Quote :

"What subsequent events? If the impact didn't cause the buildings to fall, then you agree with me."

Fire and structural failure. The impact itself did not cause the building to fall.

Quote :

"f the bottom supports were blown out, then the whole building would fall straight down just like it did. "

Read what I said. An explosion at the BOTTOM of the building woul dnot cause a TOP DOWN collapse. The buildings started colapsing from the top and cascaded downward. An explosion at the bottom would have caused a bottom up collapse, like a demolition.

Quote :

" The building started to fall in sequence, not just a little bit at a time. "

When things collapse, they tend to do so in a sequence.

Quote :

"Sequences indicating an organized set of explosions."

Are you trying to tell me they wired the whole building from top to bottom with explosives? And then set them off in a top down manner, without setting them off when the planes initialy hit?

Quote :

"Noone was close enough to the buildings when they fell to know if there was an explosion, all they knew was stuff fell"

Bullshit, there were people in and arround the buildings that survived that were there when they started to collapse.

Quote :

"There are "silent" explosions, such as heat explosives"

Heat explosives? You mean like infrared beams?

Quote :

"Not only were the buildings designed to withstand a jet airliner impact, they were designed to SURVIVE an attack from a plane very similar to a 767 (ie, similar fuel capacity)"

1) 980 gallons of fuel can make a big difference in a fire.

2) Since the original designs, construction codes have changed, including the removal of asbestos, which is key. As bad for your health as asbestos supposedly is, there is also almost no other material in the world that comes close to it's ability to stop heat. It is one of the best fire redardants.

3) You can design something all you want, but you will never know for certain what will happen untill it actualy happens. And just because you designed it doesn't mean it will work. See Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

Quote :

"t's not the size of the plane, it's the amount of fuel it holds that we're talking about. You guys are saying yourself that it wasn't the impact, it was the subsequent events that lead to the buildings fall. So don't talk about how big the plane was."

The size of the plane is still a factor. Remember, an object in motion has kenetic energy, when two objects collide, the total energy of the system is preserved. In otherwords the energy of the plane transfered into the building. This can happen multiple ways, but the most likely was the weakening of the internal structure.

1/8/2004 12:29:10 AM

exactly^

The building perhaps were designed to survive the impact, but since the towers were built, planes have changed, perhaps the fuel composition itself has changed. And also, its not like the designers had any kind of empirical data on large jet fuel fires to make assumptions about the stability under such conditions. ^is that the bridge that would make noise, and some kind of echo or vibration caused it to collapse? Anyway, it should be known that you cannot make a buliding impervius to damage, and I can think of no better way to cause great structural stress then a fire that burns hot enough to warp and melt steel.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/awtc.htm

If you cannot see how the top came down first from these pics that salsburysteak posted, then you have forgotten to take your haldol and need to get the fuck off tww.



[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 12:53 AM. Reason : lkl]

1/8/2004 12:49:37 AM

I dont believe any of that explosion bullshit, but I'm just trying to point out that it is totally possible and not out of the question. I even said when I wrote it that it was unlikely. You act like you have the whole thing figured out, and you have no clue what happened.

1/8/2004 12:55:46 AM

Of fucking course anything is possible. Its just been shown to be very very very unlikely and, you to be fucking stupid for saying shit that can be disproved by the actual footage from 911.

Thanks but I dont need people to tell me that anything is possible, becuase thats always a given. We simply make conclusion based on facts and our common sense.



[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 1:00 AM. Reason : jh]

1/8/2004 12:57:35 AM

Quote :

"but I'm just trying to point out that it is totally possible "

It's also possible that semptember 11 attacks were done by martians, as ordered by Bush, under the command of the black islamic quarter of the jewish sect of the roman catholic church which is recieving radio signals from the illuminati by a metal rod in the pope's dick.

it's just not as likely as the fires generated by larger planes after the design specs were changed, generatign the right ammounts of heat and structural failure to cause a collapse.

I don't have everything figured out, but I trust the opinions of professionals (the real spoken opinions, not the paraphrased ones) who research this and my own intuition as gained from my (admitedly limited, but still useful) knowledge of fire, explosions, structures and physics, before I trust the writings on some random conspiracy theory site.



[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 1:16 AM. Reason : because I can]

1/8/2004 1:13:22 AM

Quote :

"It's also possible that semptember 11 attacks were done by martians, as ordered by Bush, under the command of the black islamic quarter of the jewish sect of the roman catholic church which is recieving radio signals from the illuminati by a metal rod in the pope's dick."

Dude! I thought that's what Salisburyboy was saying happened?

[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 1:17 AM. Reason : Forgot, this is Sal's thread]

1/8/2004 1:16:49 AM

Its also possible that we are in the matrix and those things about 911 are glitches in the program. And now youve reached enlightenment so I think you should try that building jumping stuff; let me know how it goes.

Quote :

" "It's also possible that semptember 11 attacks were done by martians, as ordered by Bush, under the command of the black islamic quarter of the jewish sect of the roman catholic church which is recieving radio signals from the illuminati by a metal rod in the pope's dick ." "

Dude Im not sure about that last part.

[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 1:21 AM. Reason : fd]

1/8/2004 1:16:59 AM

How does one explain the collapse of the 'WTC 7' and 'WTC 6' buildings? Some buildings collapsed around the two towers that were located far from the towers. The towers fell straight down and did not fall onto the other buildings. Look at the following picture. How did the buildings collapse that are circled in red?




[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2004 12:25:50 PM

Those buildings couldn't have possibly fell just from the impact of the other buildings. also, the buildings directly around the WTCs were much older, not as strongly designed buildings.

1/8/2004 12:32:15 PM

Here is evidence of an explosion in the area of 'WTC 7'. Notice that the two towers are still standing....so this is not a plume of dust from the collapse of one of the towers




[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2004 12:35:46 PM

^those fuckheads are gonna get on here and say "It was the fuel from the impact" or some shit like that

1/8/2004 12:39:00 PM

This source says jet fuel does not burn near hot enough to melt hardened steel, such as that used in the WTC towers (note that references to temperature are in degrees Fahrenheit).

Quote :

"Interestingly, jet fuel -- somewhat similar to common kerosene and not much different than charcoal lighter fluid -- burns at roughly 875 degrees. Whether a little or a lot of fuel is burned, it still burns at roughly the same temperature. ...Hardened steel such as that used in the WTC beams and girders needs temperatures of approximately TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED (2,800) degrees to actually melt, and temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees to turn bright red and soften... http://www.rense.com/general39/points.htm"

[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2004 12:48:32 PM

Quote :

"somewhat similar to common kerosene "

Kerosene doesn't burn worth a SHIT, we got in the hobby of making maltov cocktails when we were in high school, and kerosene wouldn't even ignite usually, and if it did it would just sit on the ground and burn.

p.s. Camping fuel is the best thing to use, big explosion without the threat gasoline gives you. Gas is fun, still, but you better throw it far far away and pack the rag in tight. Both give you a nice mushroom cloud.

1/8/2004 1:15:47 PM

Just so you know, all metals lose there strength as temperature rises. The support trusses didnt melt completely, they simply changed in size and strength.

1/8/2004 5:30:11 PM

Quote :

"maltov"

It's Molotov.

1/8/2004 5:32:48 PM

Quote :

" "Here is evidence of an explosion in the area of 'WTC 7'. Notice that the two towers are still standing....so this is not a plume of dust from the collapse of one of the towers" "

Hey, I see ONE tower, and smoke in the distance from the ground where the other tower should be. Looks like one tower has come down. Your still posting the BS that your 'sources' tell you.


Who can argue with the logic that a thumbnail pic means theres a massive conspiracy?




http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/topple.jpg


^lol that must be the work of underground explosions.

[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 5:42 PM. Reason : fd]

1/8/2004 5:36:02 PM

Quote :

"It's Molotov"

However you spell it, it's fun

After about two days, these threads get so monotonous (sp), arguing, trying to prove your point.

How about this, you've all heard, and it is a FACT, that the FBI had knowledge of an impending attack prior to Sept. 11. This isn't just stuff from second hand sites, the FBI actually made these announcements, although President Bush said over and over that we had no prior warning of an attack. The FAA warned the FBI months ahead of time, saying that a large number of Middle Eastern men that had no past history in the US were taking flight lessons. Also, there were some warning beforehand that the planes would be the weapons. Sounds convincing to me.

1/8/2004 6:07:51 PM

Quote :

"How does one explain the collapse of the 'WTC 7' and 'WTC 6' buildings? Some buildings collapsed around the two towers that were located far from the towers. The towers fell straight down and did not fall onto the other buildings. Look at the following picture. How did the buildings collapse that are circled in red? "

Falling debris?

Likewise, weren't a couple of the buildings specificaly demolished because they had structural damage and it was safer to bring them down than to let them stand. And given how clear the picture you posted is, It would be quite reasonable to think that the picture had been taken after those buildings were demolished.

Quote :

"Here is evidence of an explosion in the area of 'WTC 7'. Notice that the two towers are still standing....so this is not a plume of dust from the collapse of one of the towers "

That picture is evidence of nothing.

Quote :

"This source says jet fuel does not burn near hot enough to melt hardened steel, such as that used in the WTC towers (note that references to temperature are in degrees Fahrenheit). "

Jet fuel alone may not burn hot enough, but other materials, plus jet fuel, plus proper wind could generate more heat. Think about a blacksmiths bellows, they use a flow of oxygen to create more heat than is normaly produced by the wood and use to it soften and melt steel.

And keep in mind that it need not melt completely for the weight of a building to cause it to fail.

Quote :

"How about this, you've all heard, and it is a FACT, that the FBI had knowledge of an impending attack prior to Sept. 11. This isn't just stuff from second hand sites, the FBI actually made these announcements, although President Bush said over and over that we had no prior warning of an attack. The FAA warned the FBI months ahead of time, saying that a large number of Middle Eastern men that had no past history in the US were taking flight lessons. Also, there were some warning beforehand that the planes would be the weapons. Sounds convincing to me."

1) The FBI recieves threats of violence and terrorism multiple times a day

2) The idea that terrorist would use hijakced planes as weapons has been a theory tossed arround th egovernment for years. Nothing new.

3) You can have all the clues in the world as to what something is or what is going to happen, but knowing when and knowing where is a whole other matter.

1/8/2004 8:08:50 PM

ToiletPaper argues in one sentance that a bomb at the bottom of the WTC towers took them down, and in another, he says that the gov had prior knowledge about the hijackings. Jesus.

1/8/2004 10:20:28 PM

There appears to be an object on the second plane that hit the WTC that is not usually on a 767 passenger airliner.




source: http://www.rense.com/general41/ac.htm

VIDEO showing the plane and the object under the fuselage: http://www.rense.com/general41/inex.htm


[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2004 11:06:02 PM

Ah yes, the mysterious object. It's shaddows and tricks of light.

OMFG IT"S TEH OBJ3C7!!!!!!!!111!!1111







And these photos are good quality, a little bit of motion blur and some lower resolution, and there are plent of aspects on all 3 of these planes that could be "objects"

[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 11:31 PM. Reason : asdfasfg]

1/8/2004 11:29:48 PM

Quote :

"Falling debris?"

Yeah, enough random debris just HAPPENED to hit those building that were 2 blocks away and left adjacent buildings standing.

Quote :

"use to it soften and melt steel"

the steel they use isn't galvanized structural steel like in the WTC, now is it? I took blacksmithing over a summer in high school and that steel is extremely week, to strengthen it you have to double it over several times.

Quote :

"ToiletPaper argues in one sentance that a bomb at the bottom of the WTC towers took them down, and in another, he says that the gov had prior knowledge about the hijackings. Jesus"

I never once said a bomb took em down, I said that a bomb wasn't out of the question, and that it was highly possible. NEVER did I say it was a bomb that took them down.
And anyways, what would it matter if I did say it was a bomb that took the buildings down. The plane was hijacked and hit the buildings anyway, NO SHIT FUCK FACE.

[Edited on January 8, 2004 at 11:45 PM. Reason : YOU ARE A DUMBASS]

1/8/2004 11:42:12 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, enough random debris just HAPPENED to hit those building that were 2 blocks away and left adjacent buildings standing. "

Depending on wind and other factors it's possible. But as I said, I'm almost positive there were some buildings that were purposefuly demolished either the end of the day on the 11th or on the 12th because of sturctural problems. We have no way of knowing when exactly that picture was taken.

Quote :

"the steel they use isn't galvanized structural steel like in the WTC, now is it? I took blacksmithing over a summer in high school and that steel is extremely week, to strengthen it you have to double it over several times."

Ah, but the steel can still be melted. And like I said, the right flow of oxygen can make a fire much hotter than normal. And yes I know steel used by blacksmiths is weak.

1/9/2004 12:00:41 AM

Quote :

"We have no way of knowing when exactly that picture was taken."

And we never will know. For now, I say a plane hit each building, the buildings fell, bumped the other buildings, and we kicked ass.

Quote :

"yes I know steel used by blacksmiths is weak"

That fucking pussy ass steel. Actually, I made a crow-bar my first day there, and when I tried it out at home, it bent and the nail stuck. It took me 32 overlaps and a dozen coolings to make one strong enough to not bend. Those sword makers had to be patient.

1/9/2004 12:24:12 AM

i guess nowadays a piece of fuzz on a picture counts as something that should be discussed on the TWW. fire weakens steal, fact.

1/9/2004 12:43:28 AM

^ but, if done right, fire strengthens steel (not talking about WTC, talking about blacksmithing)

1/9/2004 12:50:10 AM

of course, as with the WTC, we saw fire cause the top part of the building to collapse

1/9/2004 12:51:07 AM

1/9/2004 12:52:52 AM

The WTC isn't the thing that puzzles me, its the damn Pentagon. How could a plane flying low to the ground hit a building and cartwheel? I have no clue. Goodnight.

1/9/2004 12:54:15 AM

Quote :

"Ah yes, the mysterious object. It's shaddows and tricks of light. --1337 b4k4"

Here is a picture of the plane from another angle. The object is still visible. This is no "optical illusion" or "trick of light."

Quote :

"Attached is another photo that clearly shows something attached to the bottom of the plane that hit the WTC. It appears to be at least as large as the engines! Since this is from a different angle, how can David Sadler's argument about light and shadow, reflections, etc. have any merit? Change the angle even slightly, and an optical illusion usually disappears. http://www.rense.com/general41/moreev.htm"

[Edited on January 9, 2004 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2004 11:01:26 AM

now that's weird

1/9/2004 11:34:51 AM

Heating steel (or any other metal) reduces its strength. It doens't have to melt for it to fail. It doesn't have to be glowing to be unable to support the weight of the floors above the fire to undergo plastic deformation. MAT 201 people.

1/9/2004 11:39:57 AM

Where is the object? I see a plane, and it's wings, I see two engines and I see light glinting from the wing (at the appropriate visual angles) where is the object?

1/9/2004 11:44:18 AM

Quote :

"Heating steel (or any other metal) reduces its strength. It doens't have to melt for it to fail. It doesn't have to be glowing to be unable to support the weight of the floors above the fire to undergo plastic deformation"

you're like 2 days behind

1/9/2004 11:55:23 AM

^Story of my life.

^^Yeah, I don't see anything either. Maybe it's the nuclear warhead the plane was carrying that was given to the french mafia by the illuminati who purchased it from the vatican through their contacts in the formier soviet republic of Georgia. The french mafia, of course, were contracted by halliburton to ensure that the plane blew up the WTC, so that our attenention would appear to be placed in the middle east and with Afganistan. However, this is just an elaborate plot to trick Castro in to thinking we are not thinking about him, thus lulling him in to a false sense of security for our true plan, which is, of course, to assasinate Castro. Duh.

1/9/2004 12:36:36 PM

Interesting to say the least...

Quote :

"CNN has not commented, but the AP says the photo was untouched and unaltered. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/face_smoke.htm"

http://9news.com/newsroom/13294.html

[Edited on January 9, 2004 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2004 1:27:14 PM

Another photograph of the damage to the Pentagon.



photogallery located here: http://thepowerhour.com/pentgallery/FrameSet.htm

1/9/2004 1:38:48 PM

To those who have stated that the Pentagon is a "fortress" and is "inpenitrable", whatever hit the Pentagon penetrated 3 "rings" of the building. Here is the evidence.



http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/

1/9/2004 1:42:08 PM

The following website contains many links to other sites that have investigated the events of 9.11.01:

http://killtown.911review.org/911links.html

1/9/2004 1:50:58 PM

1/9/2004 1:57:10 PM

http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/

1/9/2004 2:07:48 PM

Respecting NORAD's failure to send jets to intercept the "hijacked planes":

Quote :

"On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines. ...(On September 11, 2001) Air Traffic Control should have known something was severely amiss at 8:15 a.m., or at the latest, 8:20. a.m. Yet Flight 11 and three more passenger jets were sequentially permitted to go missing and run amok for at least one hour and 20 minutes (80 minutes -- the Pentagon was hit at 9:40 a.m.) without NORAD getting its jets in position to intercept the runaway craft. Compare NORAD's performance on September 11, 2001 with its performance on October 25, 1999, in the Payne Stewart case. http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html"

[Edited on January 9, 2004 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2004 2:42:33 PM

its just some reflection or illusion. nothing is there.

1/9/2004 4:56:25 PM

Quote :

"Interesting to say the least..."

Any psychologist will tell you that the mind looks for recognizeable patterns in images. One of the most recognizeable patterns is a face. We see them every day, all day long, so it's only natural that a face like patter would jump out of a picture. The picture was probably chosen out of all the pictures because there was a pattern that looked like a face.

OMFG A FACE!!!!!!

Quote :

"Another photograph of the damage to the Pentagon. "

Too prove what?

Quote :

"To those who have stated that the Pentagon is a "fortress" and is "inpenitrable", whatever hit the Pentagon penetrated 3 "rings" of the building. Here is the evidence"

Even castles fell to trebuchets. And did you even read the site you linked to? Try reading, it, you might find answers to your questions. Here it is again: http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/

In regards to NORAD and ATC I'm almost positive the planes did not all go off the radar at the same time. And did you read the story? 19 minutes AFTER ATC realized something was wrong (that wasn't just standard equipment issues i.e bad reception) they had escorts there. And they had a flight plan to look along. So we have a time frame of probably 30 minutes from failure to actual interception by the Air Force.

Now, you have 4 planes, that go off the radar at different times, and then devieated from their flight plans. Not just deviated, but did almost a 180 degree turn. So not only do you have to realize that something is definately wrong, but then the AF has to intercept them along the planned path, and then they have to search for them along paths that are not the planned path. In the mean time, the plan has a 30 minute head start and has increased speed.

1/9/2004 5:35:18 PM

Here is a photograph of the plane that suposedly crashed into the second tower hit:

Quote :

"N612UA Msn 21873 ln 41 On September 11, 2001, this aircraft was hijacked by terrorist swine and crashed in the south tower of New York's World Trade Center. RIP. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N612UA&distinct_entry=true"

Now, compare that picture with the picture of the plane hitting the tower:

Quote :

"This is no Boeing 767-200 because: 1. white light shines out of both alleged “jet engines”, 2. a “pod” protrudes from the underbelly of the “plane”, 3. the tail tip and underbelly’s streak are off-color. 1. The “real” hijacked United Airways flight 175 (WTC south tower) was a Boeing 767-200 with registration number N612UA. Its jet engines were two Pratt & Whitney JT9D turbofans. Turbofans never emit any light. Their rear view is always dark. It is technically impossible for them to play “street lamp” like in the photo. 2. The “pod” does not belong there. 3. The hijacked Boeing 767-200 with registration number N612UA was painted black on the underbelly....The underbelly is plain black, whereas the belly of the flying object at WTC2 shows up gray and has a bright streak running down the middle. http://www.gallerize.com/new/Gallerize.News.03.10.17.htm"

[Edited on January 10, 2004 at 12:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/10/2004 12:01:04 AM

you people absolutely amaze me sometimes.

1/10/2004 12:06:20 AM

^^you cant possibly think that is true

1/10/2004 12:17:14 AM

1) White light can be cause by numerous things, including glare, camera defect or, as is most likely in teh case of these pictures, artifacting due to compression. Notice how the white dots look very out of place for the rest of the picture. Second, if it is emiting whit elight, where is it here:



FIND THE WHITE LIGHT!

2) THERE IS NO FUCKING POD SHOW ME A POD

3) Because color and streaks can be soe easily determined by those low resolution pictures.

1B) See 1 above

2B) See 2 above

3B) Even metal painted black can reflect light and there is no such thing as pure black. Nore is it likely that the underside is pure black (if it's black at all) since black is not a color of Unitied.

1/10/2004 12:24:42 AM

The white light certainly does not appear to be so much a light as a reflection of light. The "pod" you refer to is absolutely invisible to me personally, I see no evidence of its existence. The gray streak is, again, a reflection of the street below. Thoughts?

Dammit, you just said all of that. But I refuse to delete, by God!

[Edited on January 10, 2004 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

1/10/2004 12:24:59 AM

Quote :

"the World Trade Center was not hit by hijacked planes but was penetrated by military hightech holograms. "

Hhahahahahahahaha WTF you cant be serious, who the fuck believes this shit

1/10/2004 12:37:37 AM