9/11 Conspiracy
9/11 Conspiracy
for anyone skeptical about 9/11 and conspiracy theory's should check this out very good watch and explains alot and makes you really think.
go download loose change from:
http://question911.com/links.php
well worth the watch!
go download loose change from:
http://question911.com/links.php
well worth the watch!
SR20 powered starion what have I done..... :P
-
- Woodwide
- Posts: 3133
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:24 pm
- Location: Gold Coast
- Contact:
I saw a clip online the other day from a documentary/dvd that had a name like "the Demolition of WTC" and championed the theory that the WTC tower were systematically "demolished" via a series of bombs/explosions that made them collapse, not the aviation fuel.
Please register your vehicle details on the AUSTRALIAN STARION REGISTRY <HERE>
1 x 3.2T
1 x 2.8T
3 x 2.6T's
1 x 2.0T
1 x 3.2T
1 x 2.8T
3 x 2.6T's
1 x 2.0T
Well I am sure that's not correct. However the security video of the plane hitting the pentagon seems not to show the airliner but something different. Providing that security video is for real of course.NXTIME wrote:I saw a clip online the other day from a documentary/dvd that had a name like "the Demolition of WTC" and championed the theory that the WTC tower were systematically "demolished" via a series of bombs/explosions that made them collapse, not the aviation fuel.
I think everything else seems pretty right except that.
I saw a documentry where they interviewed the guys that designed the towers. Once that level colapsed the impact weight of the upper floors hitting the lower floor was too great. And of course on the way down it would get heavier and heavier and magnify the effect on succesive lower floors.
-
- Mine is bigger than yours
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:25 am
- Location: Hobart
- AB
- Mine is bigger than yours
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:27 am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Wasn't the tower made from steel, not titanium?
Why would they use titanium in the first place? Towers don't need (to a point) a high strength to weight ratio like things that move do, like tanks and what not, and the cost would be much much greater.
Why would they use titanium in the first place? Towers don't need (to a point) a high strength to weight ratio like things that move do, like tanks and what not, and the cost would be much much greater.
Link wrote:the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.phpLink wrote: As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.
The above is true, but the steel colums where shattered not bent/twisted such as 'stiffness droppping' suggests from fireAB wrote:Wasn't the tower made from steel, not titanium?
Why would they use titanium in the first place? Towers don't need (to a point) a high strength to weight ratio like things that move do, like tanks and what not, and the cost would be much much greater.
Link wrote:the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloyhttp://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.phpLink wrote: As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.
- AB
- Mine is bigger than yours
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:27 am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Only the several floors that had very high temperature fires would be "bent/twisted from 'stiffness dropping'" though right? Its not like the entire building frame was heated up to 800+°C right?
The majority of the frame would 'shatter' because it was exposed to stresses far above what it was designed to withstand, which is to be expected from effectively dropping a 30 storey building from 10 or so metres high onto a 70 storey building, which is what would of happened when the burning floors gave way.
The majority of the frame would 'shatter' because it was exposed to stresses far above what it was designed to withstand, which is to be expected from effectively dropping a 30 storey building from 10 or so metres high onto a 70 storey building, which is what would of happened when the burning floors gave way.
That's exactly right.AB wrote:Only the several floors that had very high temperature fires would be "bent/twisted from 'stiffness dropping'" though right? Its not like the entire building frame was heated up to 800+°C right?
The majority of the frame would 'shatter' because it was exposed to stresses far above what it was designed to withstand, which is to be expected from effectively dropping a 30 storey building from 10 or so metres high onto a 70 storey building, which is what would of happened when the burning floors gave way.
How do you explain some secondary explosives which didn't detonate being found ?
How do you explain, especially with the second airplane, and internal explosion in the wtc appearing 1 sec before the plane actually hit where as they timed it right with the first plane ?
If you look at the melting points of steel compared to temperature of what fire can burn at optimal air mixture you would know something doesn't add up very easily.........
Then to make it worse other exampples ar given of where fires bigger then that of the wtc and the building only buckles a little......
And the most contradicting evidence is the infra-red shot of the ground after 5 days where there was heat patches still above the temperature of fire which points to some very powerful explosives.
How do you explain, especially with the second airplane, and internal explosion in the wtc appearing 1 sec before the plane actually hit where as they timed it right with the first plane ?
If you look at the melting points of steel compared to temperature of what fire can burn at optimal air mixture you would know something doesn't add up very easily.........
Then to make it worse other exampples ar given of where fires bigger then that of the wtc and the building only buckles a little......
And the most contradicting evidence is the infra-red shot of the ground after 5 days where there was heat patches still above the temperature of fire which points to some very powerful explosives.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests