Jump to content

9/11 Alternative Theories


jake

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Space Mackerel

    280

  • jake

    220

  • zoltan socrates

    73

  • Sten Guns

    66

There were people there, in the basement, who were and are telling everyone that there were explosions down there before the plane hit but they are confused or lying because that can't be, can it. The answer is yes it can, and is. Go look it up

 

Everything about what all these experts are saying in the link left by Jake is not theory. It is mind boggling that ALL the independent studies that have found nano thermite (hi tech explosives) in the dust are just ignored by most. NIST claims they did not check for explosives. What the **** is that all about. 

Edited by niblick1874
Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Of course there were explosions, the building was rammed full of services including refirgerants which are highly volatile, given the size of the building and the volume of refrigerants and other chemicals used in building services it is entirely expected that given the catastrophic impact the building encountered the stress on those systems and the external factors, jet fuel etc, would have led to jst such explosions

Edited by zoltan socrates
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there were explosions, the building was rammed full of services including refirgerants which are highly volatile, given the size of the building and the volume of refrigerants and other chemicals used in building services it is entirely expected that given the catastrophic impact the building encountered the stress on those systems and the external factors, jet fuel etc, would have led to jst such explosions

Before the plane hit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Before the plane hit?

Couldnt comment on prior to the plane hitting the first tower, simply commenting on explosions after the event

 

Not actually aware of any explosions prior to the first plane hitting, were there? Not even heard about that tbf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Furious Styles

Even if there were controlled explosions, what does it matter. It was an act of terrorism.

Unless of course you're suggesting the government were the perpetrators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if there were controlled explosions, what does it matter. It was an act of terrorism.

Unless of course you're suggesting the government were the perpetrators.

 

Why are we still officially insisting the towers fell through the plane impact and the heat from fires in the face of physics.

Is it so hard to believe that this was a set up to shape public opinion.

What the report does is call for another enquiry.

What is fact is that never before has a bulding of this nature collapsed due to fire or heat.

As for plane impact only two of the three buildings were hit but all three collapsed in the same manner.

 

Finally world wide physicist engineering academics have expressed disquiet at the official explanation.

No doubt it was an act of terror.

 

You got to ask whose hand was behind it.

And who benefited.

 

 

As an aside both towers were designed to take impact from planes

Edited by jake
Link to post
Share on other sites

And we're off again.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

Tbf to myself ive not posted this type of thread before.

Just thought this might be of interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Even if there were controlled explosions, what does it matter. It was an act of terrorism.

Unless of course you're suggesting the government were the perpetrators.

As far as im aware its part of the american psyche to be fearful of an attack from within and that dates back to the time of their civil war, there will always be a portion of people who demand that any given event is down to the government, see aids, ebola, jfk, oklahoma etc and sometimes the planets line up and they are correct, not for 9/11 though, those old enough to remember will recall the murmerings of an islamic extremist attack long before the actual event

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

,What is fact is that never before has a bulding of this nature collapsed due to fire or heat.'

 

You need to tell that to the hordes of london fire service who watched and filmed many buildings collapse during the blitz due to the fire and heat of the incendiary bombs dropped on them

 

Firemen tend to create an exclusion zone around a major fire incident due to the dangers of collapse

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered what the conspiracy theorists want from all their conspiracies?

 

This is not a conspiracy thread though.

Its about a report published in a highly respected journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

,What is fact is that never before has a bulding of this nature collapsed due to fire or heat.'

 

You need to tell that to the hordes of london fire service who watched and filmed many buildings collapse during the blitz due to the fire and heat of the incendiary bombs dropped on them

 

Firemen tend to create an exclusion zone around a major fire incident due to the dangers of collapse

 

Please tell me the buildings in london at the time of the blitz that were in any way comparible to the buildings in new york.

 

Just one will do.

 

 

 

Taking out the other fact of the intensity of londons bombing versus the two hits the towers took.

Edited by jake
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bridge of Djoum

Tbf to myself ive not posted this type of thread before.

Just thought this might be of interest.

Fair enough mate, it's just that it attracts the loons of JKB. 

 

Cue attack from a certain poster about ''sheeple, MSM, Fox News, etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MacDonald Jardine

Tbf to myself ive not posted this type of thread before.

Just thought this might be of interest.

I didn't mean you but the first reply indicates how this might head.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Please tell me the buildings in london at the time of the blitz that were in any way comparible to the buildings in new york.

Just one will do.

Taking out the other fact of the intensity of londons bombing versus the two hits the towers took.

You do know they were incendiary bombs yes? Designed to spread flammable material not to blast, id also argue that brick built buildings were stronger than those with a suspended facade, the wtc was strong as long as integrity was maintained, an airliner hitting it at 400mph would critically diminish that integrity, add in the steel structure being comprimised due to the coefficient of thermal expansion, the steel didnt need to melt it just needed to expand and soften, as would be expected when steel is heated, for its integrity to be nullified

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know they were incendiary bombs yes? Designed to spread flammable material not to blast, id also argue that brick built buildings were stronger than those with a suspended facade, the wtc was strong as long as integrity was maintained, an airliner hitting it at 400mph would critically diminish that integrity, add in the steel structure being comprimised due to the coefficient of thermal expansion, the steel didnt need to melt it just needed to expand and soften, as would be expected when steel is heated, for its integrity to be nullified

 

Im not a structural engineer.

The people behind the report are.

Never before or since has a comparible structure collapsed from heat.

Its also worth noting that the steel structure had fire protection.

That the buildings had sprinkler systems which would have cooled the heat.

It has to be said that ultimately to physicists and engineers the way the buildings collapsed were in line with controlled explosions.

 

Lets not use the planes impact as not all 3 buildings were hit.

 

Something quite clearly does not add up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not a structural engineer.

The people behind the report are.

Never before or since has a comparible structure collapsed from heat.

Its also worth noting that the steel structure had fire protection.

That the buildings had sprinkler systems which would have cooled the heat.

It has to be said that ultimately to physicists and engineers the way the buildings collapsed were in line with controlled explosions.

 

Lets not use the planes impact as not all 3 buildings were hit.

 

Something quite clearly does not add up.

I still can't believe how many people believe this utter nonsense. It's actually incredibly disrespectful to those people who lost their lives to constantly peddle this absolute garbage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't believe how many people believe this utter nonsense. It's actually incredibly disrespectful to those people who lost their lives to constantly peddle this absolute garbage.

 

Tell me how ive disrespected those who lost their lifes.

I posted a recently published report in a respected science journal.

Can you also tell me how that is garbage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely hundreds of people would have heard loud explosions if they occurred before the plane hit?

 

It doesn't say that in the report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too think we should ignore the fact that two of the buildings were cut in half by planes.

Didnt say that.

I said the collapse of the buildings were said officially to be caused by the heat.

Some have said that the planes hitting the towers caused the towers to fall.

The planes although causing the fires was not the reason they fell.

The 3rd building wasn't hit by a plane.

The impact had no bearing on the collapse it was officially the heat that caused collapse.

Which does not add up if you take on board the opinion of physicists and structural engineers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

 

Some mentalists on this forum.

 

Im only posting a report in a respected european science journal.

The report is based on things like the science of physics and structural construction.

Its also based on actual occurence.

Or rather lack of it.

Specifically that being that no other construction of this nature has collapsed previously or since due to fires and heat.

 

Remember before you post about planes that officially this is not the reason for collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Im not a structural engineer.

The people behind the report are.

Never before or since has a comparible structure collapsed from heat.

Its also worth noting that the steel structure had fire protection.

That the buildings had sprinkler systems which would have cooled the heat.

It has to be said that ultimately to physicists and engineers the way the buildings collapsed were in line with controlled explosions.

Lets not use the planes impact as not all 3 buildings were hit.

Something quite clearly does not add up.

The fire protection was designed to repel the kind of fires expected in buildings, not fully fuel laden airliners

Sprinkler systems are designed to expunge small fires within occupied areas NOT to suppress major structural fires - i am a building services engineer i know this having had, and continue to, work with fire supression systems

Due to the relatively small footprrint of the building, and that buildings are designe with a lifespan, the buildings were designed to fall the way they did, leslie robertson, the architect aluded to that

Building 7 was a building that contained sensative data critical to national security, in such events buildings like this will be destroyed where the nation deems itself under critical attack, what is suspicious is that the bbc reported its collapse 30 mins prior to when it did

Fires and heat can and do bring down buildings, especially steel framed ones

For every ,expert who says A youll get an expert saying B, you have to look at their commercial interests and personal agendas

 

Something dosnt add up its true, but the focus should be on the pentagon not the wtc buildings

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not a structural engineer.

The people behind the report are.

Never before or since has a comparible structure collapsed from heat.

Its also worth noting that the steel structure had fire protection.

That the buildings had sprinkler systems which would have cooled the heat.

It has to be said that ultimately to physicists and engineers the way the buildings collapsed were in line with controlled explosions.

 

Lets not use the planes impact as not all 3 buildings were hit.

 

Something quite clearly does not add up.

Jake, please go and find out what happens when molten Aluminium contacts water.
Link to post
Share on other sites

William Rodriguez, the last man out, was given hero status for saving so many by everyone including George Bush until he started telling everyone that a bomb went of in the basement where he was doing his job as janitor, just before the plane hit. From there on in he was demonized by everyone that was not there including Bush.

 

It is all over the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Didnt say that.

I said the collapse of the buildings were said officially to be caused by the heat.

Some have said that the planes hitting the towers caused the towers to fall.

The planes although causing the fires was not the reason they fell.

The 3rd building wasn't hit by a plane.

The impact had no bearing on the collapse it was officially the heat that caused collapse.

Which does not add up if you take on board the opinion of physicists and structural engineers.

There is no structural engineer on this planet, who is worth his salt, that would exclude the damage caused by the expansion of steel beams due to their being heated, expanding and softening and thus losing their integrity and ability to do their job, ie hold up the building, this is a fundamental in structural formation

 

The planes caused their collapse, without those planes there would be no gaping hole weak points and there would be no highly flammable jet fuel doing the damage it did

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fire protection was designed to repel the kind of fires expected in buildings, not fully fuel laden airliners

Sprinkler systems are designed to expunge small fires within occupied areas NOT to suppress major structural fires - i am a building services engineer i know this having had, and continue to, work with fire supression systems

Due to the relatively small footprrint of the building, and that buildings are designe with a lifespan, the buildings were designed to fall the way they did, leslie robertson, the architect aluded to that

Building 7 was a building that contained sensative data critical to national security, in such events buildings like this will be destroyed where the nation deems itself under critical attack, what is suspicious is that the bbc reported its collapse 30 mins prior to when it did

Fires and heat can and do bring down buildings, especially steel framed ones

For every ,expert who says A youll get an expert saying B, you have to look at their commercial interests and personal agendas

 

Something dosnt add up its true, but the focus should be on the pentagon not the wtc buildings

 

Agreed about confliting experts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake, please go and find out what happens when molten Aluminium contacts water.

 

Haha is that all.

Ffs aussie ok i will.

But was the structure of those buildings aluminium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no structural engineer on this planet, who is worth his salt, that would exclude the damage caused by the expansion of steel beams due to their being heated, expanding and softening and thus losing their integrity and ability to do their job, ie hold up the building, this is a fundamental in structural formation

 

The planes caused their collapse, without those planes there would be no gaping hole weak points and there would be no highly flammable jet fuel doing the damage it did

 

Of course the planes caused the damage.

Of course the fires and heat caused steel to lose its integrity.

I think im right that the questions arise out of the manner of collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha is that all.

Ffs aussie ok i will.

But was the structure of those buildings aluminium.

Molten aluminum is silver, molten mettle is bright orange. The stuff spewing out of the building was bright orange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Of course the planes caused the damage.

Of course the fires and heat caused steel to lose its integrity.

I think im right that the questions arise out of the manner of collapse.

Which as i say, due to the relatively small footprint of the building and the inevitibility that they would have to come down at some point, in a highly densely populated area, they were absolutely designed to fall the way they did, as the architect intended oherwise, when the life of the wtc buildings came to an end they would have to shut half of manhatten which, commercially alone, wouldnt be viable Edited by zoltan socrates
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't believe how many people believe this utter nonsense. It's actually incredibly disrespectful to those people who lost their lives to constantly peddle this absolute garbage.

Go tell that to the multitude of survivors and relatives of the victims that don't believe a word of the official version and are demanding a new investigation. Do you think that they have not had a real good look at it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which as i say, due to the relatively small footprint of the building and the inevitibility that they would have to come down at some point, in a highly densely populated area, they were absolutely designed to fall the way they did, as the architect intended oherwise, when the life of the wtc buildings came to an end they would have to shut half of manhatten which, commercially alone, wouldnt be viable

 

Jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than required to melt steel.

All im pointing out is the official explanation does not marry up with physics and structutal engineering.

I cant really argue from the top of my head about this.

But i do think that some sort of open enquiry should take place.

 

Id love to hear conflicting views from experts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Go tell that to the multitude of survivors and relatives of the victims that don't believe a word of the official version and are demanding a new investigation. Do you think that they have not had a real good look at it?

Thatll always happen, try telling kate and gerry mccann their daughter was murdered, they dont accept it and pish millions away on investigating something which, lets face it, we all know the outcome, part of grief is an inability to accept the reality of the situation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be a long post, sorry folks. Took the time to read the OP article.

 

To clarify my position: Open to all possibilities and base my decision on consideration of the weight and quality of all evidence.

 

First points. EPN is a magazine, not a peer reviewed journal. It does post news on reviewed articles, however as it states, this article contains speculation and seems to be viewed as a piece for discussion, not established fact.

 

Secondly, the great majority of those far better qualified than I in terms of engineering etc accept the fact the aftermath of the plane strike brought the twin towers down, with WTC7 coming down as a result of WTC debris damage and subsequent fires.

 

Frankly, the article is riddled with false assumptions, already debunked "evidence" and cherry picked quotes.

 

No time to go through all, but for example:

 

Molten metal

1) running from WTC would never be the pure aluminum claimed but a slurry of metals/debris from both the plane and building. Location also close to where banks of huge batteries were located. The run off is also evidence of the pre collapse sagging of floors consistent with progressive weakening of the steel beams in the generally accepted account.

 

2) No evidence of actual running metal in the debris field. Plenty if accounts of glowing metal and generally accepted glowing/molten was used interchangeably

 

WTC7 collapse was progressive, not freefall. The penthouse can be seen to slump due to internal support failure prior to motion of the main roofline, consistent with the NIST model.

 

Nor was it symmetrical, debris damaging several surrounding buildings during a skewed collapse (pics can be easily found).

 

BTW if going to all the trouble, why not fly a third plane into WTC7 if that was the intent rather than have a "mysterious" collapse.

 

Can't contest some of the engineering calculations as I'm not an engineer. Not to say they're more valid than the official numbers.

 

Firefighter testimony

 

To add to the quote:

 

?I thought it was exploding, actually,?

 

From his FULL statement:

 

"I totally thought it had been blown up. That's just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down. That's really it."

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110406.PDF&ved=0ahUKEwizsfyF4pbPAhXCJ8AKHQkdBaAQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNF7r69e-E3yqAx4VIVr1RDDnVLFIg&sig2=1sOQD0nnN6iGOC5ADmrgSQ

 

Bear in mind these brave people were in or under the shadow of those huge buildings with all manner of impacts occurring. Coupled with terrorist attack training and the history of the buildings, no wonder an initial impression of explosions prevailed and subsequently corrected.

 

Lots more on it, but already spent longer than I should on this.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bridge of Djoum

Go tell that to the multitude of survivors and relatives of the victims that don't believe a word of the official version and are demanding a new investigation. Do you think that they have not had a real good look at it?

What do you do for a living?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed", he said. "The building structure would still be there."[13]

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than required to melt steel.

All im pointing out is the official explanation does not marry up with physics and structutal engineering.

I cant really argue from the top of my head about this.

But i do think that some sort of open enquiry should take place.

Id love to hear conflicting views from experts.

You dont need the steel to melt, you only need it to weaken and jet fuel most certainly will facilitate this

All im pointing out is the physics via the coefficient if thermal expansion which allows this to happen, we dont need melted steel, just severely weakened, i do this for my job and have done for the last 25 years

 

As for new enquiries and experts, again its down to the commercial and personal interests of those experts

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...