9/11 - Controlled demolition?
- Thread starter IceBus
- Start date
IceBus said:
You clearly haven't read much then because the information relating to that last question is widely available.
Here is the answer:
There are 7 alert sites on the US mainland, each with 2 active aircraft, that can scramble fighters. The 9/11 commission concluded that F-15's were scrambled within 6 minutes of notification of the hijacking of Boston flight 11. Because hijackers had dismantled the planes transponders, the F-15's could not identify the endangered aircraft. Details of the performance are being questioned.
Ignoring information is something the conspiracy theorists seem to do a lot of. It's all well and good saying there are loads of unanswered questions and lots of evidence for the theory but that's because everyone else in the world believes the obvious answer. Why spend time and effort proving something most people agree with?
Courtesy of TIME once more.
Does anybody know after the plane striked how many minutes it took WTC1 to collapase? Likewise for WTC2.
I myself have trouble believing a building of that magnitude could fall apart as easily. But when you factor in its sheer size and weight, mavity is going to pull it to the ground very quickly should it fail structurally. That's IF the fire actually caused the failure.
I myself have trouble believing a building of that magnitude could fall apart as easily. But when you factor in its sheer size and weight, mavity is going to pull it to the ground very quickly should it fail structurally. That's IF the fire actually caused the failure.
Last edited:
IceBus said:
It wasn't just one that was found though, if memory serves several were, but only one got any press attention and that was because of who it belonged to
It's a numbers game, if there were say 5 hijackers on a plane with a total of 70 people, and one passport is found intact it's a 1 in 14 chance it will belong to a hijacker, if however 5 or 6 passports are found then there is a pretty good chance (about 40-50%) that at least one of them will belong to a hijacker.
That of course doesn't take into account anything like the hijackers leaving their passports on their seats/loose compared to the other passengers holding their passports (or putting them in their bags etc), in which case the hijacker's passport would be more likely to be blown clear of the crash (it's not held securely so will move more freely in the crash).
Fair enough, and I totally agree with you on the probability front - which is why I don't think you can cite the passport argument as being supportive of 9/11 being a conspiracy. Maybe if they'd found a handwritten confession nicely folded into A5 size, with a diagram of how they were planning to fly into the towers I'd be a bit more suspicious, but a passport means nothing imo.
I'm watching an interesting documentary atm - a 9/11 Symposium with Steve Jones talking. He's one of the leaders of Scholars for Truth, and he's talking hard science to back up his claims. His research has been peer-reviewed by other PhD holders - from physicists to mechanical and fabricational engineers.
After spectro-analysis of a chunk of the molten metal found at the base of the south tower, they found elements which consistent with the use of thermite in the twin towers. i.e. they found large quantities of iron, oxygen, sulphur and permanganate, but only very small trace amounts of chromium (which would indicate large amounts of structural steel being present) and the same with aluminium - which was said to be the main component of this **** from the airplane melting.
This is further backed up by video evidence of a yellow hot metal running out of the twin towers prior to their collapse - I'm sure some other people will remember this from the time. Anyway... this was explained by FEMA as being aluminium melted from the plane superheated and running out due to the fires. The only problem with that is that even when superheated to yellow or even white hot, aluminium retains a silvery/slate grey colouration - not yellow.
First off he says that when FEMA tested the steel floor trusses used in the WTC and exposed them to extreme heat they could not get them to fail. He also goes on to say how apparently FEMAs collapse report is extremely blinkered in that it only examines the conditions and actions up until the point of collapse. i.e. the actual collapse has not been modelled and compared to see if it agrees with the computer simulation they used. The structural engineers who contributed to his paper stated that the unique design of the WTC would have acted like two springs on the cold floors underneath the site of fire/plane damage. i.e. they had been unaffected and so would still be structurally intact. The first spring is the external support beams - the outside of the tower. The second spring is the internal support that runs along the central core of the building.
They found that in freefall the cold structure below the affected site would absorb the impact to the extent that the fall of the building would be completely retarded by the structure below it - precluding a total collapse.
The only way to circumvent this is to take out all of the structure below the point of initial collapse - i.e. with explosions using super-thermite.
To me these are hard to answer questions.
I'm watching an interesting documentary atm - a 9/11 Symposium with Steve Jones talking. He's one of the leaders of Scholars for Truth, and he's talking hard science to back up his claims. His research has been peer-reviewed by other PhD holders - from physicists to mechanical and fabricational engineers.
After spectro-analysis of a chunk of the molten metal found at the base of the south tower, they found elements which consistent with the use of thermite in the twin towers. i.e. they found large quantities of iron, oxygen, sulphur and permanganate, but only very small trace amounts of chromium (which would indicate large amounts of structural steel being present) and the same with aluminium - which was said to be the main component of this **** from the airplane melting.
This is further backed up by video evidence of a yellow hot metal running out of the twin towers prior to their collapse - I'm sure some other people will remember this from the time. Anyway... this was explained by FEMA as being aluminium melted from the plane superheated and running out due to the fires. The only problem with that is that even when superheated to yellow or even white hot, aluminium retains a silvery/slate grey colouration - not yellow.
First off he says that when FEMA tested the steel floor trusses used in the WTC and exposed them to extreme heat they could not get them to fail. He also goes on to say how apparently FEMAs collapse report is extremely blinkered in that it only examines the conditions and actions up until the point of collapse. i.e. the actual collapse has not been modelled and compared to see if it agrees with the computer simulation they used. The structural engineers who contributed to his paper stated that the unique design of the WTC would have acted like two springs on the cold floors underneath the site of fire/plane damage. i.e. they had been unaffected and so would still be structurally intact. The first spring is the external support beams - the outside of the tower. The second spring is the internal support that runs along the central core of the building.
They found that in freefall the cold structure below the affected site would absorb the impact to the extent that the fall of the building would be completely retarded by the structure below it - precluding a total collapse.
The only way to circumvent this is to take out all of the structure below the point of initial collapse - i.e. with explosions using super-thermite.
To me these are hard to answer questions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
With regards to the thermite claim, you might want to take a look at this: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf. You can skip to the "Summary & Conclusions" section for the jist of the document, but all the scientific evidence is right there if you want it.IceBus said:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,671
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Cheekykid said:
The living victims/family know what happened - its the tin foil hatters that won't listen to the truth.
Regarding the passport being found in the remnants.
Earlier this year my cousin switched on a light in his villa and the LPG gas leak blew the villa apart leaving nothing standing, him with 66% burns and 4 tons of rubble on top of him. His guitar was found in its case 100 yards away on somebody's drive.
All his documents were intact.
Al Vallario said:
That document is great at talking about aluminium. Unfortunately it ignores the fact that aluminium does not run yellow hot - which the metal pouring out of the building was.
It also completely ignores the massive amounts of iron found in the once molten metal at the bottom.
It also gives no mention of what would have caused the large quantities of permanganate and complete lack of chromium you would expect from the structural steel if that was the main makeup. There were only small traces of aluminium in the once molten metal - not the large amounts you'd have needed to support their 'plane creates thermite reaction' theory.
I get the feeling you've just skipped through what I read, saw thermite and posted evidence which doesn't actually refute it.
There was also a section in the video about some sort of carbon/protein chain which is used in the packaging of thermite that vaporises and is then left in the atmosphere. I can't remember the name for it as the science was way above my head. Apparently the head FEMA investigator happened to say that he'd never seen this at a disaster site ever before, and it was present in high quantities at ground zero and surrounding areas.
Andyp - the quality of this thread has by and large been very high, so please stop requoting yourself to try and provoke a kneejerk reaction of 'We're not conspiracy theorists, we just like to sleep in tinfoil hats' etc.
Personally I'm enjoying the level of debate here, even if the people I'm discussing it with seem totally averse to some of the evidence presented!
I've not seen this mentioned here but quite what do the tinfoil hat wearers make of the latest AL Q video, released on Thursday, which shows shows Abu Hafsa al-Masri, al-Qaeda’s then military leader, and Ramzi bin al-Shaiba, co-ordinator of the 9/11 attacks, meeting in al-Qaeda’s training camps in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
The tape also says that a previous unknown Arab Islamist, Abu al-Turab al-Urduni, supervised the training for the attacks. The video said the preparation for the attacks included not only flight training but also lessons in street-fighting and how to forge official documents.
The video also showed two of the 19 Islamists who took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza al-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.
The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.
The tape also says that a previous unknown Arab Islamist, Abu al-Turab al-Urduni, supervised the training for the attacks. The video said the preparation for the attacks included not only flight training but also lessons in street-fighting and how to forge official documents.
The video also showed two of the 19 Islamists who took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza al-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.
The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.
IceBus said:
If you take aluminium and iron oxide (rust), and heat it up, you get molten iron and aluminium oxide. GCSE chemistry. That *is* the thermite reaction. I don't get what's difficult about that? The metal pouring out the building could quite easily be iron.
There's no reason at all why the liquid aluminium wouldn't react with rust on steel to form molten iron in what is a very exothermic reaction producing huge amounts of heat.
growse said:
Not in the amounts found though. There's far too much to be accounted for by rust and the relatively small amount of aluminium from the plane.
Also, they need to be powdered to get the thermite reaction. You can't just rub two pieces of aluminium and iron together in the presence of air.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
Is a nice site to explain stuff.
It explains the expolsions below the falling towers as the vertical columns buckling and exploding.
Its alomst the same if you have have a plastic fork and flex it too far, It does not jjust break it exploads firing bits off in all directions.
Is a nice site to explain stuff.
It explains the expolsions below the falling towers as the vertical columns buckling and exploding.
Its alomst the same if you have have a plastic fork and flex it too far, It does not jjust break it exploads firing bits off in all directions.
IceBus said:
Iron oxide is powdered anyway, much like aluminium oxide. And you only powder the aluminium at room temperature to increase the rate of reaction. Another way to increase the rate of reaction is to heat the whole thing up, which is what you'll do if you use molten aluminium. Aluminium is *seriously* reactive stuff, you don't see it everyday because of the oxide film.
The whole thing about most of these arguments is that the conspiracy theorists seem to be trying to pin everything they see on one single explanation. If that doesn't hold up, then apparently that explanation counts for nothing.
Eg. It wasn't just the fire, and the fire alone that brought the building down. It was the fire in combination with a bunch of other factors, like the fact that a plane just flew into the building removing structural integrety placing a much larger than normal load on other structural parts. Similarly with the metal thing, it was probably a mixture of molten aluminium, iron produced by thermite, other metals that were floating around. Discounting that just because the liquid isn't "grey enough to be aluminium" is ludicrous - you don't know what that alloy was, and you don't know how it behaves when you heat it to yellow/white hot.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,671
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Sleepy said:
I thought that would be quite obvious.
It is in Al Qaeda's interest to actually own up to 9/11 and say they did it.
Of course, Abu Hafsa al-Masri and Ramzi bin al-Shaiba were not involved because they were on tour in a rock band with me.
growse said:
No I don't but I watched video of it being heated to that temperature by a physicist and it wasn't yellow.
Say I believe you and the thermite reaction was somehow naturally occurring, that still does not excuse the fact that the building would not have collapsed straight to the ground when structure below the affected floors was still intact.
Icebus, do a search sometime for the simulation I think MIT (or was it harvard?) in the U.S. did.
IIRC it was the most complex privately funded/instituted simulation of a structure to date when it was done, it took into account every known variable of the buildings, the aircraft and the crash, and was done by a mix of undergraduates etc in a number of fields (architecture, chemistry, physics, metalurgy etc) with pretty much the full facilities of the university behind them.
The results of the simulation pretty much backed up what happened, with only minor differences
IIRC it was the most complex privately funded/instituted simulation of a structure to date when it was done, it took into account every known variable of the buildings, the aircraft and the crash, and was done by a mix of undergraduates etc in a number of fields (architecture, chemistry, physics, metalurgy etc) with pretty much the full facilities of the university behind them.
The results of the simulation pretty much backed up what happened, with only minor differences