Ha Ha, Thank you !! Jet fuel burns at 875 and steel bends at 200 seems to me that leaves 675 thrown in for good measure after the fact.
The concrete exploded under its own weight as the building lost its integraty. The steel
weakened by the jet fuel couldn't support its own weight and fell in.

Why was all that stuff removed ? Um probly cause it took up too much space and an official cause was given so thier was no need for further digging.

The eleavator shafts WERE still partly standing. I remember the video that shows them
and some of the lower floors still there. Crushed as they were.

And what do you mean how did it fall at the speed of gravity ? How else would it fall ?
at 10 mph ? That makes no sence.

And how was the building suposed to fall ? Like a tree that got chopped down ?

I swear you guys are r e a l l y streaching to find proof where there is none.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

the exit hole was cut open to let smoke out and so workers could go in and out, have you ever seen a picture of behind that same stupid fricken camera picture? no, why? because there is nothing beyond that point, they only tore down that section of the wall

the plane did not hit the pentagon straight on....well, it did, but it was at an angle were one wing was higher up and the other lower....fudge i can't explain it

you really think a missile hit the pentagon, or a small plane?? a small plane could not do that much damage, and a missile, why the heck would the govt hit its own most protected govt building.

Sorry if you think I'm being condensending but I think its rediculous for such otherwise very inteligent people to be looking for something thats not there.

And as you said HA HA even if they were completely removed 50% should still have held up the other floors. Oh wait.......It did till the fire weakened the steel and it gave way. I believe it was you who pointed out so nicely that jet fuel burns at 875 and steel bends at 200.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg
watch it again
you expect to find huge pieces of fusil lodge strewn about?
wait....show me the pictures of the grass in front of the pentagon where there are some pieces of the plane...ya know, it hit light poles and such before it hit the pentagon..pieces were ripped off

please, you never answered the question.

no jackalope. There is no way you can tell that 50% of those beams were destroyed. not much of the plane came out the other side, plus, did you go up there and count every beam that was destroyed? there is no possible way you can say that about half of those beams were destroyed. I can tell you that not half of them were destroyed seeing and the plane is not even wide enough to take out one side of the building. Look at the videos out there, the plane does not even hit one whole side of the building. Now, I know some parts flew out the other side, but it was not even close to enough to supposedly take out the whole other side.

PS the 737-200 is 15 feet wide and 13 feet high (fuselage only) so the hole is the correct size, for just the fuselage. The engines are huge 15 feet either side and the wings extend a full 93 feet from tip to tip. The strongest materials in the aircraft are the engines, being 6 tons of titanuim each. There should be 2 9 foot holes either side of the 16 foot hole. hmmm.

Hahahaha wrote:These buildings were designed to withstand this type of impact, granted from a slightly smaller aircraft, but engineering standards usually allow for doubling loads, meaning that if it could take the impact of one 707 on paper, it could likely handle two of them in reality.

In what world do you think these or any buildings are designed to be hit by a plane?


._____________________________.
hostis humani generis - Causa latet vis est notissima
You have been banned from posting on this site as of 2005-12-11 18:21:36. This ban will expire 2005-12-18 18:21:36 Pacific Time.

Reason: Your comment about Grim Raven's wife was completely uncalled for and way over the top.
My other car is a boat. Supermotors
Free FlatScreens, IT WORKS!

200 degF was a typo, it should have read 2000degF. my mistake, don't run with it
Even mild steel doesn't bend at 200

My previous post should say the engines were HUNG 15 feet either side of the fuselage.

OK, trying to answer some questions.

No I don not expect to see bits of fuselage after hitting bunker type wall, I expect the see fragments everywhere, and fire damage, and damage from where the strongest components hit. I don't see that at all.

I don't know what hit the pentagon, but I'm pretty convinced it was not a Boeing 737-200 as stated officially.

The pices of aircraft looking metal I saw out front were not from a united aircraft, makings are wrong. Again, I don't know what it was, but I do know what it wasn't

I know for sure that the "drag mark" on the lawn was there a week before the event (shown in an areal photo), so that leads me to believe they lied about at least one thing.


Why? That's the big one isn't it? I can't say for sure, my guess would be, if it was indeed an inside job, to start a war, just like Pearl Harbour. It worked then, it would work again. (for the uninitiated, Japan was provoked into war with oil sanctions, then the code was broken by US code breakers, and the attack on PH was known about for at least 2 weeks ahead of time. Like the Brits with the Coventry bombing raids, the US could not let on they knew for fear the Japanese would figure out that the US could read their cipher, so they let it happen. It was a good excuse to attack Japan anyway).

I am not saying it was an inside job, I have no idea, but if there is a motive, it's money. Who has made a butt-load of money off the ensuing conflict? Cheaney for one, I'm sure there are others. That is not a path I wish to explore. I want to know what happened before I try to figure out why. The why is the easy part once you know the what.

PAX

Grimor... You have some homework to do. any building over (I think 30 storeys) a certain hight is required to be designed in such a way. On top of that, even the crummy Discovery documentary said that. How do I know they designed for a 707 impact? The archetect said so. Why would I pick a 707 without some input.. The 707 is an old plane, I'd pick something newer if I was making it up

PAX

Did you see that one? JW.

If a 150 foot fuselage could only penetrate the first ring of the pentagon, I dont think thin wobbly wings would do very much damage, but the image clearly shows where they hit.

Hahahaha wrote:Grimor... You have some homework to do. any building over (I think 30 storeys) a certain hight is required to be designed in such a way. On top of that, even the crummy Discovery documentary said that. How do I know they designed for a 707 impact? The archetect said so. Why would I pick a 707 without some input.. The 707 is an old plane, I'd pick something newer if I was making it up

PAX

The 707 was picked because it was one of the most common planes in its time. Hahaha while kero only burns at 875 degrees the temperatures inside the building would have been much hotter. I can speak from personal expierence from burn building training as a fire fighter. We would use hay and pallets to train with outside it wasnt that big of a deal when it was confied to a burn building if you were to stand up inside it would litterally melt our fire helmets (have seen it happen). The heat intensifies when confied in such a way. The picture with the plan above shows no damage from the wings at all. At the height the plane was flying in the video clip I showed any slight tip in the wings postion would have cause the cartwheel effect when the one wing dug into the ground. The impact points on the towers did not remove 50 % of any of the floors support I will see if I cant find some pictures to show what I am talking about.

Ok so it was a typo I except that. But let me ask you one question if a fire fueled by PAPER alone is enough to heat the steel to the point where it buckled under the weight of the roof then why are you haveing such a hard time figureing out that the fuel coupled with the extreme weight of the floors above it buckled it and blew apart the concrete.
And I'm terribly sorry if my 50% guesstamit was high. We'll say what then ? Perhapps
30% maybe as high as 35 ? was directly cut in half while the other supports would have been baddly damaged.

And look up above my post . The Pentagon explained away too ! Stop grasping at straws.

Nothing sinister happened on 9/11 other then those terrorists killing all those people
You have been shown hard evidence had it explained to you shown picturesand yet you insist we did this to ourselves?

I'm done here its like talking to a wall ! You guys have been shown proof and yet you dismiss it as being wrong. Let me ask you if if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
then what its a dog ???




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Here are a couple good pictures that I could find pretty quickly if you look at the floors effected you will be hard pressed to find one that 50% of its support has been removed.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm

The first picture is definately metal, but it is not from any united airlines aircraft.

The second picture shows the pentagon after collapse, and I would argue it does not show impact, remember the strongest part of a passenger aircraft is the engine(s). Not the avionics cone out front of the fuselage.

Now all along I have been saying 737-200 and none of you caught it. It is claimed to be a 757-200, a larger aircraft.

The rotor found is claimed to be from the APU (I'm not going to bother to expalin that, if you haven't done your aircraft homework, I don't think it should be up to me to do it for you.). I believe it to be too large for an APU, but that might explain that little gem. The wheel arguement has mistakenly been taken as a lack of double rim (commercial vs military), but my argument is that it is too narrow for a 757 rim. Again, it is the right make, and the right design. It is possible that it could be from a 757-200, just not likely.

Heck, I don't think it impossible, so I would like to get back to why the towers 1, 2 and 7 fell at the speed of gravity. I was asked before what I meant by that. Here goes. The towers fell as if they were in complete free fall, nothing slowed them at all, not even air. If you dropped a lead ball in open space from the same height it would take the same amount of time to hit the ground. My curiousity is peaked when absolutely nothing in any of those structures offered any resistance to the collapse what-so-ever.

The loud sounds 9 seconds previous to the collapse, that people described as explosions were not snapping concrete and steel, they were far too energetic. Besides, the vibration and sound of the collapse was no where near the order of magnatude that the questionable sounds were.

I am not suggesting that the US government did this. I would entertain domestic terror or foreign. Do I think aircraft were soley responsible? Well no, it just doesn't add up for me. Was there opportunity to plant explosives, well yes, actually the security was down for the entire complexe for two weeks previous to the incident. Is it possible to plant explosives, then make it look like the aircraft were responsible, thereby diverting attention to a different group or to now dead members of the same group? I've heard of worse actions, that's for sure.

Right now, I'm not sure what to make of all this. I do find it odd that the avionics cone blew a hole in a renforced wall but the engines did not (post colapse photos are not usefull here). I do find it odd that a structure so resiliant colapsed after being hit with a modified, but planned for disaster. Although, to be fair, contractors have cheated on building code before, maybe they did again, it was the 70s, the fuel crunch was on and the mob was strong in New York, who knows? I would like definative answers though.

The truth is there, we just have to find it.

PAX

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is NOT THE X-FLIES it is the REAL world !!! The truth has been shown you just chose not to see it.

Thank you and good night.



Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Well I've hide it for as long as I could....... I give, you busted us. I'm an alein sent here from a galaxy far far away to plant the seeds of distrust among the people of Earth. We sank the Titanic along with all the other ships that have gone down over the years. Did I mention we live forever ? Thats why were slowly taking over your planet so that we can have more room to live. Global warming ? Nope we are terraforming this planet to our needs. Every plane that has crashed we did it too. Our leader the two headed baby Elvis says that we can not live in peace so we are destroying you little by little. Our death ray destroyed your buildings not the planes they were mealy a distraction but double Elvis had the safety on and missed the timing. So we improvised.

The Bermuda Triangle ? US . The Loch Ness monster is our pet, Big foot is an advanced recon patrol mapping out the woods to the last inch. Santa Clause, Hes one of us too, gain the trust of the young that way when they grow up they will obey without question. Tooth Ferrie, Ha! gathering DNA so we can make clones of you all.

Now put on your aluminum hats and sit there and prey we can't find you.


Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

They are saying those engines weight 6000lbs each if i remember right. So you have 3 tons moving at 500 mph hitting a concrete and steel reenforced building and just nothing???? Physics should be able to tell us something about this I think we need GAM for this one or one of you guys that know more about physics than I do. The engines weight 2721Kg and were traveling at a velocity of 804 Kmph I would be really scared to know what kind of power that impact would have. This is just the engine alone not the plane at all. I would really think that a 115,000 Kg plane moving at a reported 804kmph would leave a much bigger hole than the one that was made at the Pentagon

Quote:

ShiftyCav wrote:

Quote:

who knows if anyone was in the plane, maybe it was on autopilot


I bet the people who were waiting for loved ones to arrive on those planes know if there was anyone on the planes. Listen to yourself, you sound like a friggin broken record. It sounds to me like your "college proffesor" AKA "liberal nutjob" has to wake up and face the facts.

Terrorist were flying these planes. They were passenger planes, with real passengers. Terrorist crashed these planes into the WTC. WTC burned and burned and eventually fell.

Oh, tell your professor to read Michael Savages' book "Liberalism is a mental disorder", and "The Enemy Within". And i would trust the governmant before i trust any wackjob "proffesor"

have a nice day.

Steve
My other car is an interceptor.

Whoa whoa whoa, i was throwing out another side to the ideas that someone else had. after reading thru this post again i can see that i sound retarded sometimes. i think that both sides might have half the story. this vid tho, is retarded with that bomb underneath a plane idea and also the "rocket" that it fired. the pentagon is sketchy because it was trying to be covered up. but the only way to really find out is to get unclassified info on the whole matter.

Jackalope wrote:Well I've hide it for as long as I could....... Our death ray destroyed
your buildings not the planes they were mealy a distraction but double Elvis had the
safety on and missed the timing. So we improvised.
....

Tooth Ferrie, Ha! gathering DNA so we can make clones of you all.

Now put on your aluminum hats and sit there and prey we can't find you.

OK, I'm trying to be resonable here. This is not needed.

Could a mod please put a couple line breaks in the Ahhh!!! post. I hate side scrolling.

The figure I read on the engines was 6 tons each. Mostly titanium, 9 ft wide 12 ft long.

I appreciate that heat rises, but I also know that with a combustion temp of 875DegF
the highest possible temp is 875DegF. Yes higher air will be hotter than lower air, but
it cannot exceed the source. Also, the area was faily well ventalated with the big holes
the aircraft made. The black smoke is a good indication of cooler burning temps as
well (incomplete combustion).


I can find no impact marks from the engines in any photos, of course only pre-colapse
photos are of any use. But like I said, the Pentagon is not as alarming to me, after all
it didn't suddenly fall down unpredictably

Notice in the WTC impact phots the upper levels are not even sagging prior to colapse.
If the support was so poor, then why are the sections suspended above the impact
zones not drooping?

There are some very curious things here

A building designed to be resilliant to airplane strikes fell due to a strike.

The bulkheads that were designed to stop catastrophic failure in above sections failed
to even slow the colapse let alone prevent it.

The buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) all fell extremely rapidly, in a free fall with no resistance
from the structure at all. Time it, do the math. hit a physics website, test the theory.
WTC 7 fell 47 stories in 4.5 seconds, that is a firm number. IIRC WTC 1 and 2 took 14
seconds, but that needs to be confirmed.

The reasoning given is a fire that appears to have been dying out and could not have
provided sufficient heat to distort hardened steel.

WTC 7 was a typical internal steel frame structure. In the past, buildings of this type
burned for up to 19 hours (roughly the same size and age). None have ever collapsed
due to fire before. Ever, anywhere in the world. The reason given is a fuel storage tank
explosion. Has anyone ever seen an uncontolled explosion bring a building down nice
and flat, straight down just like a demolition? On top of that, the building fell in 4.5
seconds, a complete free fall, again the structure offered no resistance at all. Doesn't
that strike you as strange?


Sounds with too much energy to have been snapping metal or concrete were heard 9
seconds before the first collapse. More were heard just before the second, and again
just before WTC 7 (fuel tank?)

Did th terrorist have a much more coordinated attack than we think? I mean c'mon
we don't need aliens and tin hats to explain this. We do not need a gov. conspiracy.
We would be unwise to ignore these questions, and to rule out any possiblity that is
reasonable. At least that's how I see it.

Were they more organised?
Did the engineering fail? Do we need to revise building codes and practices?
Is there a more devious plot at work?
Is there some thing we have not yet considered?

Keep in mind that the discovery program that described a telescoping collapse failed
to mention many features (hardened steel, very strong bulkheads at 40th & 80th floors)
and was aired without the benefit of a proper investigation. They also assume a very
hot fire, which since the firedept evidence came to light, we know is not the case.

I am not some wacko, I have reasonable questions that really do demand answers.
I am not alone, there are many like me who are really just responding to the same
questions that were raised by investigators, engineers, firefighters and archetects.

PAX

Damn Jackalope dont you get it man? These people "debating" with you are just @!#$ with you. Most likely some kid in internet land who thinks its a joke to get all this attention by saying 9/11 was done by the govt. He doesnt have any friends and no g/f so he sits here and gets @!#$s and giggles from screwing with you.
Quit wasting your time with him.

Back in reality here everyone but him and a few moron who make these videos know what happened on 9/11 and know who was behind it.

For anyone to think the govt. actually did this and killed thousands of people and cost themselves hundreds of billions of dollars needs to have their head looked at.




- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new

Quote:

The first picture is definately metal, but it is not from any united airlines aircraft.

how so?

Quote:

Damn Jackalope dont you get it man? These people "debating" with you are just @!#$ with you. Most likely some kid in internet land who thinks its a joke to get all this attention by saying 9/11 was done by the govt. He doesnt have any friends and no g/f so he sits here and gets @!#$s and giggles from screwing with you.
Quit wasting your time with him.

Back in reality here everyone but him and a few moron who make these videos know what happened on 9/11 and know who was behind it.

For anyone to think the govt. actually did this and killed thousands of people and cost themselves hundreds of billions of dollars needs to have their head looked at.

you are a @!#$ indiot. the whole point of this is to DISCUSS it. its in the WAR FORUM. This means there will be two sides arguing about what is right and wrong. you have nothing to offer this because you are as dumb as a stick. if you havent checked lately, presidents arent the most trustworthy people in the world. Nixon?. . . Clinton? . . Bush? they all did things that they wanted cover up at some point. Also any company Bush has been a part of has been run into the ground, so why would he care about costing the whole country billions when he has done it in the past?

I have a theory, try to keep an open mind while reading it...

1. Some terrorists convinced some losers that if they hijacked airplanes and crashed them, they would get rewarded in the afterlife.

2. Those losers hijacked airplanes and crashed them into buildings. WTC, Pentagon, etc.

3. The heat from the fire combined with the impact caused a chain reaction collapse of the WTC towers. (you may need more than an art degree to understand how compromising the triangulation of the exterior support structure could do this.)

4. The terrorists who talked those losers into crashing planes are still alive and laughing about all these US conspiricies.

How does that sound for a theory?





John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto