Investigate 9/11 part II (if we're not all 9/11'd out)

[JanH]

Original thread here

oh no - i wanted to be 1000th person

Well keep this one going and then you can have it on here instead

yoo-hooooooo!

just going to see if I've missed Bush admitting everything on the other thread

oooh do I get a prize?

Will this ever end? I cant see this ever stopping, we shall clog MN

My word!

The fire in the towers was supposed to have been exceedingly hot...so hot it melted all the steel and caused the building to collapse.
We are talking very hot right.
I have found a photo of a woman standing in the hole the plane left in the North Tower...looking out of it...there are several people photographed in the building where the hole is...the level where the plane went in.
If it is hot enough to create this intense heat which melts through 47 inner support steel girders how can people be seen walking around?

.....It was also reported that in actual fact the sprinkler systems were activated, survivors had confirmed this and water was present in the stairwells....
That would of cooled it down..no?

Well it might have, and it might not, burning jet fuel is shockingly hot. It might have just evaporated in some parts if it was hot enough.

I've seen that photo, it's very sad.

Me too, jools - it was on one of the sites I've looked at today.

I worked in WTC1 for a few months in 1981, in a north-facing office on the 79th floor - whoever was in that office on 9/11 could have seen the plane approaching. It was so horrible imagining how it must have felt being there

I can't even bear to think about how awful it must have been. That it was bad enough to jump! I had eaten in The restraunt on the top floor on several occasions and I can't imagine how scared I would have had to have been to jump.

I've never been to America at all so it must be weird to have been in the building and know what it was like. I did live in a 'high' rise flat (10th floor) when first married. Lordy, my knees turned to jelly looking out of the window from only 10 floors up - I can't get my head around anything higher and then being in so desperate a situation as to have to jump.

Am not going to be around much because I need to get organised for my trip to the States and NZ. Not sure if you all want to keep talking about 9/11, but there is something I want to say before I "mostly" bog off.

"Conspiracy" aside

Iraq body count estimated between

52563 and 58148

• that is minimum and maximum reported , take at look at this

New York 9/11 body count

2752

This post is somewhat devoted to Uwila. I remember reading that you voted for George Bush in the last elections. When you say you are "truly baffled at the possibility the some of you truly believe the things you are typing" That statement is a reflection of how your worldview supports "sanctioned" murder of much larger numbers

So really it is not so baffling when you appreciate that reality is just your worldview. Perhaps we are all evoling to be different species of human?

Iraq bodycount website

Thats interesting Pap

Its very sad the whole affair....
I am glad a few of you have seen the photo I mean...I was saddened by it which is why I didn't want to start links...I have been looking at archives of still photos of all sorts of angles, buildings, people etc....It is only when you see these crystal clear, magnificantly taken photo's it all becomes very chilling. Very Very Interesting though all the same.

You know...I have spent sooooooo long now thinking of this...I wake up and think about it...and usually dh and I go to bed discussing it (he is very pleased I have finally taken an interest...and we have a great common interest now!)

We have been going over things..and it hit me the other night...
I am beginning to doubt that the US Government planted explosives to Coincide with the Attacks. I don't know enough about how much info the government were given on these forthcomming attacks...

If the government were indeed prewarned on the attacks...had messages...decoded messages or whatever...then the messages they had found or were given would have got to have been concrete...
I do not feel they could risk filling these three buildings full of explosives...and chemicals capable of bringing the buildings down....unless they were definate the planes were going to hit...and when they were going to hit.

What if they had gone to those lengths...and the planes hit somewhere else??? Or it was a bluff and the planes hit at a later date...could they risk it?? If the buildings were detinated in any other way then they would have some explaining to do...

I can only think that If it was the case...and they did go to these lengths..then a)they were absolutely sure the planes would hit...and roughly when they would hit... or

b)They had a back up plan....they would detinate the buildings anyway...and blame this on a terrorist attack??
(They would probably have left the crime scene wide open for investigation then wouldn't they!!!!!!!)

More interstingly though...than my rambling thoughts...

It is over 5 years since this happened...and the haven't caught OBL...I wonder how hard they must be looking!

. It never became hot enough to 'melt' the steel. It became hot enough to deforem the steel. I keep typing this and no-one seems to take any notice of it.

When a gas is heated it expants, rapidly and flows. It would flow down counduits etc, and would not distribute evenetly.

I keep typing this and people keep ignoring it too.

two scientific 'facts' which keep on getting ignored, because they don't fit in with your ideas of what happened.

Oh amd aviation fuel doesn't have to be very hot to vapotise, it is far more eaily evaporated that petrol because its moecules are smaller. Another bit of science to ignore.

and still no answer to the question, if this was a set up, why did they set up the wrong organisation?

My take on it, if I was forced to believe the US government were somehow complicit in the whole event(?) would be that they had intelligence but did not act on it (a la Bletchley Park).

I offered my own theory on the other thread that the terrorists had bombs/explosives/henchmen planted within the building already, and primed for action on the 11th. I don't see why this is anymore unlikely than flying planes into the two towers. So their plan from the outset was to crash the planes then demolish the buildings - Maximum impact, maximum damage.

This idea may support the demolition of WTC7 much later in the day (this one by the US themselves, if there was time to do it, I wouldn't know ) WTC7 of course housed all those government departments and probably a lot of secrets.

I've not even been thinking about the other planes because my own quandry has been over the manner of the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings.

mb - I'm getting your messages it just that we don't comment on them all. My problem with explanation that heat caused the collapse is that there are so many 'experts' saying that this cannot be so, explaining the physics as they go - not that I understand physics.

Also if the collapse is purely heat related why the total pulverisation of the concrete? Not one sold block of concrete?

no, it isn't totaly heat realted. A bloody great big amount of kinetic energy was fed into the building as well. I've poosted this and also ignored by people.

Ah well, I'm used to being ignored, I'm a teacher

also the pulverisation happened because a bloody great big heavy laver of the buliding fell on the next one down, and so on. The physics of this is explained in a link I possted....aldo ignored.

You are right , the phsics is hard to understand, but you can't just kiss it off because of that! . Otherwise you are saying, 'It can't have happened that way, because I don't understand the scinece, so it must have been a consracy'

I don't *fully understand nuclear fusion, but that doesn't mean I should start thinking that the sun is really powered by Duracell

Ah....Jools I hadn't seen your posts on the other thread which highlightd your own theory.....
That is something I hadn't thought of...I can see your point there...

MB I like your Duracel comment!!!!!! Very well put!
I am listening to you MB...I can't give you an answer you though because I don't have one...thats what is keeping me still thinking about this blinkin thing!

Have you read the NIST Report?
Whole load of questions clearly answered...by research compiled from 900 odd scientists.
Only thing is this is a series of questions that are related to the Government's version of events
The Government hasn't allowed such research to be made on any alternative version of events...handy!!!!!!!!

Interestingly the NIST Report for WTC 7 is still being compiled!!!! 5 years on...
What could be so complicated about WTC 7 I wonder....

Yes but some of the physics (experts) says the opposite to what you're saying!

Does black smoke indicate poor oxygen and therefore a poor fire? (excuse my crap regurgitation of what I have read!)
Does aviation fuel burn very quickly? Could the ensuing ignition of office stuff stoked a fire to those very great temperatures required to buckle steel?

I don't believe that even though that was a very great building there would be NO solid blocks of concrete at all. I mean one of the towers - the top peice was unaffected, therefore all the steel still in place kind of holding it together. It tilted at the start of the collapse in one solid peice. Yes it fell a very great height but I^ still have a problem that there was nothing but dust at the bottom.