Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Schnauzer:

The 'REALLY' interested parties in the enigma which is 9/11, have now had 15 years to come up with (and produce) evidence to substantiate THEIR claims to have pinpointed the culprits responsible for the entire period both prior and subsequent to the events of that day BUT, in so doing, they have apparently underestimated the intelligence of those that are referred to so often as 'Conspiracy Theorists' by failing miserably to explain some glaringly obvious points of interest which have not been given the slightest consideration.

Agreed ...... but then I am one of those so called ‘conspiracy theorists’

Apart from the obvious nut case ‘conspiracy theories’ such as holograms, little green men etc. I think it would be true to say that the majority that disagree with the official story do not even attempt to ‘.....pinpoint the culprits’. You cannot do that until you know what actually happened. Contrary to popular belief, such an exercise of independent investigation has never been carried out into what happened after the attacks and that is how the ‘Truth’ movements grew because questions were never answered and evidence hidden. So, well informed engineers and other professionals (Pilots?) applying knowledge within their own fields came together to question the difference between the official story and what they saw.

The 9/11 Commissions brief was to investigate the attacks; it was not independent and much of the evidence was ignored if it countered the official story, as is demonstrated by the recent release of 28 pages of evidence showing Saudi Involvement. Hundreds of witnesses testimony’s were ignored and never even considered. Its brief was simply to investigate the attacks so that they could identify how to prevent such an attack occurring in the future. The results of that enquiry we see today, whenever we travel by air!

The weakest link in the Tower collapse saga is Building WTC 7 ! This hardly gets a mention in the report (I think just one small paragraph) because it was not subject to a terrorist attack even though the end result was almost identical. It is also scoffed at as a 'conspiracy theory' by those that can provide no explanation that has any credibility.

I have no problem with the events of that day up to the moment the South Tower started to collapse. From that point it is very evident that things do not stand up to any scrutiny. I would however admit that I think that the ‘Hijackers’ must have had some inside help, it was far too complex an operation to have been planned and carried out over a relatively long period of time, by a small handful of people thousands of miles away and with very limited intelligence resources, facilities and especially communications.

Although I have never seen my view stated elsewhere, having the benefit of hindsight I think that the terrorist attacks and what caused the collapse of the WTC Towers are actually two different and independent events. The WTC Towers were a commercial decision (Follow the Money?) and disaster avoidance decision taken after the first attack in 1993 and implemented over the next eight years. The terrorist attacks were planned much later and for different reasons and by different people as a revenge attack against the West! If you will, ‘.....giving them a taste of their own medicine.’

The connection between the two was an opportunistic marriage of convenience and had to be coordinated. (but by whom?) There was obviously collusion between the people behind each of these events but there had to a ‘coordinating’ body at very high levels within the establishment, acting as the liaison.

I think your last sentence could well explain the reason for the collapse as we saw it.

[Paphitis]

Well done to both major participants in the analytical debate between them, though they are of opposite opinions, they deserve to be congratulated on their input... However, the 'End Product' has not really produced the conclusion that either party would have wished for and there may be a very sound reason for that.

The 'REALLY' interested parties in the enigma which is 9/11, have now had 15 years to come up with (and produce) evidence to substantiate THEIR claims to have pinpointed the culprits responsible for the entire period both prior and subsequent to the events of that day BUT, in so doing, they have apparently underestimated the intelligence of those that are referred to so often as 'Conspiracy Theorists' by failing miserably to explain some glaringly obvious points of interest which have not been given the slightest consideration.

There are now several thousands of documents available which uphold the 'Official Version' of that which took place (easily concocted over 15 years I suggest) yet no mention of some very significant events which are probably not so easily obliterated nor discarded as some of the other evidence under scrutiny (and now ready for perusal after 15 years) which is possibly a source of great embarrassment to those whose fingers were in the 'Proverbial Pie'

Little point in going over 'Structural, Scientific and Avionic' declarations and findings since, they too have been subjected to 15 years of possible influential persuasion by 'Interested Parties' so, where are the 'Flaws' in the recently revived subject of 9/11 ?.

I do not know BUT, a good route would be "Follow the Money"...... it's a difficult trail to cover up and the 'Loopholes' are enormous.

Larry Silverstein would make a good start and his comment about "Pull it" (WT7) takes a bit of explaining.

Then who was the culprit?

For a set piece, either Iran or Syria would be left to carry the can or maybe Iraq even. Plus, I don't believe anyone is capable of setting this up just because of the magnitude of the operation. Someone would squeal, and then just imagine a wiki leak or Snowden style leak.

They weren't set up as a logical person would suspect. If the Americans needed a False Flag, then a simple rubbish bin bomb in New York's underground or on 5th Avenue would suffice and meet their objectives.

The Taliban in the end were left to carry the can even though the US had supported the Pashtoons and Mujahideen against the Soviets. In short, the Taliban were assisted by the Americans. That is true.

In the end, this "debate" isn't going anywhere with a person who passes so many of their opinions as Scientific Facts and Newtons Law and yet not look at the Kinetic Energies involved which the buildings were not capable of withstanding or which the Chief Engineer freely admits that no one even considered or even thought of it as a likely scenario.

They simulated a B707 in theoretical terms only which is smaller than a B767 and traveling at 180 knots or less and not a B767 traveling at close to the speed of sounds. How are such things even simulated? But, it is even possible to predict how the building would react to a B707 collision at much slower let alone a B767 collision traveling more than 900km/hr.

Literally, it was a Missile weighing nearly 200 tonnes.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

Then who was the culprit?

Until there is a full and impartial enquiry, nobody can make more than a guess ..... but Silverstein is in there somewhere, as I suspect are the CIA.

For a set piece, either Iran or Syria would be left to carry the can or maybe Iraq even. Plus, I don't believe anyone is capable of setting this up just because of the magnitude of the operation. Someone would squeal, and then just imagine a wiki leak or Snowden style leak.

The US blamed almost everybody! Osama bin Ladin within hours and remember Bushes ‘Axis of Evil’ ?

Isn’t that what I said about this total operation; too complex to be one combined operation ‘.....for the WTC it was not one event but two at least!’? The terrorist attacks required one lot of ‘skills’ and the destruction of the buildings another set of skills. Would you be happy with an airframe engineer checking out your engines ...... No, because it takes completely different skills.

Think back to WWII and the resistance ...... they broke their operations into cells. The members of one cell new nothing about any other cell ..... there would have been only one link , the ‘Coordinator’.

They weren't set up as a logical person would suspect. If the Americans needed a False Flag, then a simple rubbish bin bomb in New York's underground or on 5th Avenue would suffice and meet their objectives.

They needed something of magnitude, the American people were in no mood to get into another ‘boots-on-the-ground’ war, after the fiasco in Vietnam. Therefore the suggestion that a ‘Pearl Harbour’ event was needed to get the American people on-side, seems perfectly logical.

The Taliban in the end were left to carry the can even though the US had supported the Pashtoons and Mujahideen against the Soviets. In short, the Taliban were assisted by the Americans. That is true

.
Yes that is true and from that morphed Al-Qaida and from that ISIS/Daesh and the US is STILL arming them and giving them support!

In the end, this "debate" isn't going anywhere with a person who passes so many of their opinions as Scientific Facts and Newtons Law and yet not look at the Kinetic Energies involved which the buildings were not capable of withstanding or which the Chief Engineer freely admits that no one even considered or even thought of it as a likely scenario.

BTW: You do not check before you write! The definition of Kinetic energy is that it is as a result of the motion of a moving mass ...... fuel contains energy as heat under given conditions. If you dropped a polythene bag of Jet-A1 onto concrete you get a puddle of Jet-A1, you release no energy! If you dropped the same package onto a heat source ...... you would get a very hot and energetic fire ball. Fuel releases energy as heat, it is not kinetic energy.

I still find his statement that fuel load was not considered in their calculations as being ‘convenient’ for his argument and most improbable.

You cannot fabricate Universal Law! Scientific fact is scientific fact, you cannot invent it! The argument is simply whether it applies. You quoted in a previous post, a FLAME temperature for Jet-A1 burning under ideal combustion conditions in a gas turbine engine and you are correct, as far as I know. But those temperatures are not achievable in free air, as the clouds of thick black smoke and people standing in the impact hole indicates. The actual temperature therefore was very much lower, so your scientific fact was not wrong, just misapplied.

They simulated a B707 in theoretical terms only which is smaller than a B767 and traveling at 180 knots or less and not a B767 traveling at close to the speed of sounds. How are such things even simulated? But, it is even possible to predict how the building would react to a B707 collision at much slower let alone a B767 collision traveling more than 900km/hr.

A Boeing 707 is not smaller than a 767 to any degree that would make any difference and ALL structures are subject to theoretical simulation according to universal laws of physics! To build a mock-up and fly a plane into it is an expensive way to prove your theory! But it is of no significance anyway...... the simple fact is that if it weighed 200 tonnes or 2000 tonnes, travelling at 180kts or Mach 1 ...... the buildings did not collapse due to impact! Simple fact .......... there are no pictures/videos of simultaneous collapse due to the impact of either aircraft .... so it has to be disregarded as the cause! Is that not just simple common sense?

The consideration then is what did cause the collapse? Simple answer is ..... we don’t know, because it has never been the subject of an independent investigation. As I previously stated, the 9/11 Commission had a brief to investigate the terrorist attack ......... not the collapse of the buildings, that is why WTC 7 is rarely mentioned.

Literally, it was a Missile weighing nearly 200 tonnes

.
Missiles carry high explosives, how much does a Hellfire or Tomahawk missile weigh? Weight is not relevant and Jet A1 is a very poor substitute for Semtex, C4 or any explosive material ....... an atomic warhead could have destroyed New York .... but it would narrow down the choice of culprits somewhat! Had it been a missile it WOULD have bought the towers down ....... within seconds of impact, but it would have been aimed at the lower floors to maximise the radius of devastation.

[Paphitis]

Kinetic Energy is the energy an object had due to its forward motion. The energy increases either higher mass but more importantly, it increases drastically with a high forwar velocity because velocity is squared.

The speed of the B767s were well over 500 knots or over 900 km/hr. That's 253 m/sec. Now 300m/sec is the speed of sound at sea level in a standard atmosphere ISA of 15 degrees at sea level.

Therefore, the B767 probably exceeded its Mach Number because it was diving at the time with full power.

Then you have the 38000l of JETA1.

The energy of the B767 was more than 10 times what they had considered. As the Engineer said, what hapenned on Sep 11 is completely not comparable to any of the models they accounted for.

[Lordo]

Well done to both major participants in the analytical debate between them, though they are of opposite opinions, they deserve to be congratulated on their input... However, the 'End Product' has not really produced the conclusion that either party would have wished for and there may be a very sound reason for that.

The 'REALLY' interested parties in the enigma which is 9/11, have now had 15 years to come up with (and produce) evidence to substantiate THEIR claims to have pinpointed the culprits responsible for the entire period both prior and subsequent to the events of that day BUT, in so doing, they have apparently underestimated the intelligence of those that are referred to so often as 'Conspiracy Theorists' by failing miserably to explain some glaringly obvious points of interest which have not been given the slightest consideration.

There are now several thousands of documents available which uphold the 'Official Version' of that which took place (easily concocted over 15 years I suggest) yet no mention of some very significant events which are probably not so easily obliterated nor discarded as some of the other evidence under scrutiny (and now ready for perusal after 15 years) which is possibly a source of great embarrassment to those whose fingers were in the 'Proverbial Pie'

Little point in going over 'Structural, Scientific and Avionic' declarations and findings since, they too have been subjected to 15 years of possible influential persuasion by 'Interested Parties' so, where are the 'Flaws' in the recently revived subject of 9/11 ?.

I do not know BUT, a good route would be "Follow the Money"...... it's a difficult trail to cover up and the 'Loopholes' are enormous.

Larry Silverstein would make a good start and his comment about "Pull it" (WT7) takes a bit of explaining.

Then who was the culprit?

For a set piece, either Iran or Syria would be left to carry the can or maybe Iraq even. Plus, I don't believe anyone is capable of setting this up just because of the magnitude of the operation. Someone would squeal, and then just imagine a wiki leak or Snowden style leak.

They weren't set up as a logical person would suspect. If the Americans needed a False Flag, then a simple rubbish bin bomb in New York's underground or on 5th Avenue would suffice and meet their objectives.

The Taliban in the end were left to carry the can even though the US had supported the Pashtoons and Mujahideen against the Soviets. In short, the Taliban were assisted by the Americans. That is true.

In the end, this "debate" isn't going anywhere with a person who passes so many of their opinions as Scientific Facts and Newtons Law and yet not look at the Kinetic Energies involved which the buildings were not capable of withstanding or which the Chief Engineer freely admits that no one even considered or even thought of it as a likely scenario.

They simulated a B707 in theoretical terms only which is smaller than a B767 and traveling at 180 knots or less and not a B767 traveling at close to the speed of sounds. How are such things even simulated? But, it is even possible to predict how the building would react to a B707 collision at much slower let alone a B767 collision traveling more than 900km/hr.

Literally, it was a Missile weighing nearly 200 tonnes.

are you as stupid as you sound. 15 out of 19 hijackers were saudi citizens you stupid idiot.

try again which country was involved?

[Robin Hood]

Kinetic Energy is the energy an object had due to its forward motion. The energy increases either higher mass but more importantly, it increases drastically with a high forward velocity because velocity is squared.

For someone who claims to be physicist you have some strange concepts! Kinetic energy is due to any motion (up/down/sideways)..... not just forward motion.

The kinetic energy increases due to an increase in mass or an increase in velocity. Velocity squares under the pull of gravity in a free fall ..... just as Newton says and was clearly demonstrated three times on Sept 11th 2001 .... we all saw it! There was little or no resistance to the towers descent at free fall acceleration due to gravity!

The speed of the B767s were well over 500 knots or over 900 km/hr. That's 253 m/sec. Now 300m/sec is the speed of sound at sea level in a standard atmosphere ISA of 15 degrees at sea level.

Therefore, the B767 probably exceeded its Mach Number because it was diving at the time with full power.

Incorrect, look at the videos ..... the first was flying more or less straight and level ..... the second was in a left hand bank and in a shallow descent .... hardly what I would call a dive!

Then you have the 38000l of JETA1.

The energy of the B767 was more than 10 times what they had considered. As the Engineer said, what hapenned on Sep 11 is completely not comparable to any of the models they accounted for.

........... and in spite of all that the impact still didn't collapse the twin towers! I think the architects/designers should be very proud of themselves because their design withstood the ultimate test, in fact as you point out, way beyond the parameters they had used in their modelling and calculations.

So if the impact and released kinetic energy didn't bring them down ..... what did?

Most of the fuels kinetic energy (i.e. a mass in motion) was released when the aircraft hit the structure, the tanks ruptured and the fuel atomised and mixed with air and this process lasted maybe a second or two and was then dissipated as the ball of fire outside the buildings! The remaining fuel was converted to heat energy (several fires) which was nowhere near hot enough or long lasting enough, in the couple of minutes between impact and the consumption of the remaining fuel, to either melt steel or even get it hot enough to soften it.

Much more investigation needed whichever version of the truth you go for!

[Paphitis]

Well done to both major participants in the analytical debate between them, though they are of opposite opinions, they deserve to be congratulated on their input... However, the 'End Product' has not really produced the conclusion that either party would have wished for and there may be a very sound reason for that.

The 'REALLY' interested parties in the enigma which is 9/11, have now had 15 years to come up with (and produce) evidence to substantiate THEIR claims to have pinpointed the culprits responsible for the entire period both prior and subsequent to the events of that day BUT, in so doing, they have apparently underestimated the intelligence of those that are referred to so often as 'Conspiracy Theorists' by failing miserably to explain some glaringly obvious points of interest which have not been given the slightest consideration.

There are now several thousands of documents available which uphold the 'Official Version' of that which took place (easily concocted over 15 years I suggest) yet no mention of some very significant events which are probably not so easily obliterated nor discarded as some of the other evidence under scrutiny (and now ready for perusal after 15 years) which is possibly a source of great embarrassment to those whose fingers were in the 'Proverbial Pie'

Little point in going over 'Structural, Scientific and Avionic' declarations and findings since, they too have been subjected to 15 years of possible influential persuasion by 'Interested Parties' so, where are the 'Flaws' in the recently revived subject of 9/11 ?.

I do not know BUT, a good route would be "Follow the Money"...... it's a difficult trail to cover up and the 'Loopholes' are enormous.

Larry Silverstein would make a good start and his comment about "Pull it" (WT7) takes a bit of explaining.

Then who was the culprit?

For a set piece, either Iran or Syria would be left to carry the can or maybe Iraq even. Plus, I don't believe anyone is capable of setting this up just because of the magnitude of the operation. Someone would squeal, and then just imagine a wiki leak or Snowden style leak.

They weren't set up as a logical person would suspect. If the Americans needed a False Flag, then a simple rubbish bin bomb in New York's underground or on 5th Avenue would suffice and meet their objectives.

The Taliban in the end were left to carry the can even though the US had supported the Pashtoons and Mujahideen against the Soviets. In short, the Taliban were assisted by the Americans. That is true.

In the end, this "debate" isn't going anywhere with a person who passes so many of their opinions as Scientific Facts and Newtons Law and yet not look at the Kinetic Energies involved which the buildings were not capable of withstanding or which the Chief Engineer freely admits that no one even considered or even thought of it as a likely scenario.

They simulated a B707 in theoretical terms only which is smaller than a B767 and traveling at 180 knots or less and not a B767 traveling at close to the speed of sounds. How are such things even simulated? But, it is even possible to predict how the building would react to a B707 collision at much slower let alone a B767 collision traveling more than 900km/hr.

Literally, it was a Missile weighing nearly 200 tonnes.

are you as stupid as you sound. 15 out of 19 hijackers were saudi citizens you stupid idiot.

try again which country was involved?

You are very basic.

It doesn't mean Saudi Arabia were involved. The hijackers were working for Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. They did that!

Osama was Saudi as well but was also exiled from Saudi Arabia because the Saudis didn't want to appear involved or associated.

The Taliban were given an opportunity to cooperate. They didn't! Therefore Afghanistan was complicit and invaded.

[Paphitis]

Kinetic Energy is the energy an object had due to its forward motion. The energy increases either higher mass but more importantly, it increases drastically with a high forward velocity because velocity is squared.

For someone who claims to be physicist you have some strange concepts! Kinetic energy is due to any motion (up/down/sideways)..... not just forward motion.

The kinetic energy increases due to an increase in mass or an increase in velocity. Velocity squares under the pull of gravity in a free fall ..... just as Newton says and was clearly demonstrated three times on Sept 11th 2001 .... we all saw it! There was little or no resistance to the towers descent at free fall acceleration due to gravity!

The speed of the B767s were well over 500 knots or over 900 km/hr. That's 253 m/sec. Now 300m/sec is the speed of sound at sea level in a standard atmosphere ISA of 15 degrees at sea level.

Therefore, the B767 probably exceeded its Mach Number because it was diving at the time with full power.

Incorrect, look at the videos ..... the first was flying more or less straight and level ..... the second was in a left hand bank and in a shallow descent .... hardly what I would call a dive!

Then you have the 38000l of JETA1.

The energy of the B767 was more than 10 times what they had considered. As the Engineer said, what hapenned on Sep 11 is completely not comparable to any of the models they accounted for.

........... and in spite of all that the impact still didn't collapse the twin towers! I think the architects/designers should be very proud of themselves because their design withstood the ultimate test, in fact as you point out, way beyond the parameters they had used in their modelling and calculations.

So if the impact and released kinetic energy didn't bring them down ..... what did?

Most of the fuels kinetic energy (i.e. a mass in motion) was released when the aircraft hit the structure, the tanks ruptured and the fuel atomised and mixed with air and this process lasted maybe a second or two and was then dissipated as the ball of fire outside the buildings! The remaining fuel was converted to heat energy (several fires) which was nowhere near hot enough or long lasting enough, in the couple of minutes between impact and the consumption of the remaining fuel, to either melt steel or even get it hot enough to soften it.

Much more investigation needed whichever version of the truth you go for!

I never said it wasn't due to any motion. I mentioned forward motion because planes usually move forward.

Again, nice attempt to side rail but no aknowedgement that the Energy of the B767 aircraft were traveling close to the speed of sound and as such had more than 10 times the amount of energy than anything the Engineers and Builders of the WTC had considered plus the presence of 38,000 l of JetA1

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

I never said it wasn't due to any motion. I mentioned forward motion because planes usually move forward.

They also move up and down and will also turn, the one thing passenger jets do not normally do in flight is travel backwards. You were explaining to me all about kinetic energy .... and added a word that was misleading. I am sure that if I made the statement that “You use the rudder to change the heading of an aircraft in flight.” you would soon show me where I had spouted rubbish?

Again, nice attempt to side rail but no acknowledgement that the Energy of the B767 aircraft were travelling close to the speed of sound and as such had more than 10 times the amount of energy than anything the Engineers and Builders of the WTC had considered plus the presence of 38,000 l of JetA1

How do you not understand the concept that:

If you consider all the detail you have added about speed, weight, fuel load, size, kinetic energy etc. ............. all those considerations combined still failed to bring down the twin towers. We all saw it ..... airplane(s) ..... bang ..... twin towers still standing and spewing black smoke for around an hour before they descend in a fashion remarkably similar to a controlled demolition. So .....they were not bought down by the impact ........ irrefutable fact!

I repeat .... so what did bring them down? Answer ..... we don't know!

You quote the designer as saying that they did not consider the fuel in their calculations. You then presumably assume that because the collision of the airframe with the structures did not bring the structures down ........ then it must have been the 38,000 litres x 2, of Jet-A1 that caused it? That is an easy assumption on your part, that considers just one piece of the jig-saw puzzle, and that assumption stands contrary to the opinions of many architects and engineers who have a lot of combined knowledge to fall back on. It is these anomalies that have never been thoroughly investigated.

This needs to be done to identify what happened before anyone can put together a true picture, considering all the evidence to determine ‘how’ and from that ‘who’ the culprits were and then bring them to justice with NO EXEMPTIONS.

Maybe if Putin/Russia had been the force to be dealt with in 2001, he would have been accused of being the master mind and Bush would have launched a pre-emptive/retaliatory nuclear strike on Russia and the planet would now be a nuclear ash tray ..... the US and Europe included !

I am afraid the Yanks have a bad habit of leaping to conclusions by finger pointing without anything tangible to support the accusations. They do it time and time again ...... the sad thing is that the majority believe them and never question. That attitude is the same as having a court hearing based only on the case for the prosecution, because the prosecution says the defence is all lies, irrespective of the strength of their case which is just a 'conspiracy theory' .

Time will tell ...... I expect maybe after you and I are dust and all the guilty people will be burning in Hell ........ or as I like to believe .... having their hard drives reformatted, reprogrammed and getting recycled.

[Paphitis]

Al Qaeda finger pointed themselves. They couldn't help themselves and claimed a great victory against the infidel.

Then the Americans invaded.

Still going nowhere.

The forward word was not misleading at all. Again just jumping up and down and not addressing the energy of the B767 which was more than 10 times more than anything the designers ever even contemplated considering.

Plus 38000l of JetA1 burning at over 2000 degrees.

If a 200 tonne projectile missile traveling at close to the speed of sound isn't enough to bring the towers down then what will? The Chief Engineer told you that the energy and force involved was way beyond what they had considered and enough to weaken the supporting structure but the JetA1 and Fire is what bought the towers down.

And the Taliban carried the can for it! Oh well!

It's bloody obvious that the buildings were bought down by fire which was caused by the aircraft collisions at over 900km/hr. It certainly was no earthquake or meteor you know!