proof that 9/11 was planned by us gov.

[sundevil777 102]

Earlier, you assumed that each floor of the WTC would have delayed the collapse by 1/2 second. It shows that you have no real appreciation of the engineering and physics involved.

The WTC collapse was not symmetric, at least one of the towers had the upper levels definitely fall sideways as the initial collapse began.

You are trusting some sources of info without question, and assuming that everyone that hasn't seen the light are blind sheep or part of the conspiracy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[skinnyflyer 0]

any area above the breaking point not only has to break the undamaged structure below but it also has to accelerate it. keep in mind that the steel was maybe 1.5 times as thick at the bottom thanat the top. so anyting close to freefall speeds is ridiculous.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[skinnyflyer 0]

''They have. You just don't like the answers they came up with.''-billvon

yah because not having an explanation for building 7 really answered everthing.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

controlled demolition clearly meets occam's razor especially for building number7 and the fact that this was not even considered in any official investigation is a little more than passing strange.

the most likely explanation is that the White House conspirators decided that in the destruction of the Towers, they should also make sure to take out a nearby building even though people like you would immediately see that planes couldn't possibly cause it? Why didn't they get a B-25 to crash into that one?

If one wanted to plan this, why use planes anyway? Al Queda used a van full of explosives last time. The White House could easily have used the same story line rather than going to all the trouble of flying remote controlled 747s.

[champu 1]

I think one of the most prevalent facets of conspiracy theories is that they always seem to be concerning topics for which most people have no valid sense of intuition. Topics in aerospace... physics... engineering... forensics...

I'd wager the vast majority of people "learned" all they "know" about these topics from sci-fis, action movies, and prime-time cop dramas. I don't fault people for that, it would be silly to. You can't expect everyone to be an expert on everything. But if you want to hear how ridiculous news reports and eye witness acounts can get when people are out of their element, read any of the news clippings from the recent Mike Holmes skydiving incident.

I'd help address the questions raised about the World Trade Center attacks...

[deep sigh] again...

but enough people here already have. Besides, I probably work too closely with the government for you to listen to what I have to say anyway.

[rhys 0]

From your link.

Someone asks, "But what about the thermite at the WTC?" and someone replies, "Thermite is made when you combine aluminum, iron oxide (rust), and heat. All would be present after a plane crashed into a building."

You actually believe a plane crashing into a building that is made with steel covered in aluminium had sufficient rust to produce enough Thermite to keep the rubble burning at a temperature over 2000 degrees for weeks?

BS

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Erroll 80]

  Quote

Why didn't they get a B-25 to crash into that one?

Well, they tried crashing an AN-2 into the Eiffel Tower, but it didn't work so well. So I reckon they thought the B-25 wouldn't do either.

(See pic for irrefutable proof.)

[rhys 0]

  Quote

Fire = hot. Iron/steam reaction = hot. Hot = molten metal.

Bill, I am a silver smith, and lived off it for a number of years. i have melted many different metals in/with a controlled environment/flame I am not an Idiot please don't treat me as 1.

answer the question please.

look at the picture on http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

what is the white hot substance in the 1st photo and the red hot substance in the other in the other. do you deny it was thermite that created this. or do you actually believe the impact could make such a chemical reaction to produce thermite?

is this actually possible.

you said in a previous post the moulten metal is aluminium, aluminium will not hold its form at the temperature that the metal being removed from the rubble is at. it would be liquid so this metal we are looking at is therefore steel!

is the 'meteorite made of aluminium? it is not reported to be.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kallend 2,056]

  Quote

''>not to forget but these nist experiments completely failed to take
>into account the xthousands of tons of steel and its thermal
>conductive ability.

Careful there; you're arguing against your own thesis here.'' -billvon

when a section of steel is heated, the atached steel columns will draw away the heat therefore making it more difficult to reach failing temperatures.

i thought you were an engineer?

Actually the thermal conductivity of steel is not very high. It's less than 1/4 that of aluminum and 1/8 that of copper. I do a demonstration in my class where I heat a steel wire white hot at one end, and hold it with bare fingers about 4 inches away.

You need to do better than that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

  Quote

>i thought you were an engineer?

Yeah, but I also took a class in logic. Check this out -

You keep bringing up the NIST study to "prove" your case - but you also say that the NIST study is faulty. Therefore you have scuttled your own proof.

I honestly like how you quote the word, "prove" as there is NO SUCH THING PEOPLE, unless you are in church or court; these pseudo institutions prove things all day long whether or not there is, "proof."

I also do agree that some conspiracy theorists go too far, and that the burden lies upon them to, "prove" thier points. Truth is, as I believe it, that some of these theories are actually factual, even if in part, but that we will never know for sure what the truth is. Conspiracies I believe:

- The gov had some knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and did nothing.

- We didn't actually land on the moon in 69.

- LBJ had a role in the JFK assassination.

- Bush being elected in 2000 had some degree of intentional irregularities designed to falsely elect Bush; Gore would have won had the vote been untampered with.

- Billvon is a duck (satire from some guy who posted it in good fun).

[Lucky... 0]

  Quote

billvon thanks for all the 'engineering talk'

obviously there are lots of ridiculous conspiracy theories but assigning them to me is straw man.

controlled demolition clearly meets occam's razor especially for building number7 and the fact that this was not even considered in any official investigation is a little more than passing strange.

Totally agree, the gov or some officials had some knowledge that it was about to occurr. Are we that stupid? Doubt it. For a country that virtually matches the rest of teh world, dollar for dollar in defense spending, are we that naive as not to be aware of this plot? Doubt it.

[Lucky... 0]

  Quote

  Quote

controlled demolition clearly meets occam's razor especially for building number7 and the fact that this was not even considered in any official investigation is a little more than passing strange.

the most likely explanation is that the White House conspirators decided that in the destruction of the Towers, they should also make sure to take out a nearby building even though people like you would immediately see that planes couldn't possibly cause it? Why didn't they get a B-25 to crash into that one?

If one wanted to plan this, why use planes anyway? Al Queda used a van full of explosives last time. The White House could easily have used the same story line rather than going to all the trouble of flying remote controlled 747s.

Well, the Consp theo is there to establish the gov wanted to tighten security and they had to involve acft in order to revoke const rights in that area. So if the building was just blown up in the basement there wouldn;t be enough furvor to close airports and then write their oh so Nazi unPatriot Act.

I do find irregularities with teh entire 9/11 fiasco, but we ned to face there are things we will never know and never "prove."

Look at the Murray Bldg, OK; experts have come fwd to say how that truck would never have enough explosives to do that from that distance and the damage to the fascia wouldn;t ocurr the way it did unless there were explosives planted in the building. The gov just ignores these people, hence doesn't have to address them. Did the gov know of that act? Well, the FBI agents were mostly or entirely gone, right? The gov uses collateral damage all the time, I guess deal with it or leave this lovely corrupt country.

[kallend 2,056]

  Quote

i hope your engineering classes were better than your logic classes.

Very droll. I hope you realize how silly a statement like that makes YOU look.

Why don't you tell about us your engineering credentials.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,056]

  Quote

From your link.

Someone asks, "But what about the thermite at the WTC?" and someone replies, "Thermite is made when you combine aluminum, iron oxide (rust), and heat. All would be present after a plane crashed into a building."

You actually believe a plane crashing into a building that is made with steel covered in aluminium had sufficient rust to produce enough Thermite to keep the rubble burning at a temperature over 2000 degrees for weeks?

BS

Well, first we had "thermite is only available to the military". now we're down to quibbling about what reactions could have heated metal to white heat for weeks. I suppose that shows some progress.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

From your link.

Someone asks, "But what about the thermite at the WTC?" and someone replies, "Thermite is made when you combine aluminum, iron oxide (rust), and heat. All would be present after a plane crashed into a building."

You actually believe a plane crashing into a building that is made with steel covered in aluminium had sufficient rust to produce enough Thermite to keep the rubble burning at a temperature over 2000 degrees for weeks?

BS

BS?

First off... please explain the chemical reaction that occurs when iron is exposed to water and oxygen.

Hint: take careful note of those pics of ground zero with multiple fire hoses soaking the rubble.

Secondly... please explain how thermite is the only possible explanation for fire or hotspots in the rubble of a burning building.

Secondly (subset): Please explain how everyday Joe's get hold of thermite to do pig roasts and the like, since that is (according to you) the only way a covered fire can keep burning.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

  Quote

First off... please explain the chemical reaction that occurs when iron is exposed to water and oxygen.

simple, Rust. as far as I am aware the beams that, made up the core of the building were coated in aluminium for that exact purpose. did you watch the movie? this is the aluminium that Bill would have been talking about?

  Quote

Hint: take careful note of those pics of ground zero with multiple fire hoses soaking the rubble.

what does that have to do with a building falling down? except for the fact that the building has already burned down. and somebody is putting a fire out?

  Quote

Secondly... please explain how thermite is the only possible explanation for fire or hotspots in the rubble of a burning building.

I never said it was the only possible explanation, The thermite was bought up by professors on public television, the television programme seemed to be running out of time at that point because, there was a Coke ad that had paid quite a bit to be on at that point in time

Having said that It would probably be amoungst the few substances that would make the process actually possible. that bulding could only be melted down. the core was too strong to fall down! a verticle beam standing on its end has already fallen down before it even started. Sure the floors and walls and everything else except those verticle beams could fall down. but the core would remain! It is how the building was designed.

Dunno how ya get the thermite bro, try a P/M to the railway worker that said they are now thermite welding. he might know. but every pig roast i have ever cooked (which isn't many!) has been over a fire that is controlled to the extent that it cooks the pig. dunno what you're talking about there. I think thermite might melt your oven? let me see a few tousand degreesF in 2 seconds Hmmm. yep no more oven.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

  Quote

Replying to: Re: [billvon] proof that 9/11 was planned by us gov. by pirana
Post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>If you want to understand more about the forces that can make a building collapse, I'd recommend a basic physics course followed by a civil engineering course.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conspiracy theroists don't go for any type of education that might contradict their beliefs. They can smell evidence and run like hell from it.

  Quote

Now you are two intellegent men, please explan how a Solid steel beam standing on its end can fall through iteslf without falling to any side! straight though itself.... like through the path of most resistance?

1 theory on this is that you could melt it? otherwise quite impossible.

this is how this building was built, the colums were even much fatter/stronger at the bottom and built to flex in hurracane winds..

They can smell evidence and run like hell from it.

  Quote

Is that an oxymoron? or just a backwards truth?

We watch 1 hour an 30 minutes of evidence obout the fact that there is something fishy going on. We then spend the next week discussing and thinking and researching about it to see if it is true.


that would hardly be considered running from evidence.

did you work out how to make a steel beam fall into itself verticaly by striking it at the side near the top and burning it at 1500 or so degrees for 90 minutes and..... how did it do that again?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[rhys 0]

  Quote

It's "thermite", Fe2O3 is rust, and Al (not A1) is aluminum, obtainable in powder form trivially easily. Thermite can be made in anyone's kitchen. I have made it. Picture of me setting some off is here.

Saying it's only available to the military is utterly ridculous.

apologies to all! I don't know why I thought it was only available to the military?

now back to the thermite itself, was it in fact there, and if it was then is it possible for it to be made by an impact on a plane? How did you make it?

What processes were needed to make it happen?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,528]

  Quote

did you work out how to make a steel beam implode into itself verticaly by striking at the side near the top and burning it at 1500 or so degrees for 90 miutes and..... how did it implode again?

Holy crap, implosion!

Look out fellas, thats a whole new word added to the conspiracy that you're going to have to refute!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lucky... 0]

  Quote

  Quote

i hope your engineering classes were better than your logic classes.

Very droll. I hope you realize how silly a statement like that makes YOU look.

Why don't you tell about us your engineering credentials.

He was first in his class with legos - lay off him

[mnealtx 0]

***You actually believe a plane crashing into a building that is made with steel covered in aluminium had sufficient rust to produce enough Thermite to keep the rubble burning at a temperature over 2000 degrees for weeks?

[warpedskydiver 0]

  Quote

well here are nasa thermal satellite images 9/11 and the days after. notice the hot spots under wtc 1+2 and BUILDING 7 which immediatedly rules the ridiculous idea that these were caused by aluminum from the planes. multiple hot spots estimated to be from 800-1300F were observed.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=robert_shaler

if you're suggesting that the elements spontaniously came together to create thermite and melt the steel this strikes me as being highly unlikely and probably impossible.

You mean like the way a tire and some hot aluminum won't do anything?

[kallend 2,056]

  Quote

if you study the nist report carefully it concludes that most of the fires did not exceed 200-300C but then their collapse model goes on to say that the steel had to reach 700C to lose enough support.

I think you misread the report. I know of no combustion process that self sustains at only 300C unless in the presence of a catalyst like finely divided platinum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,056]

  Quote

the steel didn't need to melt. read the NIST report. It loses 90% of its strength at temperatures MUCH lower than melting point.

For typical wrought structural steel, it undergoes a phase transition at 727C, (the crystal structure changes from bcc to fcc and the Fe3C phase dissolves) resulting in significant loss of strength. Some strength loss occurs at lower temperature as the steel anneals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

  Quote

Bill, I am a silver smith, and lived off it for a number of years.

  Quote

that bulding could only be melted down. the core was too strong to fall down!

Getting back to what I was saying about valid senses of intuition, I have an example.

If I showed you video of the Sydney Opera House having a run-in with a class T8 tornado, what kind of damage would you expect to see to the structure suffer? Any ideas? I'll tell you what, I haven't got one damn clue what the hell would happen. (and I've seen a lot of tornado education and demonstration videos as a kid, I grew up in the midwest.)

All I can tell you is that building's structural design is so different from anything I've seen videos of tornados taking out that to expect a similar looking outcome would be ridiculous. I also know that although the designers may have taken into account tropical storms (the building being on the coast and all) tornados are very different animals, and their forethought probably wouldn't have been enough to save it.