Loose Change-9-11-01-DISCUSS

[ConElite]

So if it wasn't an airplane that hit the pentagon, the 2 world trade towers, and the field in Pennsylvania, what happened to the people on the 4 missing planes? Oh let me guess, they are being held it Gitmo or some other secret base that we have on the moon.

"Loose Change" talks about that too!

[Steel2686]

I call BS. Yeah there is Security measures they have to take, but I highly higly doubt that one simple video out of all the vidoes that have what really happened would hurt us in any way. No reason to show us? We as people of this country have the right to know whats going on in the country. I know I dont stand alone even on this board that would be interested in viewing the actual videos of the Pentagon on 9/11.

Why would the security video show anything different than what we've seen? A plane definitely hit the building. There were several witnesses. I just don't understand the whole conspiracy I guess.

[MunsonGTA]

So about the Pre-Explosions you can see. You say that there is air in the building and it has to go somewhere. Yet when the plane hit, There was Service elevator shafts that Jet fueled explosions occured which caused windows to break and Huge sections of marble to be pushed off the walls but, your telling me that Air was NOT able to do the same? I dont know.
They have Documentation of people saying as well as firefighters saying that you heard a large number of "bombs" all contant, and sounded like it was planned. Now tell me why in all that is mighty would firefighters lie about something like that.

did you watch the videos i posted the links for? there was one person that said he heard a 2nd explosion, not a bomb. i don't get the rest of your post. it seems like you're basically contradicting yourself, "Jet fueled explosions occured", couldn't that be these so called "bombs" you're referring to?

[MunsonGTA]

Why would the security video show anything different than what we've seen? A plane definitely hit the building. There were several witnesses. I just don't understand the whole conspiracy I guess.

i don't understand it either. just as joe said, if a missle hit the building, there would have been a real small entry hole and a large exit hole. not to mention all the people that would have physically seen the missle coming at the building, but they didn't see a missle, they saw a plane full of people.

[ConElite]

A That much heat and pressure would have collapsed the supports and the suddent shift of weight caused by ONE collapse, would casue a cascade effect that would bring them all down in a suddent rush.

Manufacturers of the Metal used in the Twin Towers stated that the grade used in the structures were designed to handle Much higher temp.'s than the jet fuel was capible of producing for a much longer time than what the towers experienced. A couple days later, they retracted their statements saying they weakened b/c of the heat. Why the retraction?

[ConElite]

did you watch the videos i posted the links for? there was one person that said he heard a 2nd explosion, not a bomb. i don't get the rest of your post. it seems like you're basically contradicting yourself, "Jet fueled explosions occured", couldn't that be these so called "bombs" you're referring to?

I understand that but reports show that people heard a number (Anywhere from 10-20) consistant "Bombs" as the building started to fall. Jet Fuel? I dont think so buddy. Thats just idiotic.

And no I have not seen the link videos (Our work computers are a little out-dated )

[MunsonGTA]

I understand that but reports show that people heard a number (Anywhere from 10-20) consistant "Bombs" as the building started to fall. Jet Fuel? I dont think so buddy. Thats just idiotic.

And no I have not seen the link videos (Our work computers are a little out-dated )

well watch the videos and then get back to me. until then you've only seen one side, the conspiracy side.

[MunsonGTA]

Manufacturers of the Metal used in the Twin Towers stated that the grade used in the structures were designed to handle Much higher temp.'s than the jet fuel was capible of producing for a much longer time than what the towers experienced. A couple days later, they retracted their statements saying they weakened b/c of the heat. Why the retraction?

the firing proofing was blown off from impact. the metal actually melts around 2k degrees, the fire burned around 1200-1400 degrees. it doesn't take the metal melting to cause a failure. if the metal has 50% strength, couldn't that cause a failure? yes it could, and it did. basically what you're saying is this, a piece of wood laying on it's side is 100% strength, a piece of wood laying flat is 50% strength, you expect them to hold the same maximum weight. sorry buddy, it's not happening.

[Joe 1320]

I understand that but reports show that people heard a number (Anywhere from 10-20) consistant "Bombs" as the building started to fall. Jet Fuel? I dont think so buddy. Thats just idiotic.

And no I have not seen the link videos (Our work computers are a little out-dated )

Have you ever heard a load bearing member snap? It sounds like a gunshot if the support is small. A large support would sound like explosions. Listen to how lound the snap of a wooden ruler when broken. multiply that mass by thousands and the resulting energy released makes alot of noise.

One day about 20 years ago, I was working in a steel yard for a company that sold steel and iron, as well as pipes of all materials and fittings. This is heavy industrial stuff. I saw a palate of large PVC pipe fall from 20 feet. When it hit the ground, the steel bands popped and sounded like explosions. people came running from a block away, they heard the noise and thought there was some kind of accident.


The sound of the supports failing would have been just like explosions.

[MunsonGTA]

Have you ever heard a load bearing member snap? It sounds like a gunshot if the support is small. A large support would sound like explosions. Listen to how lound the snap of a wooden ruler when broken. multiply that mass by thousands and the resulting energy released makes alot of noise.

One day about 20 years ago, I was working in a steel yard for a company that sold steel and iron, as well as pipes of all materials and fittings. This is heavy industrial stuff. I saw a palate of large PVC pipe fall from 20 feet. When it hit the ground, the steel bands popped and sounded like explosions. people came running from a block away, they heard the noise and thought there was some kind of accident.


The sound of the supports failing would have been just like explosions.

you're a damn smart guy joe. you know it, i know it. it's basically useless though, no matter what evidence we provide, they come up with another excuse or just blow it off and avoid what we say. i worked in a machine shop that made parts for extrusion machines. one part of the process was to use a hydraulic press and straighten the screws that we made for the machines. one day i saw a 12 ft solid steel screw that was 6 inches in diameter break in half under the stress from the press, talk about a hell of a loud noise. i can just imagine what a huge structural beam would sound like if it snapped in two.

[ConElite]

you're a damn smart guy joe. you know it, i know it. it's basically useless though, no matter what evidence we provide, they come up with another excuse or just blow it off and avoid what we say.

Goes both ways.

Man What I would do to sit with u guys in a room, Play that movie and have you "explain" every single thing/make up an "excuse" to what the truth really is. ha ha ha

P.S. If you look at pictures of Ground Zero, A lot of those steel H beams bent under the pressure, Not snap.

[Christopherrr]

Manufacturers of the Metal used in the Twin Towers stated that the grade used in the structures were designed to handle Much higher temp.'s than the jet fuel was capible of producing for a much longer time than what the towers experienced. A couple days later, they retracted their statements saying they weakened b/c of the heat. Why the retraction?

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

well watch the videos and then get back to me. until then you've only seen one side, the conspiracy side.

agreed...some of the conspiricy claims are absurd.

[MunsonGTA]

Goes both ways.

Man What I would do to sit with u guys in a room, Play that movie and have you "explain" every single thing/make up an "excuse" to what the truth really is. ha ha ha

P.S. If you look at pictures of Ground Zero, A lot of those steel H beams bent under the pressure, Not snap.

you're right, alot did bend. but if 40 snapped out of hundreds in one single building, couldn't those beams that snapped be the "bombs" that people heard? espically since they would snap right before the start of the collapse. get back to me tonight when you've watched the links i've posted. i don't think it'll matter, since you seem pretty set on your ways that our own goverment did it to us, and not some crazy ass terrorist who took full responsibilty for what happened.

[sneitzel]

For those of you who don't know I work as a chemist.
There is one thing I have learned about science that they never taught me in school and that is there is a BIG difference between theory and real world.

I have seen this time and time again. We run test methods that should give us answer X. All the research is there, the procedure is based on accepted facts and on paper should work. But for some reason it doesn't.

What I'm getting at is alot of the time you never know what the outcome of an experiment is going to be until to do the experiment. That is why you do the experiment.

Transfer that over to the towers etc. On paper the beams SHOULD have been able to hold, the structure SHOULD have remained stable, the temperature SHOULD NOT have been hot enough to melt things etc. see what I'm saying?

No one could say for sure what would have happened to the towers if someone flew a plane into them. All we had were theories based on the best information available. Unwillingly, we have now "run" that experiment (sorry for that description...) and we know the outcome.

Sometimes we just cannot accurately predict the outcome of a situation. As an example, if I had only seen the pictures of Joe's car I would have said there was little chance that anyone survived that impact. Yet, here he is...

[Christopherrr]

They have Documentation of people saying as well as firefighters saying that you heard a large number of "bombs" all contant, and sounded like it was planned. Now tell me why in all that is mighty would firefighters lie about something like that.

I can't remember the show, but I think ABC or NBC aired a documentry of a firefighters in training...and they happened to the be the first called the twin towers...no rigged explosions cause they all were in the first floor when it started to collapse...this of course was all on video.