madscoob

iTrader: (3)

there are way to many things wrong with the whole thing for my liking.
building 7 fell at freefall speed imposable without specialist explosions
the steel girders melt at around 2000c aviation jet fuel burns at a max of 1500c so how did they melt without assistance from thermite
millions of dollars worth of gold where moved before and during the event, and firemen where told to stay out of the connecting tunnells where lot's of lorries where seen
if and it's a big if a 747 hit the pentagon, a 747 engine is mostly titainium and weighs about 7tonnes, there would of been 2 massive holes as 7tonnes of titainium hit it at 500mph, look at the pics there is only 1 hole
look up history every time a massive war has taken place, the yanks have needed a excuse to get involved, ww1 was the lucitainia ww2 was pearl harbor

Maz

iTrader: (34)

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-...en-since-1776/

Geezer

This is like you heard about 9/11 from a game of Chinese whispers!

How exactly do you expect it to fall? It won't fall faster. It can't, unless you propel it. As for slower, there is no evidence it did, but it's ridiculous anyway, if it falls at the expected acceleration for the gravity it is experiencing, you say it's suspicious, but it's totally what we expect. It can't fall faster, the only way it can go is slower because it is held up by the floors below it, but you haven't offered anything to support your assertion that if fell in an unexpected way, or indeed the actual velocity it did fall at, or what you think it should.

I don't wish to repeat what has been said several times in this thread, you can read it for yourself, or Google it, but it doesn't have to get anywhere near that temperature to fail structurally. As a simple experiment, get a large bar of chocolate out of the fridge, suspend it between two points and put a heavy weight on it.The heat it up so that it hasn't melted, but softened, see how long it holds up that weight......
This is simply untrue. About $230million of golf bullion was recovered from bomb proof vaults beneath the towers in October 2001, there was nothing suspicious about it, there are even pics of some fireman in the vaults.
For a start, it wasn't a 747. No 747s were used during the attacks. There is one engine per wing. Ironically, CTs complain about a lack of plane shaped hole at the Pentagon, and bemoan the plane shaped hold in the WTC! It highlights perfectly the idiocy and misunderstanding of what actually happened by them.
Straw man argument. You cite examples of things that have no relation to this incident, citing it as evidence that this was the same.

No one disputes that things have been manufactured to enter wars (though the two example you have chosen could not have been worse examples!) but that does not mean that every event is such a thing.

But, even if they are examples, it doesn't change the fact of 'how' or 'what', only 'who'.

Martin2005

This is all absolutely premium nonsense (even by the standards this thread)!

Does steel need to be molten before it becomes structurally unstable?

When did the planes change into 747s?

And for the record, you seriously need to look at the history books.

Only a cursory knowledge of history would be needed to know that the US didn't enter WW1 because of the Lusitania. The ship (which was BRITISH BTW) was sunk in May 1915. The US were so outraged by this that they decided to enter the war 2YEARS later!

Are you also saying that the US attacked their own naval base in 1941?

BTW doesn't any country need an 'excuse' (or reason) to go to war?

Like so many 'rationales'; never let the facts get in the way...

hodgy0_2

Planes consist mostly of air (i.e they are not very dense objects) obvious really as they need to be very light (relative to its size)

Obvious because otherwise a plane would struggle to take off

It is very strong, but only in certain directions and in specific places I.e the wings, as they have to cope with enormouse "lift" forces (not forward / backward forces - obvious really, coz it is "lift" that allows them to fly)

They are not built to withstand head on collisions (obvious really as there is no need and they need to be light - so they can fly)

The most dense/solid parts of a plane is the engine and under carriage - and these were exactly the parts found in the pentagon - obvious really

gary77

iTrader: (1)

To clarify , there is evidence of molten steel , he didn't suggest there had to be . And the thing about the speed the buildings fell at,it has been reported they fell at free fall speed , that is the speed something falls at with no resistance , it is considered suspicious that the supporting structure gave zero resistance to the collapse suggesting they were taken out theequation by explosives

The explanation of a planes sstrength raises the question of how it managed to break through steel at the wtc.

is there any good pictures of the engines and other plane parts at the Pentagon , and should we ignore the report from a news broadcaster saying there was no large parts ,

Also how do you explain the complete disintigration of the plane at shanksville , reported at the time as there being nothing there but a hole in the ground ,

hodgy0_2

Yes we should, because like the rest of your "sources" it is simply faked boll0x by a youtube conspiritard

Geezer

Is there? I haven't seen any evidence. I have seen film of something coming out of the towers. That is evidence of something coming out of the towers, not evidence of molten steel.

This is just plain wrong. Go and look at a video of the collapse. You can clearly see stuff falling faster than the main body of the towers. They are in free fall, but the towers themselves are not.

Which steel? The perimeter columns or the internals? There's no doubt plane could penetrate the perimeter columns, their load bearing qualities do not include withstanding nearly a hundred tons of plane hitting it sideways on.

They did have vertical load however, which was compromised due to the impact, which added load to the internal structure, and once the fires had softened it enough contributed to the collapse.

Yes, there are. I don't recall any reporters being allowed in to the Pentagon, where the engine parts were. Maybe you expect the parts to have rebounded back on to the lawn?

Because the report, like many on the day, was wrong, like them reporting it was a bomb, or it was a 747. The wreckage of the plain, plus the remains of its occupants, were found in a fairly small area around the crater.

stipete75

Yeah it's pretty evident it's tomato soup spilling it's guts from the towers lol.
Not molten steel?? Are you mad,blind and stupid

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Hint. What metal were the planes themselves made from?

stipete75

A metal strong enough to dissect and smash steel columns with dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches?
Were the planes made from Graphene?

Hint.....Molten ally when poured is silver!

FlatoutDave

For years and years leaders of countries have claimed they were attacked so that they then have the right to retaliate. Hitler did it with Poland at the start of World War 2 and it been done since time began. Its like a child justifying why he hit his younger brother" cuz he hit me first" and it wouldn`t surprise me if this was the case here.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

(that's a bit to selective on what you choose to believe )

My response ids in brackets in the quoted section , not sure how else to do it

gary77

iTrader: (1)

http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

A link to clarify what the freefall debate is about . And to show that it's not just simply "wrong"

hodgy0_2

Ok, so lets just look at your pentagon reporter claim, "that no plane hit the pentagon" and source

Here is the source you produced


Great, but it is faked,

How do we know this, well we go back to the actual source, that's how

When we do that we find that the you-tuber conspiritard (that YOU quote, that YOU use as YOUR source) is simply lying and falsifying bollo0x

What the youtuber conspiritard fails to point out was that the reporters assertion that their was "no evidence of a plane near the pentagon" was a direct answer to a question from the news anchor in the studio

She asks him "an eyewitness (those pesky eyewitnesses again) says they saw a PLANE hit short of the pentagon", to which the reporter replies - yes you guessed it "no evidence of a plane near the pentagon" i.e. "short" and goes onto explain that the is plenty of evidence of a plane "inside" the pentagon"

But don't take my word for it - check the actual recording, not your FAKE youtube conspiritard one (20 secs in it is doctored) and cross corroborate the actual CNN transcripts

Here they are

http://www.911myths.com/McIntyre.mp3

And the transcript here

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.35.html

For lazy idiots out there here is the relevant text

"WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse."

This is not what YOUR faked video shows, it has been doctored 20 seconds in, it does not follow the actual text of what was said

So, can you explain why please

hodgy0_2

And obviously they don't play this part of the audio/video

Outside the Pentagon, CNN's military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre.

And, Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane. "

The source is the official CNN transcript post earlier btw

Why is that, can you tell me please

Geezer

No, there are eyewitness reports of something they presumed to be molten steel coming out. They were not able to analyze that material, either directly or with optical spectrometry, so it's pure supposition that it was molten steel. There are other plausilble explanations for what it was, and they are consistent with what happened, unlike molten steel. SO no, there is no evidence of molten steel coming out of the towers.



Please do, I like a bit of fiction.


Of course, how stupid of us. A plan hitting tubular steel frame sectioned towers will behave exactly the same as as plan hitting steel reinforced concrete several feet thick. It's obvious they will behave the same.....

The account of events you mean? The one that agrees with the actual science of how things work, not the made up stuff of conspiracy theory, right?



Reverting to name calling doesn't make you any less wrong.
But, in the interests of transparency why don't you look at
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
or
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
or
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pent...tos/index.html
or
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
or if you don't like those site because you will decry them not having good enough credentials, why not try an impartial one?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

I eagerly await your expert analysis on what those pictures show.

And you were calling me names?

Geezer

Correct, if you melt aluminium on its own. However, the aluminium from the plane was mixed with burning paper, wood, textiles, etc etc.

Molten steel turns black in air as it cools, whatever fell out of the towers turned gray as it cooled. Now what could that be?

Geezer

Yet another example of misrepresenting what NIST said and what actually happened.

There are three stages to the collapse, one of the stages appears to be in freefall, but the overall collapse took 40% longer than it should have done if if had been in freefall.

So, 5.4 seconds it took WTC7 to collapse, but it should have taken 3.9 seconds according to the CTs. Care to explain that anomaly? Was there some strange gravity in place that day that meant freefall was slower than everywhere else on Earth? I'm surprised that one hasn't been tried, to be honest!

hodgy0_2

i think the problem is they simply “feel” there must be something wrong, the official story does not “feel” right

Something “feels” wrong – and a self validatory "I am not alone in that feeling"

they probably also

• feel that a heavy object should fall faster than a lighter ones
• feel that a heavy object is harder to push because it is heavier
• feel that the two cars in a head on collision at 50mph would cause the more damage as one car hitting a wall at 50mph

all common misunderstandings by people who don’t understand the science/problem and simply get there information from other people who don’t understand the science/problem either – and it is the refusal to accept the evidence that disproves their “feelings” that I call anti-knowledge

interestingly pretty much all conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers and creationist all rely on the above “anti-knowledge” – not surprisingly they are often one and the same

it has been dealt with quite well in this video

Scientist versus the feelies


Just watch the face of the attractive young women in the US congressional hearing when the congressman get his bible out – to give us his considered “feeling” about climate change - classic

gary77

iTrader: (1)

A lot of things for me to try and give a reply to , I will try to get around to it at some point ,

Thanks for the links etc , i'll have a look when I get the time

And yes if someone behaves like a dick I will say , you are being a dick

Geezer

So correcting someone is acting like a dick? Now I know why you believe this stuff.

hodgy0_2

and can you have a look at your faked youtube video that you presented as evidence

and explain to me what the motives of the youtuber are

stipete75

The official investigation failed to investigate the "molten substance" dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet.
A bright yellow orange and white glow of the liquid is consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone, and the white smoke does supports the conclusion.
The official investigation must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron.
The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis is that the temperature of the white glow must be above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metals involved because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow is beyond the capability of any building fire.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

The official investigation might have done, but other far more plausible explanations than thermite have since been proposed:
http://www.livescience.com/16179-twi...spiracies.html

Any comment on that, or would you prefer to stick to your plotting and conspiring?

Geezer

Oh come on, stop putting science in the way of the conspiracy theorists!!!!!!

stipete75

I too can pluck an independant experts analysis on 911 from the web
https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/

stipete75

US Alliance Governments and the Mainstream Media resolutely ignore the horrendous loss of life associated with 2 decades of Bush/blair Wars (9-12 million), FACT not conspiracy!!
Just as they resolutely ignore crucial independent experts scientific evidence that can tie the US governments involvement in the 9-11 atrocities, it's independent expert evidence from scholars that contradicts the official story not conspiracy nonsense!!

Geezer

Except that site is 'US did 9-11'. This is the problem (like religion). You have already come up your conclusion, you look for evidence to fit. However, when you look at the evidence impartially..............

Maz

iTrader: (34)