Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

^^^I'm on the internet, where do you think and why would you want to know

sheesh you chaps make scientologists look sane and in the case of ENT; plesent

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Congratulations, you've just admitted that a conspiracy theorist is full of shit.

Well you anyway 'Arry, you're full of shit

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Looking in the mirror are we?

Every day mate - with a grin.

I assume it must be like gollum surfacing after an eternity of darkness for you though eh? -

Originally Posted by hazz

I'm on the internet, where do you think and why would you want to know

I'm trying to work out how the fuck you make out to be a scientist yet you can't spell most words. Nevermind - keep looking guilty by dodging the question

Originally Posted by hazz

sheesh

American then?

Originally Posted by hazz

scientologists

Americans too - don't blame that shit on us.

Originally Posted by hazz

plesent

Quite old chap

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Rainfall

That was a windy day that pushed the smoke sideways like this. 20 m/s is a fair guess.

45MPH winds on 9/11?

Yes, 45 mph winds on 9/11. Your graph is for ground level, 300 metres up is a different animal. That's why they make the wind turbines along the coasts so tall, sustained winds of 100 kph+. You can quadruple my 15 seconds suggestion to one minute, or take 10 minutes, 40 times as much. No need to be petty-minded here. 1 second or 10 minutes is almost equally far away from the about one hour between impact, and collapse of the towers, which therefore can't have been caused by burning kerosene. You know you're wrong, but are not a man enough to admit it.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Yes, 45 mph winds on 9/11. Your graph is for ground level, 300 metres up is a different animal. That's why they make the wind turbines along the coasts so tall, sustained winds of 100 kph+. You can quadruple my 15 seconds suggestion to one minute, or take 10 minutes, 40 times as much. No need to be petty-minded here. 1 second or 10 minutes is almost equally far away from the about one hour between impact, and collapse of the towers, which therefore can't have been caused by burning kerosene. You know you're wrong, but are not a man enough to admit it.

^strange you have now changed from "a few seconds" into it dosn't really matter 1 second or 10 minutes. Makes me wonder why you didn't say that in the first place... I am sure you had your reasons.

However with your new stance, you will be glad to hear that you are with agreement with the NIST report which states that given ideal conditions the fuel could have burnt within 2 minutes releasing 2MW of heat per M^2 whilst experts consulted by popular mechanics belived that under the conditions of the twin towers a 10 minute burn time was possible. both far more than a few seconds but well within what you are now accepting.

and as for the wind speed NIST states that ACARS reports on the day indicated wind speeds at 400M as being between 5-10M/s.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Rainfall

That was a windy day that pushed the smoke sideways like this. 20 m/s is a fair guess.

45MPH winds on 9/11?

Yes, 45 mph winds on 9/11. Your graph is for ground level, 300 metres up is a different animal. That's why they make the wind turbines along the coasts so tall, sustained winds of 100 kph+. You can quadruple my 15 seconds suggestion to one minute, or take 10 minutes, 40 times as much. No need to be petty-minded here. 1 second or 10 minutes is almost equally far away from the about one hour between impact, and collapse of the towers, which therefore can't have been caused by burning kerosene. You know you're wrong, but are not a man enough to admit it.

Please, if you are going to fabricate numbers, then expect to be criticised for it.

Look at the paper fluttering down from the towers in the many videos available.

45mph, how ridiculous can you get.

If it was that fast, the smoke would be moving almost horizontally.

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Yes, 45 mph winds on 9/11. Your graph is for ground level, 300 metres up is a different animal. That's why they make the wind turbines along the coasts so tall, sustained winds of 100 kph+. You can quadruple my 15 seconds suggestion to one minute, or take 10 minutes, 40 times as much. No need to be petty-minded here. 1 second or 10 minutes is almost equally far away from the about one hour between impact, and collapse of the towers, which therefore can't have been caused by burning kerosene. You know you're wrong, but are not a man enough to admit it.

^strange you have now changed from "a few seconds" into it dosn't really matter 1 second or 10 minutes. Makes me wonder why you didn't say that in the first place... I am sure you had your reasons.

However with your new stance, you will be glad to hear that you are with agreement with the NIST report which states that given ideal conditions the fuel could have burnt within 2 minutes releasing 2MW of heat per M^2 whilst experts consulted by popular mechanics belived that under the conditions of the twin towers a 10 minute burn time was possible. both far more than a few seconds but well within what you are now accepting.

and as for the wind speed NIST states that ACARS reports on the day indicated wind speeds at 400M as being between 5-10M/s.

Don't forget NIST are now a shadowy government organisation.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Rainfall

That was a windy day that pushed the smoke sideways like this. 20 m/s is a fair guess.

45MPH winds on 9/11?

Yes, 45 mph winds on 9/11. Your graph is for ground level, 300 metres up is a different animal. That's why they make the wind turbines along the coasts so tall, sustained winds of 100 kph+. You can quadruple my 15 seconds suggestion to one minute, or take 10 minutes, 40 times as much. No need to be petty-minded here. 1 second or 10 minutes is almost equally far away from the about one hour between impact, and collapse of the towers, which therefore can't have been caused by burning kerosene. You know you're wrong, but are not a man enough to admit it.

Please, if you are going to fabricate numbers, then expect to be criticised for it.

Look at the paper fluttering down from the towers in the many videos available.

45mph, how ridiculous can you get.

If it was that fast, the smoke would be moving almost horizontally.

Take your rose tinted glasses off and look again halliburton harry, the smoke IS blowing almost horizontally across from the towers.

Those streets in NY act like artificial canyons, they're almost windless and stifling hot, unless a breeze is blowing directly along say north to south or east to west, when they act almost like wind tunnels.

At close to 1,000 ft above SL, the wind speeds in NY on 9/11 would definitely be three times more than at ground level, so 3 x 14 = 42 mph sustained wind speeds (according to official records) and gusting at 18.4 x 3 mph = 55.2 mph at 1,000 ft above SL yup, you have wind speeds that fit into rainfalls calculated paradigms.

[QUOTE=hazz;2613365][quote=Rainfall;2613314]

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by Rainfall

500,000 cubic metres? A wind of only 20 m/s pushes 500,000 cubic metres against the facade of one WTC tower, it's actually far more at the height the planes hit. 1 second. Ok, thanks for debunking your rubbish yourself. Too good I didn't have to go to British schools.

That was a windy day that pushed the smoke sideways like this. 20 m/s is a fair guess.

well lets see your claim was that "The fuel burnt completely within seconds"

at your 72km/hr wind which would pass for a signal 3 typhoon warning in hong kong and assuming that the fuel was liberated over 7 floors on a completely open structure we would need about 25 seconds. 14mph from the weather report we get about 79 seconds.

then we need should consider all that steel in the way, thats going to double the time, and then this assumes that you have something that keeps all their fuel atomised and in the air to burn, something that does not exist and the us military would dearly like too.

Hogwash hazz.


If we are to believe that airliners crashed into those towers, their fuel tanks were only filled to half capacity 11489/2 = 5,744.5 gal that day because of the short runs and low passenger levels. Airliners don't fill up to full unless necessary for a long haul for economic reasons, too much weight to carry.

So the amount of kerosene fuel each alleged airliner carried was in the region of only 6,000 gallons each, which sprayed out and atomized on impact and exploded instantly, then the remainder burned up within a few minutes. All that was left after that were isolated pockets of office fires fuelled by wood, paper and plastics, according to the NYFD.

Wind speeds of 45mph at 1,000 ft above SL are gale force, a wind speed we've been used to in NZ over the last few weeks, winds gusting at 120k/h force 12, hurricane force, ASL, along the east coast NZ.

"each alleged airliner" ENT my man, I think there was little doubt that the airplanes were real, not alleged. Or were the airplanes not real maybe?

Originally Posted by peterpan

"each alleged airliner" ENT my man, I think there was little doubt that the airplanes were real, not alleged. Or were the airplanes not real maybe?

Not speaking for ENT Peter, but the important word is "Airliner".

People suspect some/all planes were drones or military planes....

or "Customised Boeings" - which is the speciality of a suspected company involved.

Here's a 2 minute search - pilots against 9/11

All these aviators saying it wasn't a "COMMERCIAL PLANE" (one of the flights hitting one of the towers.

It's only 10 minutes - but if you watch the first 2 you'll get what ENT is talking about.

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Yes, 45 mph winds on 9/11. Your graph is for ground level, 300 metres up is a different animal. That's why they make the wind turbines along the coasts so tall, sustained winds of 100 kph+. You can quadruple my 15 seconds suggestion to one minute, or take 10 minutes, 40 times as much. No need to be petty-minded here. 1 second or 10 minutes is almost equally far away from the about one hour between impact, and collapse of the towers, which therefore can't have been caused by burning kerosene. You know you're wrong, but are not a man enough to admit it.

^strange you have now changed from "a few seconds" into it dosn't really matter 1 second or 10 minutes. Makes me wonder why you didn't say that in the first place... I am sure you had your reasons.

However with your new stance, you will be glad to hear that you are with agreement with the NIST report which states that given ideal conditions the fuel could have burnt within 2 minutes releasing 2MW of heat per M^2 whilst experts consulted by popular mechanics belived that under the conditions of the twin towers a 10 minute burn time was possible. both far more than a few seconds but well within what you are now accepting.

and as for the wind speed NIST states that ACARS reports on the day indicated wind speeds at 400M as being between 5-10M/s.

You probably thought it's a great idea to bring in the amount of air needed to burn the fuel, but when you made the calculations later; you thought, Aww shit! I shot myself in the foot! Now you have discovered an item that can't have happened like the official explanations tell. There are far more.

Well rainfall what ever makes you happy.

I must be wrong because as said and still say... there was not enough oxygen available to burn all their fuel in a few seconds, as in a small number that would not qualify as 10's of seconds or more. That you have, after quite a few posts, decided clarify that by a few seconds you ment anywhere between 1 second and 600 minutes is absultly proof that I was wrong all the way through and that you were right. after all its common knowledge that when one uses the word few would could be discussing any number 10's, 100's perhaps even 1000's. I bow to your obvious genius, a truther amongst truthers

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And another thing. Why would they bother blowing up the WTC anyway?

Apart from the near certainty that such an operation would be discovered, there was no point in doing it since, even if they hadn't collapsed, they would have had to have been demolished anyway.

It would have been better press to have them there as an reminder and an eyesore for months.

So that story's just a whole load of pointless bollocks, isn't it?

Slow learner ain't ya?

Originally Posted by ENT

At close to 1,000 ft above SL, the wind speeds in NY on 9/11 would definitely be three times more than at ground level, so 3 x 14 = 42 mph sustained wind speeds (according to official records) and gusting at 18.4 x 3 mph = 55.2 mph at 1,000 ft above SL yup, you have wind speeds that fit into rainfalls calculated paradigms.

"Would definitely be" is a completely meaningless phrase coming from you. It simply means "I fervently believe" and it's bullshit.

You have simply invented an arbitrary multiplier of "3" to fit the number that someone else actually MADE UP.

If we are to believe that airliners crashed into those towers, their fuel tanks were only filled to half capacity 11489/2 = 5,744.5 gal that day because of the short runs and low passenger levels.

All three aircraft were going to either LA or San Francisco. "Short Runs" Yet ANOTHER example of you fabricating the facts to fit your theories.

It isn't unreasonable to suggest that those flights were almost certainly specifically chosen because of their higher fuel loads.

Like all of the stupid truthers, you ignore facts, or bend them, so that you can come up with a story that only contains facts which support your loony tunes fairy story.

What you are using is famously referred to as the "Reverse Scientific" method.

"..adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement ... use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion".

You're so fucking childlike and predictable.

Someone should use a baseball bat to knock some fucking sense into you.

Terry?

As for the missile proposition, what would be the purpose? A bigger explosion?

So what have we decided, was there enough air to burn the fuel, was it enough to weaken the steel structure, who was strapped to the Pentagon missile, how many tons of hiEx did Bush use to down the towers...?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

As for the missile proposition, what would be the purpose? A bigger explosion?

Not to mention that you'd find missile parts, not aircraft parts.

would this be the missile that hit the pentigon, made a 16 ft hole and transformed into aircraft landing gear on the way though the building?

As I understand it NIST state that the plane impact removed the false ceiling and fire protction from the floor trusses, the aviation fuel contributed to the fire for minutes and initiated fires amongst the carpets, furniture, and general room office contents and that this is what generated the heat that generated conditions necessary to initate the building collapse.

Well, I believe Harry said that the terrorists choose planes because plane fuel contains 10 times more energy than TNT. Doesn't do much harm though when it smashes trough the building and deflagrates on the outside.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Well, I believe Harry said that the terrorists choose planes because plane fuel contains 10 times more energy than TNT.

You can "believe" what you like, but I said nothing of the kind.

Jesus, how delusional are you?

How the fuck did you get TNT into this?


The terrorists chose planes because

(a) They make a perfectly functional missile
(b) US airport and aircraft security was historically lax
(c) An attack of this type had never been theorised so a defence had never been planned.

And they were right on all counts.

Old Larry foreseen it. Reason why he insured his buildings to cover for the event. Strange that.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

An attack of this type had never been theorised so a defence had never been planned.

Anyone care to answer?

- What are the odds that all the "black box" flight recorders were damaged beyond use?
- Why were the alleged hijackers' names not on the passenger lists?
- Why are several alleged hijackers reported to be still alive?
- Why did Mohamed Atta, one of the alleged hijackers, take a suitcase containing a curiously worded will and burial instructions on a suicide flight?
- Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers, given in a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston Air Traffic Control, not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claims were responsible?
- Why were none of the attacking planes intercepted? It is reported that planes are routinely intercepted if they deviate from their flight path and contact can't be made.
- How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals--the stated reason for not returning President Bush promptly to Washington on September 11?
- Why did the Justice Department deny a surveillance warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui? Since 1978, it is reported, more than 12,000 such warrants were issued, only Moussaoui's was denied.
- Why does the U.S. not hold hearings on these questions, when it would serve the U.S. objective of keeping Americans focused on the "war on terrorism?"

9/11: What Really Happened on September 11 Remains a Mystery

Sorry duplicate post.