capitalcrew
.44 mag
Dear Lord I can't do this. Think what you want but for all of our sakes please distance yourself from the firearms community when giving your opinions, I don't want to be lumped into your group.
New Whitehouse.gov Petition - Pres. Trump, please give us a legitimate 9/11 Investigation
- Thread starter Jackrabbit
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9/11 investigation petition
Screw you Clown! I even shown a video with the President with my same questions. Continue on believing what your Government tells you. Classic sheep!
capitalcrew
.44 mag
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
When you take video out of context it can be made to sound like what you wanted. But let's go thru it.
What did the fire department say? Secondary explosions.
Did you see what happens when something hot as burning fuel hits some substances? They explode.
Also cars were exploding from the heat as well. There were also gun shots at the trade center. Did you know that.
A port authority LT shot out windows so people could get out faster.
Now for the boom, boom sound, a floor collapsed onto another which caused that to pancake as air is forced out . What does it sound like ? A bomb.
"Hesvy smoke is a key indicator that the fire is going out and being robbed of O2"
What? Let's see. Heavy smoke at building with jet fuel which usually burns clear. It might be the fire going out? Or that the fire set other materials on fire like plastic, the carpet, the furniture, people, etc. It was the secondary fires that caused the smoke.
The big explosion in bottom of the building was the fuel when it went down a shaft and exploded.
Have ever thrown plastic into a garbage fire. Similiar results in a building fire when items inside start to burn too
The effect of heat on steel and the towers
Watch the whole documentary. It might answer your questions and debunk a lot of the BS.
Now to explain how controlled building demolitions work and how much prep it takes to do
Go watch a video on how long it takes to place thevexplosives, cut supporting beams, how much of the explosives it takes, placed around the building , and the timing of the explosives.
There have been so many investigations into the towers , it is annoying and frankly insulting
Last edited:
pjzwtl
.308 Win
The problem with your "logic" is it is full of assumptions. Your claim that buildings like this have never come down due to fire are irrelevant to reality. Can you show us another example of a building built to the exact specs with all the same materials down to the rivets as the WTC being hit at the exact same locations by a commercial airliner full of the exact same amount of fuel and not collapsing? All structure fires are different animals and all buildings are not built the same trying to make correlations between them is dishonest and or ignorant.
As for saying "Trump said" all I can say is although I gladly voted for the man and wish him the best I know he will be saying a lot of things in the future just like in the past that make my eyes roll
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Explosions equals gas lines and many other things. But why go through all that nonsense? A husk of 2 towers remaining in the skyline would have been more effective.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Those guys are not professional witinesses. Remember this was before any terrorism training. The majority of those guys had never any bomb training before. Most had never had bomb investigation experience at all. Some were at the first WTC bombing but were around for the secondary fire rather than the actual explosion.
The experts I referred to were the fire marshalls, (the arson investigators for the FDNY,) the ATF, the secret service, NYPD's ESU, the bomb squad.
Please note. None repeat none saw any devices themselves. No "D" cord, nothing. Do you know how much it takes to bring down the towers. A truck bomb didn't even come close in 1993.
It was a confusing day. If you responded to a plane crash on the 70th floor and saw the lobby that looked like a bomb went off that day and the rest of the building around you at the time, looked fine, you would think a bomb went off too. Especially since we had very little experience or training up until that time.
Why don't you read stories of 9/11 or go to the story tellers, where the fist hand accounts of that day are recorded. Not one has any account of seeing actual devices. Not one.
This has been investigated to death.
And if this investigation you call Trump to do, came back with the same results, someone would be calling for another one.
Last edited:
Depends who you listen to. I won't listen to the WND/Government crowds. They proved to be liars.
Here you go, but I must be off my rocker. I stand with these guys
Did you know a 3rd tower fell on 9/11?
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Just because you build buildings doesn't make you an expert on everything that can bring it down.
And we all know fire cant melt steel right? It took less fuel to melt the contents of this pour then the fuel dumped into the towers
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I think once some have their minds made up no matter what facts are presented.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Yes I know. I was there
wizrd
6.5 Creedmoor
31 years and 69 days I spent in the fire service. Structural steel under normal fire loading conditions expands and warps, lengthwise, it ( structural steel) expands a surprising % when subjected to NORMAL fire-loading temperatures. I've been to several fires / building collapses in these types of buildings. This steel expansion alone will cause collapse.
If the Empire State building had been hit instead - it would probably still be standing today. The Empire State building is considered THE MOST FIREPROOF building standing in America today - it was purposely built that way. Each floor is totally isolated from the other, there is no way for the fire to travel vertically between floors.
Computer design actually contributed to the colllapse of the world trade center. Buildings engineered to be the LIGHTEST and STRONGEST and to withstand all NORMAL natural forces, winds, static loading, live loading, minor earthquakes, etc, ARE NOT engineered to withstand a plane crash of this magnitude, along with tons of burning jet fuel. To say building like this don't collapse under normal fire conditions is just wrong. The NYFD has issued tons of reports and studies related to the trade center, -- some searching will be enlightening....just saying.
If the Empire State building had been hit instead - it would probably still be standing today. The Empire State building is considered THE MOST FIREPROOF building standing in America today - it was purposely built that way. Each floor is totally isolated from the other, there is no way for the fire to travel vertically between floors.
Computer design actually contributed to the colllapse of the world trade center. Buildings engineered to be the LIGHTEST and STRONGEST and to withstand all NORMAL natural forces, winds, static loading, live loading, minor earthquakes, etc, ARE NOT engineered to withstand a plane crash of this magnitude, along with tons of burning jet fuel. To say building like this don't collapse under normal fire conditions is just wrong. The NYFD has issued tons of reports and studies related to the trade center, -- some searching will be enlightening....just saying.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Bingo
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
And he talks about fire in high rises. When has jet fuel been in a high rise fire.
Building 7 didn't have just small office fires. And he is calling for changes in fire procedure.
Why weren't there changes? Why would there be if jet fuel isn't used in those other buildings. Why would the people behind a "grand conspiracy " let the fire procedure makers in on the secret. They would let them change the procedure. And it's the FDNY themselves who make procedures. No changes because of exactly what the man said. It never happened in other high rise fires but those other fires never had two airliner fuel tanks of jet fuel in them either.
Building 7 didn't have just small office fires. And he is calling for changes in fire procedure.
Why weren't there changes? Why would there be if jet fuel isn't used in those other buildings. Why would the people behind a "grand conspiracy " let the fire procedure makers in on the secret. They would let them change the procedure. And it's the FDNY themselves who make procedures. No changes because of exactly what the man said. It never happened in other high rise fires but those other fires never had two airliner fuel tanks of jet fuel in them either.
capitalcrew
.44 mag
The full height of 1776 feet would have expanded 109 inches over its entire length assuming an average temperate increase of 800 degrees across the entire length of the beam assuming an expansion rate of 0.00000645 per inch per degree.
Can't imagine that causing any problems.
Can't imagine that causing any problems.
masterswimmer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
That's why in single family home construction we TRY to not use steel girders in wood frame homes. During a fire the steel twists and actually pulls the wood construction in on itself.
capitalcrew
.44 mag
Looks like my data on the height was off by about 25%, so figure about 80 inches instead of 109.
Let's play a different game.
Conspiracy theorists say that jet fuel in open air should burn around 1000C, so around 1830f.
Figure 80 degrees in the building for a nice round number, so a temperate change of 1750f over the height of ten floors.. about 120 feet. That's 16.25 inches at well above where structural steel loses about half its strength. And that's assuming only ten floors were even burning!
Can't imagine that making any difference.
Let's play a different game.
Conspiracy theorists say that jet fuel in open air should burn around 1000C, so around 1830f.
Figure 80 degrees in the building for a nice round number, so a temperate change of 1750f over the height of ten floors.. about 120 feet. That's 16.25 inches at well above where structural steel loses about half its strength. And that's assuming only ten floors were even burning!
Can't imagine that making any difference.
capitalcrew
.44 mag
Oh by the way! 1000c is hot enough for forging. You know, the method used to form, bend, and shape steel since steel was first created. 
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
"Truebeliever,And he talks about fire in high rises. When has jet fuel been in a high rise fire.
Building 7 didn't have just small office fires. And he is calling for changes in fire procedure""
Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane nor did it burn from jet fuel. it had 97 main columns which collapsed simultaneously recieveing damage to one column from debris,7 hours later, all the columns collapsed in perfect symmetry after an asymmetrical fire.
I certainly cannot prove demolitions were ever used . And nobody could ever build a model where a building would fall in almost perfect symmetry from fire . ever. It cant be done , even in a model . An an asymmetrical fire, will never ever ever ever cause a symmetrical collapse. It could never be demonstrated under any conditions.
Science must be demostratable and repeatable. It cannot be done in the case of building 7[/quote]
Building 7 didn't have just small office fires. And he is calling for changes in fire procedure""
Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane nor did it burn from jet fuel. it had 97 main columns which collapsed simultaneously recieveing damage to one column from debris,7 hours later, all the columns collapsed in perfect symmetry after an asymmetrical fire.
I certainly cannot prove demolitions were ever used . And nobody could ever build a model where a building would fall in almost perfect symmetry from fire . ever. It cant be done , even in a model . An an asymmetrical fire, will never ever ever ever cause a symmetrical collapse. It could never be demonstrated under any conditions.
Science must be demostratable and repeatable. It cannot be done in the case of building 7[/quote]
All I know is I witnessed the collapse of both towers from my office which was 32 stories high in Brooklyn directly across river. I felt the ground vibration caused by the falling towers from over a mile away. Our office was shaking and my skin was trembling as the towers fell. I'm not an engineer but it seems much more plausible that this might have contributed to the loss of integrity in the structure of an adjacent building consumed by fire.
Jackrabbit
22lr
Let me sum up my own personal major questions about 9/11:
Flight 93 - multiple debris fields show it did not crash but was destroyed in midair
Building 7 - was not hit by a plane and only had isolated fires on about two floors but totally collapsed in near free-fall into its own footprint
WTC Towers - asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse in near free fall, indicating little or no resistance to collapse on most floors, inconsistent with fire damage
Pentagon - photos of damage inconsistent with an airliner strike. If airliners supposedly did SO MUCH damage to the towers that they completely collapsed, how is it that the Pentagon had comparatively little damage?
NIST's computer models were fudged - Have you ever watched these? None of them accurately describe any of the deformations that would have occurred prior to collapse in any of the three towers. Also, NIST failed to continue the simulations from the beginning of collapse to the final end of collapse. Why?
These are just my major questions. I have a lot of others, about stand-down orders given to fighter pilots in violation of SOP, about fires burning underground for weeks after the towers came down, about the "official investigations" into 9/11 and how incompetent they were, about the failure of the Secret Service to immediately whisk GWB into safety during the attacks, about the blatant lie from the WH press office saying "No one could have anticipated terrorists using a plane as a weapon" when academic papers about that very thing had been published long before and when the towers themselves were specifically designed to withstand plane strikes. The questions go on and on.
It has been mentioned that a new investigation at this point could satisfy no one. I disagree. A new investigation admitting the one or two small things that we already know to be fact (the shooting down of at least one of the planes that day by the Air National Guard) would go a long way towards demonstrating the honesty and impartiality of that invesigation. For me, at least.
Flight 93 - multiple debris fields show it did not crash but was destroyed in midair
Building 7 - was not hit by a plane and only had isolated fires on about two floors but totally collapsed in near free-fall into its own footprint
WTC Towers - asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse in near free fall, indicating little or no resistance to collapse on most floors, inconsistent with fire damage
Pentagon - photos of damage inconsistent with an airliner strike. If airliners supposedly did SO MUCH damage to the towers that they completely collapsed, how is it that the Pentagon had comparatively little damage?
NIST's computer models were fudged - Have you ever watched these? None of them accurately describe any of the deformations that would have occurred prior to collapse in any of the three towers. Also, NIST failed to continue the simulations from the beginning of collapse to the final end of collapse. Why?
These are just my major questions. I have a lot of others, about stand-down orders given to fighter pilots in violation of SOP, about fires burning underground for weeks after the towers came down, about the "official investigations" into 9/11 and how incompetent they were, about the failure of the Secret Service to immediately whisk GWB into safety during the attacks, about the blatant lie from the WH press office saying "No one could have anticipated terrorists using a plane as a weapon" when academic papers about that very thing had been published long before and when the towers themselves were specifically designed to withstand plane strikes. The questions go on and on.
It has been mentioned that a new investigation at this point could satisfy no one. I disagree. A new investigation admitting the one or two small things that we already know to be fact (the shooting down of at least one of the planes that day by the Air National Guard) would go a long way towards demonstrating the honesty and impartiality of that invesigation. For me, at least.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don't get what the conspiracy is. That flight 93 was shot? Okay. I'd have shot it down too.
Building 7? Do you really think they needed building 7 to make a statement?
Demolitions in the towers. Do you really think they needed the towers to fall? Assuming the jet fuel does nothing like some suggest, what benefit is there to taking down the towers?
Wouldn't it be more effective to keep them standing as eye sores? Two standing tombs that cannot be inhabited for years that are constant reminders on why your rights can be stripped away for safety are more effective than deliberately knocking them down.
It's beyond absurd to think that they'd go through all that trouble when just flying the planes and leaving the towers standing would be more effective.
If the argument was that the government allowed the hijackers to proceed, I could get on board with that. But the planting of demolitions and that multiple agencies such as the Feds, the NYPD, and various other independent investigation agencies were all on board with this is just plain preposterous. Stupid even.
Building 7? Do you really think they needed building 7 to make a statement?
Demolitions in the towers. Do you really think they needed the towers to fall? Assuming the jet fuel does nothing like some suggest, what benefit is there to taking down the towers?
Wouldn't it be more effective to keep them standing as eye sores? Two standing tombs that cannot be inhabited for years that are constant reminders on why your rights can be stripped away for safety are more effective than deliberately knocking them down.
It's beyond absurd to think that they'd go through all that trouble when just flying the planes and leaving the towers standing would be more effective.
If the argument was that the government allowed the hijackers to proceed, I could get on board with that. But the planting of demolitions and that multiple agencies such as the Feds, the NYPD, and various other independent investigation agencies were all on board with this is just plain preposterous. Stupid even.
Last edited:
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Well Jack most of your questions have been asked and answered, ad nauseum, apparently just not to your satisfaction, and you are what counts after all.
Robin
Robin
Magnus
6.5 Creedmoor
How many of those buildings had to withstand an impact from a Jet? How many of the floors on any of the buildings have to support over their load capacity? I know another case where the exact conditions were recreated, tower 2.
capitalcrew
.44 mag
Let's flip this around and ask the conspiracy theorists a question.
Theorists, why in the world would the government, who was apparently interested in killing as many people as possible and creating chaos, make the buildings fall like they were in a controlled demolition? Why would they even risk it looking like that? To leave breadcrumbs for people to figure them out? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it topple over?
With the government I would personally say the fact that it looks like a controlled demolition is enough to prove it wasn't. I know if I was planning this the last thing I would have said is "alright folks, let's figure out how to bring these down as cleanly as possible", it would have been a lot more like "let's make a fuckin mess".
I wouldn't be surprised if flight 93 was shot down. It makes complete sense to tell people that the passengers heroically brought it down rather than to say they shot it down to prevent further loss of life. Why shoot the plane down anyways, if the towers weren't really destroyed by the planes? Flight 93 posed no risk. Unless there were really terrorists on board.
Theorists, why in the world would the government, who was apparently interested in killing as many people as possible and creating chaos, make the buildings fall like they were in a controlled demolition? Why would they even risk it looking like that? To leave breadcrumbs for people to figure them out? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it topple over?
With the government I would personally say the fact that it looks like a controlled demolition is enough to prove it wasn't. I know if I was planning this the last thing I would have said is "alright folks, let's figure out how to bring these down as cleanly as possible", it would have been a lot more like "let's make a fuckin mess".
I wouldn't be surprised if flight 93 was shot down. It makes complete sense to tell people that the passengers heroically brought it down rather than to say they shot it down to prevent further loss of life. Why shoot the plane down anyways, if the towers weren't really destroyed by the planes? Flight 93 posed no risk. Unless there were really terrorists on board.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I think if it was shot down they would have owned it. "The passengers took responsibility themselves, and were heroes for doing so" is the last message they wanted to send....
I can't find the ignore thread button 
(((( This is the stupidest thread I have ever seen. It's embarrassing me to be on this forum. Where are the forum's officers????
(((( This is the stupidest thread I have ever seen. It's embarrassing me to be on this forum. Where are the forum's officers????