Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

I think the only theory that covers all the possibilities is that the *planes* were full of super thermite. That's what the hijackers were actually doing - they were up front complaining to the flight attendants that all the overhead bins were full of these odd-looking handbags labelled "Property of US Government", and there was nowhere to stow their duty-free.

This answers the big questions on all sides - it explains how all that thermite got into the building, and it explains how a few thousand tons of aircraft moving at high speed with enormous kinetic energy could do anything more than bounce off the side of the WTC towers like sparrows hitting a window.

Thanks a hell of a lot, now I feel guilty for bursting out with laughter while watching the special with my gf. I've now booked my one way ticket to hell.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by jammies

I think the only theory that covers all the possibilities is that the *planes* were full of super thermite. That's what the hijackers were actually doing - they were up front complaining to the flight attendants that all the overhead bins were full of these odd-looking handbags labelled "Property of US Government", and there was nowhere to stow their duty-free.

This answers the big questions on all sides - it explains how all that thermite got into the building, and it explains how a few thousand tons of aircraft moving at high speed with enormous kinetic energy could do anything more than bounce off the side of the WTC towers like sparrows hitting a window.

My God

and

God is imaginary...

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

Evidence please. Please provide evidence that the design team specifically designed the towers to take multiple impacts from fully loaded 707's at full velocity?

I was summarizing the first 10 minutes of the film photon. Watch it. They interviewed one of the engineers involved in the design, and he said they specifically designed the building to take a 707 impact. This was taken into consideration after the plane that hit the empire state building years before (was it 1945?)



Even 600 degrees is enough to compromise the steel involved. You can clearly see on many, many photos pictures of the sides of the building sagging in as a result of the sagging of the compromised trusses and the bowing of the perimeter columns. These happen slowly over an extended period of time. On multiple floors. Hardly the result of demolition with magic nano-thermite.

If 600 degree heat compromises steel to the point of collapse, then many office fires would have taken high rise buildings down.....

[yads]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If 600 degree heat compromises steel to the point of collapse, then many office fires would have taken high rise buildings down.....

Most office towers are not built from entirely steel structures.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If 600 degree heat compromises steel to the point of collapse, then many office fires would have taken high rise buildings down.....

By all means show us a highrise fire remotely simular to the WTC's.

And by remotely I mean where multiple floors get chopped to hell and 40,000 litres of fuel explode and pour into to them.

My goodness

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I was summarizing the first 10 minutes of the film photon. Watch it. They interviewed one of the engineers involved in the design, and he said they specifically designed the building to take a 707 impact. This was taken into consideration after the plane that hit the empire state building years before (was it 1945?)

So one person said one thing in an interview, and that's good enough for you, but thousands of people work on a report and it's all a big cover up... This is a good example of confirmation bias.

People's memories aren't like digital cameras, people forget things, or remember them incorrectly, or remember things that didn't happen; this is a fact.

If it was designed to withstand such a hit, then the design review should be easy to produce. So produce it. Again, provide evidence that it was designed for that.

Which video is the interview in, and at what time? What's his name?

It seems as if the actual calculations done with regard to a 707 impact weren't an actual design consideration, but rather a calculation done after the fact. But even those don't have any remaining copies, and while the one that did them recalls doing them, others don't remember seeing the report. It appears that the report was done for a plane speed of 180mph, not the full speed.

There's no evidence that the towers were designed the way you claim.

The design nor the calculations regarding the tower withstanding the impact also did not take the fires into account.

And at the end of all that, the towers DID withstand the impact. What they did not do was withstand the impact and the subsequent fires.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/art...towers/page/2/

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If 600 degree heat compromises steel to the point of collapse, then many office fires would have taken high rise buildings down.....

Once again your question so oversimplifies things as to render it meaningless with respect to reality. Your question implies that all office buildings are built the same way the twin towers were; clearly not the case.

Read the post after the one you replied to.

[mikey_the_redneck]

photon..........

They interviewed an old geezer who was part of the ORIGINAL design team for the WTC towers......I do not remember the name. Like I said, if you are skeptical, go to youtube and search for "9/11 Mysteries". It is broken into ten parts........watch part one. It is only 10 minutes...

Okay....his name is Les Robertson at about the 4:20 mark.

[CaptainCrunch]

True but if you look what Les Robertson has said is that they studied the impact but didn't take into account the fuel load and its effect, and what the fire damage would do.

Page 31 also talks about the bomber that struck the Empire State building and why it was completely different from the World Trade Center.

You should actually read the whole article, it does an excellent job of refuting the bomb theories and demolitions theories.





page 31

http://books.google.ca/books?id=3C7J...age&q=&f=false

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Okay....his name is Les Robertson at about the 4:20 mark.

[photon]

Les Robertson, the same one in the link I provided.

Les Robertson who said that the assumption was that the 707 would be going 180mph, not full speed. Does that video mention that part? Does the video talk about the significant difference in kinetic energy between a 707 going 180mph that's used up most of it's fuel and on landing (Les Robertson's basis for his calculations), and a fully loaded 707 going full speed? I didn't watch the video, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they didn't.

Les Robertson who said that they didn't take the fire from such an impact into an account at all?

Les Robertson who's comments imply he thought that the towers performed BETTER than expected by staying up longer than the designs would have implied?

See, there's this thing called quote mining, taking quotes from someone out of context to support something they didn't say. Seems you were taken in by some clever quote mining.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

Les Robertson, the same one in the link I provided.

Les Robertson who said that the assumption was that the 707 would be going 180mph, not full speed. Does that video mention that part? Does the video talk about the significant difference in kinetic energy between a 707 going 180mph that's used up most of it's fuel and on landing (Les Robertson's basis for his calculations), and a fully loaded 707 going full speed? I didn't watch the video, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they didn't.

Les Robertson who said that they didn't take the fire from such an impact into an account at all?

Les Robertson who's comments imply he thought that the towers performed BETTER than expected by staying up longer than the designs would have implied?

See, there's this thing called quote mining, taking quotes from someone out of context to support something they didn't say. Seems you were taken in by some clever quote mining.

Kinda of like the photo mining that Dylan Avery did in loose change with the airplane parts.

"Yes there were no airplane parts at the Pentagon", except in the pictures that he didn't use which had copious airplane parts.

I would like to see a lawyer building a court case where he heavily edits information, tosses out anthing that doesn't back his case and then plays the denial game when the rest of the evidence comes out.

[Gozer]

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would like to see a lawyer building a court case where he heavily edits information, tosses out anthing that doesn't back his case and then plays the denial game when the rest of the evidence comes out.

Ah, yes. The backbone of my profession. *sigh*

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

True but if you look what Les Robertson has said is that they studied the impact but didn't take into account the fuel load and its effect, and what the fire damage would do.

Page 31 also talks about the bomber that struck the Empire State building and why it was completely different from the World Trade Center.

You should actually read the whole article, it does an excellent job of refuting the bomb theories and demolitions theories.





page 31

http://books.google.ca/books?id=3C7J...age&q=&f=false

Yes, that part about the plane fuel was in the film actually. I got the impression that they considered planes crashing into high rise buildings in the twin tower design because of the Empire State Building incident. They did not really compare the two incidents, because of course they are vastly different.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its interesting comparing the b-25 that crashed into the empire state building with the 707's that crashed into the World trade center.

B-25

wingspan 67 feet
gross weight 33,000 pounds loaded
total stand alone fuel capacity was about 670 pounds with the possibility of another 300 with outriggers.
max speed 275 miles per hour

Boeing 707

wing span 130 feet
gross weight 160,000 pounds
fuel capacity of about 23000 gallons
cruising speed 550 miles per hour.

a 707 hitting the empire state building might have done equivalent damage to what was done to the world trade center

[arsenal]

No 707's hit the WTC.
One was a 767-222 (UA F175), the other was a 767-223ER(AA F11).

i know you are confused with all this talk of 707's, B25's, Giant Gorillas.. etc.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by arsenal

No 707's hit the WTC.
One was a 767-222 (UA F175), the other was a 767-223ER(AA F11).

i know you are confused with all this talk of 707's, B25's, Giant Gorillas.. etc.

Its been a long day.

overall the specs look similar with the exception of a 170 foot wing span, carries 23000 gallons of fuel, Gross weight is huge at 450000 lbs with passengers.

I was just doing a comparison

[arsenal]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1920944

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Giant Gorillas.. etc.

Titano!?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Titano!?

what? no you crazy man. We are talking about real actual things.. not stuff made up in someones head in a crazy universe.