Getting involved

Hey all, sorry if this thread is sorta in the wrong place.

I stumbled across this site actually looking up the conspiracys to do with sep.11th, thought it was about time i got involved!

Anyone want to show me the ropes if you get me!? I know a bit (things i've read on here etc) But I'm sure there is loads I have missed!

So anyone who would like to tell me the main things i need to know about september 11th, pentagon etc, i would be really gratefull!

Thanks in advance all.

CB x x x x x

For the Pentagon, check out the images in Jack the Tripper's post on this page. I'm not convinced of what hit the Pentagon, but that post has just shown me that it could not have been a 757. All this time on ATS posting about the WTC, and just now have I realized how b.s. the Pentagon story was, too.

For the WTC,

• Fires were not sufficient to cause collapse initiation.
  

Hydrocarbon fires (like in the WTC -- fueled by jet fuel, plastics, paper etc.) max out around a sustained 800 degrees Celsius. Every now and then there'll be a flashover, but those aren't sustained and don't last very long, and don't even raise the temperatures that significantly when they are.

The fires did not stay in any one place in the WTC Towers for any length of time. The fires moved from here to there, meaning that no single part of the burning floors were exposed to fire for the entire time. Further, the fires didn't last long to begin with. Other steel skyscraper fires have lasted over 1000% longer (13 hour fires if I'm not mistaken) and not suffered any real structural damage at all, and not even local collapses (Caracas Tower).

There was no significant heating to the WTC columns. Critical strength is not lost until steel is heated to 600 degrees Celsius. Steel will begin to glow in broad daylight at just over 400 degrees Celsius. None of the buildings' columns were glowing before collapse, so therefore none of the columns were even heated to 400 degrees Celsius. The NIST Report states that, of the columns they tested, none exceeded around 250 C. So the steel in the towers was definitely below 400 degrees C, and likely even below 250 C. Other tests on steel have shown that steel can generally only be heated to 400 degrees Celsius max anyway, if I remember this correctly.

Steel is an excellent heat sink, meaning when one area of steel is heated, the heat will spread throughout the steel and help the steel stay cool. There was a lot of steel within the WTC, and the support columns were especially thick, so there would have been a really nice heat sink in the large amounts of steel.

It has been claimed that the trusses were much thinner and heated and failed, pulling in the exterior columns of the building and initiating collapse. This is what the NIST Report asserts. Firstly, they offer absolutely no supporting evidence, and don't even show us any photos of trusses, let alone glowing trusses, and conveniently don't even have to because the trusses were within the buildings under the floors. The evidence they claim is the buckling of exterior columns, which they present as bent aluminum facades, whereas aluminum is much less resilient to fire than thick steel. NIST also fails to differentiate where steel has been knocked out-of-place by impact damage, and by fire (but I would say this is simply because they don't have any good supporting evidence for their theory anyway, and they really don't). The truss theory also fails horribly after collapse has initiated and global collapse begins.

• The collapse of WTC1 consisted of, allegedly, 13 of the lightest, most weakly-supported floors of the building (the top 13 floors) falling upon and crushing into dust all 97 floors below, which were much stronger and had thicker columns, not to mention many, many more.
  

On top of that, most of the debris was being ejected outwards from the building, so it wasn't even falling onto lower floors for the most part. This should've at least caused a major slow-down in collapse speed from the loss of driving forces. The top 13 floors even disintegrated before too long into collapse. And yet the building still, and at the same speed.

WTC1 was pretty much falling floor by floor for some reason other than gravity and falling metal beams. Most likely explanation: explosives. This would also explain the great symmetry of each floor being blown out on all sides at the same time. If parts of the floors were failing from weight here and there, you would expect lopsiding, and the building would fall over sideways. This is what happens in demolitions that go wrong, and always happens in natural building collapses (of which, for highrises, btw, only earthquakes have ever caused -- no fires, ever, have had the strength to globally fail a skyscraper).

I could go on, but if you hang around long enough, you'll see about everything in new postings. The info always cycles back around eventually from the Howard Roark's on here denying it.

Flight 93 was shot down. Getting down to the bare bones, there was debris scattered over miles. I think it was eight miles, if I remember right. When a plane just crashes into the ground, an engine won't bounce off the ground and land some miles away in a forrest. It just doesn't happen. The debris being scattered so far, it would've had to have been lost from the plane while the plane was still in the air. The last call from Flight 93 indicated the plane was smoking and the caller claimed he thought a bomb had gone off on it. A retired military colonel has come out saying that Flight 93 was shot down, and he personally knew the pilot that did it.

Popular theory is that the reaction time for the first three flights was so painfully slow (more like non-existant), that certain military figures disobeyed higher figures and took initiative into their own hands to make sure that plane never reached its target. I would not be surprised if bringing it down was a part of the original 9/11 plot, but it appears there was an explosion on the plane, or it was shot down.

Hope that helps some.

I can explain everything to you, but it would take a while

Yes welcome! I highly recommend the page bsbray pointed out, Jack has done a fine job of showing that the hole is the right size for the 757!
He needed a little help and i was there for him (he's a bit jittery on the old photoshop poor fella), but much as I would love too it would be unfair to take all the credit.

Sorry have only just realised you guys replied! Thanks for the info