Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

[Klash]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

No your missing what I'm saying.... The bombs ARE what blew up the building. The plane had nothing to do with it. Like others said people weren't burning alive on the floors that were hit, so obviously it wasn't hot enough to melt steel.

Let me elaborate on their point. Ever been to a campfire? Campfires get pretty hot. So hot sometimes that you need to actually back up from it. Now keeping that in mind, they are trying to say that the fires were so hot that they made the steel fail? You do realize that the melting temp for steel is 1500 degrees Celsius right? Furthermore structural steel begins to soften around 425 degrees celsius and loses 50% of it's strength at 650 degrees celsius. If the fire was hot enought to melt the steel, everyone on those floors would have been dead instantly from the heat alone.

Also keep in mind that the firemen said over the radio to fellow firemen that they fires were two pockets and could be controlled with two ladders. Hardly sounds like an inferno like they try to make it out as.

Now with that out of the way. Did you also know that the WTC was built to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707? It was designed like that because a B-25 Mitchell bomber struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945. So they built it with the ability to withstand a direct hit from a jetliner like the one that hit the WTC towers. The average american DOES NOT know that bit of information. If they did they would question why the towers feel from a plane hit, or from inadequate heat.

So knowing all of this you now know the necessity of the plane. People would question the bombs. Almost nobody questions the plane or heat.

That would make their plan a success.

I disagree, I think the use of the planes along with the information you have provided is the very reason people are questioning it. It doesn't make sense. Thermite makes sense but like I stated earlier; that brings into question the use of the planes and the resources, skill and men required to complete that mission. Which suggests to me it was two uncooperative actions.

You don't necessarily have to buy into nefarious conspiracy theories to explain the towers collapsing straight on.

1. The WTC was attacked in 1993.

2. An analysis would determined that if the tower were ever attacked successfully that it would collapse in an uncontrolled fashion, killing thousands or tens of thousands more people than were it to collapse in a controlled fashion.

3. "The 1,500-lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into Tower Two, bringing both towers down and killing 250,000 people" [from Wikipedia]

4. To avoid this possibility, explosives were placed (concealed) within the towers' structure to allow for the possibility of choosing the lesser of two evils.

5. In 2001, the towers were struck again, and this time they were certainly going to collapse.

6. All efforts were made to evacuate both buildings.

7. The buildings would collapse in either a controlled fashion or an uncontrolled fashion.

8. Collapsing in a controlled fashion would save some large number of lives.

9. Some fewer number of lives would be lost by saving more lives.

10. The public could never accept the above calculations, or precautions, which would be seen as premeditated murder by the government of civilians.

11. The public could never be told of the above calculations, because it could not bear the burden.

12. How do you think the public would in fact have reacted had the above version been presented by the White House in September, 2001?

13. The public was never told the truth; the truth was covered up.

14. Suppose all of the above is The Truth. Is that bad or good?

15. What would you have done in light of #1-3?

----
I'm just putting this out as a plausible explanation of what might have happened. Competing accounts which I've read depend on an non-believable number of co-conspirators: the truth would have gotten out. What I've put forth could in fact have been engineered and carried out by a small number of individuals.

These few could have acted for benevolent and sound reasons, or they could have acted for malicious purposes, alone or with others.

Whatever your stance before reading what I had to say, give it some thought.

IMO, your theory is plausible. I agree the number of co-conspirators to pull off a mission of this magnitude is the main weakness of what you called the nefarious conspiratorial theories. Not only would it require a certain individual that could justify the death of thousands of individuals but certain individuals with particular skills and loyalty to the cause (whatever it maybe). That just seems highly unlikely; unless nationalism is added to the equation; which is how I came to the Israeli theory but I like the Strateg0s theory better.

The Strateg0s' theory would also explain Silverstein's comment "pull it". He would have had knowledge of the explosives as the holder of the properties rights.

I like it!!!

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: Klash's hypothesis for 9-11

[QUOTE=Klash;815077]I disagree, I think the use of the planes along with the information you have provided is the very reason people are questioning it. It doesn't make sense. Thermite makes sense but like I stated earlier; that brings into question the use of the planes and the resources, skill and men required to complete that mission. Which suggests to me it was two uncooperative actions.[QUOTE]


You think so? Go say exactly what I told you to 10 random people on the street and watch the cross eyed looks you get from people. That's what the government wanted.......people smart enough to figure it out to be looked at like crazy people. They're trying to make the open minded people of this nation look paranoid. It works too! Go look at the responses from most people to anything insinuating there were bombs. They act like it's far fetched.

Also if it was two uncooperative actions....how come Norad didn't shoot the planes down? Did you know that there were coincidentally training missions going on that week for if a plane was hijacked and used as a weapon, so the pilots of Norad had no clue the 9/11 attacks were real. They thought it was part of the drill!

Here's an even bigger coincidence. During the week of the london bombings, the police force/ military was being trained how to respond to terrorist bombings on trains & buses. So when the actual call came in they thought it was just part of the drill.

Do you realize the improbability of both governments having training missions on how to cope with an attack that actually happened on the day of training on two seperate occassions? It's mathmetically improbable!

Pair that with how USA and Great Britain work together on Iraq and the terrorist hunt and it makes you wonder what they really are doing!