Warbird Information Exchange

If our government had no involvement in 9/11, then why has it and the Bush administration put up so many obstacles in front of the various investigations looking to find out the details of what happened, and left so many unanswered questions? To me, the whole thing has the same smell that the Warren Commission does. If there is nothing to hide, then please help the people who are working to fully account for what went on...

robbie, we all saw what happened. I lopst frieds in the Pentagon taht day. My neighbor was standing under the first tower when it was hit. I don't think Michael is contesting that. But tehre are people (paranoids imo) who believe taht there was some involvement with the attacks. They say this because of our contact wit Bin Laden, and our contacts wit the House of Saud. And because Bush REALLY DID refuse to make some testimony. And so did Cheney. tehre were "arrangements worked out so they could retain presidential perogative. And people have taken that to mean that tere was some plot. And you and I will enevr know if they are right unless omebody steps up and shows evidence. Personally I think it is crap> It is an untestable hypothesis. But it IS possible.

Obergraf-, while not a "conspiracy theory brainchild", I am quite well aware that the government, particularly this present administration, uses lying to further its aims. I would invite you to step out of the flocks of sheeple and step into that awareness the next time you look at information provided by the government; there is much to be said for holding one's government accountable for what it says and what it does.

I'm not saying that the government is, or isn't, lying about 9/11. I am saying that those of us who are aware of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, yellowcake, wmd claims, etc., etc., do not accept at face value darn near anything the government says.

Also real quick, doesn't jet fuel burn at a lower temp than steel?

Aviation Fuel- 210 °C (410 °F)
Steel- 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Since somebody did the work already, look at this at your leisure:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26sa%3DX

Nope, ain't a sheep, but I won't buy 9/11 conspiracy ever. I hate that the goverment (Bush) implimented the Patriot Act as it gives over zealous law enforcement a new tool to use against peacefull citizens, and will do nothing to stop terrorists, already had dealings with it.hate it, worse than anything this country has ever done (next to the TSA, but maybe thats a part of it)

dude, almost ANYTHING can get hot enough to weaken steel when it's in a wind tunnel and gets enough oxygen. How do you think smiths heat iron and steal up? Lots of fuel and lots of oxygen.

Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100ºF," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800º it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

However, the idea that fire temperatures -- much less steel temperatures -- were anywhere close to 1800º F runs contrary to experience with building fires. Fire tests by Corus Construction recorded maximum steel temperatures of about 680ºF in UNINSULATED parking garages. The claim that insulation was knocked off the WTC steel is routinely invoked in defenses of the official story to make the weakening of the steel seem more plausible.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832ºF.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."