Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

55,132 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273677 Jun 26, 2014
-Web wrote:
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds,
False Son of OneMale!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#273678 Jun 26, 2014
Timeten wrote:
I have been ooking in Costa Rica, Forbes magazine had a article a few months back on how it's one of the best retirement places in the Caribbean. It has a year
-round tropical climate, modern cities, Caribbean beaches, a Pacific coastline, rain forests, and mountains. They also have no military and some of the best medical care in all of Latin America. I'm also looking at my homeland of Argentina would love to buy a vineyard in Mendoza and spend the rest of my life making wine
<quoted text>
Costa Rica sounds incredible and is definitely on my list of places to visit!

I went to college with a guy from there and still have his contact info....although that was many years ago so not sure if his family would still be in the same place. It would be great to see him again as he was a good guy and we had a lot of fun together:-)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#273679 Jun 26, 2014
-Web wrote:
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds,
Seriously, learn to count.

Spreading lies is what's kept twoof in the dark ages and only acceptable to kooks and idiots.

Good luck with that!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#273680 Jun 26, 2014
Retarded son of one male, you start with a conclusion, then yesterday state that the Windsor tower proves that the WTC collapse can not be explained by fire, then you state a few posts above it can not be compared to the WTC.

How freeking dishonest can you be, evidence does not matter to you, only the conclusion that must fill that void in your life as you clean out the Slurpee machine.
-Web wrote:
Windsor Tower Partial collapse
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
-Web wrote:
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
Yea, Below the Technical Floor the supports were concrete, the Debris above was steel.

Mean anything to your dishonest pea brain, I doubt it!

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Calgary, Canada

#273681 Jun 26, 2014
"Behavior of Steel-framed Buildings in a Fire"

"All common building materials lose strength when
heated to high temperatures. Figs. 1 and 2 show the
deterioration of steel and concrete mechanical properties
with increasing temperatures. Although steel does not
melt below 1,500oC, at a temperature of around 600oC, its
yield strength declines to about one-third of its yield
strength at ambient temperature. At 800oC, its yield
strength is reduced to 11%, and at 900oC, to 6%. The
elastic modulus of steel is similarly reduced with increasing
temperatures, but at a higher rate. Due to internal
cracking and chemical changes, concrete also loses
strength and stiffness as temperature increases, as seen in
Fig. 2. Since concrete has much lower thermal conductivity
than steel, a concrete encasement is often used as a fire
protection for steel. The degradation of structural materials’
stiffness and strength at high temperatures may, in some
incidents, cause the structure to collapse under severe fire
conditions."

http://www.ceric.net/kssc/KSSC_3_2007_7_3_227 (C).pdf

Interesting how engineers the world over agree that fire is bad in steel framed buildings and can cause collapse....and no credible engineers or engineering associations agree with twoofer OPINIONS.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273682 Jun 26, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
"Behavior of Steel-framed Buildings in a Fire"
"All common building materials lose strength when
heated to high temperatures. Figs. 1 and 2 show the
deterioration of steel and concrete mechanical properties
with increasing temperatures. Although steel does not
melt below 1,500oC, at a temperature of around 600oC, its
yield strength declines to about one-third of its yield
strength at ambient temperature. At 800oC, its yield
strength is reduced to 11%, and at 900oC, to 6%. The
elastic modulus of steel is similarly reduced with increasing
temperatures, but at a higher rate. Due to internal
cracking and chemical changes, concrete also loses
strength and stiffness as temperature increases, as seen in
Fig. 2. Since concrete has much lower thermal conductivity
than steel, a concrete encasement is often used as a fire
protection for steel. The degradation of structural materials’
stiffness and strength at high temperatures may, in some
incidents, cause the structure to collapse under severe fire
conditions."
http://www.ceric.net/kssc/KSSC_3_2007_7_3_227 (C).pdf
Interesting how engineers the world over agree that fire is bad in steel framed buildings and can cause collapse....and no credible engineers or engineering associations agree with twoofer OPINIONS.
The primary reason tilt up construction requires glue beams instead of metal tusses is the fact that metal fails but wood glue beams don't. In one test, a large beam and a comparable metal I-beam were subjected to a prolonged fire, hot enough to cause the I-beam to lose it's strength and fail to hold it's load. The heavy timber was still able to hold the load.(Western Woods Use)

"After 20 minutes of fire exposure, the deflection rate increased rapidly until it had reached 35 1/2 inches in 29 minutes. The temperature near the steel at this time was 1422 deg F. Although the steel supported panel fell into the test chamber after 30 minutes of exposure, it is evident that its structural integrity was in doubt long before this."

"The wood beam continued to support its full design load, throughout the test, with a maximum deflections of only 2 1/4 inches at 30 minutes. The uniform deflection rate of the wood beam demonstrates the dependability of heavy timber framing under fire conditions."

"t the conclusion of the test, the wood beam was sawed through at a representative section, revealing a depth of char penetration of approximately 3/4 -inch on each side and 5/8 I-inch on the bottom.... Thus, after 30 minutes of fire exposure, during which temperatures in excess of 1500 deg. F. were recorded, 75 per cent of the original wood section remained undamaged and the beam continued to support its full design load."

WESTERN WOODS USE BOOK, 2nd ed. p. 280-283.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#273683 Jun 26, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
"Behavior of Steel-framed Buildings in a Fire"
"All common building materials lose strength when
heated to high temperatures. Figs. 1 and 2 show the
deterioration of steel and concrete mechanical properties
with increasing temperatures. Although steel does not
melt below 1,500oC, at a temperature of around 600oC, its
yield strength declines to about one-third of its yield
strength at ambient temperature. At 800oC, its yield
strength is reduced to 11%, and at 900oC, to 6%. The
elastic modulus of steel is similarly reduced with increasing
temperatures, but at a higher rate. Due to internal
cracking and chemical changes, concrete also loses
strength and stiffness as temperature increases, as seen in
Fig. 2. Since concrete has much lower thermal conductivity
than steel, a concrete encasement is often used as a fire
protection for steel. The degradation of structural materials’
stiffness and strength at high temperatures may, in some
incidents, cause the structure to collapse under severe fire
conditions."
http://www.ceric.net/kssc/KSSC_3_2007_7_3_227 (C).pdf
Interesting how engineers the world over agree that fire is bad in steel framed buildings and can cause collapse....and no credible engineers or engineering associations agree with twoofer OPINIONS.
And over 2,000 architects and engineers says no highrise building has ever totally collapsed due to fire.

.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#273684 Jun 26, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
"Behavior of Steel-framed Buildings in a Fire"
"All common building materials lose strength when
heated to high temperatures. Figs. 1 and 2 show the
deterioration of steel and concrete mechanical properties
with increasing temperatures. Although steel does not
melt below 1,500oC, at a temperature of around 600oC, its
yield strength declines to about one-third of its yield
strength at ambient temperature. At 800oC, its yield
strength is reduced to 11%, and at 900oC, to 6%. The
elastic modulus of steel is similarly reduced with increasing
temperatures, but at a higher rate. Due to internal
cracking and chemical changes, concrete also loses
strength and stiffness as temperature increases, as seen in
Fig. 2. Since concrete has much lower thermal conductivity
than steel, a concrete encasement is often used as a fire
protection for steel. The degradation of structural materials’
stiffness and strength at high temperatures may, in some
incidents, cause the structure to collapse under severe fire
conditions."
http://www.ceric.net/kssc/KSSC_3_2007_7_3_227 (C).pdf
Interesting how engineers the world over agree that fire is bad in steel framed buildings and can cause collapse....and no credible engineers or engineering associations agree with twoofer OPINIONS.
Interesting... "CAN cause collapse"
That is NOT saying that it has ever happened.
And it's not specifying if it CAN be a total collapse or a partial collapse.
You're sources doesn't say what you want it too.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273685 Jun 26, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
And over 2,000 architects and engineers says no highrise building has ever totally collapsed due to fire.
.
Appeal to false inference fallacy.

Those people have no experience with the 9/11 structures. Their opinions are totally Irrelevant, but you already know that.
onemale

Charleston, IL

#273686 Jun 26, 2014
Porkpie Hat wrote:
"Behavior of Steel-framed Buildings in a Fire"
"All common building materials lose strength when
heated to high temperatures. Figs. 1 and 2 show the
deterioration of steel and concrete mechanical properties
with increasing temperatures. Although steel does not
melt below 1,500oC, at a temperature of around 600oC, its
yield strength declines to about one-third of its yield
strength at ambient temperature. At 800oC, its yield
strength is reduced to 11%, and at 900oC, to 6%. The
elastic modulus of steel is similarly reduced with increasing
temperatures, but at a higher rate. Due to internal
cracking and chemical changes, concrete also loses
strength and stiffness as temperature increases, as seen in
Fig. 2. Since concrete has much lower thermal conductivity
than steel, a concrete encasement is often used as a fire
protection for steel. The degradation of structural materials’
stiffness and strength at high temperatures may, in some
incidents, cause the structure to collapse under severe fire
conditions."
http://www.ceric.net/kssc/KSSC_3_2007_7_3_227 (C).pdf
Interesting how engineers the world over agree that fire is bad in steel framed buildings and can cause collapse....and no credible engineers or engineering associations agree with twoofer OPINIONS.
Assuming normal office fires can weaken steel beams...
it wouldn't drag down all of the 47 massive vertical core columns.
You're talking about much lighter floor beams.
I'm talking about much heavier vertical beams.

onemale

Charleston, IL

#273687 Jun 26, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Appeal to false inference fallacy.
Those people have no experience with the 9/11 structures. Their opinions are totally Irrelevant, but you already know that.
So what are your credentials???
What is your degree in architecture design and constructional engineering???
Your post is irrelvent.

“One For the Money”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#273688 Jun 26, 2014
Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners.

In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

google-1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

Property-Boeing 707-320
Fuel capacity - 23,000 gallons
Max takeoff weight-328,060 lbs
Empty weight 137,562 lbs
Wingspan 145.75 ft
Wing area - 3010 ft^2
Length -152.92 ft
Cruise speed -607 mph

----------

Proprty-Boeing 767-200

Wingspan-156.08 ft
Fuel capacity-23,980 gallons
Max takeoff weight-395,000 lbs
Empty weight-179,080 lbs
wing area -3050 ft^2
Length-159.17 ft
Cruise speed-530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.

Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft

The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
Mandela

South Perth, Australia

#273689 Jun 26, 2014
>
>
>
Pease Tell me about any sizable building which has collapsed in its own footprint
without it being rigged in a controlled demolition format......
just one will do .....??
thanks

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273690 Jun 26, 2014
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
So what are your credentials???
What is your degree in architecture design and constructional engineering???
Your post is irrelvent.
ad hominem BS as usual.

I have both common sense and over 50 years experience in the building trades. What are your credentials?
Mandela

South Perth, Australia

#273691 Jun 26, 2014
>
>
>
Ooooh yes ........and while you are at it .......tell me about building 7...
You know the smaller one which suffered no hits

which managed to fall down so perfectly "in its own footprint" perhaps in sympathy wit the other 2

>
>

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273692 Jun 26, 2014
Mandela wrote:
>
>
>
Pease Tell me about any sizable building which has collapsed in its own footprint
without it being rigged in a controlled demolition format......
just one will do .....??
thanks
What building in the WTC collapsed in its own footprint?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273693 Jun 26, 2014
-Web wrote:
Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners.
In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.
google-1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
Property-Boeing 707-320
Fuel capacity - 23,000 gallons
Max takeoff weight-328,060 lbs
Empty weight 137,562 lbs
Wingspan 145.75 ft
Wing area - 3010 ft^2
Length -152.92 ft
Cruise speed -607 mph
----------
Proprty-Boeing 767-200
Wingspan-156.08 ft
Fuel capacity-23,980 gallons
Max takeoff weight-395,000 lbs
Empty weight-179,080 lbs
wing area -3050 ft^2
Length-159.17 ft
Cruise speed-530 mph
Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.
Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft
The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
False. No test was made. The buildings were not designed to survive a full speed crash. What's more, buildings are designed only to remain standing long enough to evacuate tenants.

Ever heard of engineering failures? OTOH, given all the circumstances, the buildings did remain standing for a rather long time.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#273694 Jun 26, 2014
Mandela wrote:
>
>
>
Ooooh yes ........and while you are at it .......tell me about building 7...
You know the smaller one which suffered no hits
which managed to fall down so perfectly "in its own footprint" perhaps in sympathy wit the other 2
>
>
OK. Turn off YouRube and go to this link for actual facts rather than sensational crap for dupes.

http://debunking911.com/
Mandela

South Perth, Australia

#273695 Jun 26, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
From the very beginning, before any investigation was concluded, anyone who mentioned the possibility of government involvement in the act of 9/11 was fired from their jobs. This set the precedent and caused a great professional silence to occur around the world. If you wish to do business with America, you will justify our official 9/11 narrative or be quiet.
This smear campaign is still be conducted.
Which is why
Insults Are Easier
>

Not surprising is it .....
>
Given the Zionist involvement "the zip lip and/or be deleted routine"
would be standard procedure...

wouldn't it .......??
>
>
Fly On The Wall

United States

#273696 Jun 27, 2014
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Learn the methods of disinfo, then you can determine who is practicing it here.
http://m.youtube.com/watch...
Then watch them attack the source, because
Insults Are Easier
Apparently you have taught yourself well.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min New Age Spiritual... 641,055
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Buck Crick 37,258
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 13 min Just Think 104,559
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 19 min Rider on the Storm 969,819
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 23 min WasteWater 18,635
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 40 min LAWEST100 618,283
Play "end of the word" part 2 52 min WasteWater 1,697
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr good advice 44,267
More from around the web