Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tiger's Eye

Pentagon Plane Crash...Was It Really A Plane?

Recommended Posts

does this look like minor damage http://judi.kw.nl/uploads/fok/wtc7-sw-corner1.jpg

 

the smoke pouring out one whole side thing i mentioned earlier

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/WTC7.jpg/300px-WTC7.jpg

 

the partial collapse of the winsdor building where steel structural elements collapsed but it didn't cause the rest to collapse

http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album2/img/10.jpg

 

i assume WTC7 got damaged when two of the worlds tallest buildings fell down quite near it.

 

also, what is wrong with three buildings meeting this criteria in 9 hours? it was pretty damn exceptional circumstances wouldn't you agree? its not everyday planes get flown into some of the tallest buildings in the world.

 

 

With respect to the first and second links you provided, yes, it is minor damage compared to the burning of the other steel structures I spoke of.

 

What looks more intense? Building 7: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/WTC7.jpg/300px-WTC7.jpg

 

or the Windsor Building we spoke of :

http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/02/incendio_windsor/img/inc5.jpg

 

which survived after burning for 2 days:

http://www.cadenaser.com/composicion/images/portada/200502/13/1108304834.jpg

 

 

You said you "assume" building 7 was damaged from the collapse of the towers, but all that came from the towers was smoke. How does smoke cause fire? And again, the wtc's fell inward. If they had fallen sideways into other buildings, then the fire in building 7 would be more plausible. And this is whats wrong with the 3 buildings meeting the above criteria in such a short period of time. They all collapsed inward, and opposed the notion that steel structures dont collapse from fire damage. Again, we have Silverstein on video speaking of the damage done to building 7 and say they decided to "pull it...just pull," and next they show the collapse of the structure. We have Silverstein taking out a billion dollar insurance deal a few months before the event, and buying up the rest of the complex moths before the event. Additionally, if the floors pancaked, it would have taken longer for the buildings to collapse. Here's an interesting video:

. I'm not saying EVERYTHING in the video is true, but it's something that deserves attention, it's something that needs to be addressed. How are we supposed to examine the evidence from the buildings now that the rubble was shipped to China and the middle east? This is an American event, and thus an American investigation. You have to ask why these issues are being ignored by the very officials that should be looking into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats like saying its extremely coincidental that 4 airliners got highjacked in one day. its not at all coincidental, its a direct product of the circumstances.

 

Four airliners being hijacked in one day would be highly coincidental if no one had ever heard of such a thing as terrorists on airplanes. However, I have yet to see a building that has collapsed from an office fire alone. The links above show just how unlikely this is. Now you have three steel structures collapsing from fires, which isn't heard of, and 2 collapse for one supposed reason, and the third collapses for a regular office fire. So yes, its highly coincidental that we have 2 buildings collapse under one criteria, and a third collapse under a second criteria, when both criteria ( impacting airliners and office fires) are unheard of with respect to the collapse of steel structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Four airliners being hijacked in one day would be highly coincidental if no one had ever heard of such a thing as terrorists on airplanes.

Nobody had flown three airliners into three different buildings before. In fact, I don't think anybody had flown any airliners into any buildings intentionally before.

 

"Coincidental" does not prove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like it if you'd update your links to work correctly.

 

No need to get contentious. We're allowed to disagree on things and still be nice to eachother 60.gif Come on, you know you wanna give one back :)

 

Edit: I fixed the links too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody had flown three airliners into three different buildings before. In fact, I don't think anybody had flown any airliners into any buildings intentionally before.

 

"Coincidental" does not prove anything.

 

Coincidental doesn't prove anything, but the links listed above show that steel structures withstand fires, and the fact that no one has provided evidence of a steel structure collapse from fire alone, should count in the way of logic at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, coincident doesn't prove anything...........................

 

.......................

.......................

.......................

 

(hint hint)

 

........................

........................

........................

 

(poke poke)

 

(hint hint)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said you "assume" building 7 was damaged from the collapse of the towers, but all that came from the towers was smoke.

 

And flaming debris.

 

And again, the wtc's fell inward.

 

Oh they did, did they?

 

wtc-southtower.jpg

 

If they had fallen sideways into other buildings, then the fire in building 7 would be more plausible.

 

Yeah, looking more plausible already.

 

And this is whats wrong with the 3 buildings meeting the above criteria in such a short period of time.

 

I'm going to go with a 757s full of enough jet fuel to make a transcontinental journey hitting two of the largest office buildings in the world, loaded with lots of combustible furniture. I'm going to go with load bearing walls and the way the floors were connected to them. WTC did not use traditional "egg crate" steel construction like the other building you linked.

 

They all collapsed inward

 

No they didn't.

 

and opposed the notion that steel structures dont collapse from fire damage.

 

"It's never happened before, therefore it can never happen!"

 

Airtight logic

 

Again, we have Silverstein on video speaking of the damage done to building 7 and say they decided to "pull it...just pull,"

 

He decided due to the TREMENDOUS LOSS OF LIFE from the other buildings collapsing with firefighters inside that they should pull out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes the almighty phrase 'pull it... just pull it.' with so many meanings in so many fields.

 

for instance it can mean:

1/ get the hell out of there(emergency services and military, this is most likely context)

2/ drag it(most other contexts)

and the one that conspiracy nuts cling on to like flies to steaming piles of excrement.

3/ demolish it (used in the demolitions trade and also in structural surveying as i hear and is usually used before the building is even rigged up. even then it usually reffers to getting a JCB some heavy chain and pulling out structural parts of the building so it collapses on its own. generally NOT explosives.)

 

since the guy who said it was a fireman i would say with 99.999% certainty that it was the first one he meant and the first one the firemen were responding to when they left the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, quite a lot of this topic seems to debate the effect of temperature on steel and says that jet fuel doesn't burn hotter than about 1000C.

Here's a quote from the Wiki article about jet engines.

"Cooling systems

All jet engines require high temperature gas for good efficiency, typically achieved by combusting hydrocarbon or hydrogen fuel. Combustion temperatures can be as high as 3500K (5000F), above the melting point of most materials.

 

Cooling systems are employed to keep the temperature of the solid parts below the failure temperature."

You can melt copper (at 1083C) in a candle flame so the idea that a straightforward saturated hydrocarbon fuel like jet fuel won't get that hot is strange.

 

Blacksmithing is done with red hot steel. The flames in the WTC are clearly glowing at least that hot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

john, yeah jet engines burn very hot but i don't think that the WTC buildings had fuel diffuser systems.so the temperature was substantially lower than that but still damn hot. steel loses 80% of its strength by 700*C which would probably be sufficient for collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT was a giant FRISBEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

makes more sense than some of the theories out there.

 

seriously, some of the people out there are probably convinced that the sky is green at night but the government puts a giant blanket up every night to make it look black and stars are little robots crawling over it to repair it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the sky is green at night but the government puts a giant blanket up every night to make it look black and stars are little robots crawling over it to repair it.

You know too much. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a thought, quite a lot of this topic seems to debate the effect of temperature on steel and says that jet fuel doesn't burn hotter than about 1000C.

 

What about jet fuel mixed with hundreds and hundreds of tons of petroleum-based office products?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know too much. :cool:

 

what do you mean? I INVENTED the robots! thats how i know. jeez, i thought they gave you guys a list of who was involved so you wouldn't accidentaly 'whack' them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bascule, the buildings did collapse inward, not perfectly inward, but inward enough so as not to fall into buildings next to it. Additionally, you've come up with a semi-plausible explanation for the collapse of the wtc's, but you still haven't addressed the collapse of building 7 sufficiently. You say just because its never happened is not to say it couldnt happen. So are you saying that building 7 is the first steel structure to collapse from a few office fires? Also, Silverstein didn't say "pull out," he said "we made the decision to pull, just pull it, and we watched the building collapse." Listen to his words carefully and in the context portrayed.

 

Pangloss, again, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm not like others who think they know the whole story. Something like this needs to be discussed in great detail, because the people who lost their lives on that day deserve to have every aspect of the incident examined in an open-minded fashion. I think its sad that debates on 9/11 are usually catagorized as official story vs. conspiracy theorist. Instead of coming in here and poking fun at the conspiracy side of the issue, I think ones time would be better spent searching for other issues surrounding the event because again, the victims deserve it.

 

 

Edit: Look, either you care enough about the issue to research every aspect of it or you don't. Sitting on your tail and waiting for others to bring you information just so you can rationalize it and/or poke fun at it doesn't count as investigation. I can bring you articles that show officials had prior knowledge of 9/11, or show video of people claiming they heard bombs go off in the towers, or show video that fema was in the wtc the night before the event, or show Silversteins interview, and his timely insurance deal, or show that NORAD was running drills that parallel 9/11 style events, or point out that former president Bush was meeting with bin Ladens brother on the morning of 9/11, or that the bin Laden family was allowed to exit the U.S. even when others were not allowed to fly, or I could attemp to disprove the notion that U.S. officials would never attack U.S. citizens for political gain by showing the Northwoods Joint Chiefs of Staff documents, and alot more, but at the end of the day, its all rationalized, our elected officials are still credible, because everything can be explained by mere coincidence. I can't force you to think. So again, if you really care, you'll go out and look at every piece of material surrounding the event that you can get your hands on, and if you don't, you'll find some way to stick your head in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hc, the towers fell down the way they di because of the way they were built. there was a weight bearing core and weight bearing sides with concrete floors basically sitting on plates sticking out from the support structure. the weight of the floors pulled the walls inward slightly (it was designed to do this to make it slightly more stable under SOC). it also has the nifty ability to make it likely for it to fall straight down unless something really really big hits it (bigger than a jet).

 

and back to WTC7 we go. the building had a chunktaken out of the bottom corner from the 18th floor down. there was a fire. all the remaining load bearing structure was under unusual stresses. het weakens fire, one truss lets go, the rest follow, big pile of rubble, end of story.

 

yeah i've heard the audio. i know he said 'it' and i already said that its used to mean 'get the hell out of there' trust me on this one. or i can go into how the phrase came about if your not easily offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If building 7 had a chunk out of its side, it would have collapsed sideways.

 

Edit: I can see you have your own opinion on the collapse of these towers, but I'm also curious where you stand with respect to the other issue brought up, such as, pentagon officials having prior knowledge, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if it was a typical building design, with steel columns spaced every x feet. A chunk out of its side would be only a minor imbalance, but it would be a lot of structural load on the remaining inside columns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if it was a typical building design, with steel columns spaced every x feet. A chunk out of its side would be only a minor imbalance, but it would be a lot of structural load on the remaining inside columns.

 

If it was only a minor imbalance, it would also be regarded as minor damage. And if only slightly imbalanced, then it should have held its own as other steel structure tend to do. Plus, many people have said it was the fire alone that did the damge. Insane was the first to bring up the idea of a chunk of the building missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did we go from the Pentagon conspiracy to the tower conspiracy? Oh my FSM, what have I done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pangloss, again, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm not like others who think they know the whole story. Something like this needs to be discussed in great detail, because the people .....

 

Discussed, yes. Rejected out of hand based on presumption and false information, no. Implying vast conspiracies as reasonable explanations without a shred of evidence, no.

 

You can legitimize your input here very easily. Stop utilizing and promulgating crackpot theories and analysis as if they makes sense. I've never met a single member of this forum who had a problem with people who ask questions. :)

 

Believe me, your problem isn't that you're talking and discussing, it's that you're not listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discussed, yes. Rejected out of hand based on presumption and false information, no. Implying vast conspiracies as reasonable explanations without a shred of evidence, no.

 

You can legitimize your input here very easily. Stop utilizing and promulgating crackpot theories and analysis as if they makes sense. I've never met a single member of this forum who had a problem with people who ask questions. :)

 

Believe me, your problem isn't that you're talking and discussing, it's that you're not listening.

 

I back up my assumptions with articles and other forms of media. You back up your assumptions with rationalizations, and the fact that most people here think like you do. But that is not evidence. I talk and discuss, and I even listen, but all you do is talk. If you listened, you would be able to discuss the issues at hand. Posting a smiley face at the end of your statement wont confirm your assumptions, it just makes you look smug. If you attack the issues in detail, rather than trying to attack my character, we may actually get somewhere. Your problem is that your posts lack thought and documentation. They have too much to do with me, and not enough to do with the issues at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.