It was demolished by the FDNY to avoid further loss of life from the fire raging out of control.SpanktorTheGreat wrote:
What about building 7, and where is the proof for the "flawed" floor design?Mawaya-no-kami wrote:
The World Trade Centers had a flawed floor design. The core might have been strong but once the integrity of the floor is jeopardized there is no stopping its collapse. One floor cannot support the weight of another so once one fell they just pancacked on down hence the near free-fall speed.
Did you miss the part in the film where they go over how power to the WTC grid was shut down for quite some time two weeks prior to 9/11? It was for the FBI to carry out some "maintenance." And how the entire grid has never been shut down in the history of the WTC?Rathji wrote:
Something doesn't need to be in liquid form to lose some of its strength.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The typical melting point of structural steel (that which is used in stuff like skyscrapers) is somewhere around 2750deg Fahrenheit.Spark wrote:
The reason given was that the fireproofing on the steel trusses was not present (the guy had forgotten to do it), and trusses perform horribly in fires.
An in-atmosphere hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fire reaches maybe 1500deg Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
See the problem with whole 'the fireproofing was missing' theory?
Even if there were explosives SOMEWHERE in the WTC (basement being most likely), them being there provides zero proof of anything, one way or another. Anyone could have planted and detonated the explosives, even the person flying the plane, since the timings of what people claimed were bomb blasts were out of sync with when the plane crashed.
As for Building 7 - http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
Why the towers collapsed.
Why would the government risk such a big scandal when, even if the towers didn't collapse, it would provide enough 'justification' to go to war with a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with the attacks??
Why would the government risk such a big scandal when, even if the towers didn't collapse, it would provide enough 'justification' to go to war with a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with the attacks??
There's a lot more to it, Mawaya. To fully answer your question, Read This (especially check out page 51). This report has been signed by everyone within the Bush Administration.Mawaya-no-kami wrote:
Why the towers collapsed.
Why would the government risk such a big scandal when, even if the towers didn't collapse, it would provide enough 'justification' to go to war with a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with the attacks??
Then look through this site, which gives the rest of the info you'll need to know about the PNAC.
I didn't miss it, but the fact that it happened doesn't provide any proof of what actually happened during that time. It does prove that there was a window of opportunity for something to be done. If something WAS done, it certianly does not prove WHO did it. If you want to prove something, you need to have some evidence that it was done, not that it could have been done. It would be like me saying "You raped my sister last night because she was raped and I don't know what you were doing at that time"Marconius wrote:
Did you miss the part in the film where they go over how power to the WTC grid was shut down for quite some time two weeks prior to 9/11? It was for the FBI to carry out some "maintenance." And how the entire grid has never been shut down in the history of the WTC?Rathji wrote:
Something doesn't need to be in liquid form to lose some of its strength.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The typical melting point of structural steel (that which is used in stuff like skyscrapers) is somewhere around 2750deg Fahrenheit.
An in-atmosphere hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fire reaches maybe 1500deg Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
See the problem with whole 'the fireproofing was missing' theory?
Even if there were explosives SOMEWHERE in the WTC (basement being most likely), them being there provides zero proof of anything, one way or another. Anyone could have planted and detonated the explosives, even the person flying the plane, since the timings of what people claimed were bomb blasts were out of sync with when the plane crashed.
As for Building 7 - http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
My personal beliefs as to what happened are that there were probably explosives in the basement, and at acouple key locations throughout the building. I certianly do not believe that the floors all collapsing on each other was a result of these explosions being set up for a footprint demolition.
Even though this is what I beleive it doesn't add to the fact that there is no solid PROOF of this (that I am awareof) available to the public.
Of course there were no remnants of 737's found at the Pentagon nor 747's at the WTC...wanna know why? Because they didn't use 737's or 747's!!! They used 757's and 767's...I know it's a little nit-picky...but what you said was true...however...keep in mind everyone that a jetliner travels in the area of 500-600 mph...and we all know how great security cameras are...they're designed to capture faces and liscense plates...not full speed airliners...no significant debris you say? Well let's look at the numbers here...a fully loaded 757...which was what was crashed into the Pentagon...has a max takeoff weight of 255,000 pounds...now let's say for the sake of arugument and since I don't know how much fuel it took off with...airliners rarely takeoff with full tanks...and since I don't know how much fuel it burned before it hit the Pentagon...I'm gonna put the weight of it at 200,000 pounds...that's 100 tons...ok...now take that and figure it's flying at maybe 300-400 mph that low...that's a lot of impact force...it's no wonder no one could find sizable chunks....because the god-damn thing got vaporized...it's akin to a test I saw once where they put an old F-4 Phantom on a jet-rail track...and ran it full speed into a thick concrete wall that they use on nuclear reactors...it turned the plane into dust...the only things that survived reasonably well were the wingtips because they didn't impact...they just kinda skidded along the sides...I believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon...there is camera proof...I have seen it...and if ya don't believe me then how do you discredit the 100 or so eyewitnesses that saw that plane hit the Pentagon? Were they brainwashed by some government agency? Not likely...let's see what else haven't I addressed...ok...the hole? Ok yes a nose cone does get disfigured rather quickly...because it's only a thin piece of carbon fiber...but keep in mind the other 99.99 tons behind it...allright...the explosion...I don't wanna be a jerk here but how do you know how big a fireball would be when an airliner crashes? Have you done the math? Are you a fireball expert? Keep in mind here that it is a building...buildings are open on the insde...there was plenty of places that the flames could and did go inside the building...there is no way that anything other than a jet hit the Pentagon...and I have gone on the net and done research on the weights and types of planes here...feel free to cross reference me...I got the plane info from wikipedia...and I saw the camera footage on a National Geographic documentary if I had a copy I'd be willing to share but I only caught it on the tv so if ya wanna see you're gonna have to look for it yourself...the F-4 footage on some history channel documentary...and anything else is either me applying what I know about airplanes...since I am a liscensed pilot...and common senese...oh and another thing about the vid...it mentioned the order to get all aircraft on the ground...and then it said that that order hadn't been given since 1903...um anyone else realize that the Wright Brothers hadn't made the first flight EVER until December 17, 1903? So who, or how could anyone order that since there was only ONE airplane flight in 1903...and the first government agency that had any control over the aviation industry wasn't created until 1926...things aren't adding up here...oh my god they did it again...they screwed up their facts...they said a B-52 crashed into the Empire state building...in fact it was a B-25...oh well...honest mistake I guess...but it's hard to give credit to something when they're spouting false facts...Marconius wrote:
elvis, remember you are typing in a forum, not speaking to us personally. Therefore, any way that you think your words and phrases may come across as sarcastic pretty much flies out of the window. Even if you go as far as you can to be obviously ridiculous to prove a point, there are still people in these forums that type that way and are serious about it, so you'll instantly get pegged as one of those people.
Try using a <sarcasm> </sarcasm> signifier or something...
And jonnykill was right in using the term "forensic." It's the use of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime. Here's an example:
A Forensic study would go like this --
FACT: A 737's wingspan is 94'9" to 103' wide.
FACT: The hole in the pentagon was only a few feet in diameter.
FACT: There were absolutely NO remnants of a 737 in the crash site.
FACT: The only uncovered debris shown in the media was too small to have come from a 737.
FACT: The hole that was punched through the ring sections couldn't have possibly been formed from the 737 nose-cone, as it deforms extremely quickly when put under high stress.
FACT: The explosion in the 5 released frames from a Pentagon entrance camera is proof enough to show it's not a 737. The explosion is not massive enough, you can't see anything as massive as a 737 in the frames (motion blur/shadow/no vertical stabilizer nor wings).
Conclusion: A 737 didn't hit the Pentagon.
Last edited by bob_6012 (2006-02-27 15:29:06)
As a guy who has spent some time around Blacksmiths,
My educated conclusion is that The Towers didn't Blow apart or melt at all but, it annealed.
The properties of the steel itself changed. ( Through heating )
I would bet everything I own that is exactly what happened.
Ever wonder why some steel can flex like a spring others are hard but brittle
some can be bent with a hammer etc.
To the Moron who is amazed that his barbecue grill never melts.
Put your mothers silverware and your dads $600 Colt Python on the grill. They won't melt either.
Your Mom and Dad will appreciate your keen grasp of metallurgy science and
Guarantee you a swell birthday present from both of them
My educated conclusion is that The Towers didn't Blow apart or melt at all but, it annealed.
The properties of the steel itself changed. ( Through heating )
I would bet everything I own that is exactly what happened.
Ever wonder why some steel can flex like a spring others are hard but brittle
some can be bent with a hammer etc.
To the Moron who is amazed that his barbecue grill never melts.
Put your mothers silverware and your dads $600 Colt Python on the grill. They won't melt either.
Your Mom and Dad will appreciate your keen grasp of metallurgy science and
Guarantee you a swell birthday present from both of them
The videos from the gas station, hotel, and the highway by the pentagon were all confiscated minutes after the supposed crash. And they release a video containing 5 frames and showing no plane. If there is nothing to hide, and the videos show only an American Airlines plane crashing into the wall, then why the coverup? Why wouldn't they release the full videos to shut all us loony, unamerican conspiracy theorists up? There is no doubt in my mind that if an American Airlines 757 hit the pentagon like they say it did, then there is at least 1 second of footage between all those surveillance cameras that show the plane.
And Horseman stop typing like your writing a poem or a haiku it's annoying.
And Bob_6012 why don't you share that video footage you've seen of a plane hitting the pentagon with us? I mean you would be the only civillian on the planet to have seen such footage. Share with the rest of the world.
And Horseman stop typing like your writing a poem or a haiku it's annoying.
And Bob_6012 why don't you share that video footage you've seen of a plane hitting the pentagon with us? I mean you would be the only civillian on the planet to have seen such footage. Share with the rest of the world.
Last edited by Ziggy_79x (2006-02-27 14:16:20)
on a second thought, i am an explovise expert. maybe not expert, but i have worked with stage effects and professonal fireworks, and even had the training. as for the guy wanting to know from someone who knows about fire an explosions. Watch the videos carefully, watch the 1st 2 planes hit the WTC.. HUGE fireballs. From you ask? the jey fuel. most the fuel went to flames OUTSIDE of the building. the explosion at the pentagon, NOT A FUEL EXPLOSION. you can tell that from the 5 frames. the fireball is smaller. produces a flash, something the planes that WERE seen, didnt create. also a concusion. from?? an explosive. a plane crashing an catching fire, isnt goin to explode an cause a concusion. yes there will be a boom, but no force that would shake building miles away. how do i know, i BLOW THINGS up. i know when its fuel or explosive. it wasnt fuel at the pentagon. also there were reports of people smelling cordite. i reseached that myself. jet fuel doesnt smell like cordite. or vise versa. an the planes wouldnt have been vaporized. DEFENATLY not the engines........ soooo if a plane hit the pentagon. you people show me the proof of the plane, proof of where the engines from the plane went. no 6 ton engine was vaporized. GET BETTER FACTS. cuz they were told to you in that way, doesnt mean its true. science proves nothing would have vaporized. also the light poles were ripped outta the ground? no damage, a planes wings would have bent them, broke them, or destoryed them, on the other hand somehting going between them, at say the mass and speed of a missle, would however pull them from the ground. yes i also know about rocketry, an missles.
AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! I remember them! I had to beat it twice to get the whole story straight.MajorGeneral wrote:
No damn it, you missed it all. It is "The Patriots". A reason for them to proceed with development of Metal Gear...
yeah this shit really scares me. after watching that film, i have no doubt in my mind that the government was involved. Maybe not wholy, but perhaps one, two or a small group of government higher-ups ordered the confiscation of tapes and such. 24 anyone?
Annealed? So you are speculating that all of the structural steel was heated and subsequently cooled to make it stronger prior to the collapse? You amaze me with your keen grasp of metallurgical terms...Horseman 77 wrote:
As a guy who has spent some time around Blacksmiths,
My educated conclusion is that The Towers didn't Blow apart or melt at all but, it annealed.
The properties of the steel itself changed. ( Through heating )
I would bet everything I own that is exactly what happened.
....
Your Mom and Dad will appreciate your keen grasp of metallurgy science and
Guarantee you a swell birthday present from both of them
The ASTM E119 grade steel used in the WTC construction could've withstood the fire for a lot longer than it did.
The letter explaining why
Annotations also explaining why it couldn't have failed
Jet Fuel burns at most 800°C, and basic Iron-Carbon steel reaches it's eutectic state at about 1200°C, as defined in this Phase Diagram, and also dictated here. The structural support steel is a lot stronger than basic Iron-Carbon steel, so it wouldn't have even begun to reach the eucstatic phase change when the fuel was burning as hot as it could.
For what it's worth, here's a technical paper outlining a test of the very same steel construct exposed to high temperatures
I was gunna mention that small fact about the type of aircraft used..but I am no FORENSIC EXPERT like the ones that post here so I didn't say anything.bob_6012 wrote:
Of course there were no remnants of 737's found at the Pentagon nor 747's at the WTC...wanna know why? Because they didn't use 737's or 747's!!! They used 757's and 767's...I know it's a little nit-picky...but what you said was true...however...keep in mind everyone that a jetliner travels in the area of 500-600 mph...and we all know how great security cameras are...they're designed to capture faces and liscense plates...not full speed airliners...no significant debris you say? Well let's look at the numbers here...a fully loaded 757...which was what was crashed into the Pentagon...has a max takeoff weight of 255,000 pounds...now let's say for the sake of arugument and since I don't know how much fuel it took off with...airliners rarely takeoff with full tanks...and since I don't know how much fuel it burned before it hit the Pentagon...I'm gonna put the weight of it at 200,000 pounds...that's 100 tons...ok...now take that and figure it's flying at maybe 300-400 mph that low...that's a lot of impact force...it's no wonder no one could find sizable chunks....because the god-damn thing got vaporized...it's akin to a test I saw once where they put an old F-4 Phantom on a jet-rail track...and ran it full speed into a thick concrete wall that they use on nuclear reactors...it turned the plane into dust...the only things that survived reasonably well were the wingtips because they didn't impact...they just kinda skidded along the sides...I believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon...there is camera proof...I have seen it...and if ya don't believe me then how do you discredit the 100 or so eyewitnesses that saw that plane hit the Pentagon? Were they brainwashed by some government agency? Not likely...let's see what else haven't I addressed...ok...the hole? Ok yes a nose cone does get disfigured rather quickly...because it's only a thin piece of carbon fiber...but keep in mind the other 99.99 tons behind it...allright...the explosion...I don't wanna be a jerk here but how do you know how big a fireball would be when an airliner crashes? Have you done the math? Are you a fireball expert? Keep in mind here that it is a building...buildings are open on the insde...there was plenty of places that the flames could and did go inside the building...there is no way that anything other than a jet hit the Pentagon...and I have gone on the net and done research on the weights and types of planes here...feel free to cross reference me...I got the plane info from wikipedia...and I saw the camera footage on a National Geographic documentary if I had a copy I'd be willing to share but I only caught it on the tv so if ya wanna see you're gonna have to look for it yourself...the F-4 footage on some history channel documentary...and anything else is either me applying what I know about airplanes...since I am a liscensed pilot...and common senese...oh and another thing about the vid...it mentioned the order to get all aircraft on the ground...and then it said that that order hadn't been given since 1903...um anyone else realize that the Wright Brothers hadn't made the first flight EVER until December 17, 1903? So who, or how could anyone order that since there was only ONE airplane flight in 1903...and the first government agency that had any control over the aviation industry wasn't created until 1926...things aren't adding up here...oh my god they did it again...they screwed up their facts...they said a B-52 crashed into the Empire state building...in fact it was a B-25...oh well...honest mistake I guess...but it's hard to give credit to something when they're spouting false facts...Marconius wrote:
elvis, remember you are typing in a forum, not speaking to us personally. Therefore, any way that you think your words and phrases may come across as sarcastic pretty much flies out of the window. Even if you go as far as you can to be obviously ridiculous to prove a point, there are still people in these forums that type that way and are serious about it, so you'll instantly get pegged as one of those people.
Try using a <sarcasm> </sarcasm> signifier or something...
And jonnykill was right in using the term "forensic." It's the use of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime. Here's an example:
A Forensic study would go like this --
FACT: A 737's wingspan is 94'9" to 103' wide.
FACT: The hole in the pentagon was only a few feet in diameter.
FACT: There were absolutely NO remnants of a 737 in the crash site.
FACT: The only uncovered debris shown in the media was too small to have come from a 737.
FACT: The hole that was punched through the ring sections couldn't have possibly been formed from the 737 nose-cone, as it deforms extremely quickly when put under high stress.
FACT: The explosion in the 5 released frames from a Pentagon entrance camera is proof enough to show it's not a 737. The explosion is not massive enough, you can't see anything as massive as a 737 in the frames (motion blur/shadow/no vertical stabilizer nor wings).
Conclusion: A 737 didn't hit the Pentagon.
No matter what you think of Bush, you must agree that NO ONE would kill 2,000 just to start a war.
No one, well I think you've just been proven wrong here buddy. I honestly think that something has been covered up and thats because of the Pentagon incident. Everything just seems thrown off and suspicious. It's like saying there's no UFOs in this area and closing the lid on one right behind you. Why else would Bush rush into the Iraq war with no plausible proof? He was just shooting to win and hoped that by going into the war he'd find some type of incriminating evidence. And to anyone who thinks people have freedom of speech, the government has unimaginable power here and they can bend anyone's will so what these "eye witnesses" say may not be coming out of his or her own mouth but rather conjured up by a higher power to keep the "peace"
It wasn't done to Only start a war, it was done to kick-start their agenda for the reformation of America.=DBD=TITAN126 wrote:
No matter what you think of Bush, you must agree that NO ONE would kill 2,000 just to start a war.
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions."
-The PNAC report
Starting the war has killed 2,000+ american soldiers and alot more Iraqi combatants and civilians. Alot of people who would benifit from this action politically and financially might have considered it acceptable collateral damage because they might rationalize it would save far more lives in letting it happen and getting laws changed that would let them defend the country (and their interests) with much less problems. To say that it COULDN'T happen, is a rather naive statement. Saying you sure as hell hoped that americans wouldn't elect someone who would do that is a far more fair statement to make.=DBD=TITAN126 wrote:
No matter what you think of Bush, you must agree that NO ONE would kill 2,000 just to start a war.
People who say Bush was behind this don't think it was just to start the war, it was to pass the Patriot Act and enable them to do whatever they wanted in the name of 'defending America'. The war, they claim, is only a small part of the problem, in fact most positions I have read are FAR more concerned about the loss of freedoms due to the Patriot Act.
Apollo Moon Landing hoax.. Before NASA became space NASA, NASA 30 years before was a movie production company and it owned many studios .. We didnt have that kind of technology back in the 60's sothe_heart_attack wrote:
yeh it was staged for sure, i think i read somewhere they used the old moon landing set.
many people think they acted it out .
A geopolitical chess game.Marconius wrote:
It wasn't done to Only start a war, it was done to kick-start their agenda for the reformation of America.=DBD=TITAN126 wrote:
No matter what you think of Bush, you must agree that NO ONE would kill 2,000 just to start a war.
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions."
-The PNAC report
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_wa … _iraq.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_wa … _iraq.html
Read it or don't. But if you're going to call it bullshit you should read it before forming your opinion. And this dosen't just apply to the Middle East. This is going on everywhere.
First of all, if you had really done "research" like you said you have, you would have seen on the Loose Change website that they admitted to making the mistake that it was a B-25 bomber and not a B-52 bomber that hit the Empire State Building.bob_6012 wrote:
Of course there were no remnants of 737's found at the Pentagon nor 747's at the WTC...wanna know why? Because they didn't use 737's or 747's!!! They used 757's and 767's...I know it's a little nit-picky...but what you said was true...however...keep in mind everyone that a jetliner travels in the area of 500-600 mph...and we all know how great security cameras are...they're designed to capture faces and liscense plates...not full speed airliners...no significant debris you say? Well let's look at the numbers here...a fully loaded 757...which was what was crashed into the Pentagon...has a max takeoff weight of 255,000 pounds...now let's say for the sake of arugument and since I don't know how much fuel it took off with...airliners rarely takeoff with full tanks...and since I don't know how much fuel it burned before it hit the Pentagon...I'm gonna put the weight of it at 200,000 pounds...that's 100 tons...ok...now take that and figure it's flying at maybe 300-400 mph that low...that's a lot of impact force...it's no wonder no one could find sizable chunks....because the god-damn thing got vaporized...it's akin to a test I saw once where they put an old F-4 Phantom on a jet-rail track...and ran it full speed into a thick concrete wall that they use on nuclear reactors...it turned the plane into dust...the only things that survived reasonably well were the wingtips because they didn't impact...they just kinda skidded along the sides...I believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon...there is camera proof...I have seen it...and if ya don't believe me then how do you discredit the 100 or so eyewitnesses that saw that plane hit the Pentagon? Were they brainwashed by some government agency? Not likely...let's see what else haven't I addressed...ok...the hole? Ok yes a nose cone does get disfigured rather quickly...because it's only a thin piece of carbon fiber...but keep in mind the other 99.99 tons behind it...allright...the explosion...I don't wanna be a jerk here but how do you know how big a fireball would be when an airliner crashes? Have you done the math? Are you a fireball expert? Keep in mind here that it is a building...buildings are open on the insde...there was plenty of places that the flames could and did go inside the building...there is no way that anything other than a jet hit the Pentagon...and I have gone on the net and done research on the weights and types of planes here...feel free to cross reference me...I got the plane info from wikipedia...and I saw the camera footage on a National Geographic documentary if I had a copy I'd be willing to share but I only caught it on the tv so if ya wanna see you're gonna have to look for it yourself...the F-4 footage on some history channel documentary...and anything else is either me applying what I know about airplanes...since I am a liscensed pilot...and common senese...oh and another thing about the vid...it mentioned the order to get all aircraft on the ground...and then it said that that order hadn't been given since 1903...um anyone else realize that the Wright Brothers hadn't made the first flight EVER until December 17, 1903? So who, or how could anyone order that since there was only ONE airplane flight in 1903...and the first government agency that had any control over the aviation industry wasn't created until 1926...things aren't adding up here...oh my god they did it again...they screwed up their facts...they said a B-52 crashed into the Empire state building...in fact it was a B-25...oh well...honest mistake I guess...but it's hard to give credit to something when they're spouting false facts...Marconius wrote:
elvis, remember you are typing in a forum, not speaking to us personally. Therefore, any way that you think your words and phrases may come across as sarcastic pretty much flies out of the window. Even if you go as far as you can to be obviously ridiculous to prove a point, there are still people in these forums that type that way and are serious about it, so you'll instantly get pegged as one of those people.
Try using a <sarcasm> </sarcasm> signifier or something...
And jonnykill was right in using the term "forensic." It's the use of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime. Here's an example:
A Forensic study would go like this --
FACT: A 737's wingspan is 94'9" to 103' wide.
FACT: The hole in the pentagon was only a few feet in diameter.
FACT: There were absolutely NO remnants of a 737 in the crash site.
FACT: The only uncovered debris shown in the media was too small to have come from a 737.
FACT: The hole that was punched through the ring sections couldn't have possibly been formed from the 737 nose-cone, as it deforms extremely quickly when put under high stress.
FACT: The explosion in the 5 released frames from a Pentagon entrance camera is proof enough to show it's not a 737. The explosion is not massive enough, you can't see anything as massive as a 737 in the frames (motion blur/shadow/no vertical stabilizer nor wings).
Conclusion: A 737 didn't hit the Pentagon.
Second of all, what does it matter which type of bomber it was? A fucking plane hit a building and it stands to this day.
Third of all, I've never heard of anything called a "false fact".
Fourth of all, military planes are not constructed with the same materials as a jetliner. The military often uses lighter materials for aerodynamics. Jetliners use heavy duty stuff, not to mention they are much larger than military aircraft. Just because an F-4 was supposedly vaporized when it hit a concrete wall does not mean the same thing will happen to a jetliner.
Last of all, have you seen pictures of jetliner crashes? They leave wreckage, and lots of it, regardless of if they hit a building or not. If a plane hit a building and then vaporized from it's own jet fuel, it would be the first time in aviation history, just as the documentary claims.
Oh and to all of you guys saying "oh the government would never hide anything" just read the book "The Day After Roswell" Its from a top pentagon official and he talks about the cover-up and all the weapons and gagdets that were born/made/copied from the craft that crashed.
how well does sheet aluminum burn? and once it starts burning, how hot does it get? Cars burn down to the steel frame, why not planes too, which are full of other things besides jet fuel that burn longer.
Ok TriggerHappy998...Mr. Aerospace Engineer sir...the whole type of bomber impact makes a huge difference on the damage down to a building...a B-25 is sgnificantly smaller than a B-52...and also carries far less fuel...and a different type of fuel for that matter...since it carried less fuel it could not burn as long as a larger jet powered aircraft crash could...so that's point 1...next...lighter materials have nothing to do with aerodynamics...the shape of the aircraft and what contacts the air has to do with aerodynamics...an airplane is an airplane...what goes into one is almost the same as the next one...trust me...a KC-135 Stratotanker is a military refueling model of the Boeing 707, the KC-10 is a McDonnel Douglas DC-10...they are the same...and I'm not nessicarily refering to fighters...if you take anything get up to a high enough speed and crash it into something that doesn't move you have mass carnage...and little pieces...and I would also like to point out again...how can anyone refute the 100+ eyewitness accounts that it was an American airlines jet? HOW? A child could tell you if they saw an airplane crash into a building...it's not that difficult to figure out...plus if it was a missle just what in the hell do you do with a jet with people on it? Just give them all a million dollars and tell them to go start their lives again somewhere else? Lastly the one of the first people to suggest that Flight 77 didn't strike the Pentagon was Thierry Meyssan...a French author...FRENCH!!! Enough said...<sarcasim>
Last edited by bob_6012 (2006-02-27 16:44:51)
uh oh ! someone found their old physics text book..Marconius wrote:
Annealed? So you are speculating that all of the structural steel was heated and subsequently cooled to make it stronger prior to the collapse? You amaze me with your keen grasp of metallurgical terms...Horseman 77 wrote:
As a guy who has spent some time around Blacksmiths,
My educated conclusion is that The Towers didn't Blow apart or melt at all but, it annealed.
The properties of the steel itself changed. ( Through heating )
I would bet everything I own that is exactly what happened.
Annealing isn't a hardening process exclusively.
Just as acceleration doesn't only apply to an increase in speed.
Depending on when, how and how fast you cool it you alter its properties.
Copper Wire is often annealed to make it more workable.
WTC steel never reached the cooling stage because it was inside the fire.
That's when steel is Softest. The fire never went out.
Cut and paste all you want to but in this case what you have read about once or twice,
I have done thousands of times.
People that have hands on experience are usually a more reliable a source then someone who can paste a hyper link.
Add to that, I was there when the second tower fell.
All are invited to draw their own conclusions.
Some Hy ku huh ?
Revolution: NASA did not exist 30 years before the moon landings. It was NACA. And if the technology did not exist in the 60s, why do we have 3 extra Saturn V's on display?
Bear in mind that eyewitnesses are not accurate sources. (the first eyewitness reports of 9/11 claimed a small plane hit the WTC) Yes, this goes both ways in our little debate, for and against.
Bear in mind that eyewitnesses are not accurate sources. (the first eyewitness reports of 9/11 claimed a small plane hit the WTC) Yes, this goes both ways in our little debate, for and against.