[darkpuppet]

SVTmonkey,Jun 21 2006, 06:05 PM Wrote:Holy crap guy...you are a piece of work...

First of all, I didn't post this link hoping to force ideas down people's throats.  People must take everything with a grain of salt.  This movie poses some serious and REAL questions that need to be answered.  Do you seriously deny that this movie poses some real questions?

I'm sorry, but this stuff has been posted so many times, it gets tiring trying to reason with people...

Quote:You speak with such an air of over compensated intelligence and yet you refuse to have an intelligent conversation.  In two posts now you've basically called me stupid.

The amazing thing is that people believed that a fire could actually destroy a building whose steel is certified to more than 3000F and was designed to withstand way more than an airplane hitting it.  My engineering degree forbids me to believe that a building will FREE FALL after burning for 45 minutes.  Those buildings could not have collapsed the way they did without other detonations.  Please do not lecture me on engineering.

How can you ignore everything you must have learned as an engineer?

1) The building was not certified to withstand the impact of the plane that hit it.
2) Iron out of the ground melts at 2750F, or steel alloys tend to melt at about 2500F... at 2500F, the steel is a puddle of water. How does a puddle of water support the weight of the entire building? At less than half that temperature steel under load can start to sag...
3) Fireproofing substantially raises the thermal loads the structure can bear.
4) Fireproofing blown off the steel would expose steel directly to fire.
5) is there any documentation that certifies that particular fireproofing to withstand a 300MPH impact of a multi-tonne vehicle?

Quote:I just would like to know how you negate the following:

- Audio tapes of firemen inside the buildings reporting numerous explosions.

well, you DO have thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel falling in on itself.... combined with the rapid compression/movement of air, it would definitely sound like a series of explosions.

the sound explosions make is the sound of concussive force. A building floor the area of a city block has a helluva lot of concussive force.

Quote:- The whole bottom floor of the building exploded, and the base structure of the buildings completely melted.

You have a solid steel structure that is falling on itself, the walls are basically trying to keep the pressure in. You take a few hundred thousand tonnes of building, and drop the top on itself, where's the air and inner bits going to go? outwards... There's your explosion.

Also, bending steel heats it.... can that be denied? Hundreds of thousands tonnes of steel being bent and crushed on itself, coupled with burning fuel would put out a LOT of thermal energy. I'm not surprised that things were incinerated.

Quote:- Billions of dollars of gold missing from the safes below the towers.

1) the best estimates put it around $900 Million.. with a maximum estimated at maybe up to 160 billion. -- how is that a hard fact there was gold under there to disppear in the first place.
2) there were trucks removing gold the morning of the attacks, and a couple trucks were reported as found after the attacks. And in fact, an amount of gold was apparently recovered.
3) if you can provide the insurance records claiming the missing gold by the actual companies adds up to the amount claimed missing by conspiracy theorists, I might consider this point.

Quote:- The thousands of put options (bets that a stock will fall) days before the attacks.

I thought that stocks were going to fall come some announcements that day as well. To be honest, I had business reasons for my assumptions, not an airplane attack. Remember, this was 2001.. after the internet bubble burst and news of the first round of major cuts were coming down the pipeline.

Give me more time and I'll find those business reasons for you.

It's like me cancelling travel that day had no bearing on previous knowledge of any attack.

Quote:- The Billion dollar insurance policy taken out on the towers 6 weeks before the attacks.

I wouldn't renew a lease for that much money and not have an insurance policy on it. Who would be THAT stupid?

then again, I just had my car 'pimped', and didn't put in any extra insurance into it, and the stereo still went missing 6 weeks later. If I'd gotten my deductable lowered, I guess i would have been comitting fraud too? Regardless of when the incident happened, someone was paying for it.. in this case I did.. in the case of 9/11 the insurance companies did.

Quote:That's just a small percentage of the real questions that need to be answered.  Besides the fact that for both of the other two crashes (pentagon and flight 93) there was absolutely no wreckage found.

Flight 93: Next time you are in a plane at 30,000 ft, try using your cell phone like they do in that "movie".

Obviously, not everything in this movie is true, everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.  But to say outright that it's all bull, now THAT is ignorant.  And please, keep this civil, no need to insult people's intelligence, that's not the way to start an intelligent conversation.

Plus, we can argue ad nauseum, I just wanted for people to see this so that they can ask some questions themselves.  If it only reinforces your beliefs that's fine too, but at least they were open minded enough to see it.

I've known people to use their cellphones over land on a clear day (like that day) in an airplane and be instantly accosted by the stewardesses... I don't know how much signal they got tho.. I've never had my cell on myself, nor tried to turn it on to check myself.

Of course, we can't discuss this further without knowing the exact altitudes the plane was flying at or where it was or what type of cellphones were being used... (ie. navigating the plane by sight for landmarks in a cell-heavy area? satellite phone?)

The thing is that the video never discusses the counter points.. Sure there are a lot of questions.. tonnes of questions if people don't take the time to research things fully. A lot of these questions are answered, or even if unanswered don't support the theory that the US did it to themselves.

I'm sorry if I come off as condescending, but seriously.... how many times do I have to get the e-mail that bill gates will send me money if I forward on an e-mail before you get sick and tired of seeing it, and start wondering how gullible people are?

everyone's entitled to their opinion, but people are ignoring a lot of hard facts in supporting these conspiracy theories.

from some engineering resources quoted from here

Quote: .. "Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion, says Robert S. Vecchio, principal of metallurgical engineer Lucius Pitkin Inc., referring to the hijacked Boeing 767 airplanes, heavy with fuel, that slammed into each WTC tower.

Quote:As the fires burned, the structural steel on the breached floors and above would have softened and warped because of the intense heat, say sources. Fireproofed steel is only rated to resist 1,500 to 1,600° F. As the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets, and other materials, became an enormous, consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the frame below.

....

When the stability was lost, the exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down, he says.

....

According to one of the designers of the World Trade Center (WTC), the towers were originally designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707; and the impact of the aircraft on Sept. 11th did not take the buildings down. In fact, WTC One stood for 1 hour and WTC Two stood for 1 3/4 hours after impact. Engineers familiar with the chain of events suspect that heat from the massive and extraordinary fires weakened the structures and initiated the progressive collapses.