911 Truth Movement

[Azza]

The other point is that the heat of burning furniture is insufficient to melt steel. False, offices fixtures and fittings can cause fires that can melt steel or cause steel to fail structurally. In Australia, steel needs to be coated or sealed off with fire resistant material (i don't know what American codes require). This does not prevent ultimate failure of the steel, but allows enough time for any building on fire to be evacuated. Ie, fire protection is there to protect people, not the structure or building itself. Offices are deemed to be high risk in relation to burning and fire damage due to the material of construction of the fixtures and fitting plus the high volme of paper that exist in offices. In Australia, office buildings are subject to greater fire control measurs than say an apartment building.

The truthist architects and engineers on the Age video accept that steel can deform under the heat of office fires. They dispute that it will fail to the extent that it offers absolutely zero resistance to building collapse. Note I said deform, not melt. Nothing short of a blast furnace is needed to completely melt steel (or the use of chemical heat). Yet there is evidence of molten steel during the WTC collapses. This point was not covered by the enquiry. An important issue for future building design (let alone any conspiracy theories) that should have been addressed by any inquest.

 

[TigerForce]

Anybody read this, written just hours after it happened.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

 

[KnightersRevenge]

hey bull, this collapse due to fires was a once in a lifetime occurance. never happened before and will never happen again. must accept it because the investigators said so.

where's the evidence that one caused the other? did they investigate for explosives, or other possible causes? probably not because all the evidence was destroyed.

Right and 911 wasn't a once in a lifetime occurrence? So passenger jetliners have been crashed at full throttle into 220 story steel and concrete towers in one of the largest cities in the world before? News to me Harry.

 

[Baloo]

You can't claim to be open minded if you won't even watch the doco outlining one of the the main focuses of the troofists.

I can, and I have. Again you may not agree but that's your perogative.

All you've really done is argue periphery points that aren't crucial one way or another.

Crap. You're still smarting over the supposed upside down book but that was just one of many points I challenged. I used that point just to prove you were posting stuff that you didn't do an iota of researching/fact checking on.

As for other points argued, Windowless planes, "Debris" 8 miles away (it was paper and string), No plane wreckage at the pentagon, dead bodies in WTC7, small office fire in WTC7. Impossible for a hijacker to fly the plane the way he did.

Or are all those points now considered periphery ? I'm starting to think that as soon as are troofist fact is met with evidence or expert opinion to the contrary, it becomes periphery.

You've backed away from all the real stuff hence my belief you have little credibility.

See above.

 

[jb03]

Where's that coming from jimbob?

Me. ;D

The truthist architects and engineers on the Age video accept that steel can deform under the heat of office fires. They dispute that it will fail to the extent that it offers absolutely zero resistance to building collapse. Note I said deform, not melt. Nothing short of a blast furnace is needed to completely melt steel (or the use of chemical heat). Yet there is evidence of molten steel during the WTC collapses. This point was not covered by the enquiry. An important issue for future building design (let alone any conspiracy theories) that should have been addressed by any inquest.

Understand the term melt is not correct when talking steel failure in buildings. I added in "cause steel to fail structurally" in my response to Patsy and bullus.

On a side issue, are you saying that the conspirators’ where able to get a blast furnace in there without anyone knowing?

 

[bullus_hit]

Seek back through the thread and ye shall find...as an alternative ask Disco.

No video or photos exist of a plane hitting the Pentagon. If there is could someone please provide a link.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

No video or photos exist of a plane hitting the Pentagon. If there is could someone please provide a link.

Send a request to the Joint Chiefs, but do remember to ask nicley... ;D

 

[tigertim]

No video or photos exist of a plane hitting the Pentagon. If there is could someone please provide a link.

no, there doesnt seem to be videos or pics but plenty of eye witnesses. but yes its odd that apparently there is video footage from a nearby petrol station cctv that apparently was confiscated by "someone" that does show a plane hitting. I can't understand why (if this truly exists) that the FBI/CIA or woever won't release it.

 

[Disco08]

I can, and I have. Again you may not agree but that's your perogative.
Crap. You're still smarting over the supposed upside down book but that was just one of many points I challenged. I used that point just to prove you were posting stuff that you didn't do an iota of researching/fact checking on.

As for other points argued, Windowless planes, "Debris" 8 miles away (it was paper and string), No plane wreckage at the pentagon, dead bodies in WTC7, small office fire in WTC7. Impossible for a hijacker to fly the plane the way he did.

Or are all those points now considered periphery ? I'm starting to think that as soon as are troofist fact is met with evidence or expert opinion to the contrary, it becomes periphery.

Aside from the first one and last one none of those points are crucial. The last one you lost or at least gave up on. The gray planes discussion I resloved myself. The debris discussion you lost (prove it was paper and string contrary to eyewitness reports). The Penatgon wreckage discussion I helped resolve. Dead bodies inside WTC7 was never a point of contention and neither was small office fires.

Still smarting over the upside down book. :hihi

 

[Azza]

On a side issue, are you saying that the conspirators’ where able to get a blast furnace in there without anyone knowing?

No.

Seriously mate, just watch the video. A lot of the stuff from the conspiracy theorists comes from it, and has been somewhat garbled in the process. There's nothing about holographs, missiles, or any of the other extreme material in there. It's just a critical examination of elements of the report findings, which seem to have been determined without a proper examination of the evidence.

 

[Baloo]

Aside from the first one and last one none of those points are crucial. The last one you lost or at least gave up on. The gray planes discussion I resloved myself. The debris discussion you lost (prove it was paper and string contrary to eyewitness reports). The Penatgon wreckage discussion I helped resolve. Dead bodies inside WTC7 was never a point of contention and neither was small office fires.

Still smarting over the upside down book. :hihi

Again, its your perogative to believe what you want.

 

[Rosy]

No video or photos exist of a plane hitting the Pentagon. If there is could someone please provide a link.

Whether that exists or not I wouldn't have a clue. You said there was no evidence of plane debris and I think you're wrong.

 

[bullus_hit]

no, there doesnt seem to be videos or pics but plenty of eye witnesses. but yes its odd that apparently there is video footage from a nearby petrol station cctv that apparently was confiscated by "someone" that does show a plane hitting. I can't understand why (if this truly exists) that the FBI/CIA or woever won't release it.

It's interesting that the eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon are seen as 'reliable' yet the eyewitness accounts at the WTC are seen as 'unreliable'. Reports of explosions by police and firefighters have been routinely dismissed despite the fact that they were at the coalface of the attack. Furthermore, I just can't fathom how the most highly guarded and comprehensively surveilled building in the world has no footage of a plane hitting it's exterior. Not to mention that a passenger plane entering restricted airspace would normally have sent the alarm bells ringing. Even in the aftermath, there's parts of the Pentagon which seem to be remarkablky intact yet we're expected to believe an entire 747 self-combusted without a trace.

Whether that exists or not I wouldn't have a clue. You said there was no evidence of plane debris and I think you're wrong.

I've seen pictures of plane parts which could have been taken anywhere, I've also seen vision of the response team putting out fires immediately after the explosion and there's no sign of a Boeing 747.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The gray planes discussion I resloved myself. The debris discussion you lost (prove it was paper and string contrary to eyewitness reports).

Unfortunately a few locals in a field "quoted" in a local paper isn't very robust and is not proof of anything.

 

[Rosy]

I've seen pictures of plane parts which could have been taken anywhere, I've also seen vision of the response team putting out fires immediately after the explosion and there's no sign of a Boeing 747.

Time for a bit of a stock take. Is there anyone here, other than Harry and (seemingly) bullus, who don't have any great faith that a plane hit the Pentagon? Hands up please.

 

[Rosy]

Unfortunately a few locals in a field "quoted" in a local paper isn't very robust and is not proof of anything.

The main thing I've got out of this thread is people believe what suits their purpose when it comes to conspiracy theories. Quite fascinating to sit back and observe.

 

[Leysy Days]

Yep definately.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

It's interesting that the eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon are seen as 'reliable' yet the eyewitness accounts at the WTC are seen as 'unreliable'. Reports of explosions by police and firefighters have been routinely dismissed despite the fact that they were at the coalface of the attack. Furthermore, I just can't fathom how the most highly guarded and comprehensively surveilled building in the world has no footage of a plane hitting it's exterior. Not to mention that a passenger plane entering restricted airspace would normally have sent the alarm bells ringing. Even in the aftermath, there's parts of the Pentagon which seem to be remarkablky intact yet we're expected to believe an entire 747 self-combusted without a trace.

I've seen pictures of plane parts which could have been taken anywhere, I've also seen vision of the response team putting out fires immediately after the explosion and there's no sign of a Boeing 747.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE

How did you decide that the info in the doco's was "real" and the info in the photos and witness accounts around Pentagon was "fake"? I am just interested in your process, I am not trying to being a smart arse.

A point I have made before which seems obvious to me is that we are talking about the home America's military secrets. Why is anyone surprised that they have suppressed footage? It seems completely understandable to me. It is inconvenient as our morbid sense of entitlement is heightened in relation to 911 as many of us watched it unfold live (I have a theory that it might be responsible for the 24hr news cycle that has killed genuine journalism) and believe we have a right to see it.

 

[tigertim]

It's interesting that the eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon are seen as 'reliable' yet the eyewitness accounts at the WTC are seen as 'unreliable'. Reports of explosions by police and firefighters have been routinely dismissed despite the fact that they were at the coalface of the attack. Furthermore, I just can't fathom how the most highly guarded and comprehensively surveilled building in the world has no footage of a plane hitting it's exterior. Not to mention that a passenger plane entering restricted airspace would normally have sent the alarm bells ringing. Even in the aftermath, there's parts of the Pentagon which seem to be remarkablky intact yet we're expected to believe an entire 747 self-combusted without a trace.

I've seen pictures of plane parts which could have been taken anywhere, I've also seen vision of the response team putting out fires immediately after the explosion and there's no sign of a Boeing 747.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE

I'm not sure of which "unreliable" WTC witnesses you are referring to. If you're talking about those who heard "explosions" I dont think anyone hear has dismissed them as "unreliable". I have no doubt many people heard explosions that day. The thing I do dispute is the connotation that hearing an "explosion" automatically means "bomb" or "explosives" etc. I would assume it means fuel and fire and 1000s of tonnes of building falling.

 

[jb03]

Yep definately.

Definitely what? (Apart from not being able to spell.)