Conspiracy theory - 9/11

Quote:

---

[edit]for those of you who believe that the plane melted from the heat (1) no explosion from all the fuel and (2) fire trucks and people were on the scene in minutes, nothing melts that fast without having to stand back and let everything cool for a while......[/edit]

---

How long did it take for the steel beams of the twin towers to melt? How long did it take the firefighters to put down the blaze of the Pentagon?

Quote:

---

So shut your ignorant mouth, listen, and stop bitching..

---

Dave, you're being very narrow minded. We are telling you details which could disprove the conspiracy theories, but as far as you're concerned, you've already set your mind that the theory is true and you are undiscriminately dismissing any detailt that could prove it false. Who's not listening?

Quote:

---

Refineries are built to withstand **** like that... and you said the fire was big, look at the single video the government has released.. the fireball is tiny.. and you can clearly see where the fire was by the charred walls in the pictures... the fire is NOT something you get when you burn tons of jet fuel... remember.. its the jet fuel that helped the twin towers collapse.

---

The video does not show the full explosion, rather just the beginning of it and then cuts of to another scene. If it showed the whole explosion, you'll notice that the blaze rises higher than its shown. The explosion at the twin towers as well, was not that "huge".

Yes Refineries are built to withstand that, but so is the Pentagon. What do you mean "The fire is NOT what u get when you burn tons of jet fuel"? The jet was not the only thing burning there. Some other items include bodies, plane, office suplies such as cabinets, chairs, tables, papers. Even during the explosion, black smoke rose immediately which shows fossil fuel was burning. How come the video shown by this website is so pixelized? I'm pretty sure the pentagon has a much clearer video of the explosion.

If you notice during the end of the flash video, where it shows "Crashes mess up the ground" you'll notice a crash on a green field. How come you cannot see the wings and the rest of the plane, rather you're left with just the tail? Planes mess up the ground if they crash on the ground not if they hit a building head on. If its hitting a concrete building at that speed, and with all that force, it could have very easily shrunk just like if a car hit a building at 70mph.

http://www.ao-clan.net/blacksmoke.JPG
http://www.ao-clan.net/ground.JPG
http://www.ao-lan.net/ground2.JPG

Where's the rest of the plane on those pics?

Quote:

---

So shut your ignorant mouth, listen, and stop bitching..

---

Ahh, I got me my first love letter at AO.
I'm not ignorant. Why shut my mouth ? I'm TYPING. And I'm not bitching .......

I happen to think that the likelyhood is that the alleged plane hit the Pentagon, after being taken by scumbags. It 'vanished' because it's made of aluminium [melting point 660 degrees C]
Fuel fires with the extra added ingredients of fats [people] cellulose [paper / wood] and a ready supply of oxygen [atmosphere] can exceed 1000 degrees C. The media reported that the WTC reached those kind of tempuratures, and the South Tower collapsed first, although it was struck last. Time to melt / soften STEEL 2 to 3 hours.

I too, normaly pass over the conspiracy trails, as I tend to look for the 'angle'. But this one took my eye, as I believe that this time they are trying to do the people a disservice.

People talk about 'alleged' plane, and 'alleged' everything else, whilst forgetting that the ACTUAL plane went missing on radar, at about the time of the alleged 'missile'. It was in the ACTUAL area of the alleged 'missile'. And as far as I can make out, the only thing the two tales have in common is that in neither case has anything been seen of anyone/thing again.

There is a great deal of play in the 757 at 2 feet above ground .............
Civilian ATC doesn't really rely on radar per se, rather nowadays, modern aircraft carry a transponder that emits details of flight number, course, height and bearing. The military utilise radar, and they are the ones that check on height and bearing in real time. Also remember that aircraft go off radar screens well before they get to two feet altitude. To remove ground clutter / 'shadows' / 'bio-mass [birds] they will select a cut off point within which the system will still pick up signal, but will not analyse nor forward it to the controller. Which is another reason that 'raw' data is checked occaisionally, in the manner of the PC and checksums.

Quote:

---

Refineries are built to withstand **** like that...

---

Refineries are built to process POL [petroleum, oil, lubricants], they are not designed to catch fire. the one I was unfortunate to get caught up in was massive, but, unreported.
We had to help with the fire fighters as there is no place to run to...........

Quote:

---

nothing melts that fast without having to stand back and let everything cool for a while...

---

Magnesium, Sodium, Butter.
Somethings melt PDQ, and sometimes you HAVE to do something without waiting.

To take that example:
NYFD should have stayed outside the WTC until it had cooled down .............

everything is built to withstand something, OR to be destroyed with minimal damage. for example, the world trade center,

the way the towers were constructed, and this has alot to do with the elevator shafts, that if it became unstable and just about to collapse.... like if a plane was going to fly into it... for example, ... instead of the building falling sideways and crushing everything in its path, and causing mass devistation, the building was designed to collapse in on itself.... which is what they did. leaving the damage to a minimum.

the worst is in mind when things are built... just look at the titanic, they built it on the pretense it WAS going to hit an iceburg....

lol, and whoever questioned the length of time it took for the NYFD to get to the pentagon, i dont know exactly, but i can guarantee that i was less than 6 minutes.... i mean, think about it.... Pentagon and 'under fire' so to speak... it wouldnt have taken long!

CTO

Quote:

---

the building was designed to collapse in on itself.... which is what they did. leaving the damage to a minimum.

---

i mean that in the tense: "as little damage as two buildings being destroyed in the middle of a city minimun damage" :p [no offense intended]

CTO

-builds up his post and get's ready for one of the largest posts even known to the forum god's-

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...1_t1012pm.html

Quote:

---

Donald H. Rumsfeld Friday, Oct. 12, 2001: Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

---

It's a .mil site for gods sake !!!

origional source of above link: http://www.letsroll911.org/

I have been watching this thread for a little while and just have a few comments/observations and questions.

1. Up until these tragic events we had no experience of a fully laden commercial passenger aircraft impacting a substantial modern structure at high speed. I would suggest that our "science" in this area is sketchy to say the least. On the other hand, we have pretty good knowledge of what happens when a missile hits a building?

2. How many of the people who claimed to have heard a "missile" would have the experience to know the difference?

3. Missiles DON'T run on JP4 (or whatever its commercial equivalent is). We DO have rather good forensic science.............quite able to determine if the fire was caused by burning aviation fuel or the propellant and warhead of a missile, they are chemically quite different.

I think that the rest of it has been covered

:cool:

EDIT: Please see attachment, it is a .wmv file so you will have to rename it from the .txt extension. Anyone like to tell me where the wings of the B-52 are, and that is basically hitting the deck at stall speed in the open.

Sorry about the multiple posts, but the attachments are quite large :)

This is "how not to land a MIG-29".....................a much smaller aircraft than the B-52, and with a minimal fuel load, but I do not think that there was much to find afterwards. The MIG-29 is much bigger than an F-16 BTW.

And finally this is what happens when guided ordnance hits a reinforced concrete building :eek:

Please note how the debris are sprayed in all directions?

This is a .avi file, so you will have to rename it from.txt

Cheers

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Answers a lot of questions.