YA 9/11 Thread, but this time with new stuff

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Still I wonder who owns/runs PM? Do they have any agenda of their own?

*chuckle*
The illuminati, owned by satan. They are deeply ingrained in all forms of media and only show you what they want you to think. Think for yourself! Find out the truth!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: AnandTech Moderator
TTT

A mod bump? Oh please.. this belongs in P&N, away from these 5 year olds. :roll:

You're calling us 5 year olds? :roll:

When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

Originally posted by: Journer
OMFG BUSH IS A FREE MASON WE ALL DIE AHHHHHHHHHHHH

Hmm.. 3 year old.

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
In other news, check out this entry on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinfoil_hat

Meh.. 4 year old.

:roll:

Those comments are more than the topic deserves. It's hardly something anyone with an ounce of rationality would waste their time being serious about is it?

I notice a common theme behind those comments you've singled out is 'humour', something that is obviously unheard of in your beloved P&N

 

[JonTheBaller]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
lmao

"in fact, UL does not certify steel"

pwned.

lmao at the douchebag's response. "oh, okay"

 

[JonTheBaller]

I should add that watching those two loose change idiots talk was rather painful. The guys from popular mechanics were respectful and cordial throughout the entire interview.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

:roll:

Because they're arguments were well formed and logical that it deserved me writing a long response to debunk them. Give me a break BrokenVisage, these people are absolutely crazy with their flow of logic. They're method of debate is to slam PM and anyone else that doubts their views and call them liars and such. You have seen the posts in this thread that discredit them. They do not deserve my attention.

Would you be happier if I just went all serious and posed the post like this:

There argument about the pentagon is very easy to refute due to their own lack of consistency. They start out with their argument talking about how they have Vice President Cheney knowing a plane was approaching and not shooting it down. Next, they say a plane could not have crashed into the building because the hole was too small. Which, if I may point out, is a rather interesting argument considering that this is not a cartoon where perfect imprints are left when an object bursts through a wall. Pieces fly off and parts of buildings collapse so we should not expect a perfect imprint of the plane on the side of the building. After saying this...they somehow jump to the conclusion that it is a cruise missle with little fact to back that up. They are throwing our arguments that have little factual evidence behind them and screaming at the editors calling them liars for trying to investigate further. These people don't deserve the paragraph I just wrote.


There BrokenVisage, now you can be happy. You have a reponse that took way too long to write considering anyone with half a brain could also see these flaws.

Also, let me point out that in my short time I have spent in P&N, your arguments are for the most part similar to these loose change gentlemen. A immature screaming match that has little factual evidence to back any opinions up.

 

[gsellis]

I think it is all a plot to find contestants for a new reality TV show called "The Darwin Awards." They show you the video or in an interview, you say you believe it, on to the next round. What an easy way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

:roll:

Because they're arguments were well formed and logical that it deserved me writing a long response to debunk them. Give me a break BrokenVisage, these people are absolutely crazy with their flow of logic. They're method of debate is to slam PM and anyone else that doubts their views and call them liars and such. You have seen the posts in this thread that discredit them. They do not deserve my attention.

Would you be happier if I just went all serious and posed the post like this:

There argument about the pentagon is very easy to refute due to their own lack of consistency. They start out with their argument talking about how they have Vice President Cheney knowing a plane was approaching and not shooting it down. Next, they say a plane could not have crashed into the building because the hole was too small. Which, if I may point out, is a rather interesting argument considering that this is not a cartoon where perfect imprints are left when an object bursts through a wall. Pieces fly off, parts of buildings collapse, we should not expect a perfect imprint of the plane on the side of the building. After saying this...they somehow jump to the conclusion that it is a cruise missle with little fact to back that up. They are throwing our arguments that have little factual evidence behind them and screaming at the editors calling them liars for trying to investigate further. These people don't deserve the paragraph I just wrote.


There BrokenVisage, now you can be happy. You have a reponse that took way too long to write considering anyone with half a brain could also see these flaws.

I don't consider the LC guys to be all powerful and knowing. Just because PM decided to debate them but refuses to debate ANY of the 9/11 Scholars means ****** to me, I don't even like the LC guys let alone Dylan Avery. But yeah, I appreciate your half-assed serious explanation, I'll still get my feelings on 9/11 from people elsewhere and let you guys happily toss around wadded up tinfoil.

Oops, you edited your post, let me rebutt this real quick.

Also, let me point out that in my short time I have spent in P&N, your arguments are for the most part similar to these loose change gentlemen. A immature screaming match that has little factual evidence to back any opinions up.

Here are my posts from the last 3 months in P&N, one might consider 3 months a 'short time' too.

No search results were found

See, I care very little for P&N, I rarely even go in to read the threads and probably haven't made more then 10 posts total there in my life. So where do you see ME being immature and insulting in my posts when I'm just trying to make my opinions heard amid the neffing of most of ATOT with the above examples I've shown. Roll your eyes at me and ridicule me all you want, you'd be surprised how many people don't agree with the official version of 9/11, more then you'd want to know I'm sure.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

:roll:

Because they're arguments were well formed and logical that it deserved me writing a long response to debunk them. Give me a break BrokenVisage, these people are absolutely crazy with their flow of logic. They're method of debate is to slam PM and anyone else that doubts their views and call them liars and such. You have seen the posts in this thread that discredit them. They do not deserve my attention.

Would you be happier if I just went all serious and posed the post like this:

There argument about the pentagon is very easy to refute due to their own lack of consistency. They start out with their argument talking about how they have Vice President Cheney knowing a plane was approaching and not shooting it down. Next, they say a plane could not have crashed into the building because the hole was too small. Which, if I may point out, is a rather interesting argument considering that this is not a cartoon where perfect imprints are left when an object bursts through a wall. Pieces fly off, parts of buildings collapse, we should not expect a perfect imprint of the plane on the side of the building. After saying this...they somehow jump to the conclusion that it is a cruise missle with little fact to back that up. They are throwing our arguments that have little factual evidence behind them and screaming at the editors calling them liars for trying to investigate further. These people don't deserve the paragraph I just wrote.


There BrokenVisage, now you can be happy. You have a reponse that took way too long to write considering anyone with half a brain could also see these flaws.

I don't consider the LC guys to be all powerful and knowing. Just because PM decided to debate them but refuses to debate ANY of the 9/11 Scholars means ****** to me, I don't even like the LC guys let alone Dylan Avery. But yeah, I appreciate your half-assed serious explanation, I'll still get my feelings on 9/11 from people elsewhere and let you guys happily toss around wadded up tinfoil.

and another for bypassing the language filter. You represent P&N well.

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: dug777

I notice a common theme behind those comments you've singled out is 'humour', something that is obviously unheard of in your beloved P&N

Oh, I dunno, I found this pretty darn funny:

Text

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Like Rainsford said, most rapes are committed by people the victim knows, and most people that illegal immigrants know are not "10 year olds, teens, college aged and old grannies"

What is this gibberish?

Illegal immigrants don't know anybody because they're here wandering around illegally and the 2% seriel rapists among them can't control their violent devient sexual impulses around our females. We need some more sheepdogs do guard our flocks of lambs until the 750,000 strong pack of Mexi-wolves can be dispatched properly. It's an enemy invasion that should be dealt with by the Military in my opinion. Our local good cops are overwhelmed by a foriegn occupation.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

:roll:

Because they're arguments were well formed and logical that it deserved me writing a long response to debunk them. Give me a break BrokenVisage, these people are absolutely crazy with their flow of logic. They're method of debate is to slam PM and anyone else that doubts their views and call them liars and such. You have seen the posts in this thread that discredit them. They do not deserve my attention.

Would you be happier if I just went all serious and posed the post like this:

There argument about the pentagon is very easy to refute due to their own lack of consistency. They start out with their argument talking about how they have Vice President Cheney knowing a plane was approaching and not shooting it down. Next, they say a plane could not have crashed into the building because the hole was too small. Which, if I may point out, is a rather interesting argument considering that this is not a cartoon where perfect imprints are left when an object bursts through a wall. Pieces fly off, parts of buildings collapse, we should not expect a perfect imprint of the plane on the side of the building. After saying this...they somehow jump to the conclusion that it is a cruise missle with little fact to back that up. They are throwing our arguments that have little factual evidence behind them and screaming at the editors calling them liars for trying to investigate further. These people don't deserve the paragraph I just wrote.


There BrokenVisage, now you can be happy. You have a reponse that took way too long to write considering anyone with half a brain could also see these flaws.

I don't consider the LC guys to be all powerful and knowing. Just because PM decided to debate them but refuses to debate ANY of the 9/11 Scholars means ****** to me, I don't even like the LC guys let alone Dylan Avery. But yeah, I appreciate your half-assed serious explanation, I'll still get my feelings on 9/11 from people elsewhere and let you guys happily toss around wadded up tinfoil.

Arrogant jackass :laugh:

You toddle back to P&N where you can have 'mature' discussions about idiocy like this particular 'conspiracy' in peace and a rarefied intellectual atmosphere

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
and another for bypassing the language filter. You represent P&N well.

ROFL, dude I've been an ATOT'er all my life, stop making a fool out of yourself. I see you're more interested in the language filter then my thoughts though, silly me for taking you seriously.

 

[sadguy]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

:roll:

Because they're arguments were well formed and logical that it deserved me writing a long response to debunk them. Give me a break BrokenVisage, these people are absolutely crazy with their flow of logic. They're method of debate is to slam PM and anyone else that doubts their views and call them liars and such. You have seen the posts in this thread that discredit them. They do not deserve my attention.

Would you be happier if I just went all serious and posed the post like this:

There argument about the pentagon is very easy to refute due to their own lack of consistency. They start out with their argument talking about how they have Vice President Cheney knowing a plane was approaching and not shooting it down. Next, they say a plane could not have crashed into the building because the hole was too small. Which, if I may point out, is a rather interesting argument considering that this is not a cartoon where perfect imprints are left when an object bursts through a wall. Pieces fly off, parts of buildings collapse, we should not expect a perfect imprint of the plane on the side of the building. After saying this...they somehow jump to the conclusion that it is a cruise missle with little fact to back that up. They are throwing our arguments that have little factual evidence behind them and screaming at the editors calling them liars for trying to investigate further. These people don't deserve the paragraph I just wrote.


There BrokenVisage, now you can be happy. You have a reponse that took way too long to write considering anyone with half a brain could also see these flaws.

I don't consider the LC guys to be all powerful and knowing. Just because PM decided to debate them but refuses to debate ANY of the 9/11 Scholars means ****** to me, I don't even like the LC guys let alone Dylan Avery. But yeah, I appreciate your half-assed serious explanation, I'll still get my feelings on 9/11 from people elsewhere and let you guys happily toss around wadded up tinfoil.

When Popular Mechanics debated someone smarter than the Loose Change noobs.... they got absolutely schooled! That's why they don't dare debate anyone from Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Listen as Charles Goyette (who doesn't believe in a conspiracy) burns Popular Mechanics on his Arizona radio show.
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=158

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
and another for bypassing the language filter. You represent P&N well.

ROFL, dude I've been an ATOT'er all my life, stop making a fool out of yourself.

I know you have, but you certainly work up today unwilling to take any humor whatsoever.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
and another for bypassing the language filter. You represent P&N well.

ROFL, dude I've been an ATOT'er all my life, stop making a fool out of yourself.

I know you have, but you certainly work up today unwilling to take any humor whatsoever.

Like I said, I think 9/11 should be taken seriously, in any other thread about any other subject I'll joke and nef like it's nothing. It's just kinda hard for me take any humor on this subject when I don't find it funny, I'll laugh my ass off at most anything BUT 9/11. You'll find I'm not like those LC guys, I don't believe in the bombs, the missiles, the bunkers, etc.. I'm still fuming that the government let this happen and has remained secretive about it, and that's why I can't stand not taking any aspect of it seriously, because we still really don't know that much about what happened.

I know my views about foreknowledge arn't very popular here, but I think enough was known beforehand to prevent this, and the fact that it wasn't prevented in the face of such evidence has made me feel uneasy since the beginning. I'll be the first to tell you that most of the theories are too crazy to be real, but some less complex theories don't seem farfetched to me and those are the ones I think are getting dismissed off the bat because of things like LC and the other crazy theories.

 

[jpeyton]

A 150' plane flew completely vertical, straight down into the ground, and disappeared inside a 20'x10' crater, leaving no remnants of the nose, fuselage, wings, engines, or tail. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel (enough to spread across floors of the WTCs, burn hot enough to melt their steel structure) went up in a flash, leaving behind some smoldering dirt piles but leaving the adjacent grass fields intact.

We need demolitions experts with exact science to bring down skyscrapers, yet two amateur pilots using the not-so-exact science of flying airliners into buildings brought down not only one, but both World Trade Centers in the exact same way...a nearly perfect free-fall typical of demolitions implosion. That's some l33t terrorist skillz.

Please note that my comments above are just my observations of mere coincedences on 9/11, and in no way imply that I believe in any of those kooky conspiracy theories. God bless America. United we stand. And all that jazz.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: sadguy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

:roll:

Because they're arguments were well formed and logical that it deserved me writing a long response to debunk them. Give me a break BrokenVisage, these people are absolutely crazy with their flow of logic. They're method of debate is to slam PM and anyone else that doubts their views and call them liars and such. You have seen the posts in this thread that discredit them. They do not deserve my attention.

Would you be happier if I just went all serious and posed the post like this:

There argument about the pentagon is very easy to refute due to their own lack of consistency. They start out with their argument talking about how they have Vice President Cheney knowing a plane was approaching and not shooting it down. Next, they say a plane could not have crashed into the building because the hole was too small. Which, if I may point out, is a rather interesting argument considering that this is not a cartoon where perfect imprints are left when an object bursts through a wall. Pieces fly off, parts of buildings collapse, we should not expect a perfect imprint of the plane on the side of the building. After saying this...they somehow jump to the conclusion that it is a cruise missle with little fact to back that up. They are throwing our arguments that have little factual evidence behind them and screaming at the editors calling them liars for trying to investigate further. These people don't deserve the paragraph I just wrote.


There BrokenVisage, now you can be happy. You have a reponse that took way too long to write considering anyone with half a brain could also see these flaws.

I don't consider the LC guys to be all powerful and knowing. Just because PM decided to debate them but refuses to debate ANY of the 9/11 Scholars means ****** to me, I don't even like the LC guys let alone Dylan Avery. But yeah, I appreciate your half-assed serious explanation, I'll still get my feelings on 9/11 from people elsewhere and let you guys happily toss around wadded up tinfoil.

When Popular Mechanics debated someone smarter than the Loose Change noobs.... they got absolutely schooled! That's why they don't dare debate anyone from Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Listen as Charles Goyette (who doesn't believe in a conspiracy) burns Popular Mechanics on his Arizona radio show.
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=158

Wow, PM got pwned harder than that guy who made a thread about the new iPod Shuffle.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Here's an interesting background on the idiots who made the Loose Change video: Text

Worth the read.

wow, i had no idea those guys were backed by neo nazis :Q

i thought they were just random college kids with angst against everyone

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A 150' plane flew completely vertical, straight down into the ground, and disappeared inside a 20'x10' crater, leaving no remnants of the nose, fuselage, wings, engines, or tail. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel (enough to spread across floors of the WTCs, burn hot enough to melt their steel structure) went up in a flash, leaving behind some smoldering dirt piles but leaving the adjacent grass fields intact.

We need demolitions experts with exact science to bring down skyscrapers, yet two amateur pilots using the not-so-exact science of flying airliners into buildings brought down not only one, but both World Trade Centers in the exact same way...a nearly perfect free-fall typical of demolitions implosion. That's some l33t terrorist skillz.

Please note that my comments above are just my observations of mere coincedences on 9/11, and in no way imply that I believe in any of those kooky conspiracy theories. God bless America. United we stand. And all that jazz.

it wasn't free fall. that was thoroughly debunked in the last thread.

planned demolitions pretty much don't have ejecta out to the sides, like the collapse of the wtc did.

the south tower (which was hit in the corner) leaned and the top part fell to the side. that is clearly visible. and also something that doesn't happen with planned demolitions.

the north tower was hit pretty much square on. fuel was probably spread pretty evenly through the building, and so the support was probably weaked pretty evenly. in that event it should fall evenly, shouldn't it?

and what size hole in the ground do you expect a 20' aluminum can going 500 mph straight into the ground to make?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: sadguy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
When it comes to debating 9/11 alternate theories.. absolutely. P&N may be notorious for flaming and name calling, but at least the people there take this seriously and discuss things.

Examples:

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I love how they go from saying that they should have shot down the plane that cheney knew was coming then to the argument that a plane couldn't have crashed into the pentagon and therefore it MUST HAVE BEEN A CRUISE MISSLE!!!!one11!!OMGWTF

5 year old.

:roll:

Because they're arguments were well formed and logical that it deserved me writing a long response to debunk them. Give me a break BrokenVisage, these people are absolutely crazy with their flow of logic. They're method of debate is to slam PM and anyone else that doubts their views and call them liars and such. You have seen the posts in this thread that discredit them. They do not deserve my attention.

Would you be happier if I just went all serious and posed the post like this:

There argument about the pentagon is very easy to refute due to their own lack of consistency. They start out with their argument talking about how they have Vice President Cheney knowing a plane was approaching and not shooting it down. Next, they say a plane could not have crashed into the building because the hole was too small. Which, if I may point out, is a rather interesting argument considering that this is not a cartoon where perfect imprints are left when an object bursts through a wall. Pieces fly off, parts of buildings collapse, we should not expect a perfect imprint of the plane on the side of the building. After saying this...they somehow jump to the conclusion that it is a cruise missle with little fact to back that up. They are throwing our arguments that have little factual evidence behind them and screaming at the editors calling them liars for trying to investigate further. These people don't deserve the paragraph I just wrote.


There BrokenVisage, now you can be happy. You have a reponse that took way too long to write considering anyone with half a brain could also see these flaws.

I don't consider the LC guys to be all powerful and knowing. Just because PM decided to debate them but refuses to debate ANY of the 9/11 Scholars means ****** to me, I don't even like the LC guys let alone Dylan Avery. But yeah, I appreciate your half-assed serious explanation, I'll still get my feelings on 9/11 from people elsewhere and let you guys happily toss around wadded up tinfoil.

When Popular Mechanics debated someone smarter than the Loose Change noobs.... they got absolutely schooled! That's why they don't dare debate anyone from Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Listen as Charles Goyette (who doesn't believe in a conspiracy) burns Popular Mechanics on his Arizona radio show.
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=158

Wow, PM got pwned harder than that guy who made a thread about the new iPod Shuffle.

I fail to see how them calling him out on technicalities he wasnt prepared to answer is "pwning". The book destroys the conpiracy theories out there, so they found some other ****** that wasnt covered in the book to nit-pick on.

Like the "83 cameras", do you really think 83 fvcking cameras were watching that exact section of the pentagon?

 

[jpeyton]

Like the "83 cameras", do you really think 83 fvcking cameras were watching that exact section of the pentagon?

Based on the known flight path of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, it would have been captured clearly by several other cameras. You can go on DC's DOT web site and view the traffic cameras online in real time right now, and the cameras will offer a clear view not only of the Pentagon (where it was hit), but of the surrounding areas.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle

sure it was controlled demolition...and no one working there ever noticed them planting thousands of explosives and everyone who worked doing it has kept totally silent

I actually watched the 105 minute video that was put together about this. They don't just argue that it was controlled demos on just WTC#7, but all of them. I'll highlight a couple of the key points they make to support this arguement:

1) Video shows explosions that would match controlled demolitions as the buildings were collapsing. This also includes what appears to be thermite charges - incredibly powerful explosives that burn at 2500C, which would account for why the cleanup crews found molten metal under the WTC remains. This is further supported by eyewitness accounts of people in the lower WTC floors hearing explosion-like sounds.

2) Apparently, there were unprecedented power outages over the weekend of Sept 8-9 for 36 hours, as well as some mandatory evacuation drills in weeks prior.

3) The Empire State building was hit by a B-52 bomber. It did not collapse - only 14 people died and something like $100 million in damage was done as four floors burned.

4) Tied to #3, there has never been a case of a skyscraper collapsing due to fire in its upper stories. There was one building where the top 10 stories burned for over 20 hours and those floors collapsed, but the lower half was fine.

It really makes some very great points as to just WHY the WTC should not have collapsed and if it did, that it shouldn't have collapsed as neatly as it did. I don't know what to think after watching the videos (they're on Goog video).

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and what size hole in the ground do you expect a 20' aluminum can going 500 mph straight into the ground to make?

My bad. I forgot that aircraft engines are made to vaporize on impact. The wings probably folded back neatly parallel to the fuselage and were swallowed by the crater.

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: crownjules

3) The Empire State building was hit by a B-52 bomber. It did not collapse - only 14 people died and something like $100 million in damage was done as four floors burned.

Check the facts before you make yourself look stupid repeating them. It was a B-25 Mitchell Bomber. Wingspan of roughly 65ft, as compared to a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156ft. Less than half the size, not to mention the fuel.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90

Originally posted by: crownjules

3) The Empire State building was hit by a B-52 bomber. It did not collapse - only 14 people died and something like $100 million in damage was done as four floors burned.

Check the facts before you make yourself look stupid repeating them. It was a B-25 Mitchell Bomber. Wingspan of roughly 65ft, as compared to a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156ft. Less than half the size, not to mention the fuel.

Actually, I just mistyped that. You don't need to fly off the handle calling anyone stupid for a simple typo. The fact of the matter is that the Empire State Building still withstood an plane impact in it's 79th floor and it was built with technology 40 years behind that of the WTC.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and what size hole in the ground do you expect a 20' aluminum can going 500 mph straight into the ground to make?

My bad. I forgot that aircraft engines are made to vaporize on impact. The wings probably folded back neatly parallel to the fuselage and were swallowed by the crater.

Have you ever watched any high speed filming of high speed impacts? The stuff literally vaporizes.