World War III, anyone?

[Tysonboss1]

Besides any of this weakened steel does not and can not lead to a controlled demoltion style collapse of the entire building.

Yes it can,

I am Trained in demolitions and what you see it the footage of the twin towers going down is exactly as I would expect a building like that to collapse,

Are you trying to say that some body took the time to place explosives on the building then flew a plane into it,... let it burn for a while then detonate the explosives,.. thats complete fantasy.

firstly the explostion from the plane would have either set the explosives off,... set the explosives on fire or most likely ripped apart all the det cord and disabled all the charges,....

secondly if the explosiveshad not been damaged in the impact of the plane they would surely have burned away in the fire afterwards,..

thirdly,.. when the building starts to collapse there is no flash from the explosives or even the distitive " crack thump" of a high explosive charge going off.



What you can see on the collapse though is the building start to fail and as the top collaspes it shock loads the floor benith causeing it to fail which then shock loads the next floor and makes that floor benith it fail so on and so on till the whole building is gone.

 

[spooly74]

we agree.

in the gaping wound of the pentagon, there were books, wooden chairs, tables, computors etc, all of which were not even singed. considering that the 'plane' was supposed to be full of fuel and the exact same planes supposedly burned hot enough to bring down the twin towers, it is unbelieveable that even open books at the opening of the hole in the pentagon were not even singed!!!!

also, all that fuel supposedly left no contaminants in the soil or the building. which is impossible of course.

the hole in the pentagon is not consistent with a plane hitting it. DYOR.

Where did the plane go then? and what happened to all the people?

If a plane didn't hit then they had to get rid of a plane anyway so why risk a swap

 

[metric]

Where did the plane go then? and what happened to all the people?

If a plane didn't hit then they had to get rid of a plane anyway so why risk a swap

THAT, is a very good question. one that i cant answer, and i havent seen answered. there is video, photos, personal accounts, etc, of the 'attacks',

however, there is nothing to go on, on what could have happened to those people. all we can look at is the available evidence. that evidence shows a plane did not hit the pentagon.

 

[disarray]

this kind of talk generally makes you out to be a nutter so i avoid it, but i do find it hard to believe that out of all the cameras and security and whatever at the pentagon there is only a single blurry frame of footage from the entire attack.

just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

 

[metric]

this kind of talk generally makes you out to be a nutter so i avoid it, but i do find it hard to believe that out of all the cameras and security and whatever at the pentagon there is only a single blurry frame of footage from the entire attack.

just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

if all the other nutters would finally speak up, we wouldnt be the nutters anymore! the nutters would be the believers of the official conspiracy.

whom is the nutter now? galileo or the inquisition?

 

[gfresh]

Maybe there is further footage, but it's of people burning to death.. or areas that are highly classified (for the Pentagon.. never!). Neither of which would probably be ever released to the public.

For most "why didn't they" I've come across, there is usually a logical answer.

Fact is there is only 3 incidences in history where high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire.

hmm.. how many times have fully fuelled jet planes crashed into highrise buildings?

 

[spooly74]

F4 Phantom Vs. Wall

Not a lot left .... or maybe it was made of wood

 

[Tysonboss1]

THAT, is a very good question. one that i cant answer, and i havent seen answered. there is video, photos, personal accounts, etc, of the 'attacks',

however, there is nothing to go on, on what could have happened to those people. all we can look at is the available evidence. that evidence shows a plane did not hit the pentagon.

so what did hit the pentagon,

 

[Superfly]

Must say the Pentagon is a strange one, but I did see footage of a jet fighter launched into a thick concrete wall... the result... nothing left... all gone... and that jet that "may" have hit one of the most secure / reinforced buildings in the world would have been travelling at such a high velocity, not much would be expected to be left intact...

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Mate watch the video it will surprise you

its called "911 Mysteries Demolition" you can downoad it through azereus for free prob get it on you tube but its a full length show.

There is heaps of video evidence showing exactly what you are talking about.
Crackling sounds from the lower levels moments before the "collapse" And if you were in demolition you should know that weakening 5-10 stories of steels structure does not make the entire 100 other floors unstable. Besides there was only about 20 stories above the impact zone its not like the explosion happened in the bottom levels with 100 stories of weight above it. The steel was heated to about half its melting point right so it still had quite alot of structural strength.

Remember the buildings survived a massive bomb comparable in size in the basement right next to the main support coumns.

Can you provide me any other real life cases where such a thing has happened ? There are dozens of cases where building burned longer and hotter and have never collapsed. I'm not saying the planes weren't real planes but i believe a plane did not hit the pentagon.

Also there are dozens of firefighters radio recordings where they state that there are seperate bomb like explosions in levels well well below the level of impact.

If you are in demolition is there ever been a case of an uncontrolled collapse where the building fell so neatly ! it didn't even lean! straight down as if all structural points failed at the same time. There are too many eye witness reports that simply throw a spanner in the story.

How about building 7 it collapsed as well but didn't get hit by a plane and it to looked very much like a controlled demolition.

Another interesting couple of facts
1. At the time most of the fighter jets based for defence and fast reaction were moved 2000 km away to take part of a war games. leaving one jet to protect the entire eastern seaboard.
2. In the early 2000's there was studies put together by the pentagon and FBI which centred around a mock attack of a planes been flown into the world trade centre. There is even FBI documents with front covers showing the WTC in cross hairs.
3. The WTC stored more gold than FORT KNOX to date not all of it has been accounted for.
4. The WTC held records for the FBI etc with thousands relating to current investigations about corporate people and companies that were under investigation. They have all been destroyed !

 

[metric]

so what did hit the pentagon,

as all the footage from the 20 odd videos that would have captured the 'plane crash' have dissapeared, and any 'unnoficial' investigation is illegal, what hit the pentagon is merely conjecture. from what video evidence there is, proves a 757 (?) didnt hit it. it is suggested by alex jones at prisonplanet.com that a missile did the damage. i suppose thats the only conclusion one can make.

 

[wayneL]

hmm.. how many times have fully fuelled jet planes crashed into highrise buildings?

How many jet fuelled planes crashed into building 7?

 

[wayneL]

Just a note with my Mod's hat on.

Please refrain from calling each other nutters, deluded, tin foil hatters or whatever. Let's just stick to the facts as we know them.

Thanks Guys.

 

[Nyden]

so what did hit the pentagon,

Perhaps they shot the plane down, & debris hit it :

I do tend to think it's all a little nonsensical; all this conspiracy talk that is!
The planes hit an area of the building where the immense heat generated (from the huge explosion,) simply melted supports; the weight of the top falling through the already softened / damaged bottom probably pushed the rest into the ground!

The government would never, never do something so stupid as to coordinate these attacks on itself. The repercussions / risks of getting caught would simply be far too dire (revolution!). Corporations / "big shots" simply couldn't do it without a trail as well, & once again - the repercussions ...

Heck, Osama probably recruited a few folks with engineering / architectural backgrounds to analyse the best spot to hit ... after all, most blue prints were probably readily available through the right channels?


... They never landed on the moon either, was just a film set! If someone devotes enough time, & energy into something; anyone can find a way to discredit just about anything. I'm sure a big enough conspirator could "prove" that Howard was in fact Bush in disguise ...

 

[Stan 101]

Thats balony mate a few years before the entire structure had been redone covering all the surfaces with fire redardant material 2-4 inches thick that stuff is designed to last for a couple hours and it is certainly not a type of plaster board it is a material that is sprayed on.

Can you please state your source for this information.

I only started to doubt the story recently but everything i looked into regarding it just kept making the story look more and more unlikely.

Basic engineering gives you all the knowledge you need to understand how the twin towers collapsed.
Steel in tension + heat = excessive buckling on compression members. The rest is history...

Do we really need to speak about the lateral loads added during the impact?

 

[wayneL]

Can you please state your source for this information.



Basic engineering gives you all the knowledge you need to understand how the twin towers collapsed.
Steel in tension + heat = excessive buckling on compression members. The rest is history...

Do we really need to speak about the lateral loads added during the impact?

Why do many engineers and physicists disagree with the official story then?

 

[Stan 101]

Can't answer that Wayne, you'll have to ask them hehe.

It would be good to have a "blind" Q&A with both doubting and for engineers and put to them scenarios not pertaining directly to 911 so the emotion was taken from it all.

First may be to provide suggested outcomes of various heat being applied to a PFC or similar in tension. Continue asking the question using higher temperatures each time until you have a 100% agreeance on member failure.
Second, repeat the above questions using steel in compression.

Calculation the range involved. I'm putting my neck out there and will assume there would be a huge variation in assumed failure temps. What will come through is that 100% of the engineers will agree that x amount of heat to steel members under load will catastrophically fail.


cheers,

 

[tigerboi]

This all i will say on this subject,people denying that planes did not fly into the towers have...MASSIVE problems...tb

 

[wayneL]

Can't answer that Wayne, you'll have to ask them hehe.

It would be good to have a "blind" Q&A with both doubting and for engineers and put to them scenarios not pertaining directly to 911 so the emotion was taken from it all.

First may be to provide suggested outcomes of various heat being applied to a PFC or similar in tension. Continue asking the question using higher temperatures each time until you have a 100% agreeance on member failure.
Second, repeat the above questions using steel in compression.

Calculation the range involved. I'm putting my neck out there and will assume there would be a huge variation in assumed failure temps. What will come through is that 100% of the engineers will agree that x amount of heat to steel members under load will catastrophically fail.


cheers,

I'm sure that most could agree with the possibility of some sort of collapse in the area affected. But member failure would surely be asymmetrical due to inconsistent levels of heat at different points of the building. Yet the collapse in all three cases has remarkable symmetry.

How so?

 

[prawn_86]

Basic engineering gives you all the knowledge you need to understand how the twin towers collapsed.
Steel in tension + heat = excessive buckling on compression members. The rest is history...

Do we really need to speak about the lateral loads added during the impact?

Im no engineer, but i have seen interviews with those who built/designed/planned the towers, and they stated they were designed to survive being hit by a passenger jet

Plus the way they collapsed is so suss...