Makes you wonder, lots of un-covered info ..
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html
World Trade Center cover-up?
- Thread starter aldabra
- Start date
Ok try again .....sheesh!!
Ok try again .....sheesh!!
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html
Ok try again .....sheesh!!
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html
?????
?????
At the point of looking stupid....sight will not download correct address I am putting in..try this http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/
( followed by ) towers/introduction.html
the followed by does not go into address....sorry for all effort
the read is good...
?????
At the point of looking stupid....sight will not download correct address I am putting in..try this http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/
( followed by ) towers/introduction.html
the followed by does not go into address....sorry for all effort
the read is good...
Re: World Trade Center cover-up?
Makes you wonder allright, about the mentality of some of the people we share this planet with...
aldabra said:
Makes you wonder allright, about the mentality of some of the people we share this planet with...
Is there a cover up going on. Not here with this.
But there is another. Someday 15/20 years out we will know forsure.
But nothing to do with twin towers in this way.
But there is another. Someday 15/20 years out we will know forsure.
But nothing to do with twin towers in this way.
I thought the site was interesting. Whether you believe the Government's story or not, you have to give the owner of this site credit for at least backing up his ideas with some hard, quantitative proof. Obviously we'll never know the full and true story.
- Mar 13, 2002
- 399
- 1
- 0
The writer has blinders on and is seeing only things that support his argument. He says how a fire could not topple an 8 story building a few years back... well duchbag Thats because regular fires can't generate enough heat to melt steel, say the way 1,000 gallons of jet fuel can.
I agree that the author of that site seems to have blinders on when making some of his points, but he addressed the jet fuel issue quite often.
Even burning jet fuel (no matter what volume, as that has no effect on the maximum temperature) won't reach above 825 Celsius because it is a hydrocarbon compound and that is the maximum temperature for a burning hydrocarbon compound. Steel does not melt until it reaches about 1500 Celsius. Say what you will about the conclusions the author of that site came to, but you can't argue with the basic laws of nature.
Even burning jet fuel (no matter what volume, as that has no effect on the maximum temperature) won't reach above 825 Celsius because it is a hydrocarbon compound and that is the maximum temperature for a burning hydrocarbon compound. Steel does not melt until it reaches about 1500 Celsius. Say what you will about the conclusions the author of that site came to, but you can't argue with the basic laws of nature.
about strength of the steel, how much steel structure looses it's
strength when temperature goes to +700C ? what i have
understood about steel structure building, steel doesn't have to melt before it's weak enough to collapse under weight.
and allso in twin towers case there where fire is tens of floors wide steel structue starts to expand more than concrete around it and causes more strength losses. and when concrete that pulls steel structure together breaks heated steel stucture isn't
strong enough to carry all that weight that is above and building collapses.
but those cicumstances have been very special and after all
it is very difficult to say why both twin towers collapsed, but if there has been explosions where is the sound of explosions ?
:shrug:
strength when temperature goes to +700C ? what i have
understood about steel structure building, steel doesn't have to melt before it's weak enough to collapse under weight.
and allso in twin towers case there where fire is tens of floors wide steel structue starts to expand more than concrete around it and causes more strength losses. and when concrete that pulls steel structure together breaks heated steel stucture isn't
strong enough to carry all that weight that is above and building collapses.
but those cicumstances have been very special and after all
it is very difficult to say why both twin towers collapsed, but if there has been explosions where is the sound of explosions ?
:shrug:
Pet,
Excellent points. As I wrote earlier, just like you can't take the Government's story at face value without questioning it, certainly you should have the same skepticism when looking at this site.
As far as the explosions, there is a link on the site where 3 firemen are being interviewed later in the day on 9/11 and one of them talks about seeing and hearing something like a series of explosions as the building fell. Of course, that is only one of about a dozen eyewitness stories so who know how much credibility you can invest in that.
Also, even on that site if you look around the site you will see that they end up discounting the idea that a traditional array of explosives that would be used for a building implosion would have been used on any of the buildings at the WTC.
As I said before, I don't know what happened and I am sure I never will know the entire truth.
Excellent points. As I wrote earlier, just like you can't take the Government's story at face value without questioning it, certainly you should have the same skepticism when looking at this site.
As far as the explosions, there is a link on the site where 3 firemen are being interviewed later in the day on 9/11 and one of them talks about seeing and hearing something like a series of explosions as the building fell. Of course, that is only one of about a dozen eyewitness stories so who know how much credibility you can invest in that.
Also, even on that site if you look around the site you will see that they end up discounting the idea that a traditional array of explosives that would be used for a building implosion would have been used on any of the buildings at the WTC.
As I said before, I don't know what happened and I am sure I never will know the entire truth.
Blitz I dont really know what to say other than I agree with you. This is the most absurd collection of horseshit I have ever read. I read the whole thing and no I dont think he makes any reasonable points. These other massive building fires he talks about are completely different. In those cases you had internal fires with no outward structural damage, certainly not 757s plowing through your support beams at 200mph or however fast they hit. He wants to take the melting or collapse as two seperate issues. The fact is you had buildings with a large amount of support structure ripped away combined with the fire. And how does he know that none of the features of a 700+ degree fire were observed? Most of the people who would have been most qualified to observe it from the inside, are sadly, DEAD. And if they heard explosions, whoopty do, how do you know its not a boiler or a gas tank or something else. I mean in the absolute chaos and noise that must have been there are they qualified to say oh yeah, that right there was a dynamite pack.
Just a classic conspiracy theory in which you overwhelm the people reading it with facts, charts and figures most of which they wont understand in order to make yourself look credible. Because as for most of it, we have no idea if hes right or wrong, it could be completely made up and none of you would know the difference. You dont think that if any of this, any of it even on page, had one shred of plausibility even ONE TINY SHREAD that somewhere some journalist would be all over it? Theres at least one journalist in the cutthroat world they live in who would eat this up, even if its some lowlife bottom feeder, if they could find even one piece of this site that could be proven. Lets just say I take the word of two guys published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, a peer review journal, over this guy. So give it a rest. Theres a conspiracy theorist in every bunch, but this one just makes me sad makes me sadder still I read the whole thing and took time to post this. Just some guy looking for publicity and sadly we are giving it to him.
Just a classic conspiracy theory in which you overwhelm the people reading it with facts, charts and figures most of which they wont understand in order to make yourself look credible. Because as for most of it, we have no idea if hes right or wrong, it could be completely made up and none of you would know the difference. You dont think that if any of this, any of it even on page, had one shred of plausibility even ONE TINY SHREAD that somewhere some journalist would be all over it? Theres at least one journalist in the cutthroat world they live in who would eat this up, even if its some lowlife bottom feeder, if they could find even one piece of this site that could be proven. Lets just say I take the word of two guys published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, a peer review journal, over this guy. So give it a rest. Theres a conspiracy theorist in every bunch, but this one just makes me sad makes me sadder still I read the whole thing and took time to post this. Just some guy looking for publicity and sadly we are giving it to him.
Last edited:
I'm skeptical about most things, but this is pure garbage. Looking for attention and publicity, which I'm sure he is getting at the expense of a horrible tragedy.
Ace High,
Obviously this guy's site is suspect in a few ways but I want to address two of your points.
First, if you have an extensive chemistry background it is relatively easy to estimate temperature levels based on the color of the smoke and things of that nature. The fact is that it is a very reasonable assumption based on both the dark grey color of the smoke and the fact that jet feul would have produced a hydrocarbon fire that the fire was probably around 700 to 800 Celsius.
As far as a journalist for a mainstream media outlet picking up a story like this, it is not surprising at all that no editor of a major publication would run this. I am sure you realize as most people do that mainstream media coverage in the U.S. is very biased in certain respects and also treats many subjects as taboos. I mean, do you realize what the backlash would be in terms of subscription cancellations, government pressure, etc. if a major newspaper ever ran a piece on this guy's site? No editor in their right mind would even consider it regardless of how much of this site is based in fact or fiction.
The bottom line is that this is not the only analysis of 9/11 that has reached similar conclusions and many of those pieces have been published outside of the United States in widely read publications.
As I wrote above, this site certainly takes a ton of highly circumstantial evidence and draws some pretty wild conclusions from it, so all things considered, it is best viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. But it is unfair to call the site garbage. He analyzes the events closely from a number of angles and uses legitimate scientific analysis in raising a lot of pertinent questions. The problem is that he jumps from point A to about point T with some of his analysis so at the end of the day it becomes hard to swallow.
Obviously this guy's site is suspect in a few ways but I want to address two of your points.
First, if you have an extensive chemistry background it is relatively easy to estimate temperature levels based on the color of the smoke and things of that nature. The fact is that it is a very reasonable assumption based on both the dark grey color of the smoke and the fact that jet feul would have produced a hydrocarbon fire that the fire was probably around 700 to 800 Celsius.
As far as a journalist for a mainstream media outlet picking up a story like this, it is not surprising at all that no editor of a major publication would run this. I am sure you realize as most people do that mainstream media coverage in the U.S. is very biased in certain respects and also treats many subjects as taboos. I mean, do you realize what the backlash would be in terms of subscription cancellations, government pressure, etc. if a major newspaper ever ran a piece on this guy's site? No editor in their right mind would even consider it regardless of how much of this site is based in fact or fiction.
The bottom line is that this is not the only analysis of 9/11 that has reached similar conclusions and many of those pieces have been published outside of the United States in widely read publications.
As I wrote above, this site certainly takes a ton of highly circumstantial evidence and draws some pretty wild conclusions from it, so all things considered, it is best viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. But it is unfair to call the site garbage. He analyzes the events closely from a number of angles and uses legitimate scientific analysis in raising a lot of pertinent questions. The problem is that he jumps from point A to about point T with some of his analysis so at the end of the day it becomes hard to swallow.
