Have you seen pics of the crash site of flight 93? Not much there either and it crashed in an open field. Sorry, but a plane hitting a fortified building and not leaving much that is recognizable as a plane is hardly unbelievable.
Have you seen pics of the crash site of flight 93? Not much there either and it crashed in an open field. Sorry, but a plane hitting a fortified building and not leaving much that is recognizable as a plane is hardly unbelievable.
spacejamz
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,970
- 1,679
- 126
maybe it is because the B-25 is propeller driven plane that was not fully loaded with jet fuel slamming into the building at 500 mph...the empire state building was not contructed with the same techniques as the WTC, so you are comparing apples to oranges.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en
incredibily disturning....
hell, all of it is incredibly disturbing.....
incredibily disturning....
hell, all of it is incredibly disturbing.....
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,387
- 19,675
- 146
B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit Empire State Building at approx 150 mph.
The 767s that hit the World Trade Center towers weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building.
Plus, the fire in the Empire State Building took only 40 minutes to extinguish.
What ever happened to people's ability to think critically?
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yup, wtc had its strength in its outer skeleton, what you saw on the outside basically supported its weight. this is not normal, but was done to allow for massive open floor plans inside without load bearing beams everywhere+very large tall windows. normal old skyscrapers like the empire state building are built with grids of metal beams, basically a building of iron cubes, a plane wouldn't do much damage to that since theres layer upon layer of virtical metal beams the plane would have to smash through before it did any severe damage, but its heavy. and well, the empire state ismuhc small in terms of size and height so its stresses are much less. its annoying how these conspiracy theorists rely on a tiny bit of selective truth to tell their lies. but i guess thats how it always is.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
But you are stupid because you believe this. The Empire State is a full core building. The WTC were hung on the outer shell. When the beams holding the floor deformed, they slide off the support. One floor failing takes all above with it. It pancakes into the below and the cascade is unstoppable. The facts are out there, but you refuse to see them.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
Part of the fires below the impact floors were downflowing JP. There would have been all sorts of little fires below.
Oh, and the hole in Penn? AirTran in the Everglades was a MD-80 series aircraft. Look for pics of the accident site. It was a little hole in the swamp.
WTC#7 NUFF SAID. When are all you elitist and globalist gonna wake up and stop this crazy crap? Do you like being so filled with anger and hate for everyone?
Again, a little fact finding reveals that there is no basis for a conspiracy.
25% of the face of WTC7 was sheared off during the collapse of the twin towers. The fires burned uncontrolled for 7 hours, fueled by giant tanks of diesel that power backup generators. Furthermore, WTC7 was a very unique design because it was built to surround the old structure of the edison station.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,387
- 19,675
- 146
No one said the steel was melted. The fire was hot enough to allow the steel to weaken and deform, thus causing the initial collapse.
This is the problem with the conspiracy theories: They are based mostly on false information, mistaken facts, and outright lies.
He was below the fire. Fire burns UP for the most part. Heat certainly rises. There were numerous fires. Palmer saw only what was on the lowest floors BELOW the impact zone.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,387
- 19,675
- 146
WTC7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of 1 and 2. It had a fire raging inside. The building showed serious sagging and cracking immediately after 1 and 2 fell. They created a hole in the building 20 stories tall. It was only a matter of time before it came down.
Nuf said? Hardly.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#Collapses
More than enough to debunk this ignorant BS.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
I hate conspiracy monkeys :|
Where did the ability to absorb and rationalise information then come to a logical conclusion go? Instead you have people looking for the most unlikely conclusion possible, then looking desperately for anything that almost looks like it could support it, and ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts their incredibly inane belief.
Where did the ability to absorb and rationalise information then come to a logical conclusion go? Instead you have people looking for the most unlikely conclusion possible, then looking desperately for anything that almost looks like it could support it, and ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts their incredibly inane belief.
Why Doubt 9/11?
Overview of New 9/11 Research
The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.
There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.
There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.
Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.
The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.
WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
email: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org (st911.org)
You official believers make me sick....
Overview of New 9/11 Research
The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.
There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.
There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.
Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.
The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.
WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
email: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org (st911.org)
You official believers make me sick....
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Nice copy & paste
You seriously believe the towers were actually demolished by somone, who managed to place the thousands of charges completely unnnoticed by any of the hundreds of thousands of people who used that building complex daily?
Out of interest, do you have ANY proof to back up ANYTHING you copy & pasted there? There's abundant evidence to support the 'official' (read, accepted by anyone capable of rational thought) story, the account you paste says some very fancy things with NOTHING to back up any of it. I know there's a link to the site, but it would be nice to see it all laid out neatly, claim by claim for us
Of course, since you're so convinced of the truth of the matter, you'll have no problem explaining and linking me to all this proof, and then explaining how the coverup was done, the payoffs were made, and above all, why the goverment (according to you & your fellow conspiracy chums) did this to your nation.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,387
- 19,675
- 146
Underwriter's Laboratories does NOT certify steel.
NO ONE said the steel melted. Only that it was weakened and deformed by the fire.
It wasn't one floor that brought down the buildings. In WTC2 it was 30+ floors that fell on the rest of the building. In WTC1 it was 12+ floors.
The free fall nonsense has been busted. Hell, watch the video to see the debris ejected to the sides hit the ground twice to three times as fast as the building collapses.
I could go on, but why? This guy is a fruitcake.
The guy with the alphabet soup behind his name that has obviously impressed you is a fraud. Guess what he is a professor of?
Philosophy.
Yep, that's right. And guess what? He's a conspiracy theory nutball who has been a JFK fanatic for years claiming the Zapruder film was "recreated" by the conspirators.
What makes me sick are people who cannot think critically.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
True dat, i've read some hilarious stuff on that 'asshats for 9/11 truth' site, and i've a question for those who claim the stuff being ejected out the windows as it falls is evidence of explosives; what do you think happens to the air in the floor as the level collapses? It mysteriously doesn't blast out of the windows?
You can get any old shill with a PHD to put his name to a paper, then call it 'expert truth'
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,387
- 19,675
- 146
Originally posted by: dug777
True dat, i've read some hilarious stuff on that 'asshats for 9/11 truth' site, and i've a question for those who claim the stuff being ejected out the windows as it falls is evidence of explosives; what do you think happens to the air in the floor as the level collapses? It mysteriously doesn't blast out of the windows?
You can get any old shill with a PHD to put his name to a paper, then call it 'expert truth'
The guy with the alphabet soup behind his name that has obviously impressed him is a fraud. Guess what he is a professor of?
Philosophy.
Yep, that's right. And guess what? He's a conspiracy theory nutball who has been a JFK fanatic for years claiming the Zapruder film was "recreated" by the conspirators.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: dug777
True dat, i've read some hilarious stuff on that 'asshats for 9/11 truth' site, and i've a question for those who claim the stuff being ejected out the windows as it falls is evidence of explosives; what do you think happens to the air in the floor as the level collapses? It mysteriously doesn't blast out of the windows?
You can get any old shill with a PHD to put his name to a paper, then call it 'expert truth'
The guy with the alphabet soup behind his name that has obviously impressed him is a fraud. Guess what he is a professor of?
Philosophy.
Yep, that's right. And guess what? He's a conspiracy theory nutball who has been a JFK fanatic for years claiming the Zapruder film was "recreated" by the conspirators.
:laugh:
I did not know that, thankyou Amused :beer:
:laugh:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter