Russian Skyscraper Fire vs. 9/11

[Ropo]

But the eyewitness Tim Timmerman said it crashed into the ground first. Regardless, because of the size of the plane and how low it crashed it would have dragged the lawn. Even a controlled landing would have ripped the shit out of the lawn. That lawn had no signs of distress whatsoever.

Teen twat trying argument with out any real knowledge about the matter? One eyewitness would solve this case? In fact there is plenty of pictures which shows exactly where and how plane hit the ground before hitting the wall of the pentagon. There was mobile generator unit at the front of the impact zone, and there is photos showing clear marks how the engine of the 757 hit this unit, there is hole in the fence etc. which has same radius than the engine. This video shows the most accurate theory how it happen, and it is 100% synchronized with the real evidences:

And the page with the hi-res pictures about the site, taken right after hit. You can clearly see parts of 757 in these pictures, but what is amazing, you can't find these pictures from the foil hat web site. I wonder why? Too much truth in them to start the allergic reaction?

http://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon-damage-immediate-aftermath-high-resolution-photos/

[Ropo]

"In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.

Go figure."

So... the guy who is legally liable if the structure was poorly designed....suggests it was a planned demolition?

That is nice, because while these buildings were build, there wasn't such thing as fleets of 747 flying around. How about the facts?  First flight February 9, 1969 Introduction January 22, 1970 with Pan Am. Towers were opened 1972, so 747 wasn't most common passenger jet at the time, it was newest. Most common planes were 707s and DC 8s, which are less than half of the size of the 767.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

[Ropo]

Firemen and law enforcement that heard bombs and explosions going off in the morning of September 11 are keeping their mouth shut about this...

No, they did not. They hear similiar noises and made the conclusion, that they were explosions. Furthermore, while there isn't any hard evidence about the explosions, not even a bit of the material which has been exploded, so what they were hearing? Noises of debris, falling from the 300 meters hight. No one can prove otherwise, because there isn't any evidence what so ever. Your have the same problem than they had. You think that explosions sound real life like they sound in movies, but they not. Want to see and hear explosion with the same magnitude than plane hitting the tower? Well, this is only less than half from that:

[Ropo]

Your just an angry conformist.  Their are hundreds of accounts of explosions, you just refuse the evidence.  it's hard to argue with someone who just denies what is shown to them, if I hold up a red card, and say this is a red card, you reply by saying if there was  a red card their would be evidence of a red card.  There is absolutely no way you can debate with someone who just denies everything he is presented.  

And Santa Claus is the perfect conspiracy, a bunch of people who have power (the adults) over a bunch of other people (children) agree to make something look like reality when in fact it is complete fiction.  The people who organised the conspiracy (the adults) know the truth about the matter, but they don't tell those they rule over because they enjoy fooling others and the sense of power this gives them,  Plus, the powerless people seem to enjoy it anyway, that is, until they discover the truth, then they realise how easy it is for others to dupe those who don't know any better.  Shit! For a minute there I thought I was describing 9/11.

So, if there is "are hundreds of accounts of explosions", how the hell you are unable to point even one out from the videos? Wan't to know why? Because there isn't one. This isn't any more complicated than that. You silly child, don't you understand that everything real has evidence about it. You shouldn't believe only what they say, but what they can prove by evidence, because facts always have evidences.

[Radical Plato]

That is nice, because while these buildings were build, there wasn't such thing as fleets of 747 flying around. How about the facts?  First flight February 9, 1969 Introduction January 22, 1970 with Pan Am. Towers were opened 1972, so 747 wasn't most common passenger jet at the time, it was newest. Most common planes were 707s and DC 8s, which are less than half of the size of the 767.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

LOL, you make some ridiculous claim and then provide a link that completely disproves what you just said.

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.



Considering a 707 can cruise at a speed 77mph faster than the 767,  a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

[Radical Plato]

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it."    Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

[Radical Plato]

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

[Ropo]

Molten Aluminium IS Silver you Idiot. It has a dull gray appearance  Better luck next time Angry Conformist.

Another proof that you are an idiot. Have you familair about the fact, that if we take the hunk of steel and het it up, it has many different colours before it melts, and after that, regarding the heat. It can be red hot (800°C), Yellow (900°C) and white hot (+1000°C) Colours above 1000°C cant be seen by the eye, they are too bright for the human eye. Aluminium is just same with the differense, because it reach that upper part of the colour chart while it has been melted. It has silverich colour in the temperatures under 700°C, but not higher temperatures. The reason why you can't find any pictures about that, is simple. In most of the pictures and the videos they melt aluminium to cast products, and they use temperatures suitable for that, meaning about ~+30°C above the melting temperature of 660°C. Higher temperatures are possible, like they show in this page:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/aluminum_glows.html

[Ropo]

LOL, you make some ridiculous claim and then provide a link that completely disproves what you just said.

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.



Considering a 707 can cruise at a speed 77mph faster than the 767,  a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

And this will prove what? I still doesn't see any evidence about the explosions, while there is "are hundreds of accounts" about them. I admit that "less than half" was an overstatement, but these planes are smaller and lighter, and that 10 tons of fuel is still crap. That 767 wasn't landing, it was just taken off, it wasn't on it's cruise speed but highest speed possible for the suicide hit, so your claims about the kinetic energy are same childish bullshit like all foil hat arguments. If there is "are hundreds of accounts of explosions", just tell me why you can't show even one? One video where is one real explosion is all what it takes, so how about it? Can you even explain why you can't  do this? There is loads of readers who want to know?

[Ropo]

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

"I believe" doesn't prove it will. Your argument is based on theory, and creator of the theory only believes that towers will stand the hit, so in other words he is guessing it will...do you know what? He was wrong.

[Ropo]

20 pages without any real evidence, with strange denial of the real world facts, and stupid foil hat bullshit. You, all the foil hat imbecile, please tell me what is the net income about that bullshit you believe? Is your life better with that shit rolling inside your head? No, it isn't. You basicly live in fear, and hate the world because of it and while doing this, you remain as imbeciles. When I look your user profiles, you seem to live trought this forum, you are here 24/7, so you haven't any real life at all. And that make you competent to argue against the real world facts? Sorry to say, but that only proves that you are brainless morons, like all foil hats in this world. In these past years no one has been able to prove anything about the explosions in the towers. No one has been able to prove anything about the missile hitting the pentagon. All the evidence clearly shows that official theory was right, but still there is you, the morons, who live in denial. How stupid is that?

[jwb]

"I believe" doesn't prove it will. Your argument is based on theory, and creator of the theory only believes that towers will stand the hit, so in other words he is guessing it will...do you know what? He was wrong.

bingo.

A 707 would have brought down those towers due to the one thing nobody thought about... The removal of the foam insulation due to the impact.

[Tapeworm]

Do we still have the Z board operational?

[Radical Plato]

"I believe" doesn't prove it will. Your argument is based on theory, and creator of the theory only believes that towers will stand the hit, so in other words he is guessing it will...do you know what? He was wrong.

No, he is sure it can sustain a plane hitting it, when he says I believe, he was talking about multiple planes. 

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

[Radical Plato]

20 pages without any real evidence, with strange denial of the real world facts, and stupid foil hat bullshit. You, all the foil hat imbecile, please tell me what is the net income about that bullshit you believe? Is your life better with that shit rolling inside your head? No, it isn't. You basicly live in fear, and hate the world because of it and while doing this, you remain as imbeciles. When I look your user profiles, you seem to live trought this forum, you are here 24/7, so you haven't any real life at all. And that make you competent to argue against the real world facts? Sorry to say, but that only proves that you are brainless morons, like all foil hats in this world. In these past years no one has been able to prove anything about the explosions in the towers. No one has been able to prove anything about the missile hitting the pentagon. All the evidence clearly shows that official theory was right, but still there is you, the morons, who live in denial. How stupid is that?

Your question is absurd, you area asking for video evidence of an explosion that was tucked away in parts of the building that aren't visible to anybody.  Please show me one photo of the wind, I don't believe people's witness account of it.  Also I would like a photo of gravity while you are at it, only then will I know it is real.  What a moron?

In your mind the hundreds of witnesses who talk about the explosions they heard are just fruitbats who like to lie for no good reason.  

Please tell me, When you hear thunder, do you deny it happened because you didn't see the lightning that caused it.

[Radical Plato]

20 pages without any real evidence, with strange denial of the real world facts.

Don't feel bad that you can't find any evidence to support your bizarre claims, that's why their is a conspiracy theory in the first place.

[Radical Plato]

That little stream of sparks out of one window is supposed to be explosives bringing down the building?

The spout of orange molten metal and rising white smoke emerging form the South Tower have the appearance of a thermite reaction.  Please enlighten us with your theory of what you think it is.

[jwb]

The spout of orange molten metal and rising white smoke emerging form the South Tower have the appearance of a thermite reaction.  Please enlighten us with your theory of what you think it is.

Mythbusters used a boatload of thermite and they couldn't even melt the roof pillars on an old sedan.

[Radical Plato]

Another proof that you are an idiot. Have you familair about the fact, that if we take the hunk of steel and het it up, it has many different colours before it melts, and after that, regarding the heat. It can be red hot (800°C), Yellow (900°C) and white hot (+1000°C) Colours above 1000°C cant be seen by the eye, they are too bright for the human eye. Aluminium is just same with the differense, because it reach that upper part of the colour chart while it has been melted. It has silverich colour in the temperatures under 700°C, but not higher temperatures. The reason why you can't find any pictures about that, is simple. In most of the pictures and the videos they melt aluminium to cast products, and they use temperatures suitable for that, meaning about ~+30°C above the melting temperature of 660°C. Higher temperatures are possible, like they show in this page:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/aluminum_glows.html

This is what aluminium looks like when melted.



Showing photos of Aluminium reflecting super heated glowing tungsten doesn't change the fact melted aluminium is silver.

[Radical Plato]

Mythbusters used a boatload of thermite and they couldn't even melt the roof pillars on an old sedan.

So sad, Mythbusters has so much resources and yet a curious engineer had no problem showing that thermate can cut steel.

[Ropo]

Your question is absurd, you area asking for video evidence of an explosion that was tucked away in parts of the building that aren't visible to anybody.  Please show me one photo of the wind, I don't believe people's witness account of it.  Also I would like a photo of gravity while you are at it, only then will I know it is real.  What a moron?

In your mind the hundreds of witnesses who talk about the explosions they heard are just fruitbats who like to lie for no good reason.  

Please tell me, When you hear thunder, do you deny it happened because you didn't see the lightning that caused it.

Tucked away? How? Read the blueprints, idiot, there isn't any space to hide tons of explosives in the space where the plane hit. You seem to be more ignorant fool that most of the idiots, because now you are denying that there were fire, smoke, dust, flying paper which all would be showing some indications, if there would been some kind of shock wave. Try to understand, those core columns are something more than some bread sticks, and cutting them by any fucking explosive would been impossible to hide. There would be thousands of dead just by flying glass. There were this meteorite in Russia and shock wave made by it hundreds of kilometers from any city, and more than thousand Russian get wounds by flying glass. Tons of explosives in middle of the Manhattan, and there is no flying glass at all? How the hell this happen? You claims are so childish, that I haven't seen anything as stupid than that even in the Finnish forums, where hangs out some real full time imbeciles. Did you have some head injuries when you were a infant? Father throws you to air and mother didn't catch you? There has to be some explanation for stupidity like that.

[Ropo]

Don't feel bad that you can't find any evidence to support your bizarre claims, that's why their is a conspiracy theory in the first place.

My bizarre claims? How it is bizarre to claim, that modern chemistry doesn't know any compounds capable to explosion, which could hang out 56 minutes in fire, because it is a fact the there isn't one. How it is bizarre to claim, that where is detonation of tons of explosives, there should be some physical evidence about the detonation. These claims isn't bizarre compared to that bullshit what you believe to be truth. They are based on common sense and the knowledge about the laws of physics, chemistry etc. You would have this knowledge if you would stayed in school, but now it is late, and no one can help you anymore, so you are doomed to be an idiot..

[tommywishbone]

Ropo, if someone believes in something that does not exsist, you won't be able to convince them that it does not exsist.

It's fairly simple; nineteen hardcore gang members stole some planes and crashed them.

[Ropo]

The spout of orange molten metal and rising white smoke emerging form the South Tower have the appearance of a thermite reaction.  Please enlighten us with your theory of what you think it is.

Do you have any experience about the termite? When it ignites, it form the superheated liquid which obeys a law of gravity. That's why it will not appear as red hot, but sparkling white hot, brighter than sun. There is no way in hell to get it appear in that colour, which using the colour chart means only 1000°C. When this molten metal were seen? More than half an hour before the collapse, which means that the top of the tower hangs in the air for half an hour, and then start to drop. For you it will be normal, but most of us doesn't think so.

[Ropo]

This is what aluminium looks like when melted.



Showing photos of Aluminium reflecting super heated glowing tungsten doesn't change the fact melted aluminium is silver.

Another proof that you are an idiot. Are you familair about the fact, that if we take the hunk of steel and heat it up, it has many different colours before it melts, and after that, regarding the heat. It can be red hot (800°C), Yellow (900°C) and white hot (+1000°C) Colours above 1000°C can't be seen by the eye, they are too bright for the human eye. Aluminium is just same with the differense, because it reach that upper part of the colour chart while it has been melted. It has silverich colour in the temperatures under 700°C, but not higher temperatures. The reason why you can't find any pictures about that, is simple. In most of the pictures and the videos they melt aluminium to cast products, and they use temperatures suitable for that, meaning about ~+30°C above the melting temperature of 660°C. Higher temperatures are possible, like in the fire, where nothing regulates the heat. Is this really too difficut for you to understand? What are you? Three years old?

Casting overheated aluminium, do it look silver?