It's a 9/11 conpiracy

Flying_Nun

Flying_Nun

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
537
Location
KLOU
Display Name
Display name:
Flying_Nun
It's a 9/11 conspiracy

The NYPD said Friday that it believes a piece of wreckage found Wednesday wedged between two buildings in lower Manhattan came from one of the jets that impacted the World Trade Center twelve years ago. According to a police spokesperson, the item was found by surveyors conducting an inspection of a lower Manhattan Islamic community center, and it is stamped with a Boeing part number.



The part is wedged in a narrow space between 51 Park Place and 50 Murray Street, which is the site of a mosque and Islamic community center made famous in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The NYPD secured the location as a crime scene as the medical examiner was called to evaluate the site and nearby soils for possible human remains. The part was found about three city blocks north of the former site of New York City's Twin Towers.


http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/twin_towers_boeing_landing_gear_nypd_found_911_208593-1.html
 
Last edited:
I wonder what took so long to find this.

If you really want to watch something watch.....Loose Change.....This will make you sick....I do not believe the people they interviewed lied so I really do not know what to believe...

But watch...Loose change and post your comments....
 
1600vw said:
I wonder what took so long to find this.

If you really want to watch something watch.....Loose Change.....This will make you sick....I do not believe the people they interviewed lied so I really do not know what to believe...

But watch...Loose change and post your comments....
Click to expand...

Those people wouldn't make up stories, but people working for the government would be willing to drop the buildings.

Also, did you know that the alien autopsies were real and the moon landings were fake?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Those people wouldn't make up stories, but people working for the government would be willing to drop the buildings.

Also, did you know that the alien autopsies were real and the moon landings were fake?
Click to expand...


Yes I have heard this but I would perfer to believe our goverment would never do this.

But then I watch things like Loose Change and it just scares the bajeeezers out of me..
 
Corpsmaide said:
Believe none of what you hear...and half of what you see.:skeptical:
Click to expand...
Good advice.
We're supposed to swallow stuff like Loose Change, (which was originally supposed to be a joke, according to the filmmakers, and probably still is), but we're supposed to dismiss all of the overwhelming evidence that it went down as covered by the media the day it happened.
Right. :rolleyes:
 
Brings up some very interesting points...

 
1600vw said:
I wonder what took so long to find this.

If you really want to watch something watch.....Loose Change.....This will make you sick....I do not believe the people they interviewed lied so I really do not know what to believe...

But watch...Loose change and post your comments....
Click to expand...

Loose change makes me sick, but for an entirely different reason. It sickens me that people are willing to string together out of context bull-spit together and that there are people dumb enough to believe them.
 
So what does finding a piece of wreckage from one of the planes that hit the WTC have to do with consipracies?
 
MadseasoN said:
So what does finding a piece of wreckage from one of the planes that hit the WTC have to do with consipracies?
Click to expand...
It can have plenty to do .... this is just this sort of news that you can use to spawn different theories - its was hidden there on purpose, how come it took so long to find it, etc, etc. Just read some of the entries on different worldwide forums already ... :mad2:
 
Last edited:
I remember watching a presentation by some professor shortly after 9/11. He raised some questions I honestly thought made sense. Like,

Why did the buildings burn to the point of collapse? The Jet A is hot enough to melt steel, but it would take a prolonged exposure to do it. The Jet A would have burned off quickly and not had the time required to melt steel or weaken it sufficiently.

Why did the buildings fall at the speed of a free fall object? Each floor should fall and collide with the next slowing it down a bit and making the total time longer than free fall. Yet the height is known and the time to fall measured and its free fall rate.

There were others but those two stand out. I'll have to watch loose change to see what that's about.
 
Captain said:
Why did the buildings burn to the point of collapse? The Jet A is hot enough to melt steel, but it would take a prolonged exposure to do it. The Jet A would have burned off quickly and not had the time required to melt steel or weaken it sufficiently.
Click to expand...

I think I remember reading something to the effect that it wasn't necessary for the steel to melt in order to become too weak to support the load. Also, my recollection is that the fires went on for quite some time before the collapses.

As for the speed of falling question, I haven't heard that one before, so I haven't had a chance to look into it.

So far, every 'inside job' argument that I've looked into has failed to stand up to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
I remember watching a presentation by some professor shortly after 9/11. He raised some questions I honestly thought made sense. Like,

Why did the buildings burn to the point of collapse? The Jet A is hot enough to melt steel, but it would take a prolonged exposure to do it. The Jet A would have burned off quickly and not had the time required to melt steel or weaken it sufficiently.

Why did the buildings fall at the speed of a free fall object? Each floor should fall and collide with the next slowing it down a bit and making the total time longer than free fall. Yet the height is known and the time to fall measured and its free fall rate.

There were others but those two stand out. I'll have to watch loose change to see what that's about.
Click to expand...

The answer to Q1 is that a substantial portion of the steel, both vertical and horizontal members, was destroyed/severed in the initial impact, leaving the building(s) standing by a very thin margin. The fire weakend the remaining structure (including relatively thin floor trusses) to the point of failure.

Q2? I'd verify the guy's premise that the building collapsed at that rate.
 
Here is a more detailed discussion of how the airplanes were able to bring down the buildings, from a post I wrote on the red board a few years ago:

...I have seen building demolition experts saying that the ground-based demolition theory is not plausible. I tend to agree with them, because I have seen documentaries that show the entensive preparations that are necessary. I don't see how it would be possible to drill hundreds of holes in the structural members of a building to set charges without the occupants noticing.

More to the point, here is a paper which explains in detail how it was possible for the aircraft to bring down those buildings. Note that the authors agree with you that the burning of jet fuel alone was not sufficient, but that observation alone is a very incomplete description of the mechanisms involved:

Bazant, Zdenek P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics (American Society of Civil Engineers) 133 (3): pp. 308–319.

Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the
steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely
not have led to overall collapse (Bažant and Zhou 2002a; NIST
2005). As generally accepted by the community of specialists in
structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a
few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the
failure scenario was as follows:
1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed
tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed,
and many more were significantly deflected. This
caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the
load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity
for some of them.
2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped,
many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed
by annealing studies of steel debris (NIST 2005) [the
structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength
already at 300°C, and about 85% at 600°C (NIST 2005);
and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above
450°C (e.g., Cottrell 1964, p. 299), especially in the columns
overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right
after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of
800°C, turned out to be groundless, but Bažant and Zhou’s
analysis did not depend on that].
3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced
viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The
catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter
columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of
these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory
out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral
deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential
thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redistribution
also diminished buckling strength.
4. The combination of seven effects—(1) Overstress of some
columns due to initial load redistribution; (2) overheating
due to loss of steel insulation; (3) drastic lowering of yield
limit and creep threshold by heat; (4) lateral deflections of
many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor
trusses; (5) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane
stiffness of sagging floors; (6) multistory bowing of some
columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude
less than it is for one-story buckling); and (7) local plastic
buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of
columns [Fig. 1(b)]. As a result, the upper part of the tower
fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height,
impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive
collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper
part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy that
could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing
in the lower part of the tower.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Captain said:
Each floor should fall and collide with the next slowing it down a bit and making the total time longer than free fall. .
Click to expand...
That is not true, the first top floors would collapse relatively slowly but then the process would accelerate because of weight that builds up with each collapsing floor, plus accumulation of kinetic energy. I don't think it has necessarily anything to do with the "free fall" speed but it may appear to be so fast.
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
It can have plenty to do .... this is just this sort of news that you can use to spawn different theories - its was hidden there on purpose, how come it took so long to find it, etc, etc. Just read some of the entries on different worldwide forums already ... :mad2:
Click to expand...

"The NYPD said Friday that it believes a piece of wreckage found Wednesday in a narrow space between two buildings in lower Manhattan came from one of the jets that impacted the World Trade Center twelve years ago..."

Since when is the NYPD an authority on aviation accidents?

I think I've heard just about every 911 theory and rebuttal since 9/12/2001. Including the 'official' theory that was released by the government appointed commission.
 
MadseasoN said:
Since when is the NYPD an authority on aviation accidents?
Click to expand...
And why does it have to be an "authority" to be able to say anything? Those with "authority" will have plenty of opportunity to have their say.
 
1600vw said:
Yes I have heard this but I would perfer to believe our goverment would never do this.

But then I watch things like Loose Change and it just scares the bajeeezers out of me..
Click to expand...

The most troubling thing about this thread is it reminds of the number of people who get their "news" from places like Comedy Central.
 
The airplanes flew into the buildings - that much is not disputed except by the most wing nutty of the wingnuts.

The fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel - but they burn hot enough to weaken it sufficiently that it failed to hold the load above it.

I spoke with PhD structural engineering professor long before 911 who explained to me that central core buildings are not the way to build skycrapers - his ideas came from the earthquake engineering he was doing to to make structures safer - he was a professor in CT being funded by Armenian charities and the Turkish government . . .

He idea was that in order to be safe in earthquakes and from the central core being compromised - his proposal was to brace the structures from the outside edges, so that it can move from side to side and up and down - he also showed me on a shake table a 12 tory structure with zero interior bracing and the floors braced at the outside could not be made to collapse - then he removed the bracing at the exterior on two sides - and put it in motion again - and the upper floors would not collapse either. They'd move alot -but until the material failed - it would not collapse.

He then put a traditionally constructed centrally supported buildign on the shake table - and in a 7.0 simulation, it started to fail because the central core was too rigid.

He then took a knife and cut away about 1/2 the central core 2/3 of the way up - and the after some really mlld shaking - the thing pancaked.

On Sept 11 I thought alot about that pancaking I saw on the shake table . . . he's now retired and his ideas never caught on. . .basically because architects never figured out a way to build the structure out of steel and concrete. . . and can't build a 100 story building out of wood.
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
And why does it have to be an "authority" to be able to say anything? Those with "authority" will have plenty of opportunity to have their say.
Click to expand...

There are several definitions for the word "authority", I've listed one below.

4. a. An accepted source of expert information or advice
 
Captain said:
I remember watching a presentation by some professor shortly after 9/11. He raised some questions I honestly thought made sense. Like,

Why did the buildings burn to the point of collapse? The Jet A is hot enough to melt steel, but it would take a prolonged exposure to do it. The Jet A would have burned off quickly and not had the time required to melt steel or weaken it sufficiently.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain this unrelated collapse of a steel strucure (highway overpass) caused by a burning gasoline (which burns faster than Jet A) tanker that burned for hours?
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20090716/METRO/907160424
 
To conspiracists, refuting evidence is never evidence...just another conspiracy.
 
Captain said:
Why did the buildings burn to the point of collapse? The Jet A is hot enough to melt steel, but it would take a prolonged exposure to do it. The Jet A would have burned off quickly and not had the time required to melt steel or weaken it sufficiently.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that in addition to the jet fuel, there were many other fuel sources for the post-crash fires in the impact zones: tons of paper, miles of plastic-insulated wiring, furniture, draperies, plastic fixtures and appliances, PVC pipes, carpeting, ruptured gas lines, human beings, etc.
Most floors of both towers were retrofitted with sprinkler systems over the years, but I'd imagine those were disabled immediately in the impact zones.


And the way the floor-supporting trusswork was basically hung from the core and the exterior columns, metal would not have to melt to cause floors to collapse.
You have to also consider that the first critical collapses probably involved floors that were not evenly supported on all sides- both aircraft did a lot of damage to several floors of each tower. It's not like these airliners neatly flew through the windows, came to rest, and started burning. The impacts themselves had a powerful explosive effect.

As for the rate of collapse: whatever floor gave way first, in both towers it came down with many tons of structure above it. I know objects accelerate in gravity at the same rate regardless of mass, but it stands to reason that the force of that additional mass crashing down onto the next intact floor would change things a bit.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
FTFY...
Click to expand...


I don't speak " Text" I have never " Text" anyone and won't...I do not text...

Showing my age I guess. I won't even answer a text message. If you want to speak to me call me. If I want to speak to you I will answer. If not leave message.
 
1600vw said:
I don't speak " Text" I have never " Text" anyone and won't...I do not text...

Showing my age I guess. I won't even answer a text message. If you want to speak to me call me. If I want to speak to you I will answer. If not leave message.
Click to expand...

It isn't a text. It is an acronym for "fixed that for you", generally used tongue in cheek. I thought all pilots loved acronyms!
 
ChrisK said:
It isn't a text. It is an acronym for "fixed that for you", generally used tongue in cheek. I thought all pilots loved acronyms!
Click to expand...

Because you understood that, you're obviously with "them" and part of the coverup.
 
Brad Z said:
To conspiracists, refuting evidence is never evidence...just another conspiracy.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that Captain is bringing up this 9/11 thing to cover up his part in spreading chemtrails while flying in Command Airspace as evidenced by his "places flown" map?
 
As for me the right aswer for the situations like 9/11 or Boston is "belive nothing until you have unbeatable proofs". by unbeatable proofs i mean the ones you will believe, not someone else, only you.
 
Last edited:
The funniest thing about all these conspiracy theories is the folks who scream about them and how the government is keeping them all a big secret the loudest are also the folks who scream that the government can't do anything right.
 
The last point about this current 9/11 kerfuffle . . . . if there is in fact rope on the landing gear, and if in fact the landing gear piece is from one of the 9/11 airplanes as verified by the serial numbers . . . . how did the people get it in the first place, how did they know that the part they found was from one of the subject airplanes and why did they wait until now to shove it down a crevice?

The much more likely explanation is that thi piece of gear has been sitting here since 9/11/2001, and the rope came from a fire rope or a safety rope inside the builidngs - either inside a fire ladder or a window washing unit safety rope . . .

the condition of the rope will clearly reveal if it has bee nsitting outside for 11.5 years -
 
steingar said:
The funniest thing about all these conspiracy theories is the folks who scream about them and how the government is keeping them all a big secret the loudest are also the folks who scream that the government can't do anything right.
Click to expand...

I haven't really noticed any correlation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top