Jump to content

Can a 100+ton Airliner disappear into a steel columned concret tower building?


Recommended Posts

But did they achieve their mission? I assume their main aim was to get American military, cultural and business interests out of the Islamic world. Instead, they precipitated more wars, more US involvement.

 

No soldier is worried about future political ramifications when they are carrying out a mission, other than the hope the enemy is defeated. Most of the objectives those guys set out to achieve were met. Mission accomplished. Where the failure is was with Osama Bin Laden. You could liken it to the Japanese generals who decided to bomb Pearl Harbour. Was a totally successful mission, and from the pilots and sailors point of view was a mission accomplished. The greater ramifications of that attack turned out to be not so great for Japan...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

He is the best argument for not being able to vote for a Leader known Hilary got a couple of million more votes than Donny did. He behaves like a spoiled BRAT virtually illiterate, sacks everyone who

Posted Images

No soldier is worried about future political ramifications when they are carrying out a mission, other than the hope the enemy is defeated. Most of the objectives those guys set out to achieve were met. Mission accomplished. Where the failure is was with Osama Bin Laden. You could liken it to the Japanese generals who decided to bomb Pearl Harbour. Was a totally successful mission, and from the pilots and sailors point of view was a mission accomplished. The greater ramifications of that attack turned out to be not so great for Japan...

I guess that's why military people talk of tactical and strategic scales of planning.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But did they achieve their mission? I assume their main aim was to get American military, cultural and business interests out of the Islamic world. Instead, they precipitated more wars, more US involvement.

 

I believe they did achieve their mission which was.........revenge, the biggest human emotion for hate!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not hard to find reasons why they wanted to humiliate the "Great Satan" as far as they are concerned, who had massive forces based in the ME and did other thing they don't like.. The plane that crashed did so as a result of the passengers who had been phoning rellies , knew their fate and rushed the cockpit. Nev

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...the passengers who had been phoning rellies , knew their fate and rushed the cockpit. Nev

That part of the 9/11 story is one of the most admirable.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the conspiracy theorists explain that? I remember hearing some of the phone transcripts released by victims families later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like to add my two cents worth. I am an engineer, aeronautical at that, with military experience, and also significant construction experience. In my summation of the 9/11 saga, there are far too many inadequately answered questions, often with counter-intuitive outcomes. I can't say for sure what did happen, but I find the official narrative far-from-convincing in many areas. My suggestion is that each does his own research to arrive at conclusions that satisfy the level of one's curiosity. If one person's conclusions differ from another's, it is no reason to resort to name-calling etc. My curiosity is forensic level... based on physical evidence/ physics/ engineering/ material science etc.

My heart-felt condolences go out to all those who suffered as a result of the events on '9/11'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are your doubts about whether airliners were flown into the buildings, or more about why the buildings collapsed after the event? Just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, you don't have to know anything technical to ask this- How many people need to be kept quiet for a conspiracy to exist? The higher the number, the lower the likelihood it exists. For instance, there are people who don't believe the Americans landed people on the moon. All you have to do is imagine if the USSR would have been in on the conspiracy. If you think that is pretty unlikely, and that the likelihood of a man landing on the moon is far greater than the whole of the Soviet Union (and China by that stage) keeping mum on their sworn enemies dirty conspiracy, then you have an answer. All without even knowing that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, let alone any in depth engineering knowledge.

 

Sometimes the obvious is the truth.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the obvious is the truth.

 

Julian Assange, a hero of truly free speech, who is currently being treated to heinous abuse by the Brit establishment should be knighted. The British 'legal system', showing the extent of their high minded principles, won't give him the opportunity to present his defense fairly. His crime was to speak the truth to war crimes. He enabled the publication of a video showing armed troops murdering 9 defenseless individuals, including a Reuters person. This is in the public domain. For this he is detained in a maximum security cell and denied medical attention.

Free speech is the cornerstone of a democracy so why the personal attacks here? Posting an opinion piece for discussion unleashed a tirade of scornful abuse on a long standing forum member. Perhaps Australia needs a 'justice system' imported from Britain along with our Head of State.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian Assange, a hero of truly free speech, who is currently being treated to heinous abuse by the Brit establishment should be knighted. The British 'legal system', showing the extent of their high minded principles, won't give him the opportunity to present his defense fairly. His crime was to speak the truth to war crimes...

And closer to home, Australia has prisoners of conscience who have dared to expose some of the government's dirty secrets. They are condemned to secret trials that we will never hear about.

 

Just one of them:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/10/witness-k-and-the-outrageous-spy-scandal-that-failed-to-shame-australia

Link to post
Share on other sites

Methusala, there's a difference between Assange releasing real information and people putting up conspiracy theories, especially when they're the type that can be immediately debunked. Hundreds, if not thousands of people witnessed the planes hitting the twin towers with their own eyes. Millions more watched live video footage of the second one. There was not the time or technology to create doctored footage - the towers were there on 10th November, they were gone on 11th November.

 

I'm sorry you feel like you've been personally attacked. However you have put up a patently false conspiracy theory on a public domain, so you have to expect pushback.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Methusala, there's a difference between Assange releasing real information and people putting up conspiracy theories, especially when they're the type that can be immediately debunked. Hundreds, if not thousands of people witnessed the planes hitting the twin towers with their own eyes. Millions more watched live video footage of the second one. There was not the time or technology to create doctored footage - the towers were there on 10th November, they were gone on 11th November.

 

I'm sorry you feel like you've been personally attacked. However you have put up a patently false conspiracy theory on a public domain, so you have to expect pushback.

 

Exactly! Well said!?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian Assange, a hero of truly free speech, who is currently being treated to heinous abuse by the Brit establishment should be knighted. The British 'legal system', showing the extent of their high minded principles, won't give him the opportunity to present his defense fairly. His crime was to speak the truth to war crimes. He enabled the publication of a video showing armed troops murdering 9 defenseless individuals, including a Reuters person. This is in the public domain. For this he is detained in a maximum security cell and denied medical attention.

Free speech is the cornerstone of a democracy so why the personal attacks here? Posting an opinion piece for discussion unleashed a tirade of scornful abuse on a long standing forum member. Perhaps Australia needs a 'justice system' imported from Britain along with our Head of State.

In the world of logical fallacies, this is called 'non sequitur' ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

logical fallacies

This is where a conclusion is arrived at via false logic or evidence.

'non sequitur'

Meaning - Doesn't follow.

 

Cognitive dissonance - The belief in a principle when all evidence is to the contrary.

 

To my knowledge, the only conclusion that I have drawn is that the official explanation for the 9/11 disaster is nonsense ie. It stinks!

Fact: The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

 

Fact: There has been no known collapse of steel framed high rise buildings due to fire damage before or following the WTC debacle. The 3rd building to be destroyed (WTC 7) on that day was not even hit by anything except (possibly) some debris from the twin towers' collapse hours beforehand. It suffered some localised fire damage to a few floors. That these buildings collapsed at free fall velocity on their own footprint is ONLY possible if they had been demolished by controlled explosive demolition charges.

 

Fact; Silverstein leased the center some 6 months before the event. He had insured it against terrorist attack for $3.2bn. On the afternoon of 9/11 he is on public record as saying,"We decided to pull it". About 30 mins later it collapsed (guess what?), on its own footprint as had towers 1 & 2 earlier that day.

How can a decision signaled by the phrase,"pull it" be followed by its total demolition 30 minutes later if it had not had the means for destruction already installed.

I may not be a genius but if you can't give meaningful answers to these questions please don't label me with pathetic phrases.

Edited by Methusala
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where a conclusion is arrived at via false logic or evidence.

 

Meaning - Doesn't follow.

 

Cognitive dissonance - The belief in a principle when all evidence is to the contrary.

 

To my knowledge, the only conclusion that I have drawn is that the official explanation for the 9/11 disaster is nonsense ie. It stinks!

Fact: The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

 

Fact: There has been no known collapse of steel framed high rise buildings due to fire damage before or following the WTC debacle. The 3rd building to be destroyed (WTC 7) on that day was not even hit by anything except (possibly) some debris from the twin towers' collapse hours beforehand. It suffered some localised fire damage to a few floors. That these buildings collapsed at free fall velocity on their own footprint is ONLY possible if they had been demolished by controlled explosive demolition charges.

 

 

 

Fact; Silverstein leased the center some 6 months before the event. He had insured it against terrorist attack for $3.2bn. On the afternoon of 9/11 he is on public record as saying,"We decided to pull it". About 30 mins later it collapsed (guess what?), on its own footprint as had towers 1 & 2 earlier that day.

How can a decision signaled by the phrase,"pull it" be followed by its total demolition 30 minutes later if it had not had the means for destruction already installed.

I may not be a genius but if you can't give meaningful answers to these questions please don't label me with pathetic phrases.

 

Tragic?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

 

My question would be does steel retain is strength until it reaches melting point or does it begin to progressively weaken at some point before it melts? I believe steel dos begin to lose its structural integrity way before it melts.

 

Until you addressed the number of eyewitnesses, thousands of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On another angle, there's the theories of prior warning. Allegations that the attacks were carried out by bin Laden's crew as per the official explanation, but that prior warning of the event was ignored. The harshest theories could say that high authority ignored the warnings and let them go ahead for political gain. Probably a more likely theory is that the warnings only got so far up the chain and were being sat on until more solid intelligence was gained.

 

Susan Lindauer has made a lot of claims in her book, but like all these things, it 's only one person's word to believe or not.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00028/susan-lindauer-reveals-facts-about-911-warning.htm

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My question would be does steel retain is strength until it reaches melting point or does it begin to progressively weaken at some point before it melts?

That's an easy one. No to the former and yes to the latter.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact: There has been no known collapse of steel framed high rise buildings due to fire damage before or following the WTC debacle. The 3rd building to be destroyed (WTC 7) on that day was not even hit by anything except (possibly) some debris from the twin towers' collapse hours beforehand. It suffered some localised fire damage to a few floors. That these buildings collapsed at free fall velocity on their own footprint is ONLY possible if they had been demolished by controlled explosive demolition charges.

There's no magic here either. There was a documentary on the reason for the collapse, and the Engineer responsible for the design outlined the reasons he went for a non-standard construction, and how in doing that he created a design where if it failed in one area a chain reaction would overload the others.

 

He took responsibility for the design failure that caused the collapse of the buildings which I thought was a very responsible thing to do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact; Silverstein leased the center some 6 months before the event. He had insured it against terrorist attack for $3.2bn. On the afternoon of 9/11 he is on public record as saying,"We decided to pull it". About 30 mins later it collapsed (guess what?), on its own footprint as had towers 1 & 2 earlier that day.

How can a decision signaled by the phrase,"pull it" be followed by its total demolition 30 minutes later if it had not had the means for destruction already installed.

I may not be a genius but if you can't give meaningful answers to these questions please don't label me with pathetic phrases.

So, one might ask where they got thousands of kilos of explosives into town and into the building without anyone else's knowledge and then set the charges in structurally significant places with detcord all over the place in two huge buildings with thousands of people in without anyone noticing something suspicious?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On another angle, there's the theories of prior warning. Allegations that the attacks were carried out by bin Laden's crew as per the official explanation, but that prior warning of the event was ignored. The harshest theories could say that high authority ignored the warnings and let them go ahead for political gain. Probably a more likely theory is that the warnings only got so far up the chain and were being sat on until more solid intelligence was gained.

 

Susan Lindauer has made a lot of claims in her book, but like all these things, it 's only one person's word to believe or not.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00028/susan-lindauer-reveals-facts-about-911-warning.htm

 

There is plenty of evidence of prior warning. That doesn't point to a conspiracy, just failings of American Intelligence. There was a great documentary about this, the main guy who came up with the idea to attack the twin towers was a guy named Ali Mohammed (easy to remember!). He was an Egyptian army officer who ingratiated himself with american officers and no one thought anything of it because Egypt were an ally. They eventually arrested him for spying or something but it was all hit and miss. Apparently one of the first things they did when the attacks happened was to double down on his security

 

spelt his name wrong but here is his bio

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have heard it postulated that the buildings were designed with eventual demolition in mind. Israeli firm had the security contract over the centre. Sounds crazy, I know, but lifespan of buildings is not now unlimited. If there is any truth in this then it could be a plus to a future buyer. As stated, WTC 7 came down with no aircraft collision and the owner deciding to "pull it " 30 mins before it collapsed in a controlled demolition. Pools of molten steel were found in the rubble of the 2 towers. Molten steel!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...