BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories
09-11-2011, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 09-11-2011 10:41 PM by JazzRoc.)
RE: BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Thermate isn't required to explain the heat in the basement or the metal pouring from exactly where the wreckage of the aircraft lay in a roomful of fire.
Exotic (& successful) ways of packing thermate into column holes NEVER included the required insulation to prevent the FIRE from STARTING the thermate.
Indeed, the very argument that the steel is heat-conductive, is the argument PROVING that thermate couldn't have been laid.
Thermate or thermite, there's NO difference. Neither could have been used.
Opinion is all there is here.
The NIST Report isn't discussed.
That's the one about initial damage, initial loads and loads after impact damage, tower sag/slump, the detail of a progressing fire, thermal creep stress, load transfer via the top hat truss, expansion effects, flooring sag/slump, detaching floors, destabilized and buckling columns.
That's ENGINEERING conversation. Something which I and other engineers use on a daily basis.
Instead we are led to the "poised to collapse" point without mentioning ANY of the above points, where the two protagonists SNEER at NIST's refusal to go beyond the initial column failure, and into the world of the UNPREDICTABLE.
Quote:The pentagon explosion looks exactly like a HE explosionExcept a hundred times slower.
Quote:a better real time camera would prove that. That's why there is just a crappy slide show of a few frames ...No it wouldn't at all.
Did the Pentagon conspire to put a low-resolution one frame/sec security camera in a security camera position, do you think?
Quote:Your f4 phantom video does not show it "exploding" on contact.No, of course not.
It quietly moves radially away from the point of impact without the slightest sound.
Of course none of that would have been seen had it been carrying 24,000 pounds of kerosine as well.
Quote:the phantom is made out of aluminum mostlyThanks for the info.
However there are several flashes to be seen on the sunny day of this impact.
Quote:Same goes for the airplanes that allegedly hit the twin towers, they did not produce anything similar on impact to the pentagon explosion.Oh, yes they did. In fact flashes are visible in EVERY video that was taken that showed the impact face.
You could, of course, be wondering why a 450 mph 70-ton passenger plane didn't so easily penetrate a reinforced concrete wall backed up by reinforced concrete pillars and floors, than a 560 mph 80-ton passenger plane confronted by hollow steel box beams 5/16" thick and fourteen inches square and lightweight foam concrete floors 4" thick?
(09-10-2011 02:45 PM)sekular Wrote: The wtc 1 and 2 impacts are consistent with a tomahawk going faster than the speed of sound. I am guessing as i am not a missile expert at all. But the wtc 1 and 2 damage is consistent with a large missile, most likely not from an aircraft. Either from a ship or from a land device. The pentagon however is more consistent with a missile from an aircraft, most likely a helicopter or a b52.You are guessing as you are not a missile expert at all. Thanks. Next.
Quote:But of course both sites (wtc and pentagon) had additional explosions. Both places has eye witness testimony of explosionsFires often lead to explosions.
Quote:and the secondary damage to the pentagon points towards explosives.What secondary damage?
Quote:Look how cleanly the building was damaged.That's a feature of the way the structure was made.
Quote:There was also the holes in the three rings that are not consistent with a missile or a plane which indicates that there was additional explosives or a missile from inside the court yard as well.Is that more opinion? Thanks.
Quote:I find it unlikely that a missile could travel through three of the rings and punch out on the other side, but I guess it could be possible.More possible than taking out the FIVE lamp posts before it got there, in a glorious zig-zag. Before it went on to etc.
That's not just brilliant programming, but a tough plane, er, missile, as well.
I've got a RANT for you:
STOP sucking START blowing
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories - JazzRoc - 09-11-2011 09:24 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)