Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Inconsistencies in Official 9-11 Story Resolved by New “Opposite Day Theory”

WG Hahn | 25.08.2005 16:51

(SATIRE) Millions of conspiracy theorists were silenced yesterday as the many gaping holes in the logic of the official story of 9-11 were all but sealed with one stroke when 9-11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean revealed that September 11, 2001 was actually ‘Opposite Day’.

Millions of conspiracy theorists were silenced yesterday as the many gaping holes in the logic of the official story of 9-11 were all but sealed with one stroke when 9-11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean revealed that September 11, 2001 was actually ‘Opposite Day’.

How could three buildings of the World Trade Center, including the 48 story WT7 which wasn’t even struck by a plane, with their formidable internal lattice of forty-plus steel support beams, be felled by a kerosene based jet fuel fire when kerosene burns at 850 °F and steel doesn’t even begin to warp, let alone melt, at temperatures below 2000° F? Many skeptics around the world point to the oddly familiar free fall collapse of the buildings, the complete pulverization of its concrete, and the evidence - including first hand accounts by fireman and other people at the scene - of explosive devices being detonated throughout the buildings and conclude that all three were brought down by controlled demolitions, but Kean disagrees.

“In conformity with the backward laws of Opposite Day, the flames that burned within the buildings of the World Trade Center could have easily reached 2000° F while the melting point of the steel that comprised the infrastructure would have been reduced to 850° F. This easily explains how these buildings were the first of its steel reinforced kind to fall from fire despite the fact that several others, including Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza building in 1991, have burned far longer at much higher temperatures in the past.”

Kean also added: “And regarding the firemen who radioed reports of secondary explosions throughout the buildings and basements, these transmissions should be translated to mean that no explosions were seen, felt or caused anyone to catch on fire within the towers prior to their collapse. These men were obviously merely obeying the rules of Opposite Day as they apply to verbal discourse, and I should clarify here, not high on drugs as the government previously speculated. Our sincerest apologies to their families for any distress this error might have caused.”

Likewise, the logical and scientific inconsistencies surrounding the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon are also dispelled by the principles of Opposite Day. For example, Kean asserts that this most heavily defended building in the country, with its unparalleled radar system and missile batteries, was able to be broad sided by a clunky Boeing 767 passenger plane traveling a few hundred miles an hour for the precise reason that it doesn’t make normal sense. In addition, the fact that the impact of the 165 foot wide plane left an original hole that was only 16 feet in diameter despite the fact that its resulting detonation was so violent that the entire airliner, including all the aluminum, steel and titanium (melting point 1600° F) that comprised it was spontaneously incinerated becomes satisfactory within the purview of the Opposite Day Theory.

“Not that I need to elaborate to such an extent at this point,” spoke Kean, “But it also bears mentioning that this new revelation effectively solves the anomaly of why it took NORAD so darn long to deploy fighter jets to attempt to intercept the airliners – in the case of the plane that eventually crashed into the Pentagon they took over forty minutes to do so even after the plane diverted radically from its designated flight path and ceased mandatory check-ins subsequent to two other planes being hijacked and used as giant death missiles on the World Trade Center in New York for crying out loud.”

Kean proffered such examples of seemingly irreconcilable deviations from normalcy along with some anecdotal evidence to substantiate the validity of the new theory.

“Is everyone at NORAD just lazy? I assure you they are not. When famous golfer Payne Stewart drifted off course after falling unconscious at the helm of a private plane in 1999 they had fighters scrambled within seven minutes. Are the airport screeners who let each and every one of the twenty-one Arab terrorists with non-Arab names on board airliners in possession of knives, box cutters, guns, gas and gas masks all stupid morons? I don’t care if its before or after 9-11 – you get twenty friends together and try to all successfully board four different planes carrying that kind of gear and see how it works out. How about the terrorists themselves? Why would they go out of their way to hit the east side of the Pentagon when it was being renovated and held few people and no high-ranking officials? What are they, a bunch of idiots? No way, it might feel good to say so, but remember, they hatched and executed this elaborate, diabolical plot that caught us all off guard.”

“I might also mention,” Kean appended, “That it has come to our attention that dozens of steel lanterns belonging to campers were inexplicably melted by their kerosene flames the morning of 9-11. What does all of this tell us? What can the only reasonable explanation be? Opposite Day.”

Kean then concluded his remarks by emphatically addressing the primary implication of the conjecture of most conspiracy theorists that certain members of the US government orchestrated the attacks to serve as a pretext for the commencement of global military campaigns, the curtailment of domestic civil liberties, etc.

“That’s all tin-hat stuff. It might not always seem like it, but our government truly has our best interests at heart, loves us and is only trying to do what’s best.”

WG Hahn
- Homepage: http://www.NewsMutiny.com

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Heard it before...

25.08.2005 21:23

"steel doesn’t even begin to warp, let alone melt, at temperatures below 2000° F"

yeah, yeah, yeah. Its all a big conspiracy theory.

That's why every set of statutory building regulations in the western world requires that structural steelwork be protected against fire. Its all a conspiracy between architects and fireproofing contractors. And they bribed the hundreds of thousands of architects, structural engineers, and academics who know about steel in fires to keep quite.

Its all so obvious really. Thank you for pointing it it out.

Paranoid Pete


What's the melting point of steel?

26.08.2005 01:06

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Author: Brian Kross, Chief Detector Engineer

from:  http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

Sceptical Sue


Paranoid Pete

26.08.2005 08:24

Are you suggesting that a certain person maniacally reposts rehashed of teh same conspiracy rubbish on IM?


“That’s all tin-hat stuff. It might not always seem like it, but our government truly has our best interests at heart, loves us and is only trying to do what’s best.”

I love the single constant in the argumentation though: "If you don't believe 'A' then it means you believe 'B' and that makes you an idiot. Fuck off! I don't buy either thank you! And from self-professed anti-authoritarians too hahahaha!

Magoo


so then?

26.08.2005 09:42

It was cave dwelling muslims then?

Phew, we can rest easy now.

No more questions [unanswered] about steel and melting temp.

No more questions about:

Simultaneous drills
Bombs - heard and immeadiately reported
Seismic activity independently recorded BEFORE the collapse.
Whilstleblowers in the FBI, CIA, NSA, Port authority etc etc
Inconsistancies in airline passenger lists
Dancing israelis
Huge fortunes gambled and won that day on the stock exchange
Pre-prepared patriot acts (10 000+ page)
Pre-prepared invasion plans (iraq & afghani) by halliburton and unicol
Executives all out of town at the hour
Early warnings to 'special' people
Super fast disposal of the debris (evidence)
etc
etc
ect

The sceptic[sic] brigade has spoken, do not keep going on about mass murder and the changing forever of our rights and democratic aspirations

We are under attack, rally round the flag.

God save bush and paranoid pete.

head up my arse


yeah but, no but...

26.08.2005 10:07

Perhaps it would be of interest for those who are supposedly sceptical to acknowledge the fact that the pancake theory was formulated within 24 hours of the collapse of the wtc towers, by none other than the new york times. If you dont believe that then buy a copy of the paper from the day after on ebay (a work colleague of mine did, and i got to see it with me own peepers). It seems strange does it not that the initial theory which was NOT based on any scientific or crime scene study has stuck, even though there is no conclusive evidence to support it. It would appear that some of the more msm compliant individuals who post here are just as naive as those who religiously believe every word that david icke churns out. But i suppose, if you believe the new york times is the worlds foremost architectural authority....then the world REALLY could be run by reptiles, chuckle:D

And, PP, you wrote "And they bribed the hundreds of thousands of architects, structural engineers, and academics who know about steel in fires to keep quite."

well, no, that wouldnt need to happen. "they" would merely have to deny them a forum for airing their opinions, and since most people rely upon the msm for information, shutting them out from it means that the only place you would hear about these rogue architects etc, would be on sites like this. Cue tirade of insults questioning my sanity (yawn)


Billy goats gruff


Same old tosh tarted up for another outing...

26.08.2005 11:22

" It would appear that some of the more msm compliant individuals who post here are just as naive as those who religiously believe every word that david icke churns out."

Aw diddums, just because we don't believe you? LOL!

I remember reading somewhere that there was some bodge made when they built the towers, Something to do with sticking in wood where they should have metal... can't remember the details.

You know the more you repeat a conspiracy theory doesn't increase the chances of us believing it. Perhaps if you dug up something new, like someone actually having proof of the conspiracy with names and evidence to back it up we might take it seriously. No-one has ever proved the explosives theory, they have only mooted it.

Sure it's interesting but it's hardly the COINTELPRO telephone tap transcripts or an exhumed grave. Most of us, probably including yourself, don't have the expertise to understand either argument fully. The one thing I do understand is that for such a large conspiracy no-one involved has squealed... and we're nearly 4 years down the line. How do you explain that one?

And I don't mean people who THINK that something was amiss. I mean people that KNEW have failed to surface and that's unusual. Now that's a tight ship if it was a grand conspiracy.

Merry old Magoo


Preemptive Report

26.08.2005 17:05

The previous owners of the WTC bought the Sears Tower in Chicago, a likely target for the next attack. Signs to watch for are the arrival of FEMA for a "drill."

U Get Me?


Away havers!

26.08.2005 18:59

"No more questions [unanswered] about steel and melting temp. "

Oh where to start?

I for one am mightily intrigued as to what these oft-quoted unanswered questions are - presumably that old chestnut about steel not melting. Well, lets look at some building regulations.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed -  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at  http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example,  http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very
similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)

Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe: http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/pdf/wb_bsc%20prin_07_05.pdf. Note the opening comments on page 14 and then the page after page of details necessary to provide fire protection at the end. You'll see BG also do seperate systems to encase and protect steel beams.

Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:

 http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/steelinfire/previous_meetings.html
 http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm
 http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm (you'll like this one, engineers)

Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:

 http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts


I can go on, but its getting too like a day at the office. But one of the comments above suggested that dissent from the construction professions might have been stifled. I put it to you that the performance of steel in fire and need for protection to prevent catastrophic failure in fires is universally acknowledged. Any consipracy would involve not thousands, or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, building control officers, and steel manufacturers the world over. It is not only incredible (in the dictionary sense) but wholly implausable.

Yet time and time again we see the same old conspiracy theories rehashed. The theorists cannot come up with cogent, meaningful responses. Its government stool pigeons. Its stiffled opposition. Its spooks on Indymedia.

Rubbish. Its woolly thinking and unsupported hypothethis which is debunked by anyone with a basic understanding of evidencial issues and the brains to think things through.


Paranoid Pete


Never let the facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory

26.08.2005 19:15

"No more questions [unanswered] about steel and melting temp. "

Oh where to start?

I for one am mightily intrigued as to what these oft-quoted unanswered questions are - presumably that old chestnut about steel not melting. Well, lets look at some building regulations.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed -  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at  http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example,  http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very
similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)

Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe: http://www.british-gypsum.bpb.co.uk/pdf/wb_bsc%20prin_07_05.pdf. Note the opening comments on page 14 and then the page after page of details necessary to provide fire protection at the end. You'll see BG also do seperate systems to encase and protect steel beams.

Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:

 http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/steelinfire/previous_meetings.html
 http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm
 http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm (you'll like this one, engineers)

Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:

 http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts


I can go on, but its getting too like a day at the office. But one of the comments above suggested that dissent from the construction professions might have been stifled. I put it to you that the performance of steel in fire and need for protection to prevent catastrophic failure in fires is universally acknowledged. Any consipracy would involve not thousands, or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, building control officers, and steel manufacturers the world over. It is not only incredible (in the dictionary sense) but wholly implausable.

Yet time and time again we see the same old conspiracy theories rehashed. The theorists cannot come up with cogent, meaningful responses. Its government stool pigeons. Its stiffled opposition. Its spooks on Indymedia.

Rubbish. Its woolly thinking and unsupported hypothethis which is debunked by anyone with a basic understanding of evidencial issues and the brains to think things through.

Paranoid Pete


Paranoid Pete

27.08.2005 16:17

Do you reckon they meet up somewhere and plan a schedule of when they will post various rehashes of the same old crud? Is this what conspiracy loons do to tread water between real events to bandwagon??? Is Aled Jones on holiday???

I fail to see the point of constantly reposting old news, irrespective of whether it's genuine or dubious.

Thanks for all that info... not that any of means anything to a linguist, but I get the gist of your point. Hahahaha!

magoo