure and cause collapse. I have to deal with metal fatigue issues on a daily basis. Tolerances are not based upon melting point. They are based upon maximum likely temperatures. That's why even in a building unlikely to see temperatures approachong the melting point of steel still coats the supports with flame retardant insulation.

As for "no steel framed structure ever collapsing due to fire," you are quite simply wrong. As a matter of fact, there was a series of warehouse fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which steel members not only failed but in some cases vaporized. Arson investigators hypothesized that some sort of accelerant had been used with jet fuel, but no trace of said accelerant was ever discovered and in fact arson was never proven in any of the cases. The fires burned so hot that water being sprayed by firefighters hydrolyzed and burned. That said, I have explained repeatedly that I have no problem accepting that the administration may have made an executive decision to demolish the buildings before one or another toppled and caused more collateral damage. I have explained in detail why I believe this to be the case and what I believe the charges to have been.

As for whether or not you were engaging in spin, I will simply quote you:

What was it he was afraid the physicians would find, more cocaine?

Originally Posted by Neese

I am surprised that so many people were upset about the President's reaction. Would everyone be satisfied if he screamed and cried in front of a bunch of little children? When you are in the public, you need to get your thoughts together. If anything, his reaction seemed unplanned to me. If it was planned, I am sure that he would have acted more heroic.

Think about it for a minute, Neese. The second plane has hit, there's at least 2 MORE that are unaccounted for, and EVERYBODY knows where he is. The Secret Service should have been hustling his azz out of there ON WHEELS!!!

In your opinion, what was the motive for this tragedy?

My opinion is reserved and skeptical.

I will be the first to admit that our government is troubled, but I think that they could have made their point on a much smaller scale, if indeed it was planned.

As to making a point, I don't believe that had anything to do with it, at least not to us 'little people'.

My other concern is that if our citizens truly believe that our government could do something like this, how can they live here? I do believe that skepticism is healthy but this seems so extreme to me.

You make it seem that anyone who questions the 'official' story should just pack up and get the hell out! Whether I believe it or not, just where the hell would you suggest I move to? And why the hell would you suggest I leave? I'm insulted by your sanctimonious attitude.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Neese

I am surprised that so many people were upset about the President's reaction. Would everyone be satisfied if he screamed and cried in front of a bunch of little children? When you are in the public, you need to get your thoughts together. If anything, his reaction seemed unplanned to me. If it was planned, I am sure that he would have acted more heroic.

Think about it for a minute, Neese. The second plane has hit, there's at least 2 MORE that are unaccounted for, and EVERYBODY knows where he is. The Secret Service should have been hustling his azz out of there ON WHEELS!!!

In your opinion, what was the motive for this tragedy?

My opinion is reserved and skeptical. [quote:1yj3fu52]I will be the first to admit that our government is troubled, but I think that they could have made their point on a much smaller scale, if indeed it was planned.

As to making a point, I don't believe that had anything to do with it, at least not to us 'little people'.

My other concern is that if our citizens truly believe that our government could do something like this, how can they live here? I do believe that skepticism is healthy but this seems so extreme to me.

You make it seem that anyone who questions the 'official' story should just pack up and get the hell out! Whether I believe it or not, just where the hell would you suggest I move to? And why the hell would you suggest I leave? I'm insulted by your sanctimonious attitude.[/quote:1yj3fu52]

I didn't see Neese tell anyone to "get the hell out." I saw her asking a question, which is how anyone who believes that things are this bad can remain here. If I was convinced that the government had planned this attack from the git-go, I can tell you that I would sure as hell leave for greener pastures. There are several places that I would be welcome. For my part, I believe that there is a narrow chance that we can striaghten out the problems that exist in this country, but my fears that they will not be corrected do not arise from fear that the government and the forces behind its subversion are invulnerable, but rather that my fellow citizens are not up the task of undertaking the little changes in their lifestyles and expectations required to affect the needed change.

PinestrawGuys

Please excuse the interruption!

I will say, I find that you have done your research on the issues at hand in this thread, I must commend you. I always find in reading your post that I always walk away learning something new, that is very helpful.
This link might help shed some light on the subject of the causes of the buildings falling. It takes a few seconds to down load.

If it doesn’t shed any light precisely on the buildings falling, it can be informative to stopping the future or further such attacks on America.I do not mean this to come off sarcastic or mocking but I find it pertains to the situation.


http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/