If you are going to argue that the towers were brought down by the government, do NOT use the excuse "Because it fell in it's own footprint". You sound foolish.
> If you are going to argue that the towers were brought down by the government, do NOT > use the excuse "Because it fell in it's own footprint". You sound foolish. > > > //Where the hell else was it supposed to fall. ///strawman
What if someone says; "Because it shows the signs of a controlled demolition."
I could type out a WHOLE lot more, but I'll save it for later if it should have to come to that.
> > If you are going to argue that the towers were brought down by the government, do > NOT > > use the excuse "Because it fell in it's own footprint". You sound foolish. > > > > > > //Where the hell else was it supposed to fall. ///strawman > > > What if someone says; "Because it shows the signs of a controlled demolition."
I would ask them to kindly list those "signs" to me, in a calm and rational manner.
> I could type out a WHOLE lot more, but I'll save it for later if it should have to > come to that. > > //will be more than one can chew. -hehe
Please do. I'm all ears. I'm fairly certain I will hear the same drivel I heard yesterday about how the fire couldn't have been hot enough, the building came down to quick, it was too clean, etc.
Quote: I would ask them to kindly list those "signs" to me, in a calm and rational manner.
I know you're referring to the towers, but building 7 definitely shows signs of a controlled demo, and it wasn't hit by an airplane at all.
People can argue left and right about the towers and the pentagon...the arguments on both sides have been done to death. Building 7 is still the one piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit. It stand out like a sore thumb, and in comparison to the towers, doesn't get talked about much.
> I would ask them to kindly list those "signs" to me, in a calm and rational manner. > > I know you're referring to the towers, but building 7 definitely shows signs of a > controlled demo, and it wasn't hit by an airplane at all. > > People can argue left and right about the towers and the pentagon...the arguments on > both sides have been done to death. Building 7 is still the one piece of the puzzle > that doesn't fit. It stand out like a sore thumb, and in comparison to the towers, > doesn't get talked about much.
I heard this one too.
The building took a significant debris hit dead on center, and had fires burning for hours. Numerous NYFD have said the horizontal structure was buckled severely, and that's why they were pulled well before the collapse. They had no resources to fight the fires and complete chaos outside. I wouldn't find the decision to let it burn strange int he slightest.
Unless there is a significant force acting in a lateral direction, how the hell else is everyone expecting this things to come down? A controlled demo doesn't control the direction of a fall, gravity does. Gravity pulls straight down, without fault. All a controlled demo does is weaken multiple members simultaneously to ensure the cleanest path downward possible. Several out of control fires would do the same job, if not better, than explosives.
> > > If you are going to argue that the towers were brought down by the government, do > > NOT > > > use the excuse "Because it fell in it's own footprint". You sound foolish. > > > > > > > > > //Where the hell else was it supposed to fall. ///strawman > > > > > > What if someone says; "Because it shows the signs of a controlled demolition." > > I would ask them to kindly list those "signs" to me, in a calm and rational manner. > >
> > I could type out a WHOLE lot more, but I'll save it for later if it should have to > > come to that. > > > > //will be more than one can chew. -hehe > > Please do. I'm all ears. I'm fairly certain I will hear the same drivel I heard > yesterday about how the fire couldn't have been hot enough, the building came down to > quick, it was too clean, etc.
Drivel. Okay. Well, if you know the standard "truther" routine then I guess it's up to you to point out how those allegations are incorrect without resorting to childish insults and (other) ad-hominem attacks. You made the topic.
"Truth" be known, what I'll say next is essentially what I originally typed out earlier this morning, but lost it due to closing the wrong tab. So, upon your request.... I promise not to disappoint & Thank you for the opportunity to let me share this.
1) The supposed "pancaking" that occurred. Why didn't we see a consistent pattern in the layers of what should have been the other floors? Not all of the floors were on fire now were they? Yet, strangely enough, there wasn't anything that was recognizable in any place or part of the debris.
2) But I'm sure investigators/scientists would've had time to study the crime scene. Oh wait, the cleanup crew removed everything before scientists could study anything. And if they couldn't investigate on site - then at least at another location. But no. They even shipped most of the steel beams over to some place in China. But I guess just because something is regarded as one of the greatest national tragedies isn't important enough to study and find answers for. Seems kind of strange, don't you agree?
3) The unusually high amount of Put Options that were placed on United and American Airlines before the attacks.
4) Leaseholder Larry Silverstein insuring the buildings for (ha-ha, lots of money) against (other things, as well as) terrorist attacks, then being rewarded double since both buildings were attacked which counted as 2 attacks. How convenient. Also, he didn't show up for work on that day (9-11-01), but I'm sure he's not there most of the time... Right?
5) Both towers needed to be renovated to remove asbestos (a health hazard) which would have cost Mr. Silverstein millions of dollars but was never able to get around to it due to the attacks. Again, how convenient.
6) The inner/central steel columns of the buildings. If the alleged "pancaking" of all the floors broke off from each level along this column - then why didn't they (some or even any) stay intact? Are we to believe that this integral part of the building's support was that weak?
7) ^That's disregarding the fact that the buildings were designed to withstand impacts of large planes.
Quote: The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
"600 mph". The 2 planes were said to have been traveling at 466 mph (when Flight 11 hits the North Tower) and 590 mph (when Flight 175 hits the South Tower).
8) The Squibs. The plumes of smoke being forced out of windows of floors well below the collapsing parts of the building above said 'squibs'. You could say that these windows were already knocked out by people jumping. But, again, not all floors were on fire, so why would windows be missing many floors below the impact area/s? Is air pressure "escaping from the elevator shafts" really that powerful to knock out a window? There isn't any other place this surge of air can go to? And why so much debris/dust/smoke? Was all that stuff already in those spaces?
9) No military planes were available to intercept the planes that lost radio contact and went off course.
10) A good number of experts in the fields of demolition agree that the rate of the buildings falling was at freefall speed. If things (e.g. "floors") were to "pancake" (assuming that was even plausible) it shouldn't have had so much energy. And the pyroplastic clouds are a classic example of explosions. Not to mention the debris that was pushed out/blown away with so much force. This caused damage to surrounding buildings. What would cause so much force as to push out concrete and steel? A mere collapse? Or something with a great deal more horizontal force?
11) Why didn't Bush take action upon hearing the news of the attacks? Even immediate action!? Why wasn't he worried that his location wouldn't be attacked too? His itinerary was (surely) known before the events of 9-11. If terrorists had enough intelligence and (obvious) ingenuity to do some of the other things they miraculously got away with - why wouldn't they target Bush too?
12) A quote from Bush himself; "nobody in our government....could envisage flying air planes into buildings"Really?
13) Lack of plane debris from the alleged Pentagon crash. And if there were (ever actually any recoverable) debris - why wasn't it taken to a hangar to be studied like other plane crashes?
14) An impact zone that isn't consistent with the size and/or shape of a Boeing 757, not to mention the "miraculous" ability of the pilot to crash the plane into the side of the building without so much as leaving any skid marks on the grass, or any damage that would have resulted to the foundation that the planes engines would've hit, etc. etc.
I could probably list more things that anyone could easily research for themselves, but I'm sure this is enough. I felt it would be easier for someone to explain these away if I separated them. Go for it. Defend the integrity of this wonderful and trustworthy government.
For building 7 to have fallen the way that it did, all weight bearing supports would have had to fail simultaneously. That is why a building that is being demolished falls straight down "into its own footprint"
The claims are with the twin towers, that because of the jet fuel burning at such high temperatures the steel supports began to melt, or warp to the point of failure, causing one floor to collapse onto another floor, effectively pancaking all the way down.
Building 7 was on fire sure, but not at the same temperatures as WTC 1 & 2. I could buy it if the building crumbled and fell down in sections at a time as the fire grew, but not all at once, falling almost identically to other planned demolitions.
The Windsor Madrid tower burned for approx 18 hours and didn't collapse and by all accounts wasn't as tall or as fortified as WTC 1 or 2, and due to the clientele inside WTC 7, I'd imagine that WTC 7 was stronger than most residential buildings...but that's just speculation on my part.
> Drivel. Okay. Well, if you know the standard "truther" routine then I guess it's up > to you to point out how those allegations are incorrect without resorting to childish > insults and (other) ad-hominem attacks. You made the topic.
I don't feel calling it drivel is an attack. Lighten up Frances.
> "Truth" be known, what I'll say next is essentially what I originally typed out > earlier this morning, but lost it due to closing the wrong tab. So, upon your > request.... I promise not to disappoint & Thank you for the opportunity to let me > share this. > > > 1) The supposed "pancaking" that occurred. Why didn't we see a consistent pattern in > the layers of what should have been the other floors? Not all of the floors were on > fire now were they? Yet, strangely enough, there wasn't anything that was > recognizable in any place or part of the debris.
You had 800 million pounds of load. That is a fuck-load of potential energy. Go outside and smash a chip of concrete with a 2 lb hammer. Multiply the force of that hammer by 400 million.
One major point that all the consiracies overlook when comparing these buildings to other botched demo jobs is the construction of these buildings. They are not traditional steel framed buildings. They were not built to handle the unbelievable stress loads they were put under. Had they been a traditional steel web design, they most likely would not have fallen.
Yes, yes they were 'designed' to take a hit from a 707. Essentially they did. The design failed.
> 2) But I'm sure investigators/scientists would've had time to study the crime scene. > Oh wait, the cleanup crew removed everything before scientists could study anything. > And if they couldn't investigate on site - then at least at another location. But no. > They even shipped most of the steel beams over to some place in China. But I guess > just because something is regarded as one of the greatest national tragedies isn't > important enough to study and find answers for. Seems kind of strange, don't you > agree?
Not, it doesn't. How many people have taken ill from the debris? I have an idea, lets leave that shit around for a while.
If it was in fact shipped to China, I'd say it would have more to do with their "ability" to handle toxic/hazardous materials without the EPA being up their ass. Don't claim they could have just waived restrictions either. They could have done that ~before~ the incident and saved themselves the trouble of "blowing up the buildings" to remove the asbestos as you claim...
> 3) The unusually high amount of Put Options that were placed on United and American > Airlines before the attacks.
Those put options were not placed by United, American did make stock moves a few days later, but largely in response to the moves on United and large purchases of their own stock. The firm placing those puts were responsible for 95% of the action.
Could they have had foreknowledge? Sure. I won't dispute that. Does it draw ANY conclusions as to how the building was to be taken down? Not at all. If anything it suggests events unfolded as they seem fortold, by a plane strike.
> 4) Leaseholder Larry Silverstein insuring the buildings for (ha-ha, lots of money) > against (other things, as well as) terrorist attacks, then being rewarded double > since both buildings were attacked which counted as 2 attacks. How convenient. Also, > he didn't show up for work on that day (9-11-01), but I'm sure he's not there most of > the time... Right?
He bought the buildings 2 months prior, no? Was he not supposed to insure them? I'm required to have insurance on my house as a condition of my mortgage. If a plane hits it, I'm getting paid too. If I don't get paid appropriately, I'm going to fight the insurance companies too. (I have in the past, if you recall).
I fail to see the point.
> 5) Both towers needed to be renovated to remove asbestos (a health hazard) which > would have cost Mr. Silverstein millions of dollars but was never able to get around > to it due to the attacks. Again, how convenient.
Lucky for him. Asbestos doesn't clean itself up overnight.
> 6) The inner/central steel columns of the buildings. If the alleged "pancaking" of > all the floors broke off from each level along this column - then why didn't they > (some or even any) stay intact? Are we to believe that this integral part of the > building's support was that weak?
Again, 800 MILLION tons of potential energy. Even 1/10th of that is a sufficient wrecking ball for any material given the right conditions. The right conditions were present.
How do you heat a fire? Feed it. Oxygen and fuel. pump these in faster, get a hotter flame. Have you ever felt the winds at 1000ft? They are pretty significant. Better than a breeze. Take a building with a direct route to air straight down. Punch a hole through it at the 700ft level. You've just created a forge.
> 7) ^That's disregarding the fact that the buildings were designed to withstand > impacts of large planes. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in > an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 > miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local > damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would > not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. > > "600 mph". The 2 planes were said to have been traveling at 466 mph (when Flight 11 > hits the North Tower) and 590 mph (when Flight 175 hits the South Tower).
"Designed". To my knowledge, this is the first test of that design. It failed. They were also fully loaded with fuel. It wasn't the hit alone that brought them down. It was the fire as well.
> The Squibs. The plumes of smoke being forced out of windows of floors well below > the collapsing parts of the building above said 'squibs'. You could say that these > windows were already knocked out by people jumping. But, again, not all floors were > on fire, so why would windows be missing many floors below the impact area/s? Is air > pressure "escaping from the elevator shafts" really that powerful to knock out a > window? There isn't any other place this surge of air can go to? And why so much > debris/dust/smoke? Was all that stuff already in those spaces?
The building was just hit by a damned plane. Have you ever had someone burn popcorn in the cafeteria, and the whole building stinks as a result? Smoke, fire, vibrations and stress all travel.
> 9) No military planes were available to intercept the planes that lost radio contact > and went off course.
Things were not the same as they are post 9/11. Look at the Payne Stewart incident. That plane wasn't intercepted for better than an hour.
> 10) A good number of experts in the fields of demolition agree that the rate of the > buildings falling was at freefall speed. If things (e.g. "floors") were to "pancake" > (assuming that was even plausible) it shouldn't have had so much energy. And the > pyroplastic clouds are a classic example of explosions. Not to mention the debris > that was pushed out/blown away with so much force. This caused damage to surrounding > buildings. What would cause so much force as to push out concrete and steel? A mere > collapse? Or something with a great deal more horizontal force?
But it wasn't free fall speed. Not even close. Less than half, actually. That math is not disputable. Free fall would have been ~8s. Estimates took it falling at 16-20s
The phrase "...it should not have had so much energy..." it telling about your understanding of basic physics. Force = Mass x Acceleration. The "hammer" slamming down on floors below was gaining both mass AND acceleration with each floor collapsed. Load ratings per floor are a constant. Each floor was hit with a greater force than the floor above it. Ever used a slide hammer? This was a giant slide hammer that increased its output with every floor it hit.
Also take into account you weren't fighting a structure that was in great shape. Ever see a concrete road buckle under summer heat? That's just at ~100F. Set that same concrete in a fire. It's going to weaken if it has any moisture in it whatsoever. Furthermore, concrete has excellent compressive strength, but sucks when it comes to tensile strength. I would call a 757 hitting it perpendicular a tensile stress.
> 11) Why didn't Bush take action upon hearing the news of the attacks? Even immediate > action!? Why wasn't he worried that his location wouldn't be attacked too? His > itinerary was (surely) known before the events of 9-11. If terrorists had enough > intelligence and (obvious) ingenuity to do some of the other things they miraculously > got away with - why wouldn't they target Bush too?
I'm not a terrorist. I don't know. Ask them. I'm also not Bush. Ether way I would have left the room, knowing of the attack or not.
> 12) A quote from Bush himself; "nobody in our government....could envisage flying air > planes into buildings" Really?
Again, I'm not Bush. Neither are you. Ask him. "Fool me once and I can't be fooled again" I guess. While you are there, can you find out if he's figured out what a sovereign nation is yet?
> 13) Lack of plane debris from the alleged Pentagon crash. And if there were (ever > actually any recoverable) debris - why wasn't it taken to a hangar to be studied like > other plane crashes? >
An aircraft is essentially a tin can with a solid frame inside. The Pentagon was very, very thick concrete. Thicker than the towers. It was recycled on impact.
> 14) An impact zone that isn't consistent with the size and/or shape of a Boeing 757, > not to mention the "miraculous" ability of the pilot to crash the plane into the side > of the building without so much as leaving any skid marks on the grass, or any damage > that would have resulted to the foundation that the planes engines would've hit, etc. > etc.
See above. I wouldn't call crashing a plane a miraculous ability.
Conjecture and hearsay. I don't know what was actually said, neither do you. Stick to issues we can work out on our own, with simple factual backing.
> I could probably list more things that anyone could easily research for themselves, > but I'm sure this is enough. I felt it would be easier for someone to explain these > away if I separated them. Go for it. Defend the integrity of this wonderful and > trustworthy government.
> For building 7 to have fallen the way that it did, all weight bearing supports would > have had to fail simultaneously. That is why a building that is being demolished > falls straight down "into its own footprint"
No, they don't have to 'fail' simultaneously. Weakened simultaneously, yes. Do that and they will likely fail in short order once a few go. It falls in it's own footprint due to gravity pulling straight down. Gravity works one way. If the resistance below is less than the force acting on it, it will fall straight down. There was a lot of force pushing (pulling) that thing down.
> > The claims are with the twin towers, that because of the jet fuel burning at such > high temperatures the steel supports began to melt, or warp to the point of failure, > causing one floor to collapse onto another floor, effectively pancaking all the way > down. > > Building 7 was on fire sure, but not at the same temperatures as WTC 1 & 2. I could > buy it if the building crumbled and fell down in sections at a time as the fire grew, > but not all at once, falling almost identically to other planned demolitions. >
Take another look at the picture I linked. see that giant gash in the center behind the smoke? I'd say that's a pretty significant structural hit. The fire departments seemed to think so as well.
Building 7 also burned for a LOT longer.
> The Windsor Madrid tower burned for approx 18 hours and didn't collapse and by all > accounts wasn't as tall or as fortified as WTC 1 or 2, and due to the clientele > inside WTC 7, I'd imagine that WTC 7 was stronger than most residential > buildings...but that's just speculation on my part.
WTC7 was not build the same as the Windsor. Apples to oranges.
If it was a controlled demo, who wired it. Was it in place when the building was built? That is an AWFUL lot of explosive to have sitting around for 25 years. Was it wired just before? That requires some decent manpower, and skilled personnel who know how to do it. NONE of those people were overcome by enough guilt to come forward? Something tells me even if the shit was installed when the building went up, someone out there would have spoken up.
Most modern construction is considered 'balloon' construction. The exterior of the building accounts for a good portion of the structural integrity of a building. Kick out one portion of the structure and the rest will fold like an accordion. For example you point out madrid. I point out Oklahoma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing That building didnt look like that at first. It took about a day before it all collapsed on itself. *Every* demolition job is different. I have seen ones where they kick the struts out and the building half falls on itself and doesnt implode at all (creating a huge dangerous block of concrete and steel). I have seen ones where they carefully planed where it was supposed to fall and it went the other way. The same guys who ran those planes into the towers tried the same thing as in Oklahoma inside the towers. That failed you think they would just go 'oh well that didnt work' and not try again?
This was not the first attack on those buildings.
Now for structural failing take for example the simple garage that italie built. If I were to knock out 1 corner with say a car. The thing probably would collapse on itself pretty quickly. It may even wobble for a few hours. You may say 'but the other 3 corners are holding it up'. Which would be true for a while. The walls would probably hold it up for awhile (until they cracked under load). But depending on how thick of members he put into those other 3 corners would depend on how long it lasted and the way it would collapse. Too small and it would fall quickly looking like all 3 corners went at once.
My point? A building is a system of geometry holding up many metric tons of steel, concrete and glass. You would be amazed at the amount of slack (as in half ass job) that some people out there put into their jobs in building these things (and remember these were built in the 70s under mob rule in a city known for bribery and money laundering scandals). You can get away with that as long as NOTHING goes wrong. The second something goes wrong the system will fail in a catastrophic way. You would be scared to go into many buildings if you knew how bad it is. Also italie I am not saying what you did was bad, it was actually a rare decent job. I use it as an example of how even a good job can fail when support is removed.
Here are the two theories: 1) a bunch of convoluted logic to make it sound like an inside job. Also many times that logic fails under any real scrutiny. It usually takes all the logic to work perfectly for these theories to work. Most of it does not jibe with real world demolition and construction techniques. 2) a bunch of pissed off Muslims did it. They admitted they did it. They have the money trail showing they did it. They have the people who taught them to fly saying it was them. They have points of origin on all the people who were involved. This was their at least second attempt. The man who started it all (and admitted he started it) is dead.
This is going to sound shocking. But there are people out there who hate every atom of your being just because of where you were born or where you live.
> Also italie I am not > saying what you did was bad, it was actually a rare decent job. I use it as an > example of how even a good job can fail when support is removed.
No offense taken in the slightest. I know for a fact that the garage I built would come down quicker than the original garage if you took a wall away. The design was completely different. In fact the original garage was taken down BECAUSE it was being supported by only TWO walls. Not a chance in hell the new garage withstands that type of damage. It was all in the trussing with the old garage. New one is a wide open sick frame highly reliant on the "whole" for it's strength. (hmmm...similar to how the WTC was designed...)
The new garage was designed not to "encourage" that kind of damage however.
( I will say that my garage will be the last on the block standing, in the event of a catastrophe... )
> If you are going to argue that the towers were brought down by the government, do NOT > use the excuse "Because it fell in it's own footprint". You sound foolish. > > > //Where the hell else was it supposed to fall.
The bigger question is:
Why bother arguing about 9/11? If the Government really is responsible, no one from there is going to be held accountable because they will simply go "this is classified for national security reasons" and that will be the end of it.
Sadly, by the time anyone finds out anything about 9/11, it will be centuries from now, if ever.
"Note to Noobs:
We are glad to help you but simply posting that something does not work is not going to lead to you getting help. The more information you can supply defining your problem, the less likely it will be that you will get smart-alec replies.
> > 1) The supposed "pancaking" that occurred. Why didn't we see a consistent pattern in > the layers of what should have been the other floors? Not all of the floors were on > fire now were they? Yet, strangely enough, there wasn't anything that was > recognizable in any place or part of the debris.
Simple. When a failure happens it is not going to blow out all supports at the same time. Remember the outside of the building is going to be cooler than the inside. Different parts of the dozen or so floors that were sawed in half are going to fail at different rates.
> > 2) But I'm sure investigators/scientists would've had time to study the crime scene. > Oh wait, the cleanup crew removed everything before scientists could study anything. > And if they couldn't investigate on site - then at least at another location. But no. > They even shipped most of the steel beams over to some place in China. But I guess > just because something is regarded as one of the greatest national tragedies isn't > important enough to study and find answers for. Seems kind of strange, don't you > agree?
Oh and they didnt put it all back together? Which they did. The shipped all the debris to a New Jersy port authority area (the guys who own the land and the buildings). They then sold the scrap off. 99% of the scrap is just that, scrap.
> > 3) The unusually high amount of Put Options that were placed on United and American > Airlines before the attacks.
Put options are not any indicator of anything. You usually see that sort of action before a major stockholder meeting or a few weeks before a financial release. The stock market is a big gambling stock machine. You can get put options on leverage for fairly cheap. And what you and I would consider a 'high amount' is pocket change to these guys... long and short options can get you into trouble quick. But you are usually very little out of pocket to buy them. You can even sell the same options (before they expire) if they change in price and pocket the difference.
> > 4) Leaseholder Larry Silverstein insuring the buildings for (ha-ha, lots of money) > against (other things, as well as) terrorist attacks, then being rewarded double > since both buildings were attacked which counted as 2 attacks. How convenient. Also, > he didn't show up for work on that day (9-11-01), but I'm sure he's not there most of > the time... Right?
Uh the buildings had been attacked before. Having that sort of insurance is not unreasonable. A CEO is usually moving around. Most of them have their own jets as it is cheaper and they get to where they are going at their time frames. Many even sit on multiple boards which are located in different places in the world... Larry Silverstein if he is anything like your usual landlord. They will be all over the place buying and selling buildings or glad handing some big customer...
> > 5) Both towers needed to be renovated to remove asbestos (a health hazard) which > would have cost Mr. Silverstein millions of dollars but was never able to get around > to it due to the attacks. Again, how convenient.
Asbestos is a nasty cleanup job. For a small house think 1-2 weeks. Now try 7 large buildings worth. Oh and whoever is on those floors needs to stop what they are doing and go somewhere else. Remember the towers was high rent so you didnt just kick people out... Many times it is BETTER to leave it in place. There are millions of buildings out there with asbestos in them. We sprayed that crap around up until the mid 80s. Its good at what its designed for (a fire retardant). It has very little structural integrity and comes off with a simple brush of your hand (unless held in place with something else).
> > 6) The inner/central steel columns of the buildings. If the alleged "pancaking" of > all the floors broke off from each level along this column - then why didn't they > (some or even any) stay intact? Are we to believe that this integral part of the > building's support was that weak?
Yes they were that weak. The twin towers were actually an interesting design. The exterior skin held up a good portion of the weight of the floors. Up until those were built no one had dared try it. They thought it too unsafe. It is all about distribution of load. Sort of like when you see those crazy guys running themselves over with cars. Most of the 3/4ths of weight of the car is on the other 3 tires. Intact would be fairly hard for concrete falling several hundred feet into other rubble. There were also large portions that were still there. But nothing bigger than a medium sized wall. Concrete is very brittle. If I made a 2x4x10 of concrete and took a sledge hammer to it I could make quick work of it. Same thing as wood would not be as easy to smash. Concrete has awesome compression strength. It does however have *very* poor lateral strength (which wood does).
> > 7) ^That's disregarding the fact that the buildings were designed to withstand > impacts of large planes. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in > an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 > miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local > damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would > not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. > > "600 mph". The 2 planes were said to have been traveling at 466 mph (when Flight 11 > hits the North Tower) and 590 mph (when Flight 175 hits the South Tower).
The original designs had that in there. Then they built them. Design and as built are many times not the same thing. Also a 767 which is nearly double the weight of a 707 is well outside of design spec... They both have about the same fuel capacity.
> > The Squibs. The plumes of smoke being forced out of windows of floors well below > the collapsing parts of the building above said 'squibs'. You could say that these > windows were already knocked out by people jumping. But, again, not all floors were > on fire, so why would windows be missing many floors below the impact area/s? Is air > pressure "escaping from the elevator shafts" really that powerful to knock out a > window? There isn't any other place this surge of air can go to? And why so much > debris/dust/smoke? Was all that stuff already in those spaces?
So a plane weighing at least 170,000 pounds just hit the building AND blew up. There was no air pressure shockwave from that? Air would follow the path of least resistance. The stair wells elevator shafts and holes created by the impact. Also yes buildings are dirty. They were nearly 30 years old at that point and just had all the asbestos blown off in an explosion...
> > 9) No military planes were available to intercept the planes that lost radio contact > and went off course.
They do not keep military fighter jets in the air at all times. Those things drink gas by the gallon. They are not cheap to run. They also do not keep everything manned 100% of the time. We were not at war at the time. We were at the least defcon. Which means everyone is 'ready' but it takes a couple of hours to spin up. Which they did. Within 2 hours everything was grounded and would have been shot from the sky.
> > 10) A good number of experts in the fields of demolition agree that the rate of the > buildings falling was at freefall speed. If things (e.g. "floors") were to "pancake" > (assuming that was even plausible) it shouldn't have had so much energy. And the > pyroplastic clouds are a classic example of explosions. Not to mention the debris > that was pushed out/blown away with so much force. This caused damage to surrounding > buildings. What would cause so much force as to push out concrete and steel? A mere > collapse? Or something with a great deal more horizontal force?
A good number of experts huh? Not the ones I have seen. In any demolition you know what they do? They board up all the buildings around them. You know why? Debris is unpredictable. It goes all over the place.
> > 11) Why didn't Bush take action upon hearing the news of the attacks? Even immediate > action!? Why wasn't he worried that his location wouldn't be attacked too? His > itinerary was (surely) known before the events of 9-11. If terrorists had enough > intelligence and (obvious) ingenuity to do some of the other things they miraculously > got away with - why wouldn't they target Bush too?
On the second one he did. The first one at the time everyone thought it was an accident. Was he supposed to upset a room full of children because something happened in new york? If it had been just an accident that would have been all over the news 'president bush upsets 4 year olds'. No, he stayed calm and finished his meet and greet.
> > 12) A quote from Bush himself; "nobody in our government....could envisage flying air > planes into buildings" Really?
They have people in our gov thinking up all sorts of crazy things. No one takes them that seriously. They just plan out what should happen if it does...
> > 13) Lack of plane debris from the alleged Pentagon crash. And if there were (ever > actually any recoverable) debris - why wasn't it taken to a hangar to be studied like > other plane crashes?
> > 14) An impact zone that isn't consistent with the size and/or shape of a Boeing 757, > not to mention the "miraculous" ability of the pilot to crash the plane into the side > of the building without so much as leaving any skid marks on the grass, or any damage > that would have resulted to the foundation that the planes engines would've hit, etc. > etc.
He didnt land it. He clipped the wing and hit at about the 2nd floor. He had been practicing for MONTHS beforehand to do this...
He screwed up and now will not admit it. It is a classic mental thing people are taught in business school. *NEVER* admit you are wrong, 'others are wrong you are not'. I have worked with people who do that. It is irritating as hell. But you will never get him to say otherwise.
> > > I could probably list more things that anyone could easily research for themselves, > but I'm sure this is enough. I felt it would be easier for someone to explain these > away if I separated them. Go for it. Defend the integrity of this wonderful and > trustworthy government.
Your theory is our gov did it. That theory takes quite a number of mental gymnastics to make it work right.
My theory is a bunch of pissed off muslims wanted it, practiced to do it, then did it. Remember they hate us just because of where we are from. It is pure bigotry at its finest.
> If it was a controlled demo, who wired it. Was it in place when the building was > built? That is an AWFUL lot of explosive to have sitting around for 25 years. Was it > wired just before? That requires some decent manpower, and skilled personnel who know > how to do it. NONE of those people were overcome by enough guilt to come forward? > Something tells me even if the shit was installed when the building went up, someone > out there would have spoken up.
Fair enough. Still seems odd to me...every part of 9/11 there are oddities. Conspirity theorists aren't automatically crazies.
Why bring this 9/11 stuff up seemingly out of nowhere though? Were you expecting a civil discussion? This is an issue that has polarized just about everyone affected by it. Just as with religion speak around here, it's doubtful to change anyone's mind that already has it set.
> Fair enough. Still seems odd to me...every part of 9/11 there are oddities. > Conspirity theorists aren't automatically crazies. > > Why bring this 9/11 stuff up seemingly out of nowhere though? Were you expecting a > civil discussion? This is an issue that has polarized just about everyone affected by > it. Just as with religion speak around here, it's doubtful to change anyone's mind > that already has it set.
I know that, just inappropriately venting from some full on derper I was talking with. I'm all for letting people have their conspiracies and theories. It just absolutely kills me when people who should know better get sucked in a little too far.
Quote: This is going to sound shocking. But there are people out there who hate every atom of your being just because of where you were born or where you live.
And this may sound shocking, but our government lies....often. They also cover up their lies....often.
Question everything. Never take the information you're given at face value.
Quote: Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself. -- Timothy Leary
> If it was a controlled demo, who wired it. Was it in place when the building was > built? That is an AWFUL lot of explosive to have sitting around for 25 years. Was it > wired just before? That requires some decent manpower, and skilled personnel who know > how to do it. NONE of those people were overcome by enough guilt to come forward? > Something tells me even if the shit was installed when the building went up, someone > out there would have spoken up.
They were probably placed during the renovations to the elevator shafts in 2000. It was said to have been a project to "modernized" them, which required (armed?) security to guard the elevators instead of simply taping them off.
> > If it was a controlled demo, who wired it. Was it in place when the building was > > built? That is an AWFUL lot of explosive to have sitting around for 25 years. Was > it > > wired just before? That requires some decent manpower, and skilled personnel who > know > > how to do it. NONE of those people were overcome by enough guilt to come forward? > > Something tells me even if the shit was installed when the building went up, > someone > > out there would have spoken up. > > They were probably placed during the renovations to the elevator shafts in 2000. It > was said to have been a project to "modernized" them, which required (armed?) > security to guard the elevators instead of simply taping them off.
The question stands. Not a one of the people planting those devices has been guilt-ed to come forward in 11 years? One guy did't wire two 100 story buildings. Two guys didn't do it either. It would take a small army of workers to place enough explosives in those buildings to bring them down. It would also take experience and knowledge to draw up the plans. I find it near impossible that every last one of those workers would take knowledge like that to the grave.
I also would like to pose a new question. To what benefit, or end, would blowing up these buildings serve? Sure the guy that ~just~ purchased them made some dough. Did he make enough to keep the hundreds of others he would have to involve happy? Was it enough to offset the foreseeable damage it would do to a struggling airline industry? etc, etc, etc...
> The question stands. Not a one of the people planting those devices has been guilt-ed > to come forward in 11 years? One guy did't wire two 100 story buildings. Two guys > didn't do it either. It would take a small army of workers to place enough explosives > in those buildings to bring them down. It would also take experience and knowledge to > draw up the plans. I find it near impossible that every last one of those workers > would take knowledge like that to the grave. >
Who can say? But people can be threatened, or silenced. Like this fellow...
> I also would like to pose a new question. To what benefit, or end, would blowing up > these buildings serve? Sure the guy that ~just~ purchased them made some dough. Did > he make enough to keep the hundreds of others he would have to involve happy? Was it > enough to offset the foreseeable damage it would do to a struggling airline industry? > etc, etc, etc...
If it was the government that was ultimately responsible then that would be known as a false flag operation. Take for instance the following....
The Gulf of Tonkin incident, Operation Northwoods...
With 9-11, in the interests of "National Security" more laws have been passed that allows the government to invade privacy, post security/"Border Patrol" checkpoints along highways as far as 100 miles from any borders within the U.S., TSA checkpoints at airports and train stations where we're given a choice of body scans that emit radioactivity (with prolonged and repeated exposure the risk of cancer is increased), or to essentially have our private areas groped -which have led to many citizens complaining of abuses by TSA agents. America is looking more and more like a Police state by these government sponsored agencies that are denying citizens their rights (particularly the 4th amendment).
Gotta get them there terrorists.
I wonder what the score is so far? As in: How many terrorists have they actually caught having since implemented these "security" measures?
eta: TSA Agent:"If you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't mind me looking inside your rectum."
> My theory is a bunch of pissed off muslims wanted it, practiced to do it, then did > it. Remember they hate us just because of where we are from. It is pure bigotry at > its finest.
And you were going so well up to that point. They hate you because of US foreign policy, military action, support of Israel and Saudi Arabia, coup in Iran, etc. And if citizens are legitimate targets in any kind of state, it's a democracy, as in theory the country is ruled by the will of the people (as opposed to an absolute monarchy or dictatorship).
This is the point at which I tune out, and certify you nuts. The term "False Flag" gets used as logical reasoning and as an end-all be-all discussion winner. It's endlessly frustrating that all the time and effort spent creating this huge conspiracy always gets wrapped up in such a let down of creativity.
"Because False Flag" only says to me that you have no sound or logical explanation for why you hold your theories, other than you have more blind hatred toward the government than the people who flew the planes into the buildings.
> > The question stands. Not a one of the people planting those devices has been > guilt-ed > > to come forward in 11 years? One guy did't wire two 100 story buildings. Two guys > > didn't do it either. It would take a small army of workers to place enough > explosives > > in those buildings to bring them down. It would also take experience and knowledge > to > > draw up the plans. I find it near impossible that every last one of those workers > > would take knowledge like that to the grave. > > > > Who can say? But people can be threatened, or silenced. Like this fellow... > > > > I also would like to pose a new question. To what benefit, or end, would blowing up > > these buildings serve? Sure the guy that ~just~ purchased them made some dough. Did > > he make enough to keep the hundreds of others he would have to involve happy? Was > it > > enough to offset the foreseeable damage it would do to a struggling airline > industry? > > etc, etc, etc... > > > If it was the government that was ultimately responsible then that would be known as > a false flag operation. Take for instance the following.... > > The Gulf of Tonkin incident, > Operation Northwoods... > > With 9-11, in the interests of "National Security" more laws have been passed that > allows the government to invade privacy, post security/"Border Patrol" checkpoints > along highways as far as 100 miles from any borders within the U.S., TSA checkpoints > at airports and train stations where we're given a choice of body scans that emit > radioactivity (with prolonged and repeated exposure the risk of cancer is increased), > or to essentially have our private areas groped -which have led to many citizens > complaining of abuses by TSA agents. America is looking more and more like a Police > state by these government sponsored agencies that are denying citizens their rights > (particularly the 4th amendment). > > Gotta get them there terrorists. > > I wonder what the score is so far? As in: How many terrorists have they actually > caught having since implemented these "security" measures? > > > eta: TSA Agent: "If you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't mind me looking > inside your rectum."
> This is the point at which I tune out, and certify you nuts. The term "False Flag" > gets used as logical reasoning and as an end-all be-all discussion winner. It's > endlessly frustrating that all the time and effort spent creating this huge > conspiracy always gets wrapped up in such a let down of creativity. > > "Because False Flag" only says to me that you have no sound or logical explanation > for why you hold your theories, other than you have more blind hatred toward the > government than the people who flew the planes into the buildings. >
It's not blind. I just now see what should be obvious. It used to be that anyone that would say that the U.S. gov. was responsible - of course I would think less of them, as if their opinion didn't matter since they were so 'out-there' and crazy. My thought was that they had no reason to say what they did, they were just doing it to be cool or something, anti-establishment hippies that hate 'The Man'. Did they then know the things that I know now? I don't know. I'd say that WTC Building 7 is what first opened my eyes (e.g. 'No longer blind'). Then the Pentagon.... One door would open to another. And no, I didn't like it. So any "hate" that I have (more like distrust) is based on a betrayal from something I once had a lot of faith in.
Since the U.S. government was responsible for (at least) 2 of the incidents I mentioned, and that they are on record officially -would mean that the U.S. is also capable of committing the atrocities of 9/11. I can understand if you want to cop-out and play the part of a denier. That is the easiest thing to do. I know it will only be a matter of time before you see the light too. Many other people have before, and I can't see why you should be an exception. Or am I justified in accusing you of being blind in your acceptance of the so called "official story"?
Actually, you were incorrect where you said...
Quote: "Because False Flag" only says to me that you have no sound or logical explanation for why you hold your theories....
It's the inconsistencies in the so called "official explanations" which lend to more logical explanations -a.k.a. "Conspiracy Theories" which must obviously be defined as anything that doesn't line up with what the Government says happened, which point to the Government being responsible. They claimed the attacks were orchestrated by "terrorists". So what better excuse would there be to invade foreign countries and bomb the crap out of 'em? Billion, Trillions? of our tax money funds these wars that, as Dick Cheney said;
That is exactly my point though. You are ignoring every logical and sensible peice of data to support the conspiracy. Building 7 is a perfect example. The official explanation covers what happend in manner cosistant with the data available. There is no need to seek alternatives without a personal vendetta. Anyone looking with educated, unpersuaded eyes should see that.
I am not a denier..truther...or any other type of 'er. I veiw the situation through logical eyes, and find more plot holes in the conspiracy than I do with events as explained. When the best root cause I get in return as a convincer is "because false flag"...that isn't going to be enough to "open my eyes".
ahh conspiracy theorists.ALWAYS good for a laugh.tons of accusations,no proof.Some folks just have too much time on their hands
the one that makes me laugh the most is the reverse engineering of crashed UFO's,that Bob Lazarr guy was good for a laugh. @ the 4th of July cookout I was @ this year I had to listen to a ufo conspiracy theorist.He was going on and on about Roswell,Area 51 and Dugway proving grounds (which he dubbed Area 52)
The U.S. Government staged the event and readily called out the enemy via it's own corporate controlled media. This was the (perceived, notice the quotation marks) "Problem".
Planes flying into buildings, death, destruction, shit-hits-the-fan so let's get revenge because tragedy unites everyone in flag waving harmony. This was the "Reaction".
"Let's go to war!" -this was the "Solution".
A classic tool of propaganda.
Quote: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” - Adolf Hitler
I could question everything (and I have a healthy skepticism). However, there is a difference between lies and conspiracy theories.
Most conspiracy theories are grounded in a hatred for something (in this case the US gov). Then the mental gymnastics that are gone thru to qualify the theories as 'truth' is quite dizzying. Many times these arguments also try to reinforce each other. Leaving out if one argument fails the other fails with it. Its like saying A=B=C=D=E=F and A=1, B=6, C=2. Then saying because A is true F is true to even though if B and C are both false F can not be true. Some even go as far as to discard facts that get in the way or attack the facts with arguments such as 'open your eyes' or 'question everything'.
As in many of these sorts of theories have a hint of truth. Many are based on speculation and half-truths that fail with a bit of reasoning of someone who knows what they are doing.
In this particular case I could care less if the the 'US' gov is right or wrong. It is the bad structural engineering that makes me speak up. People have a very strange view of the way the world is. I blame it mostly on TV and movies (but thats just a made up theory). They then apply movie logic to the real world. Then get mad when it doesnt work right. They do things in movies because it is cool not because it is right. The real world is rather boring compared to them.
I like following the theories only because they are interesting to watch unfold. However, many times they prove very wrong and usually quite spectacularly. I have seen quite a few examples of this.
> ... people who should know better ... > > don't you really mean "people who should agree with me"
Nope, not at all. I couldn't care less if someone disagrees with me. I don't even mind if someone disagrees with me and they're completely wrong about whatever it is.
I ~do~ mind when someone disagrees with me, they're factually in the wrong about it, and they are smart enough to know better. It's disappointing.
> > Care to expand on WHY false flag? > > The U.S. Government staged the event and readily called out the enemy via it's own > corporate controlled media. This was the (perceived, notice the quotation marks) > "Problem". > > Planes flying into buildings, death, destruction, shit-hits-the-fan so let's get > revenge because tragedy unites everyone in flag waving harmony. This was the > "Reaction". > > "Let's go to war!" -this was the "Solution". > > A classic tool of propaganda. > > “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe > it” - Adolf Hitler
Okay, getting somewhere. Now explain to me WHY we wanted to go to war. Please include a risk-reward comparison in your answer.
Helpful note: Attacks - U.S. Casualties: 2,985 deaths, 6,291+ wounded Afghanistan - U.S. Casualties: 1098 deaths, 2379 wounded in action Iraq - U.S. Casualties: 4,404 deaths; 31,827 wounded in action
> Okay, getting somewhere. Now explain to me WHY we wanted to go to war. Please include > a risk-reward comparison in your answer. > > > > > Helpful note: > Attacks - U.S. Casualties: 2,985 deaths, 6,291+ wounded > Afghanistan - U.S. Casualties: 1098 deaths, 2379 wounded in action > Iraq - U.S. Casualties: 4,404 deaths; 31,827 wounded in action
More importantly, why Bush wanted to go to war? If so, how could he make a nation to agree with one? USA had no business in World War II up to the Pearl Harbor attack, Bush and everyone know that. Did he and his administration knew forward and simply let it slide? Like sacrificing a chess piece for a better move.
I'm not into conspiracy theories, but some questions raise about the incident.
The links are probably garbage and my questions are mere speculations, but there's space for the doubt as no one has access to government files and it's not rocket science to know media is controllable by the government.
In the end, everything is a waste of time. The truth (if there is one) will be uncovered in a century or two.
> > Okay, getting somewhere. Now explain to me WHY we wanted to go to war. Please > include > > a risk-reward comparison in your answer. > > > > > > > > > > Helpful note: > > Attacks - U.S. Casualties: 2,985 deaths, 6,291+ wounded > > Afghanistan - U.S. Casualties: 1098 deaths, 2379 wounded in action > > Iraq - U.S. Casualties: 4,404 deaths; 31,827 wounded in action > > More importantly, why Bush wanted to go to war? > If so, how could he make a nation to agree with one?
Careful there. You need to plot this answer out so that the conspirators had time to plan and execute the rigging of the explosives during the upgrades to the elevators in the buildings.
> Okay, getting somewhere. Now explain to me WHY we wanted to go to war. Please include > a risk-reward comparison in your answer. > > Helpful note: > Attacks - U.S. Casualties: 2,985 deaths, 6,291+ wounded > Afghanistan - U.S. Casualties: 1098 deaths, 2379 wounded in action > Iraq - U.S. Casualties: 4,404 deaths; 31,827 wounded in action
^Loaded question. You're presuming our government, -or more precisely, the ones that truly control our government- give a damn about human life.
Radiation due to a nuclear device. This would explain the truck loads of dirt they're hauling in and out, as well as the constant hosing down of equipment, and is a much more logical explanation for the hot glowing molten metal so long after the collapse than the thermite (theory).
As for the idea of a high altitude and fire inside the building being a "forge"?... and they say the "conspiracy theorists" are grasping at straws.
The theory about the planes being edited in due to the plane hitting the south tower and the nose of the plane to appear to penetrate all the way through before the explosion. Note, that the televised transmission was (I believe) on a 17 second delay, and how different shots from different cameras appear to have some inconsistency issues. Such as the zoom in from the helicopter camera far from the west (the 2nd link talks about this), then it seems to suddenly appear when the plane wasn't there when it was zoomed out.
A hologram? Well, they have a Ghost of TuPac so....
Another good vid, implicates those who are in some way involved with the government and the WTC.
> > Okay, getting somewhere. Now explain to me WHY we wanted to go to war. Please > include > > a risk-reward comparison in your answer. > > > > Helpful note: > > Attacks - U.S. Casualties: 2,985 deaths, 6,291+ wounded > > Afghanistan - U.S. Casualties: 1098 deaths, 2379 wounded in action > > Iraq - U.S. Casualties: 4,404 deaths; 31,827 wounded in action > > ^Loaded question. You're presuming our government, -or more precisely, the ones that > truly control our government- give a damn about human life. >
Oh joy, I was disappointed that the Illuminati hadn't been brought up yet.
> > The red pill... > > > > PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuNg88YAVak > > Radiation due to a nuclear device. This would explain the truck loads of dirt they're > hauling in and out, as well as the constant hosing down of equipment, and is a much > more logical explanation for the hot glowing molten metal so long after the collapse > than the thermite (theory).
A nuclear device. Honestly? When radiation spiked in Indiana a few months back, something to the tune of twenty-five people picked it up on home Geigers. INDIANA. I find it difficult to swallow that not one person in New York or Jersey would have picked up on that. It's also the least desirable option I can fathom if you are trying to keep something like this under wraps. And the least controlled. And the most likely to blow the building outward. etc, etc, etc.
Sand/dirt was brought in for the same reason it's brought into any hazmat situation. Tons and TONS of toxic shit floating through the air. Asbestos alone is no joke, even in small amounts, when disturbed. There was enough asbestos in those towers to give the population of Manhattan lung cancer 10 times over if left to the wind. Now on top of the asbestos, think of what concrete is made of. Gypsum, lime, silica...all sorts of things that will tear your innards to shit when inhaled as a dust. There was plenty of dust at that. Those trucks were carting away/covering up air-born death.
The thermite theory is flat busted. It would drip off the side of anything it was strapped to the minute a reaction started.
> As for the idea of a high altitude and fire inside the building being a "forge"?... > and they say the "conspiracy theorists" are grasping at straws. >
Because Physics.
> The theory about the planes being edited in due to the plane hitting the south tower > and the nose of the plane to appear to penetrate all the way through before the > explosion. Note, that the televised transmission was (I believe) on a 17 second > delay, and how different shots from different cameras appear to have some > inconsistency issues. Such as the zoom in from the helicopter camera far from the > west (the 2nd link talks about this), then it seems to suddenly appear when the plane > wasn't there when it was zoomed out. > > A hologram? Well, they have a Ghost of TuPac so.... >
I knew one of the attendants on the AA flight. My father was working for AA as well, and handled a good deal of internal damage control. I can assure you AA lost a plane into that tower, and 92 people. I don't take personal offense to much of the speculation BS, but I do find anyone denying the loss of life a bit disrespectful.
Btw, to wrap up a previous comment, this is what an aircraft looks like after it hits the Pentagon.
Since you brought up the Pentagon, why is it do you think there aren't any other released videos of the strike on the Pentagon other than the grainy, choppy gate camera? Surely there are/were other cameras pointed at the Pentagon, either on the grounds, or from other surrounding buildings?
I'm not trying to trap you or go into theories, I just find it really strange that there isn't any other footage of the attack on DC.
If anything it would silence a lot of conspiracy theorists on the subject.
> A nuclear device. Honestly? When radiation spiked in Indiana a few months back, > something to the tune of twenty-five people picked it up on home Geigers. INDIANA.
What'r you tryin' to say? We got science and shit here!
> Since you brought up the Pentagon, why is it do you think there aren't any other > released videos of the strike on the Pentagon other than the grainy, choppy gate > camera? Surely there are/were other cameras pointed at the Pentagon, either on the > grounds, or from other surrounding buildings? > > I'm not trying to trap you or go into theories, I just find it really strange that > there isn't any other footage of the attack on DC. > > If anything it would silence a lot of conspiracy theorists on the subject.
I don't know. I can speak from experience that most of those gate cameras suck. They aren't very high frame rate, usually the same type you put in ATM machines. Why they don't release any of the other footage supposedly captured is anyone's guess. Maybe they didn't want the public knowing how shitty their surveillance really was.
This is a good, and valid point to scrutinize. The lack of evidence doesn't make for proof of any other theory though.
Again, I ~do~ know that AA lost a plane here as well and 64 people on it. They had boarding passes and physically accounted for luggage that was scanned and loaded onto the plane. If there was some grand conspiracy here, they would have had to hack into AA's systems. They would have had to insert false passenger manifests, false (yet valid) luggage tags, fake the scans of said luggage and boarding passes, steal TWO planes, and kidnap ~at least~ one living breathing flight attendant for the last 11 years.
While doing all this, they'd have to convince a struggling airline industry to go along with a plot that would cripple their business further.
Quote: I can speak from experience that most of those gate cameras suck. They aren't very high frame rate, usually the same type you put in ATM machines.
This is one of the most secure buildings on American soil. Having such shitty cameras at a point of entry is definitely a HUGE failure.
I remember a while back when they hyped everyone up with "new footage" from the pentagon attack and all we got were about 2 extra frames from the footage we've all already seen that may or may not have been a nose cone from an airplane. We were supposed to be satisfied with that?
> I can speak from experience that most of those gate cameras suck. They aren't very > high frame rate, usually the same type you put in ATM machines. > > This is one of the most secure buildings on American soil. Having such shitty cameras > at a point of entry is definitely a HUGE failure.
It was, and it wasn't. Yes, it really screams "We went with the cheap option". In all fairness though, that was right around the time when decent equipment options were just being offered for gate systems. I worked for a company in '00 that had a state of the art gate system put in. The cameras weren't much better. Sometimes we forget just how far technology has changed in ten years. (My nextel phone in '00 with text based internet was the latest and greatest...)
> I remember a while back when they hyped everyone up with "new footage" from the > pentagon attack and all we got were about 2 extra frames from the footage we've all > already seen that may or may not have been a nose cone from an airplane. We were > supposed to be satisfied with that?
> Btw, to wrap up a previous comment, this is what an aircraft looks like after it hits > the Pentagon.
You can look at that piece of metal and say that that is evidence that a plane crashed. But are you ignoring what damage the Pentagon should have taken (what anyone with reasonable observation skills should see)? If a plane hit it or a missile hit it - either way it would burn. If a plane did hit it then why isn't the impact area consistent with a plane that large? Where the engines would have hit, even the wings and tail-fin. The hole that was in that side of the building -before the floors of the building above the location of impact burned down- was NOT big enough to be a Boeing 757. Whatever hit it even penetrated all the way to the 3rd 'ring' from the point of impact in a straight line. I would imagine that a plane hitting something at that angle (45 degrees) would cause some deflection (it could still penetrate), even spreading out from breaking up as it goes through the layers of the building. Not making a straight line cut. Let's assume that "the plane" did go all the way through to that area outside of that hole. There still wasn't any plane parts in that opening all the way over to that side.
If you want to suggest the ridiculous notion that the plane 'evaporated' from the heat... That can not work. If the heat melted the plane then why was there some office furniture still intact? (Yes or No) Do they make office furniture to hold up better than airplane parts?
Then I can look at that one small piece of supposed debris from the "plane" and look at the damage to the Pentagon, look back at the piece, then back at the Pentagon. Sadly, that piece alone doesn't suggest that a plane hit the Pentagon. It was either planted, or from something else.
For example, if someone, not having any knowledge of 9/11, was shown pictures of this event (at the Pentagon), then they were asked to guess what they think would have caused the damage. And let's make it easy on them by making it multiple choice.
a) A Boeing 767 b) a missile c) a smaller aircraft armed with explosives (for the sake of variety)
"Well, if it were a Boeing, where is the damage on the lawn?" "The hole isn't big enough to be from a Boeing either."
"A small aircraft probably wouldn't have enough momentum to go through 3 layers or essentially 3 buildings (since they were separated).
The best option is the only one that remains.
"It had to have been a missile."
Then again, they could have been given the suggestion by the media that is was a plane, to shut-up, and not ask any questions.
Isn't it strange how the planes that hit the Twin Towers left a cutout of their shapes where they went in, but the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon didn't? And even if the wings and tail-fin couldn't penetrate the Pentagon - we should have at least seen some impact damage of SOME SORT.
Last thing I'll mention. The corkscrew turn the hijacker made to turn around towards the Pentagon. This is what I was referring to when I used the word "miraculous". It is impossible to do. But some people will believe it without question. Unless you have a theory of how the inexperienced pilot was able to pull off that maneuver - I'm all ears.
Granted, this is into the ground. But see how the plane's angle changes. There is less resistance since it has little to go through. How could the plane that hit the Pentagon not turned in some way, taking out more broad of an area rather than making a small hole all the way into the 3rd ring?
Here is a video of a Boeing 727. Even if the descent is slower - see how it holds up after it crashes? Not that sturdy really. Hard to believe it can go to the 3rd ring of a building.
eta: crap, forgot to embed ^this one.
"But, the plane was traveling at 530 MPH!"
But at sea level (best to my googling ability I come up with) *dang it* I realize the greater the speed could make it possible to go that far through (like a straw stabbed through a potato, maybe?). But, imo, there's no way it (if it was a plane) should stay that much intact to make a mere hole all the way to the other side through 6 or more walls. But, honestly, I welcome a good, logical explanation saying that that's exactly what would happen and why.
> You can look at that piece of metal and say that that is evidence that a plane > crashed. But are you ignoring what damage the Pentagon should have taken (what anyone > with reasonable observation skills should see)? If a plane hit it or a missile hit it > - either way it would burn. If a plane did hit it then why isn't the impact area > consistent with a plane that large?
It was. There was a 16 ft diameter hole in the pentagon. The body of a 757 has roughly a 13 ft diameter.
> Where the engines would have hit, even the wings > and tail-fin. The hole that was in that side of the building -before the floors of > the building above the location of impact burned down- was NOT big enough to be a > Boeing 757. Whatever hit it even penetrated all the way to the 3rd 'ring' from the > point of impact in a straight line. I would imagine that a plane hitting something at > that angle (45 degrees) would cause some deflection (it could still penetrate), even > spreading out from breaking up as it goes through the layers of the building. Not > making a straight line cut. Let's assume that "the plane" did go all the way through > to that area outside of that hole. There still wasn't any plane parts in that opening > all the way over to that side.
A 757 carries it's fuel in the wings. They would have been blown to bits along with the entire rear of the plane. The front half would have continued on like a bullet slug.
> If you want to suggest the ridiculous notion that the plane 'evaporated' from the > heat... That can not work. If the heat melted the plane then why was there some > office furniture still intact? (Yes or No) Do they make office furniture to hold up > better than airplane parts?
As stated above, and as shown in most of the images taken, there are "blown to bits" pieces of the plane everywhere on the lawn. Also yes, some office furniture might have been built tougher than a 757. It's thin sheets of aluminum wrapped around a rigid half-skeleton. It's designed to be light and hold up to traveling through air. It isn't designed to survive a brick wall at 300 knots.
> Then I can look at that one small piece of supposed debris from the "plane" and look > at the damage to the Pentagon, look back at the piece, then back at the Pentagon. > Sadly, that piece alone doesn't suggest that a plane hit the Pentagon. It was either > planted, or from something else.
Okay, here's some more. Maybe they planted all this too from the plane AA was missing...
> For example, if someone, not having any knowledge of 9/11, was shown pictures of this > event (at the Pentagon), then they were asked to guess what they think would have > caused the damage. And let's make it easy on them by making it multiple choice. > > a) A Boeing 767 > b) a missile > c) a smaller aircraft armed with explosives (for the sake of variety) > > "Well, if it were a Boeing, where is the damage on the lawn?" > "The hole isn't big enough to be from a Boeing either." > > "A small aircraft probably wouldn't have enough momentum to go through 3 layers or > essentially 3 buildings (since they were separated). > > The best option is the only one that remains. > > "It had to have been a missile." > > Then again, they could have been given the suggestion by the media that is was a > plane, to shut-up, and not ask any questions.
Yes, lets ask random people to back up your theories instead of people qualified to answer the question.
> Isn't it strange how the planes that hit the Twin Towers left a cutout of their > shapes where they went in, but the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon didn't? And > even if the wings and tail-fin couldn't penetrate the Pentagon - we should have at > least seen some impact damage of SOME SORT.
The pentagon is a lot more solid than the WTC was. By far. The wings had also taken on damage before hitting the pentagon.
> Last thing I'll mention. The corkscrew turn the hijacker made to turn around towards > the Pentagon. This is what I was referring to when I used the word "miraculous". It > is impossible to do. But some people will believe it without question. Unl euver - I'm > all ears.
What was impossible about it? They guy did a long slow turn. A 757 is a friggin airborne Clydesdale. Massively overpowered for it's size. Even the shittiest of pilots shouldn't have a hard time keeping it in the air.
> Granted, this is into the ground. But see how the plane's angle changes. There is > less resistance since it has little to go through. How could the plane that hit the > Pentagon not turned in some way, taking out more broad of an area rather than making > a small hole all the way into the 3rd ring? > > Here is a video of a Boeing 727. Even if the descent is slower - see how it holds up > after it crashes? Not that sturdy really. Hard to believe it can go to the 3rd ring > of a building. > > > eta: crap, forgot to embed ^this one.
Again, random videos that have zero in common with the events in question prove little to nothing. Both those impacts were in a controlled descent. One of the planes was even attempting to land safely. Neither of them were the same type of plane we are discussing. Pointless eye candy.
> "But, the plane was traveling at 530 MPH!"
Probably, or close to it.
> > But at sea level (best to my googling ability I come up with) *dang it* I realize the > greater the speed could make it possible to go that far through (like a straw stabbed > through a potato, maybe?). But, imo, there's no way it (if it was a plane) should > stay that much intact to make a mere hole all the way to the other side through 6 or > more walls. But, honestly, I welcome a good, logical explanation saying that that's > exactly what would happen and why. > > http://youtu.be/b5DgFcpsxes?t=18m40s > > It should be much slower.
Yeah....almost. I'll give you points on your research, but you failed in your understanding of flight dynamics. You are right, a 757 can't produce enough thrust to maintain altitude at 530 mph at sea level. That's the key though, he wasn't trying to maintain altitude. He was leading into a 100 feet per second dive. Before that he was struggling to stay at 300 knots, and that was only after a lighter dive. If you are going to post simulations to support your argument, at least watch them. (Or know what you are watching).
It only went through 3 walls, FYI.
BTW, one of those nifty little rules the FAA has is that a twin engine craft must be able to continue to takeoff and then land on one engine in the event of an issue. A 757 is grossly overpowered for it's weight. The reserve power is quite plentiful. I don't know if you've ever flown in one, but even as a passenger you can feel the power difference. It's a smooth, fast, effortless flight.
BTW x2...your video asks the question of a 767. It's similar to a 757, but much heavier. The plane that hit the pentagon was a 757.
> And then there's this...
What of it. It sure looks like he was on his way to becoming a 600 mph bullet/missile to me.
Index 
Threaded 
For the record 9/11 conspiracy theorist
Reply
[Re: 
-hehe
So, upon your request.... I promise not to disappoint & Thank you for the opportunity to let me share this.
traveling at 600
)
