rahvin

The lack of damage to the lawn is explained by momentum, the plane hit the side of the building at a downward angle, momentum would have carried all of the plane and damage from the crash foward from the impact site. If a metorite strikes the ground at an oblique approach angle all the damage will be infront of the impact and you can verify this by tossing a stone into a sand pile at an angle. Why was the plane on a downward angle? At best the plane couldn't have flown less than a couple hundered feet off the ground on approach, after seeing the pentagon the terrorists would have gunned the engines and dived.

Second, the age of the pentagon, the construction materials and knowledge of the engineering used at the time easily explains the damage to the pentagon. It's fairly complicated but the pentagon is three seperate buildings, built quickly with either precast concrete panels or masonry. Given the location (east coast) and the time of construction (pre-wwi) it's easy to say the structural walls are a concrete without any form of reinforcing. Concrete has little to no tensile strength and as a result impacts on the side of the building would have quickly punched a hole in the side and carried the plane into the building.

From my understanding of the crash most of what was left of the plane ended up in one of the sub-basements. As far as the atomization counter-arguement, the plane you have seen in those tests is crashing into a nuclear reactor containment vessel. The concrete is around 6' thick and reinforced by #18 steel reinforcing that is so close together you can't put your arm into the gaps. There is a significant difference in the construction strength of the containment vessel and 1920's construction of what was supposed to be a temporary building.

Willravel

This is among the best "non-conspiracy" posts in this discussion so far. Excelent work, rahvin. The problem is the hole on the other side. The object clearly did not leave any kind of burn marks or damage to the lawn, making the only poissible decent angle pretty steep. This would have sent the nose of the plane through the first and second stories going into the basement and sub basement. Makes perfect sense. But what about the photo of the 16' hole in the inner most wall?
This hole is located on the inner most wall and is on the exact path of the projectile, HOWEVER, it is parallel to the crash on the front of the building.
If the plane hit at a downward angle, which would have lead it to a very much downward angle crash, why is there is there a 16' hole there? Odd, indeed.
Also, the 747 that hit the Pentagon ahd roughly the same amount of fuel as the planes that struck the WTC, and you can see in videos taken that there were prettty serious explosions upon impact for both. The fire at the WTC was able to destroy
(what I've been told by engineers) one of the best reinforced structures in the world. It was actually built to take a plane strike. So those buildings obviously collapsed after a while. In this picture taken on September 15th, 2001, you get an excelent
overview of the damage. So a steel reinforced building was gone in a matter of hours, but the Pentagon just saw some fires and one collapse due to the initial impact.

rahvin

First 16' seems inflated, looking at those pictures I would say 10' diameter, which looks to be about the size of one of the engines. The engine is the only truely solid piece on the plane. As far as why it went out the side of the building I have no idea, although I seem to remember from the video's they showed that the plane hit with one wing elevated which would have changed the trajectory of the engine on that wing as opposed to the rest of the plane. I'm not going to really speculate on it because afterall the behavior after impact is going to be very unpredictable depending on each individual impact in the buildings the engines would have made but at 600mph or so and the massiveness of the engines would have made for a very solid projectile.

Now the fire issue when trying to compare against the WTC is a VERY bad comparison. The WTC had NO active fire suppression system, the building survived the impact it was the fire that softened the steel and collapsed the building(s). The pentagon on the other had very likely had an active and aggressive fire suppression system and as a result the fuel on board was not able to do the damage it was able to do in the WTC. Even still the fire damage to the building is rather extensive but it was left standing because it didn't have a steel frame that was holding the building up.

I really can't see how this is even an issue.

Rdr4evr

Look under his nick, apparently banned.

ObieX

Does anyone have a place to get better pictures? most especially of BEFORE the collapse? While the holes do seem to line up, the damage in the patch does not seem consistant. I'd like to get a better angle on that one connective area betwee the set of rings that the engine supposedly must have passed through. Unless the engine was tossed over 2 rings to land in the courtyard and roll through the building to punch that hole thre should be more damage to the connecting area between the rings in the path. Anyone else notice that, or is it just me? (to the left of trj.)

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Willravel

*Apology for the 16' thing. I should have been more specific. The firefighters measured it to be roughly 16' WIDE, not tall. It was only about 11' tall. Good eye. One thing; it wasn't going 600 mph. This huge engine that punched the hole burned to a crisp? Why so little fire damage where it would have burned to nothing?

The WTC had fire sprinklers (the same as the Pentagon has). So the fire supression system prevented any serious fire damage (like frame melting), but the fire was easily able to melt away almost the whole plane? Also, the Pentagon does have steel reinforcement.

The Pentagon is constructed with 42,000 40 cm. (15") square steel reinforced concrete pillars. The graphics below, provided by the DoD, shows the extent of the damage from the attack on 9/11 as destroyed pillars. By their count, there were 32 pillars destroyed, and a lesser number stripped to their steel reinforced core. What is astonishing is the fact that the destroyed pillars form an almost perfectly straight line on a 45 degree angle. Nothing in the chaos of the disintegration of a soft shelled mass of fluid like an airliner hitting a stone, concrete and brick wall with steel reinforced load bearing pillars, would lead you to expect an almost perfectly linear path of destruction. A plane is like a sausage skin: it doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact.

The damage to the interior is too deep and too collimated to be from the liquid fuel of an airliner.

Again, thank you for posting honestly and respectfully.

rahvin

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf [The quote above is on the top of page 10]

You are correct, the plane wasn't traveling 600mph it was going 530mph. And no I don't believe the engine burned a crisp in any of the crashes, it was likely found somewhere on the other side of the hole in the wall where the picture wasn't taken. Like this:



The WTC had sprinklers but the system would have been incapable of the providing the water flow that would have been necessary to even try to extinguish the fire. The fire was several hundered feet up and consumed 3 whole floors, to supply the water necessary there would have needed to be a massive water tank on the roof or a super pressurized water piping system, as the pressures that would be needed to supply pressurized water at that height with a pumping system would have been extreme. The forensic study also concluded that the crash likely destroyed the sprinkler system on the floors in question but even if it hadn't the supply lines would have quickly depressurized. There are massive engineering problems with trying to supply flow rates that high in the middle of a sky scraper.

The pentagon on the other hand would have been fed with a large connection point to the municpal system and solid gravity driven pressures that would have supplied the volume and pressure needed to keep the sprinklers that survived running.

I'm sorry you dismiss it so quickly, frankly >220,000 lbs (that's empty curb weight) moving at 530mph has a significant amount of momentum. That momentum cannot be dismissed just because the skin is comprised of aluminum. Instrument panels, seats, luggage, human bodies and even liquid fuel become capable of structuraly destroying 15" columns. You have to remember when they say it was destroyed they aren't saying it was turned to powder, only that the column was severed or compromised to the point that it could not longer bear a load. I simply can't dismiss what you do, my education (civil engineering btw) and my review of the forensic analysis's that were presented in the engineering trade magazines completely explain what occured.

The pentagon crash was not even interesting to me as an Engineer, the WTC was far more fascinating as the building was designed to withstand an impact with a plane that is larger than the one that hit it. I was astonished that the impacts collapsed the structures (I still remember my astonishment when I watched it happen), although I still believe the second collapse was only triggered by damage from the first collapse and had the first tower not collapsed the second would not have. The Pentagon simply reinforced that redudant designs with the ability to load shift was a procedure that should be used more to prevent loss of life in disasters like that which occured. If you would like a more technical discussion of what occured and you have the skills to understand the material I suggest you consult "The Pentagon Report".

https://www.asce.org/bookstore/book.cfm?book=4241

Willravel

FANTASTIC!!! (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really interested) I was hoping to discuss this with someone who actually has the credentials. The hole in the outer wall of the outer ring - the initial strike point of the projectile; plane or otherwise - was about 14-16 feet wide (according to relating the size of the fire engine to the size of the hole in several pictures). Now each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall. Each wall is approx. 18" thick. This is steel reiforced concrete. That means that the impact point was 36" of steel reinforced concrete. This means a total of 9' of steel reinforced concrete from entry point in the outer ring, to the exit point of the inside of the inner ring. Could a 757 have punched out a 14-16' wide hole on entry and have pierced 9' total of steel reinforced concrete to make a hole of almost exactly the same dimentions?

Now the nose of a plane is not made of reinforced aluminum or anything of the sort. The nose of a plane (the part that would have been doing the punching) is called a "crashdome". This is the area of the plane that is below and infront of the cockpit; the area that would first impact. This crashdone is where the plane stores electronic navigation equiptment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal, but carbon. It's shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but it is not crash resistant. The inside casting, as well as its contents, are extremly fragile. The nose would crash on impact with an obstacle, not penatrate it. You NEVER find a nose in a crashsite that involves a head on colision (the type in this case). THEREFORE, it is impossible that this carbon nose punshed a perfect 2.5 yard diameter circular hole in the steel reinforced buildings.

As for the WTC, I agree that it is an engineering conundrum. I'll meet you on the "what happened on 9/11" thread.

rahvin

The walls were NOT reinforced, the columns were, and the spacing is quite large looking at the pictures (the picture of the hole has a column on the left of the picture, no other is visible). The walls were constructed of CIP (cast in place concrete panels (according to the information I have found, but in the pictures it looks like masonry). Either way concrete without reinforcing has much poorer impact strength than you may think (and unreinforced masonry is the poorest performer under lateral loads).

In addition, there is no way that wall with the hole in it is 18" thick, the concrete visible is about 4"-6" (which is consistent with what it should be), in addition there appears to be wood framing behind the concrete that would have provided the attachment zone for wallboard and an area to run utility cables (so total wall thickness could have been 18" but that would have been insulation and wallboard and would have provided very little resistance to projectiles.

Concrete from that era would have been lucky to achieve higher than 4000psi strength (compressive, as I said tensile is non-existant). In an impact you can disregard the strength of the mud that is in the tensile zone which is approximately half the thickness. So assuming a wall thickness of 6" conservatively, 6 walls penetrated and 250000lbs traveling at 530mph I would say yes I can easily imagine that happening. The initial impact is going to transfer momentum to the first wall which then becomes part of the projectiles passing through the building.

Consider something for just a moment, the engines on the 747 weigh about what a small car would, just how much damage would a car traveling at 530mph do to that structure?

Secondly, your arguement about the nose cone is just silly. It wouldn't matter if the nose cone was made of sheet metal, because as you said it's just going to be smashed, what you haven't considered is that the frame of the plane starts behind that nose cone and the frame of the plane is going to have SIGNFICANT strength and 250000lbs attached to it.

I dont' know if you are saying that you think the nose penetrated the far wall, but I can say that it is apparent to me that one of the engines made that trip, the picture I linked shows engine debris outside the building and honestly it looks like the same people in the foreground as your picture of the wall.

Willravel

The walls are reinforced, in addition to the columns. The walls are not CIP. CIP would not have had the ability to hold off the impact of the wings or the tail (looking at the picture of the oroginal impact, you can easily tell the tail and wings made basically no damage to the walls, which is impossible). I really can't tell how thick the concrete is from the pictures, and I've been looking for months. I have a pretty good source for my information, and I suppose you do too. I'd like to take a more direct approach - simply request the information from the city of D.C. or call and find out the company that constructed it and ask for the blueprints - but something tells me that'd put me on a terroist list or two. So, in this case, I guess we'll have to agree to dissagree.

BTW, had the plane been moving at 530 miles per hour, it would have to have been traveling at between an angle of 47 degrees even 90 degree - but for the sake of the crashsite, I'd say somewhere between 47 and 67, otherwise it ould have hit the roof, not the wall. Any lower, and the drag would have slowed it substantially. Therefore, either the plane hit at an angle that would have put the plane down into the ground ( this contradicts the only video evidence of the Pentagon crash), or the plane was traveling much slower (contradicting the investigation), or the projectile was something that gets less resistence. I studied at Embry Riddle (Aeronautics School, Daytona) for about 3 years in case you're wondering.

I'm wondering why the wings and tail didn't even leave a noticable mark. Whether the walls are CIP or reinforced, I'd expect the reinforced walls to be at least 'nicked' by the impact of wings on a plane traveling at even, lets say, 350 miles per hour.

stevo

I swore to myself that I would stay clear of this topic, but I was reading through an old National Geographic over the holidays and came across this picture in the July 2002 publication. The source in the magazine pointed me to spaceimaging.com, where I've linked this picture from.

Just some observations I want to make...The pentagrass is green and untouched, but on the other side of the street. And this is the first time I've seen a picture posted here with two (2) holes punched through the sides of the pentagon, not one like the flash animation shows. To me it looks pretty obvious that a plane struck the side of the building and pretty much disentegrated while the 2 very dense engines punched all the way through.

ShaniFaye

willravel, forgive me but Im going to address this to you....Im at work and dont have a lot of time to look this up and I thought you might know off the top of your head.

Ya'll are talking about the kind of concrete and construction of the building....didnt I read somewhere that this section of the pentagon had been closed due to major structure remodeling, thats why there werent as many people in the area where the plane hit as there would have been if renovations werent being done? If so...do you recall what exactly was being renovated and would this have any impact on the arguments about what the pentagon was constructed of....in that area anyway?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Willravel

Stevo- that's a great picture! I hadn't seen this one before. You were quite observant to see that. Notice that the burned spots viewable from above follow the connecting hallways that connects all of the rings. This part is not reinforced the same way the rest of the buildings are. Those parts actually caved in because they were no longer supported by the reinforcement that is between them. Imagine you have a grape with a ruler on it. If you smash the grape, the whole ruler colapses, not just the middle. It's a poor comparison, but I think it illustrates what I'm trying to explain. Also, the plane (or projectile) came in at a decent angle. It did not hit the wall straight on. Looking at the picture, I'd say it came in over the right overpass. Great find, though. Thanks for posting.

You're absolutely right, ShaniFaye. According to news articles before the attack, there was constrution on the very part that was hit, thankfully saving the lives of possibly hundreds of people who would have been working otherwise. As with usual news from the petnagon, the news of renovation was a bit vague. I'll ask my Uncle (who happens to work there from time to time) the next time I see him, but I'm honestly not sure. All I heard was just that there was some major construction being done there. Good question. Thanks for posting.

Bawn

That was great, I wish the FBI would release the video, but i guess that unlikely to happen.

hulk

A few estimations on my part, but it's close enough. Just to put some scale onto this thing.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

ObieX

There's a lot thats just too convenient. For example the point htat was raised that thre was construction in the section taht was hit and not as many people. Considering the size of the pentagon, what are the odds that the plane would hit the one section that was being worked on and not full of people? Also i found it a little convenient that the part of the wall collapsed before anyone had any real time to take a good look at the small hole that was made by the plane impact. It seemed as soon as people started to question the wall there was no more wall to question.

If i remember correctly the reason the part of the pentagon was being fixed up was due to a small fire that broke out in the section. Again i find it strange that the plane crashed into this section and not another section.

However to be acturatein the picture above the little 30ft marker shoud be shifted slightly to the left to where the collapsed part of the building is. I find it odd (again) how the collapsed section seems to line up well with the sise of the span between the engines YET the HOLE that was made in the building was only 16ft or so around. Also that there was little sign of collateral damage on the side of the building where, say, the wings would inpact. You'd think the wings of a plane impacting at ~500mph would atleast break some windows.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Willravel

That is precisely correct, ObieX. You are clever to notice that the windows where the wings would have impacted didn't brake. Certianally the best windows I've ever seen!

Willravel

I just finished rereading the 9/11 Comission Report. Yikes. A wonderful array of dodged questions and wrong answers. Anyone who likes the comic strip might like the 9/11 Commission Final Report. It's quite funny.

For those who asked "who really is responsible?":
9/11 was the greatest crime in American history. The official story of 9/11 posits that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed three of them into well-known American landmarks, costing more than three thousand Americans their lives. Yet no conclusive evidence has ever connected these alleged Arab terrorists to the actual crime. Only a campaign of media hysteria centered around vague and unproved aspersions from Washington has swayed the American people into accepting government's story, which amounts to a massive hate crime against Muslims.

So who dropped the ball? Who's reponsibility was/is it to investigate what happened and try to bring th guilty to justice? Why the Attorney General, of course. "The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance." Exceptional gravity and importance. Like 9/11 maybe? Well, as it has been made pretty obvious in this thread, the 9/11 investigation missed some tiny details.

Details like:
- all of the wrekage from the twin towers was shipped off, sold, and melted down before FEMA or any other investigators could test it.
- a multitude of people were present in the wtc when the planes hit and saw and heard explosions going off, dozens of floors below the plane crash. (there was no cumbustable fuel in the building beyond the plane fuel)
- a multitude of people persent noticed that the commercial airliner had no windows. Rather odd, eh?
- video evidence shows the building was demolished using explosives, as it is impossible for the heat to be evenly distributed over the entire structure so that it completly melts and collapses all at the same time.
- even the FEMA report admits that they are confues and baffeled as to how building 7 of the WTC collapsed
- the investigation team supposedly found on of the terrorists passports in the wrekage of the wtc.
- the video of the 757 hitting the pentagon was at the wrong speed (if it were correct, the plane would have been going approx. 275-325 mph, which contradicts the reports).
- the damage at the pentagon is not consistant with the damage that should have been there. The windows where the wings were said to hit weren't even broken! Th hole in the back wall is the wrong size (for the fuseloge OR the engines)
- the tapes that recorded the pentagon crash were taken and never returned
- almost no smoke or heat damage to the pentagon despite 8600 galons of burning fuel that wouyld have been left by the 757
- firefighters were told to pull out of building 7 immediataslly before it collapsed, despite the fact it only had a minor fire.

None of these were addressed by the investigators or the 9/11 Commission or the Attorney General.

What should the Attorney General have done? First, instead of locking up every headscarfed Muslim between Boston and West Covina, he would inquire discreetly about every single financial transaction that was made in the two weeks before 9/11, and quickly determine exactly who made the most significant profits. In a very short time he would discover the names of the investors who made millions from those "put" options purchased on United and American Airlines. Ever heard the term "war profiteering"? Those people would be brough in for legal questioning. These people, not being very strong under pressure, would simply fold. Suddenly we would have some names and trails to follow. The FBI and other aronymed people would actually do their jobs and go out and make arrests. Indictments, hundreds of them, for treason, conspiracy to commit mass murder, and obstruction of justice. They would be sentenced, and the "War on Terror" would essentially be over, as it is baseless.

Of course this could only happen with a real Attorney General who worked for all the people and not just the rich. Also, it's important to to remember this could only happen in a legitimate democracy.

Willravel

Oh, silly me, I forgot a detail. 7 of the 19 people blamed for the hijackings are still alive. Lol. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm

ObieX

Oh that deserves it's own thread in tilted politics or atleast here.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Willravel

I appreciate that, Obie, but I doubt I'd get any constructive responses. The last time I mentioned it, I was shouted out of the post with things like "stay in paranoia!". It was kinda silly.
A lot of these people believed thast Agent Orange was safe, the Gulf of Tonkin incident really happened, or the young lady (who was working for Hill & Knowlton) who came to Washington to tell the world that babies were being ripped from their incubators by Iraqi soldiers in a campaign to convince Americans that we should start bombing Iraq.

It takes quite a bit to convince people who have forfeited control of reality to our mass media. When you read through my posts in Politics, they have to be riddled with quotes from CNN, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, and BBC news in order to be taken seriously. Do you know how hard it is to seperate truth from BS coming from those sources? This does belong in Politics, but that doesn't mean it would be accepted.

I just do the best I can to prepare people for the truth.

ShaniFaye

/thread jack for a sec

willravel you forgot it has to be compared to hitler and hating other races as well

/end thread jack

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Willravel

That's true!!! You're as observant as ever, ShaniFaye. At least some people know. I'd feel really stupid if I was the only one.

host

Since you mentioned it, here's a rehash of links to media coverage of 9/11
including an interesting admission about the alleged 9/11 hijackers by FBI
director Mueller....they left no paper trail ! The 9/11 Commission determined
that Osama Bin Laden did not fund the 9/11 attacks. What do we really know ?

visit some of the links that I have compiled here and then
post what you know to be fact about the 9/11 hijackers. Your government has
done a wonderful job of informing the press on this subject.....

Willravel

HOLY SHIT, HOST!!! This means that I have enough info, and sources, to finally start building my thread for Politics.
I'll give you full credit for these links when I finish! !!

ObieX

That is if you don't disappear, or die in a mysterious plane/car crash before you get the chance.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Willravel

Hahahahaha....heh....huh.....*looks around*

drakers

Wow, thanks for the link. I had never thought about that theory occuring at the Pentagon. Not completely convinced but it does raise questions.

Willravel

Author’s note: Before I begin, I invite you to read the 9/11 Commission Final Report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/) and the FEMA report on the WTC collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html).

What is a patriot? A patriot is someone who loves and defends his or her country. But what does a patriot defend his or her country from? Usually you hear ‘patriot’ to describe those who defend America in the military, or those who lose their lives for our country. Those 3000 people who died on 9/11 were attacked by an enemy of America, and they will always be considered patriots in my mind.

I love my country. I love the people. I love our Constitution. I love our land. I love our freedom. We live in a country with astronomical potential for good and we are a people with the best intentions. We seek to better ourselves and the world.

As a patriot, I was devastated, just as I’m sure all of you were, by the events of September 11, 2001. I watched in horror as planes crashed into the buildings. I felt numb when shock overtook me as I realized that I had just watched the greatest terror attack in America’s history. I watched the death count and missing persons count rise and my heart broke. Then another plane crashed into the Pentagon. “My God”, I thought, “we are facing a full out attack.” The Word Trade center, the symbol for American strength of economy, and the Pentagon, the symbol for american defense and military, were in ruins.

The healing process never really heals us completely from things like this. To this day, 9/11 is a very sensitive subject, as so many people were hurt by it.

We struck back with mighty force. The al Qaeda networks were torn apart and training camps were atomized by our powerful weapons. We tracked terrorist networks around the world, and brought them to justice.

Justice. Another word that so very much applies to this. We were attacked to the very core. We wanted and deserved justice. The moral punishment for those who had done wrong is what we deserved and still deserve.

This post is about patriotism and justice. This post is about our moral and patriotic obligation to find those who are guilty of attacking us and bring them to justice. This post is about truth.

The following are points that contradict the official report given to us by the American Government and the press. If you are still sensitive to 9/11, please consider hitting the back button, as this may disturb you.

- all of the wreckage from the twin towers was shipped off, sold, and melted down before FEMA or any other investigators could test it.
http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-10-02/a02wn021.htm
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stori...01180259.shtml

- a multitude of people were present in the wtc when the planes hit and saw and heard explosions going off, dozens of floors below the plane crash. (there was no combustible fuel in the building beyond the plane fuel):
seismograph readings from 34 km from ground zero http://www.american-buddha.com/sept.15.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/people.html (from a people magazine article that was quickly erased); see Louie Cacchioli
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/jun...gnoredclue.htm bomb sniffing dogs removed from wtc days before attack.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg interview with firefighters from ny. Warning, profanity.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/report...2004_00091.htm Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phone calls made to 911 on that day.

- video evidence shows the building was demolished using explosives, as it is impossible for the heat to be evenly distributed over the entire structure so that it completely melts and collapses all at the same time:
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
In the videos of the collapse (http://911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Videos.shtml) you can see the buildings exploded into fine dust, not collapsed pieces. Also, the buildings come down in about the same time as a free fall (about 15 seconds)- there was no friction of a collapse. This means that the building’s steel reinforcement was all melted to the point of giving at the exact same rate, despite the fact the fires were limited to the upper floors. Also, the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. The temperatures measured of the core of the rubble, five days later, exceeded the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire.

- even the FEMA report admits that they are confused and baffled as to how building 7 of the WTC collapsed (as it is riddled with scientific and logistical errors):
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif both show that the building had basically no smoke coming from the building, and it also shows a collapse speed to rival the speeds of the WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, and (as was admitted by FEMA) very little debris actually came in contact with WTC 7.
According to the FEMA report on Building 7, debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.
Also according to the FEMA report, the backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite. The sprinkler malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
The conclusion from FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
They would have investigated, but the wreckage was already sold as scrap and was being melted down.

- the investigation team supposedly found one of the terrorists passports in the wreckage of the wtc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546927.stm
This is probably the most impossible thing I’ve ever heard. The explosion that created a fireball and crushed the plane and melted one of the best steel reinforced structured in the world allowed a passport to fall gently to the ground. So untouched, in fact, that they could tell who it belonged to!

- the video of the 757 hitting the pentagon was at the wrong speed (if it were correct, the plane would have been going approx. 275-325 mph, which contradicts the reports) and was the wrong size:
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomfive/P...hanalysis1.jpg The Pentagon measures 921.6 feet along each external face, half of this distance, marked on the diagram between the central corridor and the upper-left corner of the Pentagon (cyan) is 460.8' . Take this base measurement as a scale and measure the distance from the rear of the plane in the photo (red dot), along the approximate path of the jet (dark-green line) to the impact point. The distance the tail traveled between frames (heavy red line) is approx. 450', which is just short of the originally estimated 465' or 3 lengths of a 757, which is 155'.
So, 450 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13500 feet/sec. = 2.55 miles/sec. = 153.4 miles/min. = 9204.54 mph = 7997 kts. = Mach 12.11
Even if you alter the path of the jet to a direct (90 degree) impact trajectory, (which introduces other unexplainable issues such as intact light-posts and trees, clearing the embankment, not to mention those anomalous hydro spools) you still end up with a final velocity exceeding Mach 6.

- the damage at the pentagon is not consistent with the damage that should have been there. The windows where the wings were said to hit weren't even broken! The hole in the back wall is the wrong size (for the fuselage OR the engines):
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.ph...&group=webcast is a good overview.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentcrash.jpg shows a very famous picture of how the 757 matches up with the damage. As you and I can plainly see, the wings left no damage to the limestone side of the Pentagon. Now when a plane hits a steel reinforced concrete wall, it is going to be smashed to bits, but the idea that it left no impressions is absurd.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/crash2a.jpg shows that the smoke to the right of the impact is black versus the smoke coming from the building. Note also that they do not store fuel for the helicopters at the helipad to the right of the picture.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pi...e-pylons-a.jpg Speaks for itself.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/wreckage2.jpg Note also that American Airlines does not have a flag of this size on the exterior of their planes. So why does this plane have one?
The Pentagon is one of the most heavily guarded and watched site on the Planet, with some exceptions to perhaps Area 51 and NORAD. With Radar systems capable of tracking objects right down to sea level, Friend or Foe Systems, and Satellite systems, it amazes me that a rogue Boeing 757 could hit the Pentagon with out warning after 2 planes already had hit the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is equipped with the latest State of the Art technology in the War Room.
http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html is a full response chart based on the FAA and NORAD reports.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pi...n-punchout.gif This is a picture of the inner-most wall. That hole is roughly 16’ wide and 11’ tall. Now each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall. Each wall is approx. 18" thick. This is steel reiforced concrete. That means that the impact point was 36" of steel reinforced concrete. This means a total of 9' of steel reinforced concrete from entry point in the outer ring, to the exit point of the inside of the inner ring. Could a 757 have punched out a 14-16' wide hole on entry and have pierced 9' total of steel reinforced concrete to make a hole of almost exactly the same dimentions?
Now the nose of a plane is not made of reinforced aluminum or anything of the sort. The nose of a plane (the part that would have been doing the punching) is called a "crashdome". This is the area of the plane that is below and infront of the cockpit; the area that would first impact. This crashdome is where the plane stores electronic navigation equiptment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal, but carbon. It's shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but it is not crash resistant. The inside casting, as well as its contents, are extremly fragile. The nose would crash on impact with an obstacle, not penatrate it. You NEVER find a nose in a crashsite that involves a head on colision (the type in this case). THEREFORE, it is impossible that this carbon nose punshed a perfect 2.5 yard diameter circular hole in the steel reinforced buildings.

- almost no smoke or heat damage to the pentagon despite 8600 gallons of burning fuel that would have been left by the 757:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/9...ages/stool.jpg The roof is still intact and has virtually no fire damage. Notice the computer monitor and stool that the 8600 gallons of fuel were unable to even burn. This picture was published by Time, Newsweek, and People.

I am asking you (the reader) to please refute these. If I am right, this means the foundation of all terrorist military actions over the last 4 years was not only baseless, but there was a deliberate cover-up.

Hardknock

I believe every word that was said in that film. NO WAY IN HELL does a fully fueled 757 do that little damage. I'm a pilot and I see those things every day at work.

The government doesn't represent us anymore. They haven't for a long long time.

Willravel

Welcome to the first step of seeing the bigger picture, Hardknock. You're not by any means alone. Feel free to ask questions.

Willravel

It strikes me as funny. Most people don't trust Bushco anymore because of the WMD and Iraq/al Qaeda ties being bullshit. Somehow everyone completly trusts the story about the al Qaeda carrying out the terrorist attacks without question. Maybe it's a matter of tiume before people can finally reflect back and realize what a shotty story we were given.

fastom

Have you ever watched the plane hitting the trade center in slo-mo? Looks like a flash of fire when it's still 50 ft from the building.

Hardknock

As a pilot I totally disagree with your statement. I DO know what a plane crash looks like and I can tell you first of all, there would be SOME type of debris left over from the "crash." Aircraft wreckage always leaves SOMETHING behind. Wings, tail, engines, something. A few pieces are always noticeable. Based on that alone, I am led to believe that the gov't is lying to us. (like that's a surprise) I'm willing to be that the aircraft was shot down somewhere over water and the real wreckage is at eh bottom of the Atlantic or at some disclosed location where the gov't went in and very quickly and quietly cleaned it us because everyone's attention was focused on New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania.

ckerus

WOW! I just barely watched the video for the first time, and was completely blown away. I never heard about this theory, but was always suspicious about the events of 9/11. I completely believe everything that was stated in that video. Theres this Philosphy teacher at Long Beach State, who believes that the US government is covering up something as well. He stated that it is common practice for military jets to be scarmbled, whenever a commercial aircraft goes off course or loses contact. On 9/11 four aircrafts lost contact and went off course and not a single military jet was scrambled. I was wondering if anyone here knows this to be true.

xxSquirtxx

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Debunking the 9/11 myths

__________________
.

Hanabal

i wouldnt say debunking.

that article hardly ever links to the evidence it states, so we are left with beliveing what it says. which is not good enough in my opinion. most of the evidence is testimony by someone or other, that is not good enough.

but my favourite line refering to the pantagon incident on page 6 " one wing hit the ground". but it has been seen in many images that there was no damage to the ground, a fact that the article doesnt even try to contradict. a wing hitting the ground at 500mph+ will damage it.

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

NCB

__________________

Willravel

Check out this shockwave video file of a clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there.

Clip archived by TheWebFairy.com; from a DVD available on MaeBrussel.com. Transcript by Total911.info:

Jamie McIntyre: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

Comments?

Hampshire

it seems that everytime i hear something new about this, i agree with the latest theory, so i guess u could say i believe some aspects of this