short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

audome25

1) the pilot skills to find one of the largest cities in the world at altitiude? With the sun low so you can easily find east and an advanced cockpit? You're already assuming they didn't have the airline pilots point the plane that direction to begin with.

2)At what speed would any structure fall other than freefall? You know of a lot of buildings that have force generators installed on them?

Specifics

audome25 wrote:

1) the pilot skills to find one of the largest cities in the world at altitiude? With the sun low so you can easily find east and an advanced cockpit? You're already assuming they didn't have the airline pilots point the plane that direction to begin with.

2)At what speed would any structure fall other than freefall? You know of a lot of buildings that have force generators installed on them?

OK then, read it all again, i always give one chance, call it a charitable nature.

Strangest Tribe

audome25 wrote:

1) the pilot skills to find one of the largest cities in the world at altitiude? With the sun low so you can easily find east and an advanced cockpit? You're already assuming they didn't have the airline pilots point the plane that direction to begin with.

2)At what speed would any structure fall other than freefall? You know of a lot of buildings that have force generators installed on them?

Ever seen the East Coast from 30000 ft? It's ONE huge city.

therover

I'm pretty sure you can tell the autopilot program where to go and it will take you there with very little human contact with the stick. Even if they could not do that, there are other ways to find your way. I mean people found their way to America in ships by using the stars and such 200 years ago.

El_Kabong

MakingWaves wrote:

The buildings that collapsed were enourmous. The force from these buildings falling would obviously have ripped down the inner skeleton with them. WTC 7 had damage done at the base of the building and a fire raged out of control for hours that they were unable to fight because the water lines had been damaged.

The planes that hit the WTC towers were bigger then the one that hit the empire state building and were moving much faster and had more fuel. I don't know why people act like jet fuel isn't hot. It burns between 600F and 900F. That is pretty fucking hot and you don't have to melt the steel just heat it up to weaken it. Also take into cosideration the steel beams that were destroyed when the planes hit. Those destroyed and weakened beams had to support the floors above them and couldn't. Simple structural engineering. Also the jet fuel set other things in the building on fire. It is obvious there was a raging fire for hours (which means it was very very hot). I have burned debris in my yard and after the fire was out walked across it and melted the soles of my shoes some. I am willing to bet this fire was hotter and of course it would melt your shoe soles. Rubber melts around 200-300F. I think it is safe to assume that the smoldering fire from the debris was still that hot one day later.
The DC flight zone was not enforced then like it is today.
All I am saying look at which side has more facts and which one has more assumptions. The conspiracy theory side has almost all assumptions and very little fact that have to be made for the theories to be true.

building 7 was pretty small, comparitatively to the others, it was only 52 floors, and didn't the firefighters say they had the fires pretty much controlled and out? i wonder why they would seal the recordings and transcripts of what the firefighters said thru their radios that day?

uh, isn't your side a little stacked w/ assumptions as well?

do a quick google search, you can find papers where bin laden said he had nothing to do w/ it, even hinting towards pakistan (odd coincidence money wired to atta shortly before 9/11 originated from the isi, pakistan's cia)

what do you have as your holy proof? a video found miracuously hidden in a house of a grainy video w/ a fat bin laden w/ a bigger nose who writes w/ the wrong hand?

you will buy anything they give you, it's like the thought of even questioning their word, the word of proven liars, makes you guys so mad...why is that?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

so the fire in building 7, a 52 floor building the furthest away from buildings 1 and 2, fell b/c of fire and damage? not only that but it completely disintegrated the middle support beams....? if it was damaged at the base...the base facing the other towers...why it did it buckle in the middle then fall straight down on itself?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

People don't want to believe it, but a demolition was undeniably executed on building 7.

Did they demolish it as part of 9/11 intentionally? or did they just figure what the hell it's as good a time as any as it had caught fire and suffered damage.

Building 7 could have raged like a blowtorch from every window, top to bottom, for several hours before slowly burning itself out.

I mean really, gmab....the building shot straight down all shiny and new ...and what?....from a little contained fire?

Absolutely preposterous!!!

Strangest Tribe

therover wrote:

I'm pretty sure you can tell the autopilot program where to go and it will take you there with very little human contact with the stick. Even if they could not do that, there are other ways to find your way. I mean people found their way to America in ships by using the stars and such 200 years ago.

no, autopilot won't shortrange. Plus autopilot wouldn't work below 2500 ft ceiling. Auto can't land a plane or crash it into the buildings.

Dad says it's unlikely these inexperienced pilots could maneuver these planes with the little amount of training they were supposed to have. Not impossible, just unlikely.

For 2 pilots to do this with the same amount of flight time would just be highly unlikely.

Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 were more likely to miss the ships and carriers than hit them. Just watch the History channel and this is explained often during the south pacific wars.
Seasoned pilots with much smaller maneuverable planes couldn't hit the ships more often than not. Only difference is...they WERE being shot at.

Yeah it's kinda hard to believe the government on this when they have established a reputation of lying to us about everything. This regime doesn't exactly have a sparkling track record of being "up front" with the people.

I must say though...just an observation..seems as though alot of people from the south really buy everything this administration has to sell.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Strangest Tribe wrote:

no, autopilot won't shortrange. Plus autopilot wouldn't work below 2500 ft ceiling. Auto can't land a plane or crash it into the buildings.

Dad says it's unlikely these inexperienced pilots could maneuver these planes with the little amount of training they were supposed to have. Not impossible, just unlikely.

For 2 pilots to do this with the same amount of flight time would just be highly unlikely.

Even the Japanese HariKari pilots of WW2 were more likely to miss the ships and carriers than hit them. Just watch the History channel and this is explained often during the south pacific wars.
Seasoned pilots with much smaller maneuverable planes couldn't hit the ships more often than not. Only difference is...they WERE being shot at.

Yeah it's kinda hard to believe the government on this when they have established a reputation of lying to us about everything. This regime doesn't exactly have a sparkling track record of being "up front" with the people.

I must say though...just an observation..seems as though alot of people from the south really buy everything this administration has to sell.

I was thinking about that myself. I tend to agree with you on this. Very little, if any, of 9/11 adds up actually.

And yeah the south has had it's head filled with glue from what they get on their TV's.

Right before our eyes... they pull this kind of crazy shit and hope it gets swallowed by the public.

Unreal!

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I was thinking about that myself. I tend to agree with you on this. Very little, if any, of 9/11 adds up actually.

And yeah the south has had it's head filled with glue from what they get on their TV's.

Right before our eyes... they pull this kind of crazy shit and hope it gets swallowed by the public.

Unreal!

I swear there's a wave building in an age of all this information access that is leading to something, hopefully, less bullshit.

Specifics

gue_barium wrote:

I swear there's a wave building in an age of all this information access that is leading to something, hopefully, less bullshit.

I feel this too, whatever the truth about 9/11, i think it may well have exactly the opposite effect to what may have been intended. ie people who usually wouldnt give a shit cos they're living they're lives saying "hang on! what the fuck are you doing?" u know. We let them all get away with a lot in the past, but that was in a time of B'stards so being a b'stard was ok. Not good enough anymore

mookie9999

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Interesting how Leslie Robertson mentions the fact that a 707 carries over 23,000 gallons of fuel, and a 767 carries 23,980 gallons. Also interesting to note the WTC planes had less than full tanks of fuel when they hit the towers. hmm...

"A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.

"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Leslie Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity."

Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said

"Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said

.

I ask you. Just because you are a designer/architect, an expert in your field if you will, could your assumptions, plans, and calculations still be wrong? I'm pretty sure the inventor of the bullet-proof vest planned to stop most if not all bullets. But did not account for hollow tip ammo. Just like the designers planned on the buildings withstanding the blow. People make mistakes. People can do all the planning and designing that they wish, but sometimes it's not enough.


Also, I ask you again, since you didn't reply before. Where are these experts you speak of. If I designed and/or built the trade center to withstand the force of planes at full throttle, and I believe in my work, then why would they not make a case about it? Why would they only mention it in passing in hard to find interviews? I would be making a claim everyday of the rest of my life!

gue_barium

mookie9999 wrote:

I ask you. Just because you are a designer/architect, an expert in your field if you will, could your assumptions, plans, and calculations still be wrong? I'm pretty sure the inventor of the bullet-proof vest planned to stop most if not all bullets. But did not account for hollow tip ammo. Just like the designers planned on the buildings withstanding the blow. People make mistakes. People can do all the planning and designing that they wish, but sometimes it's not enough.

Hollow-tip ammo is a bad choice of comparison for the bullet-proof vest.

I understand your point, though. Maybe these buildings weren't what they were meant to be.

mookie9999

Specifics wrote:

this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed,

90 West St., a historical building which overlooks the site was severely damaged and had to be gut renovated. It has since been converted to apartment rentals. The marriot hotel, further down West St, was damaged and needed extensive repairs. The Deutsche Bank Building on Greenwich St, next to the site was torn into down the middle and is still waiting it's destruction. I walk by these buildings on a daily basis. I live a couple of blocks away. Please do not continue on with your misunderstanding of the area. Buildings were destroyed in the vicinity. Unless by your definition the only way that a building is "severely damaged" is if it collapses.

sonicreducer

one of the main points of this thread was that the video showed to picture with the firemen and the beams of steel with precision cuts. no one has tried to debate this. to me, nothing could seem more obvious. what else could have caused such a clear cut? why does it look like there is previously melted steel dripping down the cuts?

for those that would argue this was during clean up,... are firemen the ones who were cutting the beams? why didn't they cut the beams to the ground?

to me, this is the best evidence i've seen of a 'demolition'.

Specifics

mookie9999 wrote:

90 West St., a historical building which overlooks the site was severely damaged and had to be gut renovated. It has since been converted to apartment rentals. The marriot hotel, further down West St, was damaged and needed extensive repairs. The Deutsche Bank Building on Greenwich St, next to the site was torn into down the middle and is still waiting it's destruction. I walk by these buildings on a daily basis. I live a couple of blocks away. Please do not continue on with your misunderstanding of the area. Buildings were destroyed in the vicinity. Unless by your definition the only way that a building is "severely damaged" is if it collapses.

I'll post my whole reply that you edited to see if it makes any difference:

Specifics wrote:

Ok i ignored it the first time but you passed up the opportunity to not look foolish. You take a look at "Grayound Zearo" and without thinking so literally tell me how big the ruined area is, this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed, which is logical as it was so much closer than any other building. Truth be told if you were to have drawn a chalk line around the base of the towers before it collapsed it would not have all laid to rest in this outline, is this where you're confusion lies?

I think that covers it, because the damage you described i would call "very little" for a building 1/4 of a mile high. However im happy about this if you can address the points i bought up in another post after addressing the other answer i got to this, which in terms of good debate was much more helpful than learning that you walk past it everyday.

Your daily walking route doesnt really help me to understand the whole situation, however i hope it satisfies any needs you have for a walking route, fresh air, bit of nature, efficiency in getting where you need to be etc. These are the things i like to weigh up when deciding my walking routes, but this is probably for another thread, we can discuss it there if you like.

Specifics

mookie9999 wrote:

Buildings were destroyed in the vicinity. Unless by your definition the only way that a building is "severely damaged" is if it collapses.

And you gave no examples of buildings being destroyed, only a couple that needed repairs and one awaiting demolition. But to be honest im not really interested in this aspect its a done deal.

sonicreducer

why the fuck hasn't anyone said anything about the fucking precision cut beams?

if that isn't proof, then what the fuck is?

sonicreducer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2GE39WbNE

a plane hit the pentagon at, what, almost 600mph,... i want to see some pics of the cars that got blown away b/c i know it was low enough to knock down the light poles,... but maybe when it made a pass over the highway it was still too high and the thrust was above the cars,...

Specifics

sonicreducer wrote:

why the fuck hasn't anyone said anything about the fucking precision cut beams?

if that isn't proof, then what the fuck is?

Sorry dude personally i havent got that far yet, i havent found any answers for my current big three.

The problem with the debate even at this level is that one side wants to find out what happened and the other wants to talk down to people as if they are being stupid for asking questions and not just believing what big brother says. Go figure huh!

Actually the problem is not that its like that here, its that its exactly like that to the very top.

You want to know the truth of what it all comes down to?

People know its bollocks, some in their heads some just in they're hearts, but some are too scared to admit it, while others are just happy to be under the wing and so will argue half-assed lies to defend the pack.

some are just stupid.

What can you do? keep tryin i guess, we only want answers dont we?

fuck it, i give nothing for this bullshit

69charger

sonicreducer wrote:

why the fuck hasn't anyone said anything about the fucking precision cut beams?

if that isn't proof, then what the fuck is?

Proof of what? A picture without context is not proof.

What if I showed you a picture of a Unicorn? What would that prove?