The only way the material below is in motion is if it was already "failing", ie: blown up, cut or whatever. Otherwise the falling stuff above gets stopped or slowed by the still sturdy structure below.

My belief is that if the steel actually did soften and weaken ... and i think it is absurd... the structure would have maybe squashed a bit at that point... they'd have to renumber the elevator buttons, 77, 78, 79-81 crawlspaces, 82, 83, etc. Or because the steel weakened and had missing pieces at the side the planes hit while the other end was unaffected the top of the tower would tip off to that side and they'd have a 79 story WTC. It would still have been a nasty mess.

But nope, floors that people were walking around on just crumbled into dust for no reason. Blame them damn Muslims,eh? :rolleyes:

Willravel, fastom, etc

I am choosing to ignore this thread for a while, as it never really seems to get anywhere. Call that what you like.

However, I thought you might want to take a look at another forum populated by scientists, engineers, chemists and the like - not laymen like most/all of us. They mainly talk about astronomy, but they do spend a good deal of time discussing 9/11 theories. This is the same forum I linked to in the other thread about intelligent life on other planets (eek - where is my tinfoil hat??).

I should warn you that they do not support the various alternative theories about 9/11, but they do generally treat them fairly and the debate is usually even tempered and scientific. They are skeptics, so they believe nothing without evidence. They ask for (and give) citations and supporting evidence in all of their discussions.

You might find it interesting to see what they think about your theories on thermite, controlled demolition and the like. I think they have seen most of the arguments out there, so I imagine yours have been through the system already. Like TFP, they tend to quickly dismiss people who are making arguments they think have already been made and refuted, so check out the search engine before you post.

Enjoy!

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

We get better responses here.
That forum still seems to be populated by blind followers.

balderdash111 - Nice forum, gives me hope for humanity ;)

Wow, I double dog dare you to say that over there.... :lol:

Also, FYI (and I really am leaving this for now)

The NIST has released a FAQ addressing many of the exact issues raised here. I guess they received so many inquiries that they felt they needed to respond.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

*Edit* The lack of response to this FAQ by the "911 Truth" crowd on this thread seems telling. Anyone?

Seems like a very scientifically knowledgeable group. I need to find a forum like that for ecology and biology.

That's a fantastic idea. I think I'll start ignoring things I don't want to hear too. Then I won't have to hear all that liberal crap, and mumbo jumbo that doesn't really effect my daily life. Fantastic!

...

Yeah I was looking for a science area awhile ago and never found it. I think there should be.

I ask you this, you say that if the upper sections fell down part way onto the lower sections, the lower sections would be able to hold them....then consider this as a basic, though not equally perfect standpoint.

If you were standing up straight, and you had a person weighing say 200 lbs held abover your head by your hands. Normally you could hold that weight above you, (albeit not for a sustained time period) now what would happen if you suddenly allowed that 200 lb person to drop down to your shoulders? wouldn't it be safe to assume that the sudden drop from above your head, to your shoulders, that you would NOT be able to hold that person any longer? Your legs would "collapse" from the SUDDEN change in location of the weight.

I was curious about this, so I talked to my neighbor who is in construction, and he said that I am correct that in construction, structures that have suden changes in load force can cause every underlying structure to fail, and as such, in an ever increasing change, i.e. 20 floors drop their weight onto the lower floor, it fails, dropping 21 floors of weight onto the lower floor, it fails, dropping 22 floors of weight.....etc.

Well let's fix your problem. If I could actually hold 1000 pounds above my head, and 200 pounds dropped from only about 10-12 feet, I think I could handle it.

More importantly, why would the top floor fall first, when it would obviosuly be the impact point that was the weakest?

I’ve tried to leave, but I can’t let this ignorance live here.

In will example, a 200lb object falls 10 feet; first, we must convert into better units, 90 kg and 3 meters.

For the force that impacts your shoulders, F=ma, force = mass x acceleration. Mass is constant, 90 kg. Acceleration is a bit different, how fast does the object stop as it hits your shoulders. An object falling 3 meters will be going 7.66 m/s if we are talking about 2 rigid bodies, such as a building, it will stop almost instantly, as apposed to a face in an airbag, which slows the head down protecting it. In our case it is fully reasonable to expect the object to come to rest in under 50 ms in reality, v=at, velocity = acceleration x time, gives us the acceleration of 153 m/s. back to f=ma, f = 13801 Newton’s, converting Newton’s to pounds, we get 3,102 pounds. Congratulations will, you have 2 broken legs.


As for where the collapse started, it did start at the point of impact, or close there of, if you watch the videos, you see that the tops section above the impact, falls one floor, collides with the next floor down, and pushes right through it as if it was not there, this is because the sure amount of force smashing through the floor. The forces of a falling building are staggering.

Well that works in a perfect mathematical world, but it lacks many variables that were present in the wtc. There was inconsistent resistence due to the theoretical loss of strength from the fire. Some of the supports were as strong as the day they were built and would have offered a great deal of resistence. Some may have been weakened. Those aren't taken into account in the broken leg equasion. I think we should leave the legs thing alone for a while and return to the scene of the crash, as it's an odd comparison and could very easily end up getting confusing.

I think we can all agree that there was an original collapse that had nothing to do with another floor collapsing. The initial failure was attributed to mostly fire damage over time, and some impact damage, yes? Then we should look at the first collapse first.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/col1c.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/col2c.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/col3c.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/col4c.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/col5c.jpg

Tis is a quote from one of many releases discussing the world trade center located at : http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm .


... it is well known that the maximum temperature that can be reached by a non-stoichiometric hydrocarbon burn (that is, hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air) is 825 degrees Centigrade (1520 degrees Fahrenheit). ...

now if the WTC towers metal trusses were designed to retain their rigidity up to as stated in this quote:
This being said, the jet fuel temperatures could have reached 1520 deg F., which is ABOVE the 1022 deg F stated in the above quote.....this reaching higher than the required temperature for the steel trusses to exceed 80 or 90% of their load capacity.

And you believe that this temperature (1520 F) could have been reached in a relatively enclosed area in under an hour, and sustained that until the collapse?

Deltona Couple it won't matter what NIST or almost every structural engineer said willravel knows all on this, and is the true expert. You have no chance, all your base are belong to him.

(run while you can!)

In all honesty? yes I do believe that. The statement was that jet fuel can burn in an OPEN area at that temperature, in the case of the WTC fire, the fuel was in an enclosed area, which science has proven that anything burning in an enclosed area is more than able to reach well above normal temperatures. It doesn't matter how long the steel was at a higher temperature, all it has to do is reach that temperature for a short time period to fail. considering everything else inside the building that was also burning, I do believe that it is possible.

I personally think that in the perspective of Acham's razor(Forgive the spelling) that it is much easier to believe the terrorist plot, and burning of the buildings causing their collapse, than to believe that our government for several years has been setting the idea up, finding some way to get explosive experts to strategicly bring explosives into the building and place them in exact locations for a controlled explosion, convince american pilots to murder innocent civilians, including themselves, by flying multiple planes into different buildings, then convincing mideastern people to hijack another plane, allowing the passengers to call their love-ones on the phone DESCRIBING the terrorists, and then have the plane crash in Pennsylvania, and for the remaining 5 years keep EVERYONE involved in this plot to be quiet....hmmm.

Or are you convinced that our government got all the people that helped plot it all and shot them the day after so they couldn't confess?

And you have the right to beleive that's possible. I do not. I don't see there beeing enough time or the right circumstances to collapse both buildings at near free fall speeds. If it had burned for 14 hours, and we'd seen warping coming from the center, and we'd seen black smoke, then maybe.
Well they had most of us convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass drestuction for a few years there. They had us convinced that a lone gunman killed JFK, despite the forensic evidence. They had us believe that tho American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin were attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats. They had us convinced that Agend Orange simply removed the foilage from trees and had no adverse effect on humans.

How long did it take Germans to they realize that the Reichstag Fire wasn't set by Communists, but was in fact set by Nazis like General Franz Halder in order to force the populace to bestow power on the executive force in their government? Is that a Godwin, evne though it is a case in history where the populace was fooled into thinking one pary was responsible for destroying a natiaonal landmark that eventually lead them to war, when it was in fact another?

Occam's Razor is a very fine tool for deductive reasoning, but it is not a law by any means. Sometimes the complicated answer is the right one.

Also, your suggested conspiracy is not the same one I profess to believing. The passengers and pilots were never found in the rubble, including the terrorists (several of which have been found to be alive and kicking elsewhere with alybies for 9/11), it was never confirmed that the planes that hit the WTC were the ones that went missing, and the calls from the planes have long since been proven fake. The information is all right there.

So you are saying that all the calls from the plane that went down in Pennsylvania were proven to be fake? I find that not only difficult, but impossible to believe considering the family members of those who were ON that flight say otherwise. I ask where your information backing this claim is at?

seen warping from the center??? Unless we had x-ray vision, nobody could have seen any warping from the center. For all we know, the center could have collapsed partially a while before the towers went down, and no VISIBLE signs would have been noted from outside.

So because of these things you are convinced that our current administration would do this to our own people? I don't exactly believe our government is perfect, far from it, but I do NOT see them doing such a massive attack to the US, with such extensive loss of civilian life.

considering the extensive damage from impact, and ensuing fire, I wouldn't expect ANY remains to be found.

They were either lies (in the case of Ted Olsen), or they were made from the ground.

http://physics911.ca/org/modules/web...php?blog_id=65
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/a...honecalls.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

The WTC towers were desidnged to sway slightly with the wind, as they are skyscrapers. The morning of 9/11/01 was windy. It's possible for video records to determine if the building may have swayed more than normal, suggesting that the rigidity of the building was decreasing. That's jost one example. Another would be the holes created by the planes. The outside of the building was aluminum, something that mels long before steel. As the holes created by the planes would have acted as vents for the smoke and the heat, we can expect them to have warped or shown some heat damage. I mean we didn't but it would be one place to look.
If I ever said that I was convinced that this administration was guilty of this, I apologize for the confusion. I am not conviced that they didn't do it. I hope you understand the difference. I don't know who or what was responsible for the collapse. I have my theories and suspicians, but I don't have anywhere near enough information to form solid, factual conclusions.
Well they did find one of the passports from the hijackers. If a passport can survive that, then bones for dental records or limbs for dna records could have been found.

What do you think about some of the accoused hijackers being found elsewhere, alive and well?

Some VERY interesting articles, which I will read fully when I have much more time than a few minutes. This being said, what I HAVE read in the article doesn't say that it was IMPOSSIBLE to have been cel phone calls, just improbable that they would get a good signal. Personally I have made cel phone calls from airline flights (don't tell!!) that were on approach. Much of the information that I have read was that a large portion of the time that the transponder was still active, it showed Flight 93 was not at cruising altitude, but MUCH lower, and erratic. Now your statement that some of them were made from the ground...for what purpose? to terrorize their own families? Many of the people said that they could hear the background noises of other people on the plane. And what about the phone calls that WERE made from the AirPhones? They would have HAD to be made while in flight, and the tracking information agrees with that.

Making a call on approach suggests being at a low altitude in a suburban or city area, which are likely to have really good coverage compared to some woods. Why would you make fake calls (actually, force people to make phone calls) from the ground if you were trying to cover up the dissapearance of people by faking a plane crash?

Thank you for the respectful discussion. Let me know when you read the articles. They answered quite a few of my questions.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ta..._911_0907.html

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and is filmed planning duck activities... it must be a Moose?

Seaver do you know if those hijackers were the ones that meraculously survived? Also, how is your arabic?

guess again.

as I see it, a floor in close proximity to the crash (a bit above) collapsed due to all manner of things, the heat, the fire, the expansion of the horizontal girders (Thermal Expansion Is Real), ect, this collapse cause the floors above the impact to fall. as they impacted the floors below, they buckled, as seen in the pictures provided by will, however, each floor hit harder and harder because it was falling faster and faster, eventually this force was greater than what the floors below the impact could handle and they collapsed, after that it pancaked into its self.

I spoke with my physics professor (PHD) and he corrected me on the time for an impact of 2 rigid bodies, it is closer to a fraction of a ms, not 50 ms, so the forces felt by the falling weight onto will's shoulders would be on an about 100 times as strong. of course bending of wills legs to spread the impact out would allow him to catch it, however, buildings don’t have nice springy legs.

I think you need ro reread my post, then reread yours. You actually agree with me!!! :thumbsup: You blame the original collapse on the heat, the fire, and the expansion. There's no shame in agreeing with me.

My point was that the very first collapse was due to something other than a collapse (otherwise it wouldn't be the first collapse). While what we blame might differ slightly, I think we do agree in this fact.

And I know thermal expansion is real.

So a fire burning at 1520 degrees F in one section of the WTC caused the entire building to free-fall with absolutely no resistance from the rest of the buildings frame? Okay.

The first collapsed floor was not due to a preceding collapsed floor... of course, unless we have some freaky causality loop from star trek ;). I agree with you, however, your statement is ambiguous; the first collapse does have something to do with another collapse, the collapse that follows it. We agree that [some cause] caused a single floor or several close together cause the initial collapse that eventually brought down the building.

Yeah I know you know thermal expansion was real, fastom had earlier brought that into question… my professor got a kick out of reading fastom post, as did his colleagues, and the rest of the science department

I'm glad to humor your professor... people that are afraid to put the kettle on the stove because "thermal expansion" would knock all the other pots off.

1500 degrees is a lot if you have your hot tub cranked up that high. In the real world beyond the internet car exhaust systems go beyond that with turbocharged engines without the car collapsing , without melting or drooping the pipes the exhaust goes through and without the tailpipe expanding and stabbing into the car behind you. Expansion isn't measured with a yardstick.

The heat that would be contained in the building would be just like a barbeque , it would burn your steak but won't collapse the rack down into the coals. Most of that heat would escape out the windows. But oddly enough there wasn't enough heat to shatter most of the windows.

Tell them science is weird.

Reading back a bit (this post died for a couple weeks)...

"I personally think that in the perspective of Acham's razor(Forgive the spelling) that it is much easier to believe the terrorist plot, and burning of the buildings causing their collapse, than to believe that our government for several years has been setting the idea up, finding some way to get explosive experts to strategicly bring explosives into the building and place them in exact locations for a controlled explosion, convince american pilots to murder innocent civilians, including themselves, by flying multiple planes into different buildings, then convincing mideastern people to hijack another plane, allowing the passengers to call their love-ones on the phone DESCRIBING the terrorists, and then have the plane crash in Pennsylvania, and for the remaining 5 years keep EVERYONE involved in this plot to be quiet....hmmm.

Or are you convinced that our government got all the people that helped plot it all and shot them the day after so they couldn't confess?"


Acham sounds like a Muslim name :)
Who is saying anybody got shot? You make a bunch of assumptions off what you are told is the true story. It would likely involve people outside the government like Mr Silverstein.

At no point did I actually SAY someone got shot. I was merely entertaining the "conspiracy" idea of it. I disagree with your exact statement of "...You make a bunch of assuptions off what you are told is the true story..." Unless you were there durring the alledged planning by our government, then you have to admitt that YOU are also making assumptions. If it were in fact 100% true, then we wouldn't even be HAVING this discussion, we would be watching the court cases on TV. So technically, I am making assumptions of what someone elses BELIEF and OPINIONS are. just as you are making assumptions on your own BELIEF and OPINION.

I am all for open discussion and debate. I can tell by my own writing and syntax that Willravel is a more educated man than me, but in the same sence, the pope is more educated than me as well, and I don't follow him blindly either. As an intelligent being, I am bound by my own drive to look and read what information I can find, or be given, and make my own call on what I do or don't believe. We cannot just walk around believing everything that is said. We must ALWAYS question things, and learn from what we find.

In the short time I have been on this forum, I have developed a rather large respect for Willravel. I may not agree with his standpoints, but none-the-less, I respect his intelligence, AND the fact that he usually prefaces his statements with DOCUMENTATION. I did read your articles and though they do make for good questioning of the calls, they do not convince me that it was impossible. Improbable? maybe. I asked my service provider about the range of the average cellular phone from around 2000. The technician told me that the TDMA phones of that time had an EFFECTIVE range of about 4 miles in order to maintain an acceptable signal. this being said, the AVERAGE range between towers is about 2.5 to 3 miles. Using algebra (hey, I said you were MORE educated...not that I was stupid...lmao) that means that in orderto maintain an accepted level of phone signal, the maximum verticle height would be 3.8 miles to maintain signal. converted to feet...20,064 feet.
So it could be possible, if the plane were below that level, to maintain an acceptable connection. Now I will need to double check, but I do believe that durring the tracking of Flight 93 durring a majority of the flight, their altitude was within that area, but I may be wrong. Willravel, can you accept that IF they were at that altitude that they COULD have made a good cel phone call?

Luckily we have engineers who design cars with thermal expansion in mind so things don’t fall apart, however, the 2 towers were poorly designed, and the expansion of the horizontal girders caused the collapse. As for how far things expand, it depends on the length of them, a pot will not expand more than a mm or 2, where as a railroad track will expand a great deal, even in the sun.

Please see the picture in this article, and read the article, its a good explanation:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/IYear...malExpans.html


fyi, its spelled Occam’s razor, the simple lest solution is usually the correct one.

Is it a Godwin if I call you a grammar nazi?

Oh there you go Willravel, comment about HIS post, but ignore mine huh?....why you.... (LMFAO Said in jest of course!)

While it is statistically improbable, yes it is possible for maybe a very short, crappy quality conversation to have gone through. The problem is that it wasn't a short, crappy-quality conversation. There were many, long, clear conversations. I'm left wondering, why don't I get good service at my house, but these people can have conversations moving at hundred of miles per hour, miles in the air?

A friend of mine has a plane (yes, some of my friends ar rich). The last time we went up, I asked him how my phone would affect his eqwuiptment. He basically said that I was an idiot, and that we would not come down crashing into the ground if I opened up my Samsung and ordered a pizza. I decided to test a few things. I made 20 calls at varied altitudes, over Northern California (which is wooded and sparsely populated, like a lot of the areas that the planes flew over). The only call that went through was at 300 feet and it went through for about 3 seconds, just long enough for me to give the infamous line: "Can you hear me now?". No phone calls went through over a few hundred feet, and my phone is nothing to sneeze at.

Well obviously I cannot attest to the situation, I have been able to use my cel phone while waiting for clearance to land at MCO airport. I am assuming that the average flight altitude while waiting for clearance is well above 300 feet. I have been told that SOME and I do say SOME airlines have an on-plane transponder for cel phone usage, although I have not been able to find anything in print to support this, and seriously doubt that Flight 93 had one. perhaps my flight did? I don't know for sure. But even so, as the math has shown, it is very possible for someone to have a good connection at up to 20,000 feet of altitude, even with the TDMA phones commonly in use at that time.

*Willravel blushes so much he passes out*

I’m not trying to be a Grammar Nazi, I was just stating the correct way to spell the word incase some people had never heard of Occam’s razor, so they could look it up themselves.

I am really, really aware of thermal expansion and use it to advantage all the time. We are still talking tiny distances, not the tower expanding out over the Bronx. Another thing that seems to confuse some of you is flame temperature vs adjacent steel temperature. The steel ain't burning and heat is picked up from the flame but is also radiated out from the steel. Maybe an experiment can be tried if you have a stove with gas burners. Turn the stove on and heat your frying pan. Crank 'er up, no eggs to burn. Let it bake like that for an hour. Use the thermometer like ya stick in the Thanksgiving turkey to get a temperature reading. Now stick the thermometer into the burners flame and see if it's maybe any hotter.

Buy your replacement thermometer before Thanksgiving.

Phone calls... Mom it's me, Mark Bingham! :rolleyes:

some pictures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Arrangment.jpg
This shows a top down view of a floor. 60 feet separate the edge of the building and the elevators
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...Eagar/fig5.gif
This picture (Not To Scale) shows how the 2 are connected by several long struts, (picture calls them floor joist) each being approximately 60 feet long, of solid steel. The struts rest upon the angle clip, also known as a gusset plate. The structural integrity of the floor is solely based on them resting on top of that ledge. From what I have gathered gusset plates are 4 x 2 x 3/8 inches.

Ok now onto thermal expansion of these struts. 60 feet of building grade steel. Building grade steel has a thermal expansion coefficient of 1.2 x10^-5 or so says my physics book. According to http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html the steel never heated past 750C no where near enough to melt it. A 60 foot beam heated to 750C from 20 C will expand by a little over 6 inches. If the fires were all uniform, the structure would have expanded at about the same rate, but the fires were not uniform, there were points of hotness and points of coolness, depending on the supply of oxygen and fuel, this discontinuity was the major cause of the weekend structure.

Take this scenario, 2 beams heated to 750C while a third beam in the middle is only heated to 250C. The 2 outer beams will expand by 6 inches, while the center beam will only expand by 2 inches, a difference of 4 inches. the outer beams having no where to grow will push the outer wall out by 6 inches, where as the center will expand by 2, but its outer wall is pushes out 6 inches, leaving a 4 inch gap, now since the gusset plate is only 2 inches deep, it just fell off the plate and that section of floor collapsed, all because of a 500C difference. This impact would then stress the already weekend lower floor, causing the inevitable collapse.

Now if we go backwards we can find the exact difference in temperature we need to get 2 inches of separation, it turns out it is 231.5 degrees C, in a building fire it is easy to get pockets of heat, from the flow of fuel and wind. Unfortunately in the real event took place in 3d and is much more complex than this example, but the concept is still the same, the little gusset plates and the uneven spread of the fire was the towers downfall. Furthermore, it would actually take less than 2 inches to make the gusset plates fail, as the weight is placed closer and closer to the edge of the gusset plates, the forces acting on the gusset plates increase due to leverage.


Doing so would not only damage my thermometers, but also my nice pots and pans. however, over the course of an hour, the pan would heat up to the maximum temperature of the flame, although it would take a while (the fires burned for a while in WTC as well) but touching the pan with a thermometer would not conduct the heat very well, so the reading from a kitchen thermometer would read much lower then the real value. as for a thermometer directly in the flame, it would read the maximum temperature of the flame quickly, due to its low mass and the high abundance of heat from the flame.

Although your example is asinine, it still serves, to show you have little concept of heat, temperature, and science. Due to the steels high specific heat capacity, it would heat up slower then most of its surroundings, meaning that they would radiate to the steel, not the other way around. Heat always flows from masses of higher temperature to lower temperature, for the most part; all of the heat would be flowing into the steel, not out of it, keeping it nice and toasty.


Temperature

Heat
for all that don’t know who mark is, he is one of the passengers on flight 93, and was alleged to have rushed the cockpit with others to bring it down, making fun of a dead guy is a new low for you fastom.

Sorry if that's seen as making fun of the dead guy. I am pointing out how oddly worded that is. Like it's scripted, like a sitcom where they have to keep emphasizing the story line so inattentative people can follow it. Maybe you normally state your name when calling your mother? I don't know of anybody who does.

SIX INCHES!!!!!! Over a 60 foot span? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

The frying pan would radiate heat, it wouldn't get to flame temperature. Neither would the steel in a building.
The biggest problem with that whole theory is the crowds of WTC workers at the window sills on the damaged floors just before the tower falls. I'm not sure what newpaper you get but in today's National Post (Canada) there is a 9/11 retrospective that has such a picture. You'd think they'd ditch the jackets if it were even 700 degrees!

Better yet in the one article a firefighter mentions getting up to the 29th floor when the fire captain orders them to clear the building. Why was that? Getting down 29 floors certainly took more than a few seconds so he didn't feel the building start to crumble. What warning did they have?

Uh, yup it can, and it does, time and time again, experimentally in the lab. (Science is cool like that.)
actually it will get very close to it if you leave it in the flame long enough.

Once again, you don’t get it; Temperature is a measure of the average energy contained in the microscopic degrees of freedom of a system. i.e. the amount of energy of the molecules within the beam, if I say the beam is 700F, that means if we were to break up the beam, overall the average temp would be 700F, some would be less, some would be more., obviously the outer parts, would be colder then the inner parts, because they are farther away from the fire, and closer to the wind. The average temperature of the floor could be 700F, the inside 850F, and the out side 150F, then, with wind on the out side of the building, it would still be quite chilly. They were not in the center because it was hot; the out side was cool though.

As for the diction, I’ve said some weird things when I’m on my cell with my mother, especially if there are interferences over the line. Some times I have to say my name over and over again until she hears me. She can’t tell by my voice because it is garbled, so my full name does get the message across. This is a rare occurrence, once or twice a month, but it does happen for me. I’m not sure how great the cell reception is at altitude, this may be the reason. Have you heard the tapes, or just read the transcripts? Do you have a link to the tapes?

The source of the heat was the fire, not the beams. In order for the beams to be 1,500F, the fire needs to be at least that hot consistently enough for the heat to be transfered across the system of steel beams. Have you ever opened your stove at 500F? It's really hot. So hot that one would have difficulty breathing if one stuck his head too close to the open stove. Imagine that stove was 100,000 square feet, was over 3 times as hot as that 500F stove, and the only real opening was a hole about the size of a plane and was pretty far from any entrance/exit. Wouldn't you guess that:
1) the heat inside the building would make it impossible for a human to make it from the stairs or the elevator to the opening and
2) most of the heat and exhaust from the flames would be pouring out of the opening?

correct, but I don’t think the beam reached 1500C, from what I’ve read it was about half as hot as that.

Darn tooting it’s hot.

The difficulty experienced with breathing is due to the differences in temperature of the air in your lung and the air out side, if you’ve ever worked with a kiln, you will realize that when you are around that much heat for a while, its not to much harder to breath, nothing compared to the initial trouble.

The center of the oven would be that hot, not the sides, you probably know that ovens don’t all heat evenly, if you place 2 baking pans in with cookies, you need to rotate them half way through for them to cook properly. The source of heat was the fire, and it heated everything at the center, the air is easy to heat, and does not reduce the amount of heat the fire is generating much, the steel beams how ever do absorbed much more, the air is cycling through, so it never gets really hot before it cycles out of the building, maybe 300F at most by the time its leaving, and not more than 150F at the edges of the building.

no, temperature is different from heat, the air may be 500F degrees, but, there is little heat in hot air, because it has very little mass (and other molecular things that are to complex to get into) bottom line, the amount of energy in hot air is little, it takes a lot of it to heat an object, it will be very uncomfortable, but not impossible. also air is a poor conductor of heat, meaning that it does not transfer heat well, this is why you can move your hand over a candle, it has a high temperature, but does not transfer it well, and if you leave your hand over a candle you will burn your self, but if you move it slowly over, the amount of energy does not build fast enough in your hand to raise its temperature high enough to burn you.
it really depends on the lay out of the floor, if there was a clear path from the outside to the fire and back out, and the wind was blowing that direction, then yes, but if there was not a clear path, the fire would burn inside and not be blown out by the wind. From the videos I have seen, the wind was blowing strong, but there was no easy path over the fire, that is why the smoke was just billowing out the sides, and not rushing out. Most of the heat was staying at the center, not flowing out, only the air was moving the heat out, and air does not carry much heat at all. As is evident by the people wearing jackets on the out side, it was cold or not very warm by the time it got to them.

Well, I guess the pecimist side is just like the comspiracy side: we don't have a single theory. That makes sense, of course, but it's something to bear in mind. Not all 9/11 truth spreaders tell the same story.
To a point, the temperature of the air doesn't matter. It should be said that there are limits, though. Taking into account that human flesh can only survive up to a certian temperature (I'm still looking for that temperature, espically for the more fragile lung tissue and brachioles). If you've ever been in a room that's on fire, you know that the air can easily be too hot to breathe. This superfire that brought down two of the best steel reinforced buildings ever built in about a n hour should be pretty damn hot. How hot? That depends on who you ask. Some people say 1500F, some people say 500F. I think that if we are assuming the fire did bring down the building, it was damned hot - probably closer to the 1500F number than the 500F.

I think we should agree on a temperature, and then also agree on how how the air peoplke breathe can be before closing this discussion point.
We don't know where the fires were. While overall the center might have been more hot, we simply don't know. We don't know how much air was cycling through.
Hahaha, I know temperature is different than heat, but I'm trying to make this argument in as simple terms as I can. Fire spreads heat through solid, liquid or gas. Yes, it moves through them each with different efficency, but it does heat them all.
Air doesn't move heat as well as metal, but it sure does move flames and smoke. The smoke it moved was initially black, but quickly turned grey, and the flames died down pretty quickly aswell. That, in addition to the workers, suggests that the temperature started very hot, and slowly cooled down. Also, there was a fire suppression system in the WTC, and it didn't completly 'malfunction' like in WTC7. I'm sure you've put a hot pan under the water faucet to see it cool off in a few seconds.

With anything of this magnitude, there will always be questions, which girder failed first, which floor was it on, how hot were the fires, etc… however, some things are clear, it was not space aliens, it was not Vikings, nor rabid weasels.

I would agree that it was closer to 1500C, but I use 500C as a low bound I’m sure it was hotter then that, and 500C is all the heat I need on the beam to show a good cause of the failure of the building.

It’s hard to agree on a temperature, in any investigation, it needs to be a range of possibilities, at least 500C, but no more than 1500C

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Locations.jpg
from this illustration of the impacts, you can see that WTC 1 was hit and the plane dumped its fuel over the 60 foot beams, as for WTC 2 it is very possible that the fuel was spilled over the eastern 60 foot beams, at least the southern part of it. this center of heat would have stretched the beams nearest more then those farther away, causing the beams to fall off of there gusset plates, casing large support beams to fail.

I had heard that the fire suppression failed completely, how ever, if it was partially active, that could make matters worse, by cooling parts of the building it would exasperated the difference in temperature across the deferent beams, causing a larger length difference than I had calculated. As I already showed, a difference of 231.5 C will cause the beam to fall off of the gusset plates.



One quick change, in my previous post, I meant to use Celsius, not Fahrenheit

It's good to know we have common ground. While the weasels have been responsible for such things as Woodstock, the invention of the telephone, and the building of the pyramids, they probably had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, or the other crash.
Yeah, I meant celcius, too.
Well, if they had investigated the debris from the WTC instead of shipping it all off, we might have an answer. I think something has to be said about that.
The strange thing is, logic would dictate that more fuel was able to explode outward, burning off instantly and causeing the explosions we've seen in the videos. The explosion basically went right out the windows. Tower 2 fell faster than tower 1.
Then I explained that the outward expansion would actually make the beam connections stronger against the outside supports.
Yeah, me too.

the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires...

You could not gather what temperature the fires burned at from the rubble, to many variables to deal with.

Tower 2 was hit in the corner of the central supports, weakening it more then the first tower, the fire was the ultimate cause, but the second tower was more damaged to begin with.

Unfortunately, no it would not. As the beams expanded, they push the outer wall out; therefore, instead of the floors above being directly above, they are at an angle, albeit slight, this weakens the structure severely. Just as my old soda can example, you can stand on a soda can, as long as the sides are perfect, as soon as you warp one, the can will collapse, just like the building.

While it was talked about a while ago, I wasn't able to get Verizon service to work when I was flying an America West flight into Columbus, OH. I forgot to turn off my phone until they said to turn off electronics when landing. When I looked at it, the no service text was displayed.

Too bad you folks couldn't get to see the several special TV programs about 9/11 on CBC tonight. Some pretty good stuff. They talk to and hear stories of government ineptitude from survivors, rescuers, the EPA, the hospitals, and government officials themselves.

They talk to Dylan Avery who comes across as sincere and the dude from Popular Mechanics (McQuack or something... i'll try and forget his name) who seem like another Bush apologist. The victims included 24 Canadians, some of whom are pretty determined to find out the truth.

It'll be interesting watching from the sidelines here when the US government does finally topple. I hope for the sake of all you folks some of their real doomsday plans don't get implemented.
(i won't mention them, that's perhaps another thread)

I have a few back-up countries in case this one goes strait to shit.
1) Austrailia
2) Iceland
3) Christmas Island
The worse it gets the more remote. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately for you, ineptitude, is not a form of guilt, yes, a lot of mistakes were made on 9/11, and before, but that does not mean that it was an inside job, people are fallible, people screwed up, but the fact remains, planes hit the towers, and they fell because of them. It’s obvious that you hate the current American government, that’s ok, but you should recognize that even though they are a bunch of idiots, they did not cause the towers to fall. Further more, interviews are great for TV, but personal experiences are anecdotal evidence, the worst kind of evidence. Even if 1000 people saw a missile hit the WTC 1, the video evidence shows a plane, not a missile, and there for, the 1000 people are mistaken, and a plane hit it.

You used 11 commas in your first sentence. What's up with that? Maybe it's a conspiracy to create run on sentences and destroy the period as we know it forever.

/end grammar Nazism

All of the videos of the 9/11 crash were shotty, that might explain why multiple cameras from different locations and people who've never met all saw something attached tom the hull of the plane that crashed.

I'd just like to give my blessings to the victims and their families, 5 years after the events.

I'm just curious about the video of the plane into the Pentagon. Why is there only one video considering that place is basted in video/survaliance?

Only one video was released initially to the AP, then another was released a few months back. Both are obviously of tremendously low quality, and are of questionable authenticity. At least 84 videos exist that show what struck the Pentagon. At least 82 videos are classified and there are no plans to release them in the near future.

Yeah, my English teacher hates me for that.
Which was later shown to only be a shadow.


I would assume that they are stating grounds of nation security, and I think they are partly right, by releasing the locations of all the cameras; they would be making the complex unsecured. However, I think more then the 2 angles should be released.

The only reason I see for them to hold the tapes from being released is that they don't want them shown all over the world and to be used in anti-US propaganda films. However, I would like to see the tapes, they should show them to the military and people who work for the military.

One other thing I thought about today, if there had been explosives placed in the towers, why wouldn't have the impact of the planes set off the charges right near the spot of entry? That is where the towers collapsed from, and it would have been hard to have wireless explosives detonated right in that location wouldn't have it (with the fire and heat and all? The conspiracy theory that the planes were remote controlled into the exact floor by fly-by-wire would be possible, but having the charges exactly at the floor below the impact might be risky if it would have gone off right away. However, maybe there were people watching the towers and they had placed the charges well below the point of entry. Then as soon as the building started to collapse, they blew the charges to make the building fall straight down. Then again, this is getting a little too complicated...

Anecdotal evidence? Video can be much more easily manipulated than many eyewitnesses.
I agree people don't always see things correctly. Five witnesses to a car accident can have five different versions, but if all five saw the blue car run the red light don't you maybe think....

you don't remember the people jumping out of the building????

if the traffic camera says a red vw bug, then it was a vw bug. People make mistakes, even in large groups. When lots of adrenalin and panic is involved, memories get distorted.

Take this example, 3 cars, a red vw bug, a blue car, and a van. The van enters the intersection going north, with the blue car a bit behind it. The red VW bug runs the light smashing into the van; the van spins 90 degrees and comes to a stop. The red VW bug takes off but the blue car was not paying attention and broad sides the van, and gets stuck in it. Several witnesses are around, one person actually sees the bug hit the van out of the comer of his eye, as the blue car is about to hit, he yells, “OMG the blue car is going to hit that van”. Everyone else looks up in time to see the blue car smash the van. Everyone thinks they saw what happened, but no one really did. No one but the traffic camera saw the hummer push the VW bug into the intersection, a failed mob hit.

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. It is easily manipulated, by all the media coverage. We both see the video of the towers collapse, where I see dust shooting out because of the falling floors, you see explosive charges placed, because you read it on some website, claiming to be an expert demolitions.

(Ok, ok I 'm not going to quit my day job and write mystery novels)

Numerous people heard explosions before the collapse, some even before the planes hit the building. It could have been an explosions that caused them to jump.

Will, it was litterally raining bodies. Every minute another person decided to jump to their death rather than burn alive. Without the sound of explosions there are the sounds of bodies smashing into the ground. Some were charred - that is were burning alive and decided to jump. I suggest you watch the documentary by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. Look for it, you'll find it. I doubt it would change your mind about any of this, but maybe it will ground you in the reality of the situation instead of using every aspect of that horrible day as some kind of evidence of your grand conspiracy.

:mad:

Yea I know when I hear an explosion I jump to my death!

This is getting fucking stupid.

Speaking of grounding in reality, I doubt you've ever spoken to any of the jumpers so you are not qualified to give a conclusive statement like the one you gave above. Yes, some of them were charred, but does that mean they were all jumping to avoid the fire? Not necessarily. It's one explaination, but there exists no conclusive evidence as to their reasoning.

I've seen every 9/11 documentary, including the Naudet documentary on CBS. I also know about the bizarre luck involved in Jiles Naudet's filming, but I won't go into that.

Would you jump to your death if you were on fire? It's the same basic concept.

Ustwo, your post content is nonexistant. You're response based jabs are useless and are blatently flaming no matter in Politics or Paranoia, and because of them no one on the left and very few on the right take you seriously. If you would stop for even a moment, you could actually contribute. You could learn quite a bit from stevo on the matter. He disagrees with me completly, but actually have relevant content in his posts. For that I respect him. For that I engage him in discussion.

People have been known to jump rather than die in a fire yes, its a common thing, I dont' know where you get your information on these things. If you heard an explosion in a building would you jump out to die for sure? Fuck no, at least not a sane person. An explosion does not mean the building is going to fall for sure, but jumping means you are dead for sure.

I don't care what you think of me, I think very little of you in this. You use warped logic to prove an absurd point on a sensative issue. I saw those people jump will while you were in highschool and I'd assume your drug period. It wasn't due to any fucking explosions.

You don't know how many posts I don't submit. Its amazing to me the extent to which dilbert has gone to show you that its not only probable, but likely the buildings fell because of the planes and subsequent fires, yet you refuse to believe it. Refuse to give any weight to his arguements because you go on to try to find another excuse, another reason why it not be like it is. There is always something else for you, another tragic moment of that day you try to fit into your little conspiracy. Its beyond sick, will. beyond. :|

lets pick apart why we would jump, if i was on fire, or in serious pain, I would jump to end it, other than that, there is no reason to jump, if an explosion goes off, obviously I survived it, or else I would not be thinking, so if I’m not in danger of being in horrible pain, why jump, there is still hope of rescue, the only reason for suicide is to escape pain (mental or physical). As for the explosions, it is reasonable to say they were (if there were explosions) compressed office supplies,: fire extinguishers, 'can o air' etc maybe some one on the floor had an O2 tank for medical purposes, there are hundreds of reasons people heard explosions, much more likely then explosive charges. I bet a monitor will make a nice loud BANG if you put it in a fire.

I think they were jumping because there was too much smoke and they couldn't breathe. Not because of the temperatures. I watched the video yesterday and they followed one guy down in a bright white business shirt. The temperature was not hot enough to catch his shirt on fire.

Watch the documentary shown on the Passionate Eye earlier this week called the Falling Man. link: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonday/fallingman/ (for a description)

Especially the interview of a man who's wife's body was found close by the building. It gives a rather poignant view on why somebody would jump to their certain death.

The documentary also explores the attempted identification of the iconic "falling man" and the religious ramification from his family.

I think that the sound of a building in destruction will be fairly noisy.

here is a brief discussion from the site: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonda...n/jumpers.html

THE 9/11 Jumpers
When American Airlines flight 11 hit the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:45, the plane cut a swath through floors 93 to 99. It ripped through elevator shafts and left emergency exits impassable. The huge fire spread fast and smoke plumed up through the ventilation shafts to the floors above. Nearly 1000 people were trapped with no exit.

People inside the building inundated the emergency services with calls for help. Some tried to escape to the roof but found the access doors locked. Rescue from the top of the building would have been impossible because helicopters couldn't land in the thick billowing smoke.

Desperate for air, the survivors started to break windows on the upper floors. But the oxygen from outside only fed the fire and made the situation inside the tower worse. Many people decided that there was only one option left. Not long after the first plane hit the World Trade Center people in the top floors began to jump out.



New York Times Reporter, Eric Lipton Eric Lipton, a reporter for the New York Times witnessed the scene. "You're able to see more and more people assembling at the windows as time is passing, not only assembled but they're stacked up against each other. Imagine leaning out of the hundredth and ninth floor of the World Trade Center, no rational person would do that."

Then the unimaginable happened. At 9:03 am a second plane hit between the 78th and 84th floors of the south tower and another 600 people were trapped. One stairwell was left passable but only eighteen people from above the crash zone managed to escape down it.

Jack Gentual, dean of student services at the New Jersey Institute of Technology got a call from his wife Alayne who worked in the tower and was trapped on the 97th floor. "She told me smoke was coming in the room, coming through the vents, her breath was laboured ... She said to me 'I'm scared' and she wasn't a person who got scared. She said that she loved me and to tell the boys she loved them." Alayne told her husband that she was going to try to escape to the lower floors and that she would call later.


Alayne Gentual was trapped in the south tower when the second plane hit New York.But Gentual never heard from his wife again. Her body was found on the street in front of the building across from hers. He wonders if his wife was one of the many who decided to jump. "In some ways it might just be the last elements of control. To be out of the smoke and the heat, to be out in the air...it must have felt like flying."

For those who jumped, the fall lasted about ten seconds. The jumpers hit the ground at 240 kilometres a hour. It wasn't fast enough to cause unconsciousness while falling, but ensured instant death on impact.

Witnesses there that day say there was a constant stream of jumpers over the next hour and a half. They jumped alone, in pairs and in groups. Most of the jumpers came from the north tower where smoke was particularly dense and where there were more victims concentrated on fewer floors.

Well after 9/11, Tom Junod a writer from Esquire magazine contacted the coroner's office in New York and asked for a count of how many people jumped. He was told that nobody jumped. The official word was that victims were blown out or they were forced out, but nobody jumped. "There were just those things that day that you were supposed to see, you weren't supposed to say and you weren't supposed to talk about."

Now it's estimated that anywhere between 50 and 200 jumped out of the Trade Center that day, although experts believe that the higher number is more likely. If so, nearly 8% of those who died in New York on September 11th died by falling or jumping out of the buildings.


Richard Pecorella searches the internet for photos of the last moments of his partner's life.Richard Pecorella lost his partner that day and was desperate to find out how she met her end. He scoured the internet looking for photos and found one of a jumper with the same clothes and shape and believes that she must have jumped. "Nothing is more painful than losing her but not knowing how I lost her was even more painful, so now that I believe that that's what took place, it's not painful for me to talk about."

The people who jumped from the World Trade Center that morning were the only visible fatalities in the day that claimed thousands.

People don't jump when they burst into flames, they jump prior to avoid being cooked alive. If it was smoke and you were at a window, would you jump out?

The same can be said of fire. Yes, I'm on fire, but fire means being burned vs. jumping from the WTC means certian death.
I don't care what you think of me, but you're ruining TFP for a lot of people by making simple, snide remarks, baiting, flaming, and personal attakcs instead of posting backable arguments and conclusions. I saw those people jump on the same channels everyone one else was watching on 9/11. Also, I didn't do drugs my senior year, but thanks for making my accusation true by attacking me instead of the information I post.

Will this is 12 pages full of information that shows how the towers were caused by planes, that how any detonations or conspiracy possibilities were not only improbable but nearly impossible. Yet you fire away to continue this discussion.

For the rest of us this is a painful disrespect to everyone involved in that day. For what? to say that the people who sacrificed their lives were part of the entity that caused it for no other reasons than to go to war.

There was a window in line with where the engine on the 757-200 that hit the Pentagon. That window was unbroken. The thing is that points acoss these 12 pages have been ignored. Again and again and again. I bring them up again and again and again. Untill all points are addressed, I don't really see the use in stopping.
It's disrespectful in my mind to ignore discrepencies. It's disrespectful in my mind to go to war in their name without even getting the story straight. But the most disrespectful thing of all? Speaking for the dead. I don't bring up the fact that I find this whole thing disrespectful because neither you nor I are qualified to speak for the 3000 someodd people that died. Their sacrafice (which isn't actually a sacrafice, sacrafice suggests the choice to give, and they did not choose to be in a terrorist attack) did lead us to war. It's really that simple.

So you have no problem participating in thread after thread disrespecting the dead?

I don't speak for the dead, I speak for myself and myself alone. The only time it really disrespects them is when someone tries to use their deaths to their argument's advantage. "How dare you say that when 3000 brave Americans gave their lives!!!" is a dumb thing to say. It proves nothing, and is an obvious tool to try and play on people's sympathies and distract from the facts. Arguments like that should be reserved for jackasses like Buill O'Reilly. I don't do that. I try to stick with facts. We can argue all day aobut what is or isn't disrespectful, but I think we'll find that day was wasted because we each have our own opinions about what does or doesn't constitute disrespect.

how about the topic? did anybody see the documentary called the Falling Man?

(sorry, my feable attempt to move this discussion along...)

Replace the word "feable" with "commendable".

The Falling Man was a photograph taken by Richar Drew at ground zero at 9:41 AM, 9/11. The photograph shows a man falling from one of the WTC towers. The documantary of the same name was played March 16, 2006 on BBC 4. It was also played later on CBC Newsworld (just recently, as I understand). It has yet to be played in the States. I found it on Google video some time ago, I'll look for it later. The documantary supposes the indentity of the man is John Briley a sound editor, but the identity of the man is still in question.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...alling_Man.jpg

from your own weblink

so who is speaking for the dead? you or them? you state that maybe they jumped because of explosions, they state that maybe they jumped because of fear of heat and smoke.

Which seems more likely and plausible?

I'm going to go with your thoughts as being more negative than the more positive.

What I was communicating is we don't know what was going through their minds, so we can't say why they jumped conclusively. As evidence of this, I posted another possibility. I was trying to avoid speaking for the dead.

Let’s try and stay civil ustwo, you too willravel. Every so often some one post a snide remark like that, the drug use was totally uncalled for, but none the less, just let it roll off of your back


If wills not convinced yet, I’m not done yet. And they did not sacrifice themselves, they were killed / murdered. And although it did lead us to war, it is still not certain that we would not have gone to war even if 9/11 did not happen, I think even if there was no 9/11 we would still be in Iraq, just because of the leadership in the white house, not that I agree with it one bit, but it would be going a lot better in Iraq, we would not be spread in Afghanistan as well.

I think it is pretty obvious, the fire and smoke would be unbearable in some locations, and it would get to a point where death would be more welcomed then slowly suffocating and baking to death. There is a point for everyone when they say I’d prefer death rather then torture.

One thing about anecdotal evidence, sometimes it is twisted, distorted and interpreted wrong, Mike Walter is often quoted by conspiracy theorist as saying a cruise missile hit the pentagon… he said it but it was taken way out of context,

its not ignored, it is lost:

prilimanary explination: the pentagon is designed to survive a military strike

extended explination:


hope that helps willravel

lastly, i'd like to appologise to willravel, i've been calling him willTravel all this time. :icare:

I'm not sure the white house could have rallied support for the invasion of Iraq without the galvanizing events on 9/11, but that is or another thread.
This missle theory is based on the size of the entrance hole, the apparent lack of debris (which is an arguable point), and the circular hole in the rear that was only recently connected with the landing gear. Up until the recent Pop Mech 9/11 Conspiracy Theory book, the only story about the rear hole that's backable by testimony has been that it was created by the nose of the plane. I think we can all agree that the nose of the plane didn't make the rear hole, but it's arguable what did. The landing gear is a much more likely explaination that the nosecone, but the landing gear traveling so muhc farther than the engines is highly suspect. One landing arm cashes through sodozens of feet of steel reinforced concrete, but the other landing gear and the eingines don't even make it out of the first wing? I dunno, but that sounds suspecious. Add to that the testimony of the firefighters on the scene who said they saw what looked like the ffront of the plane, and we have a very confusing situation.
Oh dear. Tow inches of blast proof glass can withstand the direct impact of a titanium and aluminum engine traveling at 500+ mph speeds? Somehow I doubt that, espically when windows not in the direct path of the plane were broken from the explosion or the heat from the fire. That is a massive inconsistency of strength that was never addressed.
Oh don't worry about it. I didn't realize the second part of your screen name was 1234567 until this every moment. I just cut and pasted it.

Will = my first name, Ravel = Maurice Ravel, one of my favorite composers of french romantic music.

a bit off topic (ok a lot off topic) but my fav number for a few years back in 1980 was 17.36 the number of minutes that the Bolero (by Ravel) took to play and which was used to great effect in the movie '10'

ahhh... Bo (lero) Derek..... and the world's longest crescendo...

Boy was I expecting a different post! I've not heard of this movie before (a bit before my time, as I was 1 when it came out), but I'll be sure to check it out. Is the movie as racy as people say?

its really not that confusing when you go to real experts, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html
they also link to purdue univercities computer simulations of the impact,

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/s...0sep02slow.gif
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/pape...gonVIS2003.mpg
The structure of the building literally tore the plane apart, not the other way around, like trying to shop a knife with a carrot, the carrot losses. The simulations are very good, they show how a plane could crash into the building and leave the damage experience by the building.

yeah, it can, it may be easier to push the window out of its frame then to destroy it, the windows are bullet and blast proof, blast proof means it will stop an explosive force from hurting people inside, rather then having the window shatter and spray the inside with glass, it deforms and pops out of its frame, sparing the people inside from the blast, and the shrapnel.

I was talking about the EMS, Firemen, and police who rushed in. What Wil's conspiracy charge suggests is the very people who perpetrated it were part of the same group who sacrificed themselves.

I couldn't find his credentials.

Also, the first simulation indicates that the plane's wings were embeded into the side of the Pentagon, which is very contrary to the photos.

I should go through this thread and make a big list of strawman arguments made on both sides to illustrate how people have trouble keeping their emotion from exaggerating and misstating in order to be right.

Seaver, not once in any of the threads on the whole web about 9/11 did I say that the firefighters, police officers, or emergency medical personel had anything to do with why or how the towers collapsed. I suggest you read my posts before trying to summerize what I have said.

not embedded but pulverized... light aluminium into reinforced concrete.

The engines were titanium, and the wings are designed to stand 700 mph winds for years.

No, but your posted opinions that it was a government job makes them part of the same entity.

http://evesplace.coolfreepage.com/pentagon911.jpg
I don't even see scratch marks showing where the wings struck. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. You'd think even light aluminium would leave some sort of mark.

Oh wow...I hadn't realized that! You mean to tell me that police officers work for the government? That means the DMV is in on it too!! I've been suspicous of them for YEARS!! They must be involved, because every part of the government knows what every other part of the government is up to! So the next time I go to renew my auto registration, I can ask how much I owe on my taxes this year, I can ask what troop deployment is like in Afghanistan, and I can ask what the budget for 2007 is going to look like, right? Because by your logic, all government knows what all government is doing. Maybe we should think even bigger. I'm in on it, because I'm a member of the same species as those who orchestrated 9/11!!! That also makes me responsible for the Holocaust, the invention of peanut butter, and the musical Chicago.

Boy oh boy are you reaching, Seaver. I'm afraid this time your reach is greater than your grasp.

You're stretching what I said. They are employees of the government. You have a theory that the government was responsible, purposefully and maliciously bomb and level the WTC towers. By being an employee of the government, those people were part of the government. Therefore they are part of the same entity.

I also say the government is responsible for the war in Iraq, do you think that includes police officers, firefighters, and EMS personel? Yeah, you're stretched way too thin here, Seaver.

I think you know that I'm not saying the rescue workers on 9/11 were in on some plot.

I was not referring to the poster of the article, but of all the articles he sites as evidence. He does a good job of using several sources to support his statements

Watch the entire gif, its quite long; you only watched the first portion of it.

I watched the whole thing, and it shows that the wings made an impact on the lower foundations which damaged them. This is contrary to the images of the crash.

reinforced concrete will be scratched by light aluminum? Then why would we bother making bunker busting munitions when airplane wings will do just some damage...

i don’t see the contradiction, please post a picture that shows the contradiction you speak of.

Again, the engines were not aluminum, they had large titanium parts that should have at least broken the window when hitting the building at 500 (?) mph.
Starting at frame 12, the wing breaks up and through the building breaking the supports. The wings, in the .gif pic, go through the wall. In reality, they didn't go through anything. Check this picture out:
http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/06-14-04/xox5.jpg
http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg

again... I'm going to state that reinforced for bunkers will not be scratched or even dinged by titanium, aluminium or any other LIGHTLY packed or LIGHT density aircraft or material.

but the window wasn't HIT directly by those parts, what's so hard to see? why not suggest that windows far away on the left side didn't get damaged either? I mean look at a pitchers box and there's a SMALL space that a ball must travel through... using a paper target on a archery range, the flights going through the paper target don't rip through areas of the paper that don't make contact.

The exterior of the buiding is brick. Bricks will be damaged by an airplane engine moving 500+ mph, right? Or are we not even able to agree on that? If you need proof, I have an old broken golf club with a titanium shaft and some bricks. If I strike the brick with the golf club and it makes a scratch or chip, you put me on your christmas list. If not, then I put you on my christmas list. It's win/win.
The window was in the estimated flight path of the left engine. Please look over the evidence. There are pictures all over the internet, and even this thread, that confirm that fact.

if you want to believe that a 757 traveling at 500 mph could inflict hardly any damage on a building then believe that. the obvious discrepancies in the commision report, painfully low quality 4 frame videos, and our current administrations tendency of purposeful fallacy and lying is enough for me to believe that they are not giving us the full story. and enough for me to belive that a boeing 757 did not strike the pentagon.