On Sep 8, 8:50*am, Mike Plowman wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:34:57 +0100, "Light of Aria"

wrote:
This film was absolutely stunning to see. That fireman's reaction. The shock
and horror. The doom. The dozens of people hanging from the windows and then
jumping. The scale of the collapse and devastation. The confusion. The cloud
of totally safe non poisonous fatal toxic debris. The sheer gallantry and
heroism of the rescue workers.

How fatal was that announcement telling people to "remain calm stay at your
desks." Many who survived did because they ignored that order.


She genuinely had no idea that people, caught between burning or
suffocating to death or jumping to their deaths had jumped and that it
was all caught on film.

That situation would not have occurred if the architects and engineers
had done their job properly. High-rise buildings, where escape by
stairs is impractical, are required to have segregation to prevent the
spread of fire, and fire lifts, emergency lighting and other services
which will continue working no matter what, to allow escape.

Of course these won't help if the building suffers catastrophic
structural failure, but that had never happened before to a
skyscraper, and short of a nuclear explosion, is only going to happen
with the planned use of demolition charges throughout the structure...

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the 11th September
"attacks", look up the 'Reichstag Fire', we've been there before.

alexander.keys1 wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:50 am, Mike Plowman wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:34:57 +0100, "Light of Aria"

wrote:
This film was absolutely stunning to see. That fireman's reaction. The shock
and horror. The doom. The dozens of people hanging from the windows and then
jumping. The scale of the collapse and devastation. The confusion. The cloud
of totally safe non poisonous fatal toxic debris. The sheer gallantry and
heroism of the rescue workers.
How fatal was that announcement telling people to "remain calm stay at your
desks." Many who survived did because they ignored that order.

She genuinely had no idea that people, caught between burning or
suffocating to death or jumping to their deaths had jumped and that it
was all caught on film.

That situation would not have occurred if the architects and engineers
had done their job properly. High-rise buildings, where escape by
stairs is impractical, are required to have segregation to prevent the
spread of fire, and fire lifts, emergency lighting and other services
which will continue working no matter what, to allow escape.

Of course these won't help if the building suffers catastrophic
structural failure, but that had never happened before to a
skyscraper, and short of a nuclear explosion, is only going to happen
with the planned use of demolition charges throughout the structure...

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the 11th September
"attacks", look up the 'Reichstag Fire', we've been there before.




Speak for yourself, buffoon

The higher above GL you build the more dangerous it becomes ....

alexander.keys1 wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:50 am, Mike Plowman wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:34:57 +0100, "Light of Aria"

wrote:
This film was absolutely stunning to see. That fireman's reaction.
The shock and horror. The doom. The dozens of people hanging from
the windows and then jumping. The scale of the collapse and
devastation. The confusion. The cloud of totally safe non poisonous
fatal toxic debris. The sheer gallantry and heroism of the rescue
workers.

How fatal was that announcement telling people to "remain calm stay
at your desks." Many who survived did because they ignored that
order.


She genuinely had no idea that people, caught between burning or
suffocating to death or jumping to their deaths had jumped and that
it was all caught on film.

That situation would not have occurred if the architects and engineers
had done their job properly. High-rise buildings, where escape by
stairs is impractical, are required to have segregation to prevent the
spread of fire, and fire lifts, emergency lighting and other services
which will continue working no matter what, to allow escape.

Of course these won't help if the building suffers catastrophic
structural failure, but that had never happened before to a
skyscraper, and short of a nuclear explosion, is only going to happen
with the planned use of demolition charges throughout the structure...

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the 11th September
"attacks", look up the 'Reichstag Fire', we've been there before.

Actually, a tape found after the events explains them far better. It turns
out President Nixon left one of his tape recorders running after taping a
conversation about the faked moon landings you totally clueless ****ing
moron.

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided
to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street
and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it
on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make
sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents
of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy
the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then
just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put
Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it
were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us
incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got
a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since
everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex
from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to
anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak
into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs
and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the
buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much
greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No
one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers.
Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon
to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international
terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the
middle of f***ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will
not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of f***ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and
say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane.
It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are
hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a
missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a
plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in
frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's
sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though
we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is
that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account
for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave
more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to
investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any
good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about
Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good
reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our
military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an
attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals?
Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam,
Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA,
the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all
three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5,
the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky
and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't
a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated
$100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be
targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day
bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why
not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch
guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the
"Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "alexander.keys1"
saying something like:

Of course these won't help if the building suffers catastrophic
structural failure, but that had never happened before to a
skyscraper, and short of a nuclear explosion, is only going to happen
with the planned use of demolition charges throughout the structure...

Oh, **** off with your crazy ****** conspiracy theory.
****ing arshole.

"alexander.keys1" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 8:50 am, Mike Plowman wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:34:57 +0100, "Light of Aria"

wrote:
This film was absolutely stunning to see. That fireman's reaction. The
shock
and horror. The doom. The dozens of people hanging from the windows and
then
jumping. The scale of the collapse and devastation. The confusion. The
cloud
of totally safe non poisonous fatal toxic debris. The sheer gallantry and
heroism of the rescue workers.

How fatal was that announcement telling people to "remain calm stay at
your
desks." Many who survived did because they ignored that order.


She genuinely had no idea that people, caught between burning or
suffocating to death or jumping to their deaths had jumped and that it
was all caught on film.

That situation would not have occurred if the architects and engineers
had done their job properly. High-rise buildings, where escape by
stairs is impractical, are required to have segregation to prevent the
spread of fire, and fire lifts, emergency lighting and other services
which will continue working no matter what, to allow escape.

Of course these won't help if the building suffers catastrophic
structural failure, but that had never happened before to a
skyscraper, and short of a nuclear explosion, is only going to happen
with the planned use of demolition charges throughout the structure...

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the 11th September
"attacks", look up the 'Reichstag Fire', we've been there before.

It doesn't help when there is a controlled demolition as with 119.
A missile ht the Pentagon, one plane was shot down and another
building dealing with emergencies was surrounded in mystery.
Why would the Government deliberately kill so many people?
Did they really need this as an excuse to continue with a war?

I thought the film was rubbish.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "alexander.keys1"
saying something like:

Of course these won't help if the building suffers catastrophic
structural failure, but that had never happened before to a
skyscraper, and short of a nuclear explosion, is only going to happen
with the planned use of demolition charges throughout the structure...

Oh, **** off with your crazy ****** conspiracy theory.
****ing arshole.

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

On Sep 9, 12:31*pm, Yeti wrote:

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff

Jeff Lawrence wrote:

On Sep 9, 12:31*pm, Yeti wrote:

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.

Cheers
Jeff

It is now widely accepted that the attack on Pearl Harbour was
engineered by the Americans, by placing the Japanese in a position
with only one outcome, and ensuring the non-discovery of the progress
of their attack fleet by the 'vacant seas'order, which ordered all US
and allied shipping out of those waters.

IIRC a message saying something like "An attack may be expected at
about 8am your time" sat in the Commanader's in tray, which he fiddled
about with for an hour until the attack started.

--

from
Aero Spike
Resisting anarchy in usergroups by posting in text only
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009

Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, Yeti wrote:

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff


Granted - but here's the basics:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.

Something definately doesn't add up somewhere.

On 9 Sep, 13:58, Yeti wrote:
Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, Yeti wrote:

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff

Granted - but here's the basics:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.

Compared to what? The last time an airliner full of fuel flew into a
skyscraper?

Something definately doesn't add up somewhere.

.... which may just be that too many people are trying to make 2 + 2
equal 5.

On 9 Sep, 13:58, Yeti wrote:
Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, Yeti wrote:

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff

Granted - but here's the basics:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.


Let me see - two 90 ton airliners into two 500,000 ton
buildings...yes, that wreckage would be pretty easy to find...

--
Halmyre

On Sep 9, 2:58*pm, Yeti wrote:

No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.

So what? At least two of the planes were clearly seen to hit each of
the towers by many millions of people, that just cannot be denied.
Plenty of plane parts were found in the WTC rubble. Just as much
wreckage as was found in all the other similar instances. Although
there haven't been any other similar instances of course. Plane parts
matching the type of plane said to have hit the Pentagon were
certainly found inside that building. And the other plane almost
certainly crashed into that field. What exactly is your point?
Cheers
Jeff

Halmyre wrote:
On 9 Sep, 13:58, Yeti wrote:
Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, Yeti wrote:
Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.
Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff
Granted - but here's the basics:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.


Let me see - two 90 ton airliners into two 500,000 ton
buildings...yes, that wreckage would be pretty easy to find...

--
Halmyre

i wasn't referring to the WTC - there's thousands of witnesses, hundreds
of TV cameras there - that was clearly a pair of planes. And there was
wreckage in there.

I was referring to the field in Pennsylvania, specifially, and the "much
smaller than 757 fuselage size" hole in the side of the pentagon - with
not a single peice of plane outside.

On Sep 9, 3:34*pm, Yeti wrote:

I was referring to the field in Pennsylvania, specifially, and the "much
smaller than 757 fuselage size" hole in the side of the pentagon - with
not a single peice of plane outside.

Well, there were plenty of pieces found outside, all of which match
those found on a 757 apparently.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_Pentagon.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2141/debris2.jpg
But of course most of the pieces would be inside, that's where the
plane broke up.
Cheers
Jeff

On Sep 9, 3:11*pm, JohnB wrote:

... which may just be that too many people are trying to make 2 + 2
equal 5.

It's hard to take these conspiracists seriously when they keep coming
up with arguments like this one about the plane wreckage. Arguments
that have been easily been shown to be ridiculous time and time again.
Even now this Yeti is trying to make out that there were no parts
found outside the Pentagon when there are many photos disproving this,
which have been around since just after the incident happened. Or that
certain things shouldn't have happened the way they did when there is
no way of knowing exactly what should or shouldn't have happened
because such things have never happened before. The only way to know
for sure would be to build an exact replica of the towers, crash an
exact replica of the plane into them in exact the same way and see
what happens.
Cheers
Jeff

Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:11 pm, JohnB wrote:

... which may just be that too many people are trying to make 2 + 2
equal 5.

It's hard to take these conspiracists seriously when they keep coming
up with arguments like this one about the plane wreckage. Arguments
that have been easily been shown to be ridiculous time and time again.
Even now this Yeti is trying to make out that there were no parts
found outside the Pentagon when there are many photos disproving this,
which have been around since just after the incident happened. Or that
certain things shouldn't have happened the way they did when there is
no way of knowing exactly what should or shouldn't have happened
because such things have never happened before. The only way to know
for sure would be to build an exact replica of the towers, crash an
exact replica of the plane into them in exact the same way and see
what happens.
Cheers
Jeff

What parts were found outside the pentagon?

Given the size of the hole - how did the other parts make it INSIDE?

Actually - there is some evidence (anecdotal, like most on both sides of
this case) that the WTC was suceptable to fire damage - firstly, it was
built with central beams with concrete covered trusses in between them
and the outer sides (firefighter's motto - never trust a truss).

Secondly, there is video footage of an inspection of the trusses in the
towers from years before - showing several areas where the fire
retardant on them was either inadequate or non existant.

Like I said - I don't have the answers - just there's plenty of things
that don't add up.

On Sep 8, 10:13*pm, "Schrodinger" wrote:
Snipped entirely plausible meeting transcript ;-)

ROFLMAO!

Matt

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jeff Lawrence
wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:11*pm, JohnB wrote:

... which may just be that too many people are trying to make 2 + 2
equal 5.

It's hard to take these conspiracists seriously when they keep coming
up with arguments like this one about the plane wreckage. Arguments
that have been easily been shown to be ridiculous time and time again.
Even now this Yeti is trying to make out that there were no parts
found outside the Pentagon when there are many photos disproving this,
which have been around since just after the incident happened. Or that
certain things shouldn't have happened the way they did when there is
no way of knowing exactly what should or shouldn't have happened
because such things have never happened before. The only way to know
for sure would be to build an exact replica of the towers, crash an
exact replica of the plane into them in exact the same way and see
what happens.
Cheers
Jeff

Sssh, Someone at the BBC might read that and comission a second
seriesw of The Big Bang Theory.

Mike Plowman wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jeff Lawrence
wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:11 pm, JohnB wrote:

... which may just be that too many people are trying to make 2 + 2
equal 5.
It's hard to take these conspiracists seriously when they keep coming
up with arguments like this one about the plane wreckage. Arguments
that have been easily been shown to be ridiculous time and time again.
Even now this Yeti is trying to make out that there were no parts
found outside the Pentagon when there are many photos disproving this,
which have been around since just after the incident happened. Or that
certain things shouldn't have happened the way they did when there is
no way of knowing exactly what should or shouldn't have happened
because such things have never happened before. The only way to know
for sure would be to build an exact replica of the towers, crash an
exact replica of the plane into them in exact the same way and see
what happens.
Cheers
Jeff

Sssh, Someone at the BBC might read that and comission a second
seriesw of The Big Bang Theory.

I hope you're joking.

The Big Bang Theory was on channel 4, and there's already been a second
series - the third's coming soon.

Yeti wrote:
Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, Yeti wrote:

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff


Granted - but here's the basics:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

How many were first filled with JetA? How many had a fully loaded passenger
jet flown into a spot about 2/3 the way up, damaging structure and stripping
fire insulation from the steel supports?


No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.

Ever seen the film of a test where a jet fighter was driven into a concrete
block at 600 MPH? Nothing bigger than 5in across remained at the end.


Something definately doesn't add up somewhere.

--
Pierre Laplace: The telescope sweeps the skies without finding God.

Yeti wrote:
Halmyre wrote:
On 9 Sep, 13:58, Yeti wrote:
Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, Yeti wrote:
Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.
Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff
Granted - but here's the basics:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.


Let me see - two 90 ton airliners into two 500,000 ton
buildings...yes, that wreckage would be pretty easy to find...

--
Halmyre

i wasn't referring to the WTC - there's thousands of witnesses, hundreds
of TV cameras there - that was clearly a pair of planes. And there was
wreckage in there.

I was referring to the field in Pennsylvania, specifially, and the "much
smaller than 757 fuselage size" hole in the side of the pentagon - with
not a single peice of plane outside.

A plane in a powered vertical dive will be almost totally destroyed and
buried when it hits the ground; the bits most likely to remain above ground
are from the rear, the rudder for example. Even a plane as small as a
spitfire was found to create a hole up to 30 ft deep. If the ground is soft
or waterlogged, the hole will just fill up in a few hours.

--
'On the Origin of Species' by Darwin is available for free from
Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009

Most of 9/11 is readily explained.

WTC was a tube, with relatively poor adherence of fire protective
coatings. Sufficient columns were severed, extreme heat did the rest,
same reason "steel shed" universal beams fold like liquorice during
fires. Future high rise will rely on a concrete reinforced core so
fire rating in terms of structural collapse is vastly better.

The other buildings were unique construction re housing multiple TX re
substation and backup diesel storage.

The only peculiar part of 9/11 is why the military exercise was
delayed a day until 9/11.

The only peculiar part of Iraq invasion is that the New American
Century had called for it, and even Alan "Bubble Magoo" Greenspan
states the invasion was to realise oil assets that Saddam was letting
rot thereby producing an even worse oil spike & induced recession in a
credit bubble era "on Bush's watch" than we actually had. Plus of
course republican admin usually coincide with wars and democrat admin
usually coincide with deficit expansion. Bush of course managed to
expand everything in the wrong direction. He did something right
though, just can't remember what it is right now.

China is seizing much of Africa and cheap (& increasingly disgruntled)
labour re commodity reserves, along with now buying commodity
companies around the West. West meanwhile is not only ensuring energy
supply but agricultural supply via imperialism.

So nothing much changed then.

The only likely "viable" part of 9/11 is that someone or some in the
USA "looked the other way" re New American Century crowd. They needed
a fundamental change and historic Princeton/Cambridge thinking is you
never call for a war, you let events force the people to call for one.
You cry the people are being attacked. Nothing changed then, same
****, different era, different day.

Yeti wrote:
Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:31 pm, Yeti wrote:

Almost nothing the US Government says about 9/11 adds up.

Maybe, maybe not, who can really say as there is no precedent to
compare it to. But what they say still makes a hell of a lot more
sense than some of the crackpot conspiracy theories that are out
there.
Cheers
Jeff


Granted - but here's the basics:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.


********.

Happens all the time in industrial warehousing with flammable chemicals
inside.


Would happen all the time to any steel frame building if there wasn't 45
minute fire protection mandated.

IIRC it was about 45 minutes after the planes hit that the buildings
went down..



No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.


I canniot recall a plane crash leaving more, actually. A 5 storey mound
of rubble.


Something definately doesn't add up somewhere.


Have you ever in your life made anything add up? to the generally
recognised correct answer?

Mike Plowman wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Jeff Lawrence
wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:11 pm, JohnB wrote:

... which may just be that too many people are trying to make 2 + 2
equal 5.
It's hard to take these conspiracists seriously when they keep coming
up with arguments like this one about the plane wreckage. Arguments
that have been easily been shown to be ridiculous time and time again.
Even now this Yeti is trying to make out that there were no parts
found outside the Pentagon when there are many photos disproving this,
which have been around since just after the incident happened. Or that
certain things shouldn't have happened the way they did when there is
no way of knowing exactly what should or shouldn't have happened
because such things have never happened before. The only way to know
for sure would be to build an exact replica of the towers, crash an
exact replica of the plane into them in exact the same way and see
what happens.
Cheers
Jeff

Sssh, Someone at the BBC might read that and comission a second
seriesw of The Big Bang Theory.

Its already been modelled. It behaved as predicted and in accordance
with what happened.

Nomen Publicus wrote:

Ever seen the film of a test where a jet fighter was driven into a
concrete block at 600 MPH? Nothing bigger than 5in across remained at
the end.

At least my penis will survive intact.

"Yeti" wrote in message
...

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.


65,000 litres of aviation fuel


No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.

65,000 litres of aviation fuel

Something definately doesn't add up somewhere.

65,000 litres of aviation fuel + 400mph = a conspiracy theory

On Sep 10, 12:58 am, Yeti wrote:

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

In my job I often bend steel. I heat part of it up red hot with a
little flame and then I can bend it with my gloved hands, or I can
squash it with a hammer.
A steel framed building just has to get red hot and the steel will
bend.
A fire lasting half an hour would easily heat it red hot.
Nobody should have gone into those buildings after half an hour.

Matty F wrote:

A fire lasting half an hour would easily heat it red hot.
Nobody should have gone into those buildings after half an hour.

That's why the fire protection is intended to last for 45 minutes, to
give those that can time to get out.

--

Brian

and the outer sides (firefighter's motto - never trust a truss).

speshly a gang nailed one .......

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18866...images/15f.png

In article ,
Nomen Publicus wrote:
No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.

Ever seen the film of a test where a jet fighter was driven into a concrete
block at 600 MPH? Nothing bigger than 5in across remained at the end.

Was it this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlXHl_Suv8g

Francis

Francis Burton wrote:
In article ,
Nomen Publicus wrote:
No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.
Ever seen the film of a test where a jet fighter was driven into a concrete
block at 600 MPH? Nothing bigger than 5in across remained at the end.

Was it this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlXHl_Suv8g

Can't look at that now, but it was an F-4 and was part of an
investigation into the risks of an aircraft crashing into a nuclear
power plant.

--

Brian

No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.


********.

Happens all the time in industrial warehousing with flammable chemicals
inside.


Would happen all the time to any steel frame building if there wasn't 45
minute fire protection mandated.


A single storey building doesn't require any fire resistance .......

Brian Morrison wrote:
Francis Burton wrote:
In article ,
Nomen Publicus wrote:
No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.
Ever seen the film of a test where a jet fighter was driven into a concrete
block at 600 MPH? Nothing bigger than 5in across remained at the end.
Was it this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlXHl_Suv8g

Can't look at that now, but it was an F-4 and was part of an
investigation into the risks of an aircraft crashing into a nuclear
power plant.


You've surely seen the train (Class 55 I think it was, or a 45?)
ploughing into the UK nuclear flask?

You seen the subsequent claims from greenpeace that it was all rigged,
and part of a conspiracy? What utter crap.... :P

Francis Burton wrote:
In article ,
Nomen Publicus wrote:
No plane crash has ever left as little wreckage as any of these four
crashes that day.
Ever seen the film of a test where a jet fighter was driven into a concrete
block at 600 MPH? Nothing bigger than 5in across remained at the end.

Was it this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlXHl_Suv8g

Francis
Novel way to recycle obsolete aircraft....

Jimbo ... wrote:
No steel framed building has EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11, or
since. Yet we're expected to believe that at least THREE did that day.

********.

Happens all the time in industrial warehousing with flammable chemicals
inside.


Would happen all the time to any steel frame building if there wasn't 45
minute fire protection mandated.


A single storey building doesn't require any fire resistance .......



I think that is basically what I was saying.

"Yeti" wrote in message
...

Like I said - I don't have the answers

Well why not try to find some rather than just going on hearsay which is
what you seem to be doing. There is a huge amount of stuff available on the
internet, from both sides of the argument and much of it is actually quite
sensible. Although not much of that is on the conspiracy side though!
Cheers
Jeff

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:35:07 +0100, Yeti wrote:

Jeff Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:11 pm, JohnB wrote:

... which may just be that too many people are trying to make 2 + 2
equal 5.
It's hard to take these conspiracists seriously when they keep coming
up with arguments like this one about the plane wreckage. Arguments
that have been easily been shown to be ridiculous time and time again..
Even now this Yeti is trying to make out that there were no parts
found outside the Pentagon when there are many photos disproving this,
which have been around since just after the incident happened. Or that
certain things shouldn't have happened the way they did when there is
no way of knowing exactly what should or shouldn't have happened
because such things have never happened before. The only way to know
for sure would be to build an exact replica of the towers, crash an
exact replica of the plane into them in exact the same way and see
what happens.
Cheers
Jeff

What parts were found outside the pentagon?

Given the size of the hole - how did the other parts make it INSIDE?

Actually - there is some evidence (anecdotal, like most on both sides of
this case) that the WTC was suceptable to fire damage - firstly, it was
built with central beams with concrete covered trusses in between them
and the outer sides (firefighter's motto - never trust a truss).

Secondly, there is video footage of an inspection of the trusses in the
towers from years before - showing several areas where the fire
retardant on them was either inadequate or non existant.

Like I said - I don't have the answers - just there's plenty of things
that don't add up.


regarding the wtc, what you say about the trusses may be valid,
but it doesn't have anything to do with any of the conspiracy theories
--
Steve (3)

Brian Morrison wrote:
Matty F wrote:

A fire lasting half an hour would easily heat it red hot.
Nobody should have gone into those buildings after half an hour.

That's why the fire protection is intended to last for 45 minutes, to
give those that can time to get out.


Sadly though the impact force from a large airline was enough to shake
most of the fire protection loose as well. The original design specs
didnt allow for an aircraft at full speed hitting it - they went, quite
sensibly for a lost aircraft at approach speed hitting it by mistake and
engineered for that instead.

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:33:47 +0100, Chris Street
wrote:

Brian Morrison wrote:
Matty F wrote:

A fire lasting half an hour would easily heat it red hot.
Nobody should have gone into those buildings after half an hour.

That's why the fire protection is intended to last for 45 minutes, to
give those that can time to get out.


Sadly though the impact force from a large airline was enough to shake
most of the fire protection loose as well. The original design specs
didnt allow for an aircraft at full speed hitting it - they went, quite
sensibly for a lost aircraft at approach speed hitting it by mistake and
engineered for that instead.

There was an excellent documentary on a couple of years ago which
clearly showed why the towers fell, I wish they would repeat it.