ESTIMATED.. but not the ACTUAL, since the evidence points to the fact that an engine DID NOT hit the window. People wonder why it didn't hit the window. The fact is that it did NOT hit the window, plain and simple. No voodoo about it.

We can only agree on it if it was actually hit by it. the sillouhuette of a plane head on is very small, The area directly hit by it was severely damaged, but those that were not, no damage. Simple. Direct.

The estimated flight path is the only flight path available to the public. It's estimated based on the location of the hole, which is where the nose of the plane hit. Since we know where the nose hit, we know where the engines would have hit. When I say "estimated", it's only because we don't have the video to prove it. So where is your "ACTUAL" evidence coming from if the actual evidence is classified? Simple answer: no where. You're assuming you know the answer because you're assuming I'm wrong. The problem is that I'm right and you're ignoring me.

Would you care to post a link to the classified videos of the plane hitting the building?
The sillouhuette would have been he size of a Boeing 757-200. That's bigger than a bread box. The problem is that the hole is too small.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg
See?

Just thought I'd add this...

I suppose what angers me isn't that someone like will is so convinced of his own reality that all the real experts can't convince him other wise. Lots of people have strong opinions which they use absurd 'facts' to justify having.

Whats really disgusting, is that these lies and fabrications are being used against us by the enemies of the US to convince people that the US killed 3000 of its own people just to frame musslims. I expect terrorists and others who think of themselves as enemies of our country to lie. What I don't expect is for people in this country to help them by creating false yet plausable sounding theories for enemies of this country to use for their own agendas.

Will, just how does it feel being one of the tools used against the US?

ustwo you need to self reflect. you have to understand that you sound as crazy to us as we do to you. you think torture is fine, we think your crazy; we think our government is ruthless, and possibly used the WTC attack as this administration's reichstag to incite a war and gain control, you think we're crazy.

i am very open to the idea of us being wrong, in fact i welcome it. i would like to believe that these arguments were only coincidental. but no one has been able to give an explaination for the holes in the facts. until those facts are legitimately rebuked i remain a loyal skeptic.

They should release more video, absolutely, the government is way too restrictive on the information on the grounds of national security.

If you hit a normal brick and mortar building with a plane, the building will be smashed to bits, however, this building was designed to take an attack and survive, and it’s the military HQ for the United States of America, not some 2 bit radio shack. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand. It did what it’s designed to do, survive an attack.

i'm supprised it did as much damage as it did. i would have thought less.

sorry, i was in a bad mood when i posted that, dilbert.

the commision report stated that several dozen support columns were knocked out. unless i have mistaken the pictures, i am at a loss as to how that could be factual.

Yes dozens of columns were knocked out, but not in the front, the wings disintegrated virtually instantly after hitting (and went inside a bit) but the center of the plane did nock down support columns in its path deeper inside

Just because the administration used the aftermath to justify there goals, does not mean they orchestrated it.


your twisting his words...

Cynthetiq is saying there is a margin of error on the estimated path and the actual path, since we know where about the plane hit, we know about where it was going, however the plane could have theoretically been anywhere with in 5 to 20 feet (estimates pulled from arse, bottom line it is just an estimate, some where near the value given). A plane hitting a building is not as simple as a bullet hitting a paper target, on paper, you can see exactly where it hit, with a margin of error of less than a mm, when larger, malleable objects are involved, the error becomes larger, if the estimated path was off by a few inches, the window would have been missed, hell, the people estimating the path of the engine may be wrong, did they properly calculate the torque force applied by the deceleration of the plane as compared to the engine, since it was still attached, there would be one hell of a torsion force.

Ustwo, wonderful quote, I like how they truncate
To Where is the outrage on that gem? Oh I got some right here for all the web pages who quote Mike Walter as saying a cruise missile hit the pentagon, Do Some Fact Checking.

The Pentagon "evidence" looks planted, where are both engines? They didn't burn up in the fire. How did some stuff vaporize yet other stuff is intact. What made that fairly big exit hole deep in the building... the schrapnel put there doesn't appear to have.

For what reason would the hotel and gas station tapes need to be seized right away? Why can't they be played?

What about cell company records showing the calls were made?
Why don't any Arabs appear with the passengers boarding the planes?
How is it that the government is certain of their identities within hours? Why haven't those been ammended when some turned up alive?

A cruise missile could not account for the light poll damage, the damaged generator, and many other parts of the damage caused.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html

You have absolutely no proof that it was planted, yet you say it as fact.


Some stupid quip about national security probably, they should be released. Still does not mean the government had anything to do with the attack.

Huh? Privacy issues for one, cell phone companies cant just give out personal information like that.

And how did you come to that conclusion?


Governmental incompetence?

I'm not ignoring you and I don't think your are right or wrong. I'm stating that there isn't enough evidence to state that it's "right there under your nose if you'd just look". I'm with dilbert, you've taken many leaps of faith to justify your conclusions. I've not and won't.

I've stated that the estimated flight path is just that, estimated. While they can do simulations on computers and theoretical discussions, it doesn't change the reality of the scene itself. Damage was done over a wider area than what would be for a flightpath of a cruise missle. The hole is too small, yet when I look at the gaping hole in the WTC it seems too small also. IMO that's my own mind trying to "understand" and wrap itself around the idea that a plane hit the building.

I've witnessed a plane crash into a house, small 4-5 seater. House didn't look like anything hit it, but it was totally engulfed in flames. I know a plane hit it but there was little evidence of a plane hitting it and leaving a gaping hole. It was also damned hot standing across the street about 40 yards away. I visited the house again after they put out the fire and if I told someone that a plane hit it they would have called me a liar because there was no circumstantial evidence that ANYTHING hit it. It just looked like it was destroyed by a fire.

I guess you're unable to fight facts with facts. It's really too bad. I know that your smart, I've seen proof of that many times. You're unable to pull yourself from the realm of personal attacks long enough to actually discuss the subject at hand. I'm sure you're famailiar with the logical fallacy Ad hominem, where instead of arguing the facts, one replies to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. I'm also sure you know that a fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
I'm not going to be drawn into an appeal to pity or guilt by assosication fallacy, either. You know that if I believe what I believe that I think that the true bombers are probavbly using American's racism towards muslims to fool people into believing a lie, and that is rather bad. To suggest that I am helping terrorism, and that Bush is hindering it is more than an absurd attack. It's down right untrue. If I'm right, then I am helping the US. Bush has started a war of aggression in the middle East to stop terrorism, and global terrorism is on the rise in response to it. I think that we all know that the war in Iraq has done more for terrorism than I can ever do, and we know that has little to do with this thread.
I've never gone off on you the way you have gone off on me on numerous occasions.Questions like this show your true color. All I can say is that this is a classless move on your part. I'm not interested in getting into a war of personal attacks. If you have something usefull to add to this thread about the facts surrounding 9/11 and the individual's conclusions, be my guest. If not, then read the rules:
If you feel the urge to attack me or anyone else, show some restraint and hit the back button.


moving on...
As stated before, look at frame 12 through maybe 22 of your .gif picture. The left wing (left from the front) goes into the building. This is in opposition to the pictures take before the collapse. There was only one small hole , and I doubt the wings or tail would have simply folded in before hitting the outer brick. While I understand that the wings and tail might not have breached the walls, they should have done a great deal of damage to the brick. I'm assuming that the brick on the outside isn't a superbrick, because it was always described as normal brick in the releases. If you do have information I've not found yet, which is entirely possible, I'd love to read it. I like to have all the information so that my conclusions can be correct (not for the sake of argument, but for my own edification).

No, but motive and ability should be taken into account in an investigation. They had a motive, and they would be the only ones who had the means. It's not conclusive evidence, sue, but it is important.
Not at all. The "actual" vs. "estimated" evidence topic had to be squashed. There exists actual evidence, but it is not available to the public. What the non-CIA people out there can and have done is to use math and science to figure out what happened.
Considering the size of the hole, the margin of error is maybe a foot, which still puts the engine through the glass. Even if y some fluke the engine didn't hit the glass, there is not even a scratch on the wall outside that window. Airplane engine hits brick wall at 500+ mph and doesn't even scratch it? Highly doubtful.
Please don't put yourself on the same page as Ustwo. Eyewhitness testimony at the Pentagon is quite varied (everything from "it was a bomb!" to "it was a transport aircraft!"), and thus should be considered unreliable. If it were to be determined that a missle of some kind hit the pentagon, it would be best to rely on evidence taken from the pictures, testimony of the fire fighters and emergency workers (their testimony reads as being more reliable because they see fires and debris all the time, they were closer to the crash zone longer, and hey helped in clean up).

The holes created in the WTC towers are the size of planes. They are as long as the wingspan of the planes. The planes broke apart when hitting the WTC towers, of course, but they did manage to create perfect footprints on the outside of the buildings.

Much of the damage you see is due to a few things:
1) the hole This was punched inward, and was done so by an airborn projectile. The hole was approximately 18' across.
2) the outer walls Burned by fires, some windows broken outwards, probably by the explosion.
3) the inside Don't know. There are almot no pictures of the inside, and they are hard to make conclusions from.
4) the inner hole Created by the nose of the plane in the original report, then said to be the landing gear by Popular Mechanics. The firefighters and opther rescue workers have said they found no evidence of plane debris. That suggests that there wasn't a huge arm and wheel (rim) from an airplane, as that would be pretty obvious. It has also been suggested that the hole could have been created by a backhoe to gain access to fires. That ascertion does not prove or disprove either side of this, but if it's true it should be taken into account to get the whole picture.
Do you think that hot fire was enough to melt a computer monitor?

Which engine are we talking about, the left or the right (when looking at the pentagon)?

Lookng at the pentagon (or the plane from the back) I mean the right one.

as far as the WTC footprints of the planes, different materials and strengths of those materials.

as far as the computer monitor melting? No because there were trees and other items just feet from the fire that raged within the confined space. If I were to compare them then the trees would have had to catch fire as well.

Most likely so we have less images of these...

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-pr...wtcjumper1.jpg

Out there. I think the general feeling is that we don't want to turn 9/11 into a snuff film.

I wonder what explosion he jumped due to?

Penalty: arguing without evidence, begging the question.
-5 points

That’s what I was hoping for.

The right engine stuck both a light pole on the road, and the generator outside of the pentagon. There are too many additional forces to calculate exactly where the engine would go, and just because it missed the window does not mean the plane does not exist.

If you were unaware, the generator was the cause of the huge explosion seen on the video at the impact, not just the airplane, it’s the generator.

Please watch the video in the article I posted a few times ago:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html


Further more, here is a new video I found of an f4 fighter slamming into a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph, the wall is designed to move back to absorbed some of the forces, if it had not the plane and wall would have suffered more damage:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...er_impact2.wmv

When a light aluminum plane hits a solid wall, it gets smashed to bits.

I didn't say it did. I said the administration possibly used the attack to promote its own agendas.

I'm suggesting that the lack of any evidence of wing, engine, or tail damage in brick does raise, in my mind, the question of why and/or how. If you can prove to me that an aluminum plane traveling at over 500 miles per hour will not scratch brick, then we can move on.
The generator was a small part of the explosion. A lot of it - I dare say most of it - was the expanding, igniting fuel.
Hey! I watched all the videos!
I don't know what material that wall was made from, but it clearly wasn't brick, and they also did not show what the wall looked like after the collission. I dare say that video is quite inconclusive when applied to the case of the Pentaqgon crash.

I to do not say you did, however, I was making sure you did not imply it.


Well, the movie of the f4 was pretty conclusive, I’m sure it was scratched up, just like the pentagon was, the pictures of the pentagon just are not close enough to the wall to see scratches. Further more, the pentagon is not brick, it is reinforced concrete.
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/history-features.htm
This part of the site is regarding the original construction, it was upgraded shortly before the attacks too.

yes and no, I was not as clear as I should have been, most of the visible explosion was the generator, the planes fuel would have exploded at the site of impact and inside of the building, they were both were visible, I just don’t want you thinking that the huge explosion was only the plane.

the wall was reinforced concrete, just like the pentagon. Why do you think the pentagon is made from brick? Everything I have read states reinforced concrete, there was a shortage on steel during the war so the pentagon was made from reinforced concrete. Brick is a weak construction medium, and not suitable for a military installation.

Oh. Well my argument still stands. If the landing gear and fuseloge of the plane were able to punch through so much, how is it that the engines did not even make a mark striking enough to notice from the hundreds of pictures available online?
I understand.
The last time I was there I remember brick. Sorry, I've seen the pictures of it after it burned so many times that my memories got the better of me.

Arguing without evidence?

Will you take hearsay as evidence, you have no basis to ever accuse anyone of not using evidence.

:lol:

So those pictures I post are hearsay? The high school chemistry I use is hearsay?

Did you notice that you didn't actually say that you were using evidence? Do you know what that means? The -5 points still stands,= because you were arguing without evidence to support your argument, and you were begging the question.

As to comparing my posts to yours....If it's to be a pissing game, then fine. You show me your track record of posting snide remarks that have no content except for possibly being a personal attack, bait, or flame, then I'll show you mine. Show me how many times you've beeen banned, and I'll tell you how many times I've been banned. Show me how many of your posts were backed by credible evidence and I will do the same. But if you're serious about this, we can PM or open another thread. I'm not willing to threadjack this thread anymore.

No plane theory
Theory

American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but rather a missile did. This theory was originated by French conspiracy theorist, Thierry Meyssan, with his books: L'Effroyable Imposture (French), 9/11: The Big Lie (English), and later Pentagate. He suggests also suggests that the planes that hit the World Trade Center were remotely controlled by the U.S. government, and not piloted by the hijackers.
Fact

This claim ignores the fact that several passengers made phone calls and reported that the plane was hijacked.

* Renee May phoned her mother, and reported that the flight was hijacked.
* Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, and reported the hijacking. She also told her husband that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.

Will you keep ignoring the people. Will what happened to the people?

I haven't the faintest idea. I addressed the phone calls, but I do not have enough information to form any conclusions about what could have happened to the passengers. It's been suggested by other conspiracy theorists that they were diverted, landed, and their whereabouts are now unknown. One of them is said to have been diverted to Chicago (flight 77).

I don't know.

The f4 plane was crashed into a sample of the nuclear containment building around a nuclear reactor. I wonder how the walls of the pentagon would compare, didn't they make the improvements to that side of the building?

The WTC was a skyscraper and had to be light weight. The pentagon didn't have to worry about weight.

But, wouldn't the thousands of gallons of jet fuel exploding and causing a shock wave be enough to break some the windows. In the WTC, the jet fuel went inside, if the wings didn't go into the pentagon, 99% of the fuel would have been burnt on the walls.

No plane theory
Theory

American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but rather a missile did. This theory was originated by French conspiracy theorist, Thierry Meyssan, with his books: L'Effroyable Imposture (French), 9/11: The Big Lie (English), and later Pentagate. He suggests also suggests that the planes that hit the World Trade Center were remotely controlled by the U.S. government, and not piloted by the hijackers.
Fact

This claim ignores the fact that several passengers made phone calls and reported that the plane was hijacked.

* Renee May phoned her mother, and reported that the flight was hijacked.
* Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, and reported the hijacking. She also told her husband that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.

Will you keep ignoring the people. Will what happened to the people?

Oh and will the plane hit the ground first, thats why you see no specific engine damage, most of the engine energy would be absorbed by the ground. Took me 5 mins on google to find that and it wasn't searching for your question, just finding how the plane impacted. This is called critical thinking.

Who said the engine did not? All that was said was the engine did not collide with the window that was not broken, it could have hit brink, or hit a different window. it flew somewhere, and I can tell you it did not fly through the parts that were undamaged, and that it did fly through the part that was, you argument (it cant be an airplane because we have an unbroken window near the vicinity of where we think the engine may have crashed) is baseless. Just because we don’t exactly where the airplane engine hit does not mean it did not hit, you should know this will.

Your argument is like this: you come across a car crash, all mangled up and wrecked and look inside, you notice the rear view mirror is not broken, you conclude that some one staged the crash with a sledge hammer, pliers and a wrench but was sloppy and forgot to break the mirror.


As for the construction of the pentagon, here is what I just found:
http://usaattacked.com/pentagon.htm

I have NO second source on this, the information sounds reasonable, but may be wrong; I’m looking for a second and third source to back it up.

you know that’s BS, do you realize how many people they'd have to keep quiet, family friends, coworkers, these people did not just disappear, you cant just relocate a plane full of people, they would be noticed by some one, some chance encounter would blow the entire operation. They’d have to be killed. Why is it so hard to believe that terrorist flew a plane into 3 buildings, you already accept that 2 buildings got hit by planes that day and we've got a 4th in the field.

The plane did not hit the ground first. Took me all of three seconds to find pictures of the ground in front of the Pentagon that showed nothing but burn marks from the airplane and generator exploding. It's called condescending without doing the proper research first. Even the current official government story says it didn't hit the ground first. That makes YOU a conspiracy theorist. Welcome to the club.

Dilbert, well I guess I was accedentally kinda right about the brick. :thumbsup:

As for the engines, I have no reason to think that the engines were anywhere but on the planes when it hit, therefore it is reasonable to assume that they hit the Pentagon, and it's reasonable to try and figure out where they hit based on the location of the hole the fuseloge supposedly made.

http://usaattacked.com/pentagon.htm

Interesting site.

I'm still confused as to how the nose of the plane went theough rings, E, D, and C, or 144" of wall (24" x 6), but the engines did not. Also, the plane did not gouge a hole 100' wide, It poked a hole about 14' wide, then the roof collapsed. I'm not sure how reliable that site is. I'll go look for something too, but I don't know if I should expect to find anything. If you had the plans to a building involved in a terrorist attack, would you release it's strengths and weaknesses?

Wasn't I clear when I said "I haven't the faintest idea"? I could have sworn that's how I started my response. And then I concluded my response "I don't know". I thought I made it clear enough. I guess I thought wrong.

Actually, will, it Did hit the ground first, well the curb at least. The pic shows the curb in front of the pentagon that was hit by the right engine.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon...ire_spools.jpg
However, the movie from http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
Shows it much better at 4:47

What I was saying is when the plane hit, the shock of the impact torn the engines off, whether they flew straight forward or not is undetermined.

I sure wouldn't, that’s the problem with our research, allot is classified for good reason. But there is no doubt that the walls were thick and designed to protect the united states military headquarters.

You don’t know what happened, but you should be able to recognize that the theory you gave (that is not your own theory about them being relocated) is totally ridicules. I’m not trying to attack you, I know you are smart enough to realize how improbable and hard it is to relocate a plane full of people and make sure no one involved talks about it.

I'm still going to have to disagree with you on this. Check out 3:58 from the same video. Look at where the "major damage" area in red is. Compare that to the actual photograph I posted earlier:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg

I still think a real picture of a hole in the curb holds more weight then a simulated picture of some ones interpretations of where it is heavily damaged and not damaged. I ask you how that curb get damaged then? If not the plane, what.

The curb could have been damaged any number of ways. It doesn't neccesarily prove a plane hit it. What if a UMV hit the Pentagon, right where a generator was to make an explosion, and it's nose, landing gear, or something hit the curb? That's not necessarily the most believable option, but it is possible. The damage could have even been done before the plane hit. It wouldn't be the only coincedence involved in the Pentagon strike.

so your saying they placed charges on each of the light poles, set explosives on the generator, flew a UAV towards the pentagon, lit off the explosives in order as if the UAV was going 500 mph, changed the tone of the UAV's engine when it passed the last light pole, then, blow a small circular chunk out of the sidewalk, dump a bunch of plane parts not found in a UAV onto the lawn, and into the building, with out anyone of the 25,000 people working in the pentagon saying anything? and the people who are not part of the government who were around at the time not say bathing too, like the cab driver that was directly under the path of the plane and who's car was hit by a falling light pole say it was a plane not a UAV... do I need to go on willravel?

I'm not saying what did happen, I'm saying that there are several explainations for the busted curb. I was trying to be ironic by using the UMV example. Don't go the way of Ustwo...please.

Rube Goldberg does the pentagon.

Will since I know you are not stupid, I can only assume this is an elaborate troll as a social experiment.

Bravo, you had me.

its hard not to, I’ve shown time and time again that planes could do the damage that was experience on 9/11, you are unconvinced, and I don’t think anything will convince you that 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslim radicals and not our own government. The evidence is overwhelming; everything that the conspiracy theorist comes up with is quashed by real research, real experts and real science. At this point I’m at a loss, things that should by now be obvious, aren’t.

we have an object about the size of a 757 flying low enough to clip light poles crash into the pentagon, it has to be wide enough to clip the number it did, and not wider otherwise it would have clipped more, the tone the object made changed as it hit one of the poles, a missile would not change the engine tone by hitting an obstacle, only a turbine engine, or possibly a rotary engine, does the missile theory also state that the government faked the sounds with large invisible speakers? Whether or not the plane hit the curb or not is really irrelevant, the impact is the size and shape of an engine, so presumably the engine hit it. Even if it didn’t it still does not matter.

So what if the there are some windows that are unbroken, the destruction the pentagon experience was correct for a plane of that size compared to the structure of the pentagon. The windows were 2 inches thick of bullet resistant glass; some would survive a crash. I’m sorry that you feel qualified to predict the exact path of the engine, but you are not, there are way too many variables to say with certainty that it hit the window, no one can, not even a computer simulation, there are to many unknown variables, especially because the engine suffered an impact from a light pole, which did an unknown amount of damage to it, possibly weakening the bolts attaching it to the wing.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein (attributed)

Dilbert did you expect him to ever say 'oh I get it now'? :lol:

yeah, I thought after he was shown the evidence, he would realize that the conspiracy theorist were full of it, that there was ample explanations for what happened along 'the official line' with out resorting to black ops.

Then show your evidence Muslims boarded any of the planes. Why aren't they in the passenger lists ?

What evidence is there other than possibly-faked phone calls of any box cutters? How did the knives get past the metal detectors?

Remember you guys are the ones on the side of the highly improbable theory, logic says it would never happen.

try doing some research and not regurgitating. Took me 2 minutes to find a picture of atta in screening to board the flight.

This is Mohamed Atta being pulled aside for prescreening before boarding American Airlines Flight 11.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...screening3.jpg

first off, even in 2006, we have people sneaking all manner of things onto planes, in that day screeners were very lax, and a box cutter is a tool, no one thought it would be used as a weapon, it could have been in there carry on, and missed by the x-ray screener or just passed over. Or planted by an inside man. Before 9/11 I’ve carried knives on board, don’t tell me they can’t get on, not only is it possible, back then it was downright easy.

Also remember a box cutter is nothing more then a metal razor blade and a plastic handle, x-rays give a 2d image of the bag, if placed at the right angle, it wont even look like a blade.

:lol:
hmm our own government flew planes into the towers by remote control, threw a missile into the pentagon, some how knocked over the light poles in series with out explosives, changed the sound of the missiles engine as it hit one of the light poles, some how hit the generator with out blowing up, then striking the building and blowing up, made 25,000 people in the pentagon lie about it, all the people around the pentagon lie about it, relocated or killed the passengers who were on the flight 77, planted explosives in 3 buildings in new York with out being seen, hit them with planes with out detonating them, then detonating them on command remotely through all the extra debris…

Or a group of men, who disliked our policies, hijacked some planes with simple tools, and crashed them into buildings; which collapsed due to a combination of structure loss and fire.

Even though its not logical to your mind, does not mean it can’t happen. You seem to think just because you don’t understand something that all of a sudden it’s not true, do you understand friction, gravity, nuclear decay, just cause you don’t get it, does not mean they don’t exist. It’s a big world; you need to learn that there are things you won’t understand but do happen.

The world today is very volatile, one single man, who is determined can kill thousands, it’s frightening, I know you want to believe to kill this many people, you need big organizations, planning and manpower, but you don’t.

Beats the theory of the al Queda instigating the Mt. St. Helens erruption in 1980. :eek:

I think the bottom line is this:
There are aspects of the attack that don't add up. Amount of damage inflicted upon the Pentagon seems minimal. Answers and video released by the government are vague and scattered with fallacy. The immedeate melt-down of the WTC remains is strange (to me at least). The passport of one of the terrorist found on the rubble. WTC building 7. Censorship of some footage and commentary on the attacks. Conflicting reports on the elledged phone calls from flight 77. NORAD's three hour response delay. And the way the Bush administration took advantage of this tragic event to promote their own agenda; which is profoundly immoral either way. These things can be explained in many ways, and that's the problem.We cannot agrue to a definitive point for either side until we have more information from the government. Discussion is fine, but I don't see us getting any further without that information.

We were at 12 pages before you showed up, most of us just gave up.

Not sure if you have all seen the second edition of Loose Change

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...hange+2e&hl=en

it addresses many of the issues brought up here.

And I'm sure you took it at its word.

I should go into business selling bridges.

Penalty: -10 points. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ad hominem

I always thought they did; now I have proof because you said it too!

There are questions, but not that many; the pentagon suffered an appropriate amount of damage for its structure and the nature of the impact

When the first floor failed in the wtc and collapsed, nothing could stop the force the upper part cause by falling, even though it only fell one story, the force is immense. That’s why it fell nearly at a freefall speed,

The censored footage is slowly being released. The gas station footage was recently released and shows nothing of importance.

3 hour delay, yeah our government is not speedy, ever been to the DMV?

Yeah they took advantage of it, do you blame them? It gave them the opportunity to do what they thought was best for the middle east, I completely Disagree with it, and think there are the lowest of the low for taking advantage of it, but I don’t think they orchestrated it. I want to make one thing clear, I do not support the administrations handling of the situation, there middle east policy.

This is a classic case of incompetence, not conspiracy.


Nearly there too.

The first was full of so many technical inaccuracies, half truths, and gross misunderstandings of science; I’m not holding my breath on this one. When I get a stable internet connection back up, I’ll take a look, just to humor you.

if you loose changers have the time, here is a list of refutes to many of the points in the first and second loose change movies:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...-of-loose.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...-loose_15.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...-in-loose.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...-loose_17.html

well i am watching loose change 2, here is a running list of my thoughts as i watch:

They continually play clips of people saying it was a missile, or a cargo plane, which it plenty of video evidence contradicts.

All the stock quotes are total bull, they picked and chose the days around 9/11 that had the highest put options, if they knew a thing or 2 about the markets, or the word average, they’d know why.

They misuse several quotes;

“The speed, the maneuverability, the way he turned, we all thought … all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”

It should read:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

They left off the part that says it’s possible, but unsafe. But possible.

The light poles:
They screw this up too. The don’t mention that the light poles on the street are designed to break away, for safety reasons, if a car hits a solid pole, the car will decelerate quickly and kill the people inside, however, if the pole breaks, the car will not decelerate as quickly, sparing the people inside.

They say there is no evidence of plane parts at the pentagon, they are flat wrong; here are plenty of pictures of plane parts:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

You know what, this movie is filled with so much half truths, misinformation and flat out lies, It’s not worth my time.

Dil

You actually believe that?

"When the first floor failed in the wtc and collapsed, nothing could stop the force the upper part cause by falling, even though it only fell one story, the force is immense. That’s why it fell nearly at a freefall speed"

The building didn't fall that way. It just sort of completely crumbled, what made the floors well above the impact disintegrate?


"Yeah they took advantage of it, do you blame them? It gave them the opportunity to do what they thought was best for the middle east"

Bush wanted to attack Iraq in response, they had nothing to do with the whole affair. Anybody should blame them.

At least you are right about the incompetance... and voted them in for another 4 years?

Here are some pics you will never see on the conspiracy websites:
http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfan...stFace958.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-1...McAllister.pdf

The sides of the towers bowed under the weight and structural weakness from the fire in the minutes leading up to the collapse, unless you want to tell me that the government planted pulleys to make it look like that, then detonated the explosives, which by the way no trace was ever found of explosives in the rubble.

It did not just ‘suddenly collapse’ as you claim, there were many signs before hand that it was about to giveaway.
http://www.representativepress.org/B...plosives2.html
As for how it collapsed, the floors above did NOT just crumble the fell down into the lower level, the impacts of hitting the lower level broke the upper floors apart.

As for the administrations handling of it, I was not clear with my last post. What they did was despicable, using a tragedy to promote there agenda. How ever, in there eyes the end’s justify the means, they truly believed that Sadam was connected with Al Qaeda and Osama, they thought they knew what was best for the country and took actions to make it happen. I don’t agree with what they did, but I understand they thought it was the right thing to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom At least you are right about the incompetance... and voted them in for another 4 years?

I hope you don’t think I voted for that moron, I didn’t, ever, not in 2000, not in 2004, and god forbid he changes the constitution, not in 2008.

We are in agreement that they guy is a douche, his presidency is corrupt and despicable. But they still did not cause 9/11.

I wasn't aware that any testing was done to look for traces of explosives (especially by a non-governmental agency or one that wasn't funded by the US gov.). They hauled off most of the rubble rather quickly.

The only logic left in the explosives in the building theory is that right after the buildings started to collapse, that their were people monitoring the building and set off remote charges to make sure that the entire building fell, and that it went straight down.

Yay now we're back to the explosives which were so advanced they could survive a plane crash and the resulting 1500 degree temperatures.... and still every single one worked perfectly. This is your only logic?

*If* the planes were intended to hit the building and then the building was to be demolished, wouldn't you expect that those who planned it would have simply put the charges in the areas lease likely to be effected by a localized crash and fire? Admittedly I am begging the question, but if you are to explore this line of thought, one should follow it through completly.

Please note that I used the word 'if', to suggest that this is a hypothetical exercise and not based on any of my conclusions. Whether or not this is my suspeician is beside the point, but I can say that this is not my conclusion. I would rather not phrase my responses in here as if I were a lawyer, but I have been misquoted and misunderstood so many times that I feel this has become necessary in order for people to understand me.

The explosives wouldn't have to endure the high temperatures if they were 5 or 10 stories under where the planes went in at. And just because the US government has the technology to do all of this, doesn't exactly make it so. And I'm still not 100% convinced of anything yet.

Then again, what would have happened if the towers had not collapsed? If the sprinklers had delivered enough water to put out most of the fires? Would some 'emergency personnel' go in and removed these explosives before anybody else found them?

Most conspiracy theories are probably false, but when you get a government that has ties to a lot of crooked people and doesn't communicate very effectively (or outright tells us things that aren't true), you don't know what to believe anymore.

You forgot about the reverse vampires silly.

This is the last place I expected to hear a Simpsons refrence.

Ptolemy had a very intricate system to show how the planets could still revolve about the earth, since the thought of the earth revolving about the sun was unthinkable. Its amazingly complex, full of laws for each planet, its a masterpiece of mathmatics. It also shows that no matter how wrong an idea is, you can find a way to justify it.

What we have here is a Copernician viewpoint in that the planes caused all the damage of 9/11. Its a solution which works, and while not every fact is known, (Copernicus thought the planets moved in circular orbits), the main idea is 100% correct.

Then we have the Ptolemaic view, which is that the most cunning and devious plan in perhaps of all time was carried out under the noses of millions of people, executed flawlessly, and perfect enough to fool every qualified investigator. Much like a 1400 century man who can't give up a geocentric world view, the 9/11 conspiracy type can not accept that their world view was in error and they invent their own types of retrograde motions to complicate the most basic of events.

I don't think anybody had to endure 1500 degree temperatures. Fire is just not that hot. Ever been near a wood stove, a campfire or a candle? You can stand just inches away from either and not burn up... why is that?

If you believe the witnesses who were just a couple floors above for a while after the impact it wasn't hot enough to mention.

The fire would need to be forced and directed (aka: a torch) to have the claimed effects on the building.

A whole lot of video evidence shows just what the fire was doing, to compare with other more severe building fires it looks pretty minor. Nothing to make it collapse.

:confused: You've lost me. :confused:

have you pointed a laser thermometer are the center of a fire or stove??? It's hotter in the CENTER of the fire but exponential amounts.... but you can still stand next to it.

*BANG BANG BANG*

What was that?
Oh that was your science teachers committing suicide in embarrasment.

Uh-huh. So at 600mph a pilot can gague within seconds exactly what floor they are going to hit? That would leave about 3-4 seconds maximum, with a plane that makes a bus seem sporty. Try counting out the floors in a 100+ story building and getting within 5 floors in less than one second because of the time it'd take to maneuver it to hit said floor.

Plus, the building started collapsing at the level of impact, if it was a detonation 10 stories down I think we'd notice.

Again, hopefully for the last time,

TEMPERATURE DOES NOT EQUAL HEAT

I can take a blow torch to my arm, as long as I do it quickly enough only my hair will be burned, not my skin, I can stand in front of a fire for a while, eventually it will start to hurt, and I will cook. I can pick up a piece of aluminum foil that came out of a 500 F oven, it's not just temperature, and it’s also how fast it can be transferred.

you have no idea how the world works, please take some time out of your busy schedule and take a class in physics, I’m sure there is a community college near you, take a night class, it will enrich your life.

Another coincidence. Just the other day I was telling someone to be careful defending a hypothetical situation. Not to defend with such vigor as to lose sight of your opposition's argument; to lose sight of the possibility of being wrong.

I hold complete contempt for Bush and his actions. But Bush is not the problem (Yes UsTwo, a liberal who doesn't think Bush is the problem). He's just taking advantage of something that was already here.

There is the whole other conspiracy theory which is that Arab students who have never flown before couldn't have been good enough to hit buildings; therefore 'the government' took over the controls on certain aircraft it had modified with the UAV fly-by-wire technology or other remote control methods that we have.

No argument here, just flaming and a COMPLETE lack of evidence. Do you want to actually try and disprove the 1500C temp? Or don't you have a good argument?
Uh huh, so at 600 MPH a pilot who is horrible at flying planes flies a commercial liner into a building. Sure thing.
Obviously not.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...nt_col6502.jpg
Notice the dust puffs several stories below the collapse.

There is no need to defend it; fire is that hot, saying it isn’t just stupid. fastom has a fundamental misunderstanding of science, specifically but not limited to heat, temperature, and energy.

Have you seen building schematics? There are pipes of water, vents, etc. Air pressure changing as the building collapses pushes air pressure down vents/pipes, those things have to go someplace especially in pipes since they are closed systems. Vents would be pusing air out, but eventually it would flow much more than it was designed for and push out greater amounts of air.

To see simply how this works take a garden hose and blow with your mouth from one end, then use a high pressure compressor on the same end and see the difference in how much distance the water goes from the other end.

I was responding to Seaver, someone content to try and ride your coat tails and flame.

Fatsom said the fires were not 1500C, a fact that even Popular Mechanics agrees with:
Anyone who says that jet fuel, even assisted by perfect burning conditions, can reach a temperature of 1500C, or 2732F, needs to revisit basic chemistry and physics. 1500F is about 815.56C, the number that most 9/11 conspiracy theorists and debunkers alike agree on. Unless you're ready to say that Popular Mechanics, the primary antagonit to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, is wrong, then I suggest we agree from here on that the fires could not have been higher than 815C if they were caused by and fueled by airplane fuel. Fatsom is right to point out that 1500C is an outragous number, and I give him props for sticking with it. If you continue to claim 1500C, then you should admit that the fure was not fueled by the egular contents of the WTC and the jet fuel. In essence, you'd have to admit foul play and thus join the dark side. You'd be welcomed with open arms, of course, but I don't see that happening.

Fatsom also mentioned the fire suppresing system, something that isn't often discussed. We don't know a lot about the sprinkler system, and it could play a large part in the science of our discussion.

The buildings fell at basically a free fall speed. Are you suggesting that the copllapsing debris and dust inside the building were moving fast that free fall speeds? Do you know how much pressure that would take?

No I haven't any idea, but I can use simulation of basic physics and science. Again, taking that same hose, and flatten it from one end to the other, the faster you flatten it the faster and with more pressure the contents have to eject out the other side.

I think you missed a few words in this post, but have you ever worked a bellows?

Your arms move slowly, the air moves very fast. This is because the air is channeled and under pressure. I don't know about you but I think several thosand pounds of falling concrete will create a good deal of pressure. Not to mention that as things break they will shatter at supersonic speeds due to the nature of crack propagation, which would shoot debris out VERY fast with 'explosive' force. Its why an instron machine needs a shield when testing materials in compression.

Edit:Pounds should be TONS

quite true, thanks for bringing that up, the idea of pressure is that it doesn't have to be for a long period of time but long enough for the subject to fail.

Not a complete lack of evidence, it's been posted numerous time. I'm not riding his coat-tails, I've posted my evidence and you conspiracy theorists ignore them so I dont post them again.

So you're suggesting I post evidence that fire is not hot? That we can not melt steel with fire? How about I post evidence that fire occurs and is not simply a government conspiracy. Jet fuel burns hot. Mixed with paper, carpet, and all sorts of flamable things inside the building it's going to burn hotter. With a giant hole in the side of the building plenty of air will flow in to feed the fire. With concrete floors that heat energy will be concentrated, and the only thing for it to do is give it's heat to the building itself.

So for that theory to hold true you'd see the flash effects of controlled demolitions along with the dust. You don't make explosions without a flash, it simply does not happen. Unfortunately for that theory there were no flashes, showing good evidence for the dust theory.

What you did was flame, and in that post you did not support your personal attack on Fatsom. Disagreement can happen without disrespect. I know you're a very intelligent and mature person, so I was surprised when I read your post. My response was intended to point out that you didn't actually have content in your post, just flame. That's not appropriate for TFP.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. I belive carpet, paper, desks, etc. burn much cooler than jet fuel (please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Are you suggesting that the temperature at which jet fuel, carpet, paper, desks, chairs, houseplants, computers, etc. all burn is cumumlative? If so, that could explain the 1500C temperature, but it would lead me to a state of confusion that I may never come back from, as it goes against my basic understanding of the nature of fire.
*IF* demolitions explosives were used, then one could assume that they would be used in the interrior of the building, the rimary support of the building. This would help the building to fall into it's footprint, explain why the buyilding fell so fast, explain the way the outer supports exploded outwards, and a lack of flashes. Still, I am unconvinced. I don't know how the building collapsed, I am just prety sure I know how it didn't collapse. That's kinda the bottom line.

I do understand that. What I don't understand is how that pressure was channeled out of a few windows instead of equally across several floors.

[QUOTE=willravel]Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. I belive carpet, paper, desks, etc. burn much cooler than jet fuel (please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Are you suggesting that the temperature at which jet fuel, carpet, paper, desks, chairs, houseplants, computers, etc. all burn is cumumlative? If so, that could explain the 1500C temperature, but it would lead me to a state of confusion that I may never come back from, as it goes against my basic understanding of the nature of fire.

You don’t need explosives to explain its speed; the building is nearly all air
More instances of conspiracy theorist getting there quote wrong.
Think of it this way, as soon as one window breaks, the pressure escapes through there, and there is no reason for the others to, how ever, the pressure was so great that it broke several before the pressure equalized.

So the NIST says it could have gone as high as 1800F? Well that's still a far cry from 1500C (2732F).
Ah, but the parts of the building that are not air, namely the massive colunms, should have given massive resistence even to the weight of the collapsing building. The free fall speed suggests that the undamaged columns didn't give any resistence. That's quite impossible.
I'm sorry, when did I quote Romero? I'm more than aware of his flip floppage.

so you would answer that a pound of lead falls faster than a pound of feathers?

Were you expecting some sort of movie type "pause" where the failing columns hold out long enough for another group of people can get out of the building?

Once structures fail they tend not to "hold up" or create any resistence. Otherwise, wouldn't they then need to put charges on ALL floors in order to demo buildings?

It's amazing how much that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Did the WTC fall in a vaccume? Of course not, so that question really isn't relevent.
I was expecting it to fall at less than free fall speed. I was also expecting you to be able to have a discussion without massive doses of sarcasm. You do realize that sarcasm hurts your arguments, right?
Demolition: the bottom middle gets destroyed first, then the bottom outside, then the middle and top. If the bottom were not destroyed first, the building collapse would meet with resistence and could fall outside of it's footprint. Both towers fell into their footprints.

again, once the structure object under pressure fails, the rest of it is pretty simple.

Regardless of the way it is imploded, the resistance is still the same is it not? A building in demolition is falling at nearly free fall speeds once the structural support is compromised.

fastom, who I was originally arguing with, did not state F or C, I assumed he meant F.

Well no. the undamaged columns did offer resistance, a lot of it, how ever, the force of a collapsing building is orders of several orders of magnitude bigger

A static load is very different than a dynamic load, the weight of the above tower at rest is very different than when it fell one story, after falling 10-20 feet it exerts much more force than when it is stationary. Place a bowling ball on your foot, it will be very heavy, but not break anything, now drop it 1 inch onto your foot, it hurts like a bitch huh, now 6 inches, then 1 foot, then 2 foot, keep doing this until you realize that the higher it falls the force exerted increases exponentially. Nothing, and I mean Nothing could stop that many floors from dropping.

Never, just showing that a lot of the conspiracy websites are based off of false statements

As I understood your point, you were assuming a temperature close to 1500C (2732F). That's simply not the case.
Wouldn't the load of the crashing debris be decreased by the fact that it was demolishing and breaking into smaller pieces as it came down? Do you think that we can actually work out some rough math to compare weight with resistence?
I understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.
Well I think this will be easier if we work on a case-by-case basis. The point/counterpoint type of discussion seems to be more likely to bear fruit. There are so many stories coming from so many people on both sides that assuming there are only two sides to this is incorrect. I can't be grouped with all conspiracy theorists because some of them blame the illuminati or aliens for the collapse. I see no evidence of this, of course. Likewise, you can't be grouped with all anti-conspiracy people because there are several official explainations out there. FEMA and NIST disagree on many points,for example.

Comparing the theoretical situations at the WTC with demolitions:

Demo: First thing to go is the bottom supports in the building.
-the bottom of the building always has the strongest supports, as it is designed to take the full weight of the building.
-removing the bottom supports first ensures that as the building collapses it has little to no resistence from the frame.
-immediatally after the bottom of the building loses strength, then the middle and top are destroyed to ensure that the building will not fall anywhere but inside it's footprint.
-very few demolitions fall at free fall speeds. Many of them are close, but those are usually smaller.

WTC: The collapses started at the upper middle and top, with no structural strength loss at the lower middle or bottom of the building
-the strongest supports would still have been intact when the building collapsed, which would offer resistence, but more importantly that would cause the building to be more likely to fall well outside of it's footprint
-the building had experienced only moderate fires for a very limited amount of time
-it fell at free fall speed, and the WTC are the largest buildings to collapse in history

are there facts for it being timed at free fall speeds?

what i witnessed did not look much different than the speeds of buildings I've seen implode in Las Vegas.

Eh? No, please don’t take my out of context, it makes me mad.

First this quote was when you said it was 1500C, and I agreed, then I recognized I meant F
If you nit pick my statements, you can make me say anything, context is what is important

Resistance would be impossible to work out; however, the amount of force compared to the resistance is like a bowling ball and a wet paper towel.

Yes, but as previously said, the amount of resistance is mute, it’s too small to stop the upper floors from crashing down and destroying the rest of the building.

I have a physics midterm to study for; I think this is my last post for the day.


Quick note to cynthetiq, the speed of collapse was just slightly longer than a freefall.

I’ll crunch some numbers to find the experimentally derived resistance the tower experienced to fall in the time it did.

I figured that you corrected the post, then I read the other one. Simple misunderstanding. So now we agree, the absolute hottest is 1800F, and it was probably less.
Tens of thoseands of tons of hardened and brilliantly designed steel framing is equatable to a wet paper towel? Didn't you just get finished saying resistence would be impossible to work out?
How can the resistence be moot if we don't know the resistence?

1234567890

Remarkable similarity, no? And the buildings in Vegas were not hit with airplanes at all. You don't s'pose somebody blowed 'em up? :eek:

I don't think it was 1500 F at all. I'm not sure how NIST figures 1832 degrees how did they sample that?

free fall speeds:

They know the temperatures reached 1000C because they ran test to simulate the conditions, both physically and through computer simulations, both came up with a high bound of 1000C. instead of saying ‘I don’t know so they musty be lying about it’ try doing some real reassearch findng how they knew it

No I don't.

It may APPEAR similar but that's because from what I understand of physics things fall at the same rate and speed. Once the building structure was compromised, the collapse was similar to me.

Why are you arguing with someone who couldn't pass physics 101? :rolleyes:

Debate requires a baseline understanding of the issues and you have shown that fastom lacks that understanding many times over.

actually I didn't pass physics 101 either. It's taken me years to make up for it, thank goodness for simulations because I had a hard time visualizing it all which is why I failed the class in high school.

But I'll assume you understood concepts of thermal expansion and KE=1/2 MV^2. Using physics 101 may have been a bad example, but the basic concepts are whats at issue here, not the ability to determine the angle a cannon needs to be fired for a projectile to travel X feet, which is the stuff of physics 101.

I tutor students in physics, so seeing all the misconceptions here it better prepares me to deal with the students. Cynthetiq, if you’re ever trying again and have questions, let me know I’d be glad to help you.

I tutor kids at piano lessons, but unless we get into acoustics I guess it's notm relevant. Oh well.

I'm sure there was some acoustic tile in WTC? /sarcasm

BTW, I was reading my other post, and I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, slightly snarky I admit it came out, but was trying to elicit a response as to what your expectation was.

that’s why your so patient like me.

I guess we just see things differently.
If we both saw a man jump off a bridge we'd probably gasp as we watched him fall. When he started slowing then stopped short of the ground then began to rise up again we'd analyse what we saw.

You'd come up with some fancy physics that say his body was in shock which caused him to lose enough weight to slow his fall and his screams made warm air pockets and the inversion lifted him back up.

Me, i'd notice the rubber cord around his ankles.

Yeah, right. because physics is made-up voodoo gobbledeegook, while your observations are infallible. Great analogy, way to ignore the evidence. You're going to be a great success one day! :thumbsup:

so now you are implying that those who are using physics as part of their understanding means they completely miss obvious bungie cords? that's just completely absurd.

Fatsom is kinda right. We've been dancing around this the whole time, but he's right. Example? The 1800F temperature is based on the maximum temperatures possible for a fire fueled by jet fuel, desks, chairs, paper, drapes, etc. It almost certianally wasn't that hot. Eyewhitness reports talk about how the fire was dying down as much as 20 minutes before the collapse. Cheif Palmer, on the 78th floor of the South tower (the one that fell fastest, and yet most of the fuel spilled out and exploded outside the building), [I]from the crash zone[/URL], said there were "two isolated pockets of fire" when he called for backup and requested 2 hoses to put them out. Reports like this one come from firefighters that were inside the building putting the fires out, and I'd imagine firefighters know a thing or two about the behavior of fire. Remember, jet fuel burns between 800F and 1500F, which suggests that it's more than posible that they were burning at 800F. They could have been burning at 400F, considering that most of the jet fuel burned off in the initial explosion. Not even Dilbert could make the buiding fall with 800F fires. Even with a 1500F fire, it's a real stretch explaining the collapse of the building. It has to assume most of the fire protection was stripped fom the steel. Some of the fire protection was stripped by the crash itself, of course, but it's not like all the fire protection from the whole floor was lost across several floors. You'd need to have ideal circumstances for a 1500F fire that was consistanly hot to heat the uncovered steel to a temperature where it started to lose any of it's tensile strength. I'll tell you what, let's split the difference and say that the fire burned at 1150F. Add to that the heat from the fires on the desks, chairs, paper, drapes, etc. (even though the temperature of a fire is not a cumulative number based on the emperatures of the individual fires), and we'll say about 1350F. And that 1350F temperature did not last a full hour. It started cold, built up to hot, then dropped off and went down again. Those are hardly the ideal situations that NISA, FEMA, Dilbert, and PopMech suggest. Oh, and if you want proof that PopMech isn't reliable, check out what they are saying about 9/11 cough, a condition that effects thousands of rescue workers and brave civilians who dug through the rubble to find survivors. Yikes. Talk about disrespecting the heros of 9/11. I can't belive that Popular Mechanics can't figure out that pulverized cement in the air is toxic. 70% of 9/11 recovery workers suffer from severe lung problems.

I believe the aspestos has a lot to do with it too.

by that same "dancing" I can easily say that the WTC core center structure was hit by a plane that was travelling at 500+MPH and that in and of itself was compromised, the fuel fires themselves just added a small component. The same plane which heavily damaged the Pentagon which is a reinforced building supposedly designed to survive military strikes was able to do as much damage to the WTC which was not designed to withstand such an onslaught.

Isn't that the same kind of thing just different perspective or dancing position?

You can state that it was compromised, but that doesn't make it true. Bear in mind that the WTC was designed to withstand impacts from aircraft, aircraft not much smaller than the plane that hit. The building dropped in just under and just over an hour each.

So you noticed the explosives, that slowly bowed the outer supports over the final last minutes of the buildings until they finally gave way and collapsed. Yup. That’s how explosives work all right, slow and constant over a few minutes.




No fastom is not right. 1800F is the maximum temperature that jet fuel can burn, but other materials inside a building can burn much hotter, carpets, glue’s, and other hydro carbons can burn much hotter, as well as other exotic materials. But were not truly worried about temperature as we are with the amount of heat energy being transferred, there was a lot of combustible material in the towers and I completely disagree with the notion that the fires were dying done, there is no way to judge a fires oxygen supply based off of the smoke, that’s total baloney. You forget we have fire fighters saying, the building looks like it was going to collapse as they saw the sides start to buckle about 20 minutes before the collapse.

If it were explosives, it would have been a sudden transformation from stable to collapse, but we have multiple witnesses, pictures, and credible experts (the firefighters, and the assistant fire chief) saying the building was bowing and moving towards collapse.

Well you’ve got me stumped, I can’t find where in the article, or anywhere on the internet you have popular mechanics says the cough is wrong. Even if they did, I’m sure what they said was taken out of context; you can’t just ignore an organization with decades of good, credible research for one mistake. Please back your statement.

I’ve got a physics midterm, in 1 hour, I’d write more, but I don’t want fastoms ‘fisics’ clouding my mind.