All 911 conspiracy went to trash...

[Herrmannek]

If tanker can take down a highway, plane can take a skyscraper
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f7_1177918905

[Ivo]

On a related note I always wanted to know why Bin Laden is always filmed doing his "bigger" speaches in a cave. I know there is significance in this imagery, does anyway here know what it is???

And pls no flaming cause I can see them already.

[ShotOver]

On a related note I always wanted to know why Bin Laden is always filmed doing his "bigger" speaches in a cave. I know there is significance in this imagery, does anyway here know what it is???

And pls no flaming cause I can see them already.

Because he lives in one? :|

[cover2]

On a related note I always wanted to know why Bin Laden is always filmed doing his "bigger" speaches in a cave. I know there is significance in this imagery, does anyway here know what it is???

And pls no flaming cause I can see them already.


Because he's at the bottom of the Grand Canyon in all those videos.

[cover2]

If tanker can take down a highway, plane can take a skyscraper
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f7_1177918905


I'm sure the conspiracy believers will have some sort of a come-back. But I was thinking the same thing when I heard this on the news yesterday.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If tanker can take down a highway, plane can take a skyscraper
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f7_1177918905

x2 - I was thinking the same thing. Which is kind of sad, since it kind of shows we have so many people living in denial.

[Hollis]

When I was a little kid, my dad was teaching fire fighting at US naval base atr TI, Calif. I asked about fighting fires, "What was there to burn?" He laugh and even said steel burns when it is hot enough.

[big_les]

With the twin towers, the steel didn't need to burn, or even melt. Just lose strength and bend; which is what happened in the 800deg fires. You then have an unavoidable collapse.

[Invisigoth]

From a truck/highway to a plane/scyscraper? Slight inferential leap there? :roll:

[HR24]

From a truck/highway to a plane/scyscraper? Slight inferential leap there? :roll:

Nope, I think the thinking is along the lines of fuel/concrete/steal/fire/heat. :roll: at your :roll:

[Firetxmi]

Nope, I think the thinking is along the lines of fuel/concrete/steal/fire/heat.

*I do not buy into the conspiracy theories*

With that said, it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Even two couches will burn at different rates/intensities in the same environment.

[Dakota435]

From a truck/highway to a plane/scyscraper? Slight inferential leap there? :roll:

Talk to any firefighter and he will tell you that steel structures in buildings regularly buckle and collapse. Steel loses most of its strength at the point where it starts to go red, which is around 900F.

[HR24]

*I do not buy into the conspiracy theories*

With that said, it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Even two couches will burn at different rates/intensities in the same environment.

My brother is a firefighter as well (17 years) and he has said the same thing.

You're a firefighter/ems Firetxmi, so you would have a better understanding of this than most here. WOuldn't jet fuel, combined with all of the sh*t that could burn in the WTC towers, plus the fact that the towers acted like air funnels to feed the flames burn a wee bit brighter than what happened in Oakland?

[Firetxmi]

My brother is a firefighter as well (17 years) and he has said the same thing.

You're a firefighter/ems Firetxmi, so you would have a better understanding of this than most here. WOuldn't jet fuel, combined with all of the sh*t that could burn in the WTC towers, plus the fact that the towers acted like air funnels to feed the flames burn a wee bit brighter than what happened in Oakland?

I would say so. The "Fire load" (the amount of material that is available to burn in a situation) was much greater in the WTC's.

I have studied the 9/11 WTC attacks in depth in the multitude of classes I have taken on fire/terrorist related subjects. After all of them (most of which were not funded/taught by the gov.) I cannot buy into the "alternate" theories.

[Dakota435]

I would say so. The "Fire load" (the amount of material that is available to burn in a situation) was much greater in the WTC's.

I have studied the 9/11 WTC attacks in depth in the multitude of classes I have taken on fire/terrorist related subjects. After all of them (most of which were not funded/taught by the gov.) I cannot buy into the "alternate" theories.

Glad to hear that man. A chum at work had the best reason for the layperson to reject the "thruthers". Basically the fact that the conspiracy would have to involve thousands and thousands of people, from Boeing employees to FAA employees to FBI agents and on and on, and every single one of them has kept the secret perfectly for the last 6 years. Just ain't on.

[Herrmannek]

From a truck/highway to a plane/scyscraper? Slight inferential leap there? :roll:
Not at all. You see conspirators fallacy in logic is that they after examining just handful of examples of construction surviving a fire say: "WTCs can't be brought down with a tank of plane fuel smashed into them" . With is wrong, sinful and unscientific... You can't say you can't get 6 when rolling dice after rolling dice hundred of times and not getting six at all. On other hand when you roll dice once and get 6 you can make statement that with proper conditions dice roll can give 6. And this is what I do:

What I say after looking at this incident, is that is quite possible, maybe even very probable for a steel-concrete construction to fail under such enormous fire....

[usm2b]

From a truck/highway to a plane/scyscraper? Slight inferential leap there? :roll:

I agree.

That turd who used a bunny cage and and candle to prove the WTC couldn't have possibly been brought down by the airplane had the right idea. Now that is good qualitative reasoning. To assume if a tanker can bring down a highway that a plane can take down a skyscraper is absurd.

[pascalywood]

i doubt fire caused the overpass to fall. here in quebec we had one that fell not too long ago and there was no fire or anything. the concrete was falling appart and the steel rods were rusty like my english


edit: maybe the fire caused the overpass to fall, just saying that we had a similar case and no fire was involved

[Mr.K]

If tanker can take down a highway, plane can take a skyscraper
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f7_1177918905

I got scarier (old) news, here in Quebec highways collapse on their own!

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Highway_overpass_collapses_near_Montreal

It's easier to blame the fire, this way there is no need to spend funds inspecting other structures. Everything is A-ok

[ltrowley]

i suspect we will hear nothing but deafening silence from the concpiracy brigade over this. oh, it doesnt matter, there were thermite bombs on the girders anyway :roll: and a guy holding his ears and a giant piece of string attached to the ground floor pillars

[mojoVA]

the fact that steel may lose it's strength at 800 deg F doesn't explain why a crash above the 90th floor would cause the ENTIRE building to collapse. No conspiracy theorist here just think that there may be more to the scenario than some "hot" steel.

[nagant_m44]

i doubt fire caused the overpass to fall. here in quebec we had one that fell not too long ago and there was no fire or anything. the concrete was falling appart and the steel rods were rusty like my english


edit: maybe the fire caused the overpass to fall, just saying that we had a similar case and no fire was involved


yea because old concrete and rust causes steel to melt:roll:

[GoNavy]

the fact that steel may lose it's strength at 800 deg F doesn't explain why a crash above the 90th floor would cause the ENTIRE building to collapse. No conspiracy theorist here just think that there may be more to the scenario than some "hot" steel.

I AGREE!

This bridge was OBVIOUSLY brought down by high-explosives as another Bush administration's attempt to cover up 9/11 and to make it seem plausible that fire could bring down steel and concrete.

/sarcasm

[D.U.C.K.S.]

I have to admit that the connection between collapsing bridge and skyscrapper is very poor. Reasoning in style 'if a tanker can take down a bridge, then a jet can take down a skyscraper' is, from scientific point of view, pathetic at best.

What really bugs me about all the wars between conspiracy supporters and deniers is that it is deniers who carry the burden of the proof, because it is scientifically impossible to prove that something could not have happened. Conspiracy theory followers do nothing but raise doubts about official theory in their very right to do so. And unless the officially theory is proven (which I don't think it is), they will remain in their positions and I see nothing wrong with that.

[Herrmannek]

I have to admit that the connection between collapsing bridge and skyscrapper is very poor. Reasoning in style 'if a tanker can take down a bridge, then a jet can take down a skyscraper' is, from scientific point of view, pathetic at best.

Still benefit of the doubt is swinging my way...AFAIK Truck didn't hit the overpass, all damage was a direct result of burning spilled oil... And tell me whats poor about connection... Weren't all three constructions steel and concrete? Wasn't there a tanker full of burning fuel under all tree constructions? was two of them additionally damaged by impact of the planes while first wasn't? Didn't impact of the planes teared fire insulating foam from the towers' metal bars, while concrete protecting steel was still on place in case of overpass? Was fire in towers confined compared to open fire under overpass? Did anyone reported damage or ageing problems from any of the three constructions? And so on... IMHO its far from pathetic...

[ltrowley]

i agree that the connections amy be weak at best, but nevertheless, the two incidents are linked by heated/weakened steel with (relatively) similar results.

as for the argument why a collapse at the top of the towers resulted in the collapse of the entire (WTC) building. (I'm sure this has been done to death) but perhaps the weakening and collapse of the upper structure put undue stress on the floors below. with each collapsing floor exponentionally increasing the load on the one below, it is not hard to see how the whole building collapsed. no references, no theory, just my humble opinion.

[Firetxmi]

Still benefit of the doubt is swinging my way...AFAIK Truck didn't hit the overpass, all damage was a direct result of burning spilled oil... And tell me whats poor about connection... Weren't all three constructions steel and concrete? Wasn't there a tanker full of burning fuel under all tree constructions? was two of them additionally damaged by impact of the planes while first wasn't? Didn't impact of the planes teared fire insulating foam from the towers' metal bars, while concrete protecting steel was still on place in case of overpass? Was fire in towers confined compared to open fire under overpass? Did anyone reported damage or ageing problems from any of the three constructions? And so on... IMHO its far from pathetic...

Read my previous posts and you will understand why it is a poor analogy.

[Herrmannek]

Read my previous posts and you will understand why it is a poor analogy.

You refer to the two coaches post?
Its truth. On other hand you can burn to dust any two given* coaches with the bucket of gasoline. Maybe they will burn differently and maybe you will need to pour gas in a different pattern... but the origins and effect will the same: dusted coach and empty gas bucket. While I agree that overpass and skyscraper burn and collapse differently. Its now quite safe for me to say that a tanker of fuel that when burned in "natural" still specific for the construction type way can take down a skyscraper or the overpass. But I'm not talking about specifics, there are universities do that. On the abstract level I see no holes in theory.





*to not ridicule with the all stainless steel park benches :)

[cover2]

There have been numerous cases of fire destroying bridges, and this is just the latest example. One that springs to my mind was in Philadelphia in the early 90s. Someone had been illegally dumping old tires beneath an elevated portion of I-95, and when they caught fire one summer day, the entire road above melted away. I-95 was re-routed through/around Philly for close to a year while they fixed it. And what was the road made from? Steel-reinforced concrete.

I put NO credence to any of these conspiracy theories. We all saw the planes hit the buildings, after all! And for the person who said there's no explanation for why a plane that hits around floor 90 brought down a whole building, I think someone else above already answered that: once one floor was weakened, the floor below had to pick up all that stress,and so on and so on. That's why the building that was hit later collapsed first, b/c it was hit much lower and therefore the first weakened floor had to hold up more of the building, and could not.

Conspiracy theorists give too much credit to Bush, or somone, for being very crafty. Bush and his people are not that smart. Not to mention all the people that would have to be in on it. No one where I work can keep a secret at all. There's no way this secret could be kept.

[Firetxmi]

You refer to the two coaches post?
Its truth. On other hand you can burn to dust any two given* coaches with the bucket of gasoline. Maybe they will burn differently and maybe you will need to pour gas in a different pattern... but the origins and effect will the same: dusted coach and empty gas bucket. While I agree that overpass and skyscraper burn and collapse differently. Its now quite safe for me to say that a tanker of fuel that when burned in "natural" still specific for the construction type way can take down a skyscraper or the overpass. But I'm not talking about specifics, there are universities do that. On the abstract level I see no holes in theory.





*to not ridicule with the all stainless steel park benches :)


While as an abstract theory it may have credence, it is still a poor analogy. You can't look at it abstractly because, like you said, give the right conditions just about everything will burn- and neither burned within a vacuum. It is like saying a house burns when gasoline is used as an accelerant thus a bridge will burn with an accelerant. While it holds water, there are other factors that contribute to its flammability, and the time/way it burns.

All I am saying is that I wouldn't use the bridge v. skyscraper to support any theories (either way).

With that said, the conspiracy theorists need to look at the scientific side of it as well.

[Shellshock1918]

I'm sure the conspiracy believers will have some sort of a come-back. But I was thinking the same thing when I heard this on the news yesterday.

lol right you are.

www.infowars.com

[AgentX]

Basically the fact that the conspiracy would have to involve thousands and thousands of people, from Boeing employees to FAA employees to FBI agents and on and on, and every single one of them has kept the secret perfectly for the last 6 years. Just ain't on.
I have to disagree. Given the kind of stunts CIA pulls over abroad, it's not entirely impossible to fabricate/infiltrate an Islamic terrorist group, then train a few nutjobs for a suicide attack, give them a practise session (IC-814), and then make it happen. Then, you can always reveal your agents to other guys, have them beheaded (Pearl?), launch an attack and kill others with the information too. That leaves only a few with the secret.

I'm not implying that it happened this way, but thinking that it cannot happen is only ignoring the possible.

[loganinkosovo]

Glad to hear that man. A chum at work had the best reason for the layperson to reject the "thruthers". Basically the fact that the conspiracy would have to involve thousands and thousands of people, from Boeing employees to FAA employees to FBI agents and on and on, and every single one of them has kept the secret perfectly for the last 6 years. Just ain't on.

Definately not the way all our top secrets and battle plans seem to slide out of washington on expressways these days......."Leaky" Lahey comes to mind....

[Kroforit]

If tanker can take down a highway, plane can take a skyscraper
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f7_1177918905


Do you live in US? 1/3 of all US college kids think that twin towers were blown up by George Bush, and thats only college kids.

[seraosha]

People are idiots.

This has been established long before 9-11.
Area 51, Bigfoot, Bermuda Triangle, "Peace in our Time"

That's just the last century and by no means inclusive.
People would rather believe it was an inside job, that it was somehow staged in advance then believe that a bunch of people, for their own reasons, planned/executed and succesfully pulled off the greatest terrorist attacks to date. My personal opinion is that the belief that 9-11 was some kind of conspiracy has racist roots. The inability of some folks to believe that "camel-jockeys" & "towel-heads" could pull it off on their own, without some shadow government assistance.

Whatever. Go back for more Koolaid, morons.

[Atlantic Friend]

Glad to hear that man. A chum at work had the best reason for the layperson to reject the "thruthers". Basically the fact that the conspiracy would have to involve thousands and thousands of people, from Boeing employees to FAA employees to FBI agents and on and on, and every single one of them has kept the secret perfectly for the last 6 years. Just ain't on.

Spot on, Dakota.

It is one of these cases where people should use Occam's razor to slash down their wrists before spewing ridiculous conspiracy theories. When you see secrets known by no more than a dozen persons are leaked to the press within months, the idea of a huge super-duper-monster conspiracy involving thousands is laughable. Gosh, it would not even make for an entertaining B-movie.