9/11 Conspiracy Theories
POSTED BY: GreenFaerie
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 15:36
VIEWED: 25728
PAGE 8 of 9
Quote:
A vacuum is necessarily air-tight, and lacks oxygen, which is required for combustion, which is what would raise temperature, so I think your analogy may be flawed. I do not think the environment of the collapsing Towers was an air-tight environment at any stage.
I apologise that I cannot respond to everything that you said point by point, but that would be rather difficult.
My comment about "pressure" seems to've been confused with "weight"; my analogy was more referring to extremely heated gases present inside the build- mostly oxygen but also high quantities of steam from the internal fire suppression sprinkler system (what a joke for a fuel fire!) You have an incredible mix of gases here; oxygen to fuel the fire and to go around transferring temperature, steam heating things up crazily, and pressure that was basically expanding and stressing the floors both above and below. It doesn't need to be airtight for these effects to work- it just has to be relatively enclosed.
As the floors stressed against the incredible temperature *and* pressure- not of themsselves, but of superheated gases, they began to collapse. This happens in normal house fires, and it is part of why they are so dangerous; firemen can tell you about this.
The falling floors created not a true vacuum, but a temporary one- the gases, superheated and confined to a space that they did not "want" to be in, to anthropromorphize a bit, rapidly expanded. The corresponding drop in pressure on the floors above whatever floor fell first, and a similar *increase* in pressure on the floors below the floor that fell first caused a cascade that made the whole building go down. Softened steel cannot withstand that degree of pressure.
I contend that the steel was not actually melted but rather softened- I will use some of PirateNews's pictures in this argument. As you can see in his picture of "melted" steel, there is a dull reddish colour. I'm sure that everyone here has seen some type of smithy done- one never melts the metal, but rather makes it what you would call "red hot"; this is a softened condition in which the structural integrity of the metal is decreased, but it is not melted. It it was melted , the steel would have been a white or orange colour. The colour of the steel is related to the movement of electrons with increased energy. I don't have the equations handy, but I suspect that an ~600 nm light release comes from temperatures similar to what was expected inside the WTC.
As for the beams getting weaker as you approach the top, I quote wikipedia:
Quote:
The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 133 feet and consisted of steel box columns running from the bedrock to the tops of the tower. The columns tapered to the top, where they transitioned to lightweight H-beams, but the exact dimensions are unknown as the blueprints are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority and are not public domain
The reason for this is that the vein of metal being used to supply the building got weaker as they mined it further, and so the top of the building was skimped. These were buildings that used to groan and whine in the wind, unlike any skyscraper I have been in- including the Empire State Building, which is not much shorter. They were not structually sound, and they certainly weren't built to "three times" the spec.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This reasonable explanation for WTC 1 and 2, which names as the key factor the near-instantaneous spread of fire over a large area, cannot be applied to WTC 7. WTC 7 was not struck by a plane and did not have jet fuel spread over a large area in its interior. Why did WTC 7 collapse in an identical manner to towers 1 and 2?
Simply put, it didn't. WTC 7 was the worst building in the complex. It started on fire from falling debris. Then it was weakened by a shockwave from the other buildings falling. Then the fire came together to make the whole building (a rather small, low-budget, and poorly-built office building) collapse. If you watch video of that collapse, you will notice that parts of the builing began to fall before the whole thing went down- it doesn't look nearly as neat as the towers, and that's because it fell from secondary damage. WTC 7 is a case study for why office buildings are not as safe as we wish they were.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'm not here to stay, I just read through this stuff and don't post now, so I guess I've either graduated or been demoted to lurker status.
For what it's worth, which isn't much, I've been doing a fair amount of research here. I saw this film Loose Change, which the son of a friend of mine worked on, I had no idea that anyone else had seen it, I thought it was just a local thing. Some of it is well structured evidence, and some of it is hogwash.
But all that said, there are a few things I'm pretty sure of:
1. Planes do not vaporize. Ever.
2. The collision of the planes is totally insufficient to knock down the twin towers. I would guess offhand that the damage of the planes and the fire didn't even approach 1% of what was necessary to knock down the towers.
I've considered some other possibilities.
3. Al Qaeda operatives or some other terrorist group planted explosives in the building.
4. They must have created an opportunity to do so by making the security gap, for which they needed a man on the inside, somewhere.
5. This is not proof, in and of itself, that they were operating under orders from the govt.
Also this
6. The argument could be made that the govt. covered this up to prevent the whole story from getting out because that story would facilitate future terrorist attacks.
7. If 6. seem far fetched, it shouldn't. Our govt. and many others have been doing this sort of thing for years, like the deception about the japanese test ballons which reached california, but we claimed they didn't, or the russians claiming to shoot down the U2, when actually they had disabled it with a timed device planted by a spy in Norway. The illussion is geared almost entirely to prevent a future attack.
The doesn't mean though, that the other isn't a possibility.
8. It's still completely possible that the terrorist was someone inside the united states govt.
9. Remember an act of terrorism was committed, and the person who committed it did so without the full consent of the congress, the judicial and the american people, so they are still most decidedly a terrorist, even if, as several people have suggested, that search eventually leads to the vice president.
Other conspiracies are getting weaker, as evidence piles up.
10. I have to completely agree with PN here that Osama Bin Laden appears to have had nothing to do with the attacks. I think this is almost a given at this point, and we should drop the idea. This does not mean that it was not Al Qaeda. Bin Laden has very little, if any, control over the organization which he founded and they have carried our many attacks without his consent, even possibly his knowledge. I am certain the man in the videotape confession is *not* Osama bin Laden. The underlying structure of Bin Laden's face is purely semitic as an ethnic yemeni-saudi should be, the man in the tape is not, and is most likely of central asian origin, with a fair amount of persian ancestry. They're certainly in no way the same guy. This is not the first time the CIA has stood by a forgery and later had to confess its error. I hope everyone remembers the wmd transaction docuements it handed to the UN and then later recanted on. They should recant on this tape.
11. It's entirely possible that there were two attacks committed simultaneously. One, a foreign terrorist who kidnapped airplanes, and Two, a domestic terrorist who sought to gain from the event, but knew that the planes would not finish the job.
12. I think the empty planes theory is garbage. Another friend of mine had a nephew who was killed in one of those planes. But it's not just that I'm not inclined to believe it, it's also totally not credible and lacks any credible evidence or witnesses.
13. Pentagon hit by smaller plane is entirely possible, and evidence seems to back up the idea. The flight 77 was lost probably because it crashed, or more likely because it was shot down at the orders of a panicking cheney, who gave the order, as we know, it's on the public record. It's also on the record that someone's theor
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Simply put, it didn't. WTC 7 was the worst building in the complex. It started on fire from falling debris. Then it was weakened by a shockwave from the other buildings falling. Then the fire came together to make the whole building (a rather small, low-budget, and poorly-built office building) collapse. If you watch video of that collapse, you will notice that parts of the builing began to fall before the whole thing went down- it doesn't look nearly as neat as the towers, and that's because it fell from secondary damage. WTC 7 is a case study for why office buildings are not as safe as we wish they were.
Racical, this is radical, but not true.
A demolitions guy is on tape ordering it to be destroyed and Silverstein apparantly admitted it in an interview. I don't think this is a theory anymore, I think it's part of the public record. I don't think anyone was in the building, and demolition of a building you own is an odd thing to do, but I'm not sure it's an act of terrorism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris,
And I don't that. But I don't think it's the issue. Sure, a couple terrorists, whoever they were, kidnapped plains and flew them into the world trade centers.
I am just about certain from the incredible mountain of evidence that this did not knock down the towers. I don't even really want to waste too much time debating that, I wish we could just move to this page, and realize that this doesn't prove anything, but rather, unfortunately, puts us back on square one.
Almost certainly, the towers were leveled by a controlled demolition, which, in turn, was set up by people who are by definition, based on the fact that they did this, terrorists. We know the terrosits were someone with exteme advanced knowledge of the hijack attacks. This narrows are search to two fairly large groups of people, assuming that the planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda members:
1. Anyone in Al Qaeda
2. Anyone in our govt. probably of the pentagon, the intelligence or the executive.
I suppose, on a much slimmer lead, it could be another govt. with a very advanced intelligence network, but that would narrow it to Britain, Russia or Israel, so I would tend to discount that idea.
What we don't know is who or why. There is a tremendous number of remaining motives. As the film points out, theft of actual gold bars is plenty motive enough. It could be almost anyone in our intelligence or their network who knew that a) the planes wouldn't do it, and b) what would.
We do know that all crimes require motive means and opportunity. This is what we know in this case, which is, sadly, square one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ever heard of Occams Razor?
One last thing:
Quote:
Britain, Russia or Israel
Britian == British
Russia == Communists
Israel == Jews
My God! PirateJew was right all along! It's a conspiracy by Britain-Russia-Israel (British-Commie-Jews) all we need to do now is find the Nazis
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Ever heard of Occams Razor?
One last thing:Quote:
Britain, Russia or Israel
Britian == British
Russia == Communists
Israel == Jews
My God! PirateJew was right all along! It's a conspiracy by Britain-Russia-Israel (British-Commie-Jews) all we need to do now is find the Nazis
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
Don't forget the aliens, Citizen. Never forget the aliens... British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews are a force to be reckoned with...
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi I'm new to the sight and the series I actually came to the sight looking for info about the show and became engrossed with the discusion. I just wanted to put my two cents in: It could have been both parties. I agree with the posting that said that we are back at square one, and we don't know who for sure who did what. I firmly believe that the Goverment was involved in atleast one way and that is neglect. I believe that they new before hand about the attacks. I alos believe that they allowed them to happen or possibly helped them along for purposes of there own. We have always had a middle east agenda and nothing says war like acts of terrorism. For example Pearl Harbor. No one doubts who was responsible, however others have postulated that FDR new about the attacks before hand and allowed them to occur to push America into war which he wanted from the beginnig. I wouldn't put it past the curent administration to do the same thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove, I suggest that you read some of the physics in the thread to clear up some of your points.
However, Larry Silverstein currently claims that his comment to "pull it" (referring to WTC 7) was in reference to the firefighter team inside, not the building- they say that it went down on its own. It was a pretty crappy building. But I agree that it's possible they actually did pull it when they saw that it could not be salvaged- the simple reason for denying that would be for the insurance money to still come through. As it was, the insurance company tried to get out of paying for the two towers on the "act of war" justification.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GreenFaerie:
I consider myself an American Patriot. I love this country, and the people living here. But I am not fond of the government, and consider myself apolitical, because I think most politicians are crooked liars.
I don't believe most conspiracy theories. But I acknowledge that some have proven to be true.
All I want are answers to these questions...
1) If jet fuel burns at about 1800 degrees F, and steel melts at about 2700 degrees F, why did the Twin Towers collapse?
2) Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse as effficiently as the Twin Towers, as if by demolition, without even being hit by a jet?
3) If the black boxes of the jets didn't survive the explosion, why did the passport of one of the supposed terrorists survive?
4) Why are some of the supposed terrorists of the hijackings still alive and well?
5) Why hasn't Osama Bin Laden been cought?
6) In the video presented to the public where Osama admits his part in the attack, why is he wearing a ring and a watch, which is against Islamic rule?
Please answer these questions, so I can go back to being an American who believes his government is doing the right thing. So I can get back to my life of playing video games, ignoring the daily news, and eating McDonalds. Or not.
you forgot, why was about 80% of the employees who work at the Pentagon not at work on the day it got hit!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME