Jump to content


Photo

What really happened at the Pentagon?


  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

#41 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 19 September 2011 - 02:43 AM - 0512441

Now for some fun with a 747. Note he's giving 'Er hell on the deck and doing violent turns in something that outweighs and is considerably larger than a 757-200

  • 0

#42 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 22 September 2011 - 06:06 AM - 0512442

EDIT: Cool head prevailed...
  • 0

#43 TeamColtra

TeamColtra

    NADC Since 2008

  • Former Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 193 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:TeamColtra
  • Nation Name:Geeks Paradox

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 02:18 AM - 0512443

There are bigger questions in regards to the perfectly freefalling WTC (especially building 7) than I find in the pentagon thing. There is also some very weird things about the planes that flew into the buildings like the attachment to the bottom (?).

Anyway, I think there would be a whistle-blower if it was a big deal... but what if it was a rogue group within the CIA (or other internal organization) that assisted in the destruction. I would look more to corporations than government though, think of how much money these arms companies have made, even if they spent a billion dollars to covertly carry out 9/11 they still are in the green for money made.


Let's not forget the Gulf of Tonkin
  • 0

#44 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:04 AM - 0512444

There are bigger questions in regards to the perfectly freefalling WTC (especially building 7) than I find in the pentagon thing. There is also some very weird things about the planes that flew into the buildings like the attachment to the bottom (?).

Anyway, I think there would be a whistle-blower if it was a big deal... but what if it was a rogue group within the CIA (or other internal organization) that assisted in the destruction. I would look more to corporations than government though, think of how much money these arms companies have made, even if they spent a billion dollars to covertly carry out 9/11 they still are in the green for money made.


Let's not forget the Gulf of Tonkin

Or the bay of pigs..
One of the biggest 9/11 mysteries is how them buildings fell at Terminal velocity along the path of greatest resistence..
Lateral ejection of steel, ejection of pulverized concrete in mid flight, the complete absence of pancaked stories,
that and people that were working in the sub basements that heard multiple huge explosions minutes and seconds before the collapse, one had major burns. If ANYTHING falls along the path of greatest resistence it is going to decelerate, not accelerate,
there was explosions, rythmic explosions 20 and 40 floors below the main blast wave.
when solving a mystery like this you must follow the money, 2 parties stood to gain from this, the US Arms manufacturers and the owner of the world trade center complex (He's rolling in the insurance money).
I tend to agree with what TC said here. Also them planes pulled off some high G maneuvers, you'd have to be in a pressure suit to withstand them kind of G forces, just saying...
  • 0

#45 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:36 AM - 0512445

http://www.youtube.c...8W-t57xnZg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.c...W81Cd7nNH8&NR=1

MIT engineer disputes NIST findings RE:WTC collapse.
  • 0

#46 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:02 AM - 0512446

I'm going to have to do this in multiple posts, because the forum hates me for some reason. Either that or there's a quote limit or some bullocks. Edit: Appears there's a quote limit.

One of the biggest 9/11 mysteries is how them buildings fell at Terminal velocity along the path of greatest resistence..

The towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds.

Lateral ejection of steel, ejection of pulverized concrete in mid flight,

What do you think the whole building was made out of? There wasn't just steel columns in the middle, the entire outside frame was made of steel and concrete as well. It's going to go somewhere, and the air pressure on the inside would have a tendency to take it somewhere... possibly outside.

the complete absence of pancaked stories,

So, wait, the building didn't collapse on top of itself?

that and people that were working in the sub basements that heard multiple huge explosions minutes and seconds before the collapse,

That just goes to show you it wasn't demolition. A full demolition sequence take seconds. It is not a slow, methodical ordeal. It was more likely the sound of buckling steel.

one had major burns.

Fire? Chemicals? Too much sun? Bad rash? Not sure what you mean.

If ANYTHING falls along the path of greatest resistence it is going to decelerate, not accelerate,

Wait, what? Do you even know what you just said or are you just repeating something you heard?

there was explosions, rythmic explosions 20 and 40 floors below the main blast wave.

Citation needed. Also, yeah, sure, "explosions." Anything loud and indiscernible to a layperson sounds like an "explosion." Like, perhaps, steel buckling. I mean, do you know the difference in sound between a multiple C4 explosion, multiple steel columns buckling under extreme stress, multiple cannon fire, or even some bad music being played excessively loud from hundreds of meters away?

Anyway, if I remember correctly, that's where the steel support columns were actually buckling under the extreme stress. The inner support columns collapsed ahead of the rest of the building during the collapse.
  • 0

#47 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:10 AM - 0512447

when solving a mystery like this you must follow the money,

Mystery?

2 parties stood to gain from this,

Oh?

the US Arms manufacturers

lolno. The US was already buying plenty of arms before that day, so they were rolling around in the money already.

and the owner of the world trade center complex (He's rolling in the insurance money).

lolnox2. Anyone who doesn't insure something that expensive is a fool.

Also them planes pulled off some high G maneuvers, you'd have to be in a pressure suit to withstand them kind of G forces, just saying...

High-G? Like hitting a building? I honestly don't think they survived it. Nor were they concerned with their safety beforehand.
  • 0

#48 Impact Strafe

Impact Strafe

    Should be AC by now

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Impact Strafe
  • Nation Name:Aletho

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 10:59 AM - 0512448

So... someone blew up the towers? Is that your whole argument?
  • 0

#49 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:20 PM - 0512449

I'm going to have to do this in multiple posts, because the forum hates me for some reason. Either that or there's a quote limit or some bullocks. Edit: Appears there's a quote limit.


The towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds.

What do you think the whole building was made out of? There wasn't just steel columns in the middle, the entire outside frame was made of steel and concrete as well. It's going to go somewhere, and the air pressure on the inside would have a tendency to take it somewhere... possibly outside.

So, wait, the building didn't collapse on top of itself?

That just goes to show you it wasn't demolition. A full demolition sequence take seconds. It is not a slow, methodical ordeal. It was more likely the sound of buckling steel.

Fire? Chemicals? Too much sun? Bad rash? Not sure what you mean.

Wait, what? Do you even know what you just said or are you just repeating something you heard?

Citation needed. Also, yeah, sure, "explosions." Anything loud and indiscernible to a layperson sounds like an "explosion." Like, perhaps, steel buckling. I mean, do you know the difference in sound between a multiple C4 explosion, multiple steel columns buckling under extreme stress, multiple cannon fire, or even some bad music being played excessively loud from hundreds of meters away?

Anyway, if I remember correctly, that's where the steel support columns were actually buckling under the extreme stress. The inner support columns collapsed ahead of the rest of the building during the collapse.

The inner support columns had help, If you apply even basic math, that building should have taked about 45 seconds to collapse, not just 10 seconds. also explosions as in dynamite or C4 slicing through steel columns.
it didn't deviate off it's vertical axis it fell into it's own foot print (Veritical resistence from that extremely well built and reinforced central core would have caused it to deviate to one side or other), the building fell without any resistence (There was no deceleration, the strong central core would have caused the building to decelerate while collapsing), also it wouldn't be powdered concrete falling, there would be boulders raining down on the streets below.
also it isn't necessary to repeat anything anybody else said when we all seen that complex go down man...
the insurance on that building specified acts of terror/acts of war, it didn't specify controlled demolition, in order to get that money the buildings had to burn abit before they were pulled. also the skin of that building served a reinforcement purpose, it wasn't built like a normal skyscraper, in a typical skyscraper, the steel skeleton is it's reinforcement, in WTC, the outer skin and the central core were that buildings backbone. maybe fanatics did hit the building, but for all intents and purposes it should have burned for hours before collapsing, than it should have only been a partial collapse. the Empire state building was hit by a B-29, it's still here, planes have hit buildings before they didn't collapse. WTC had help. they had to induce structural failure.
It don't matter who hit it, what killed everyone is what happened in the moments after the impacts. Do you actually think
when they designed that building they didn't take into account that it might experience a prolonged blaze?
also anyone that has ever lit a grill knows that hydrocarbon based fuels burn off quickly, the remaining fire was from building contents. also do we have any firefighters? Can you tell me what was wrong with that fire? Black smoke dude! That fire was oxygen starved. it wasn't burning near as hot as they sold it off as. and not near hot enough to melt steel.
IS are you really going to forget all you ever learned about Physics and science and modify facts to make NIST's shaky and neatly packaged theory work? when other engineering firms have said the gov's version of events simply can't happen?
What happens when you have an accelerating body (in this case that 15 floor block) encounter resistence that is of greater mass (in this case the remaining 95 floors of said building) and start to lose mass. It's going to slow down substantially isn't it? It's going to lose it's kinetic energy isn't it? end result your going to have large pieces of the building (including entire mostly intact floors) left. wanna know what a pancake collapse is, look at the after math of the haiti earthquake, or the aftermath of major quakes in california. HAD that collapse been caused by the planes and fires alone, common sense tells us they should have collapsed at a way slower speed and large intact sections of the buildings would remain in the rubble pile, that didn't happen, them buildings were pulverized, now that is only going to happen of the vertical resistence (the frictive force) is removed ahead of the blast wave, the best way to do that is with shaping charges. sure AQ hit them, but that collapse had help, countless engineering firms that were unaffiliated with the government have said that. even some demolition firms have said that.
no I won't post sources cause I'm not gonna flood this forum with links, I'm gonna let you do your own research.
If you don't want to accept how crooked our gov is, that is your prerogative, also it didn't stay quiet, lots of people have come forward, the gov has made you believe your an unpatriotic sugar if you believe them, they have embarked on a massive smear campaign. you have every right to forget everything you learned in school and believe NIST's bogus theory. I'm not stopping you.
also unless they put them things together with Rivets, steel under stress bends (makes a creeking sound) it doesn't make powerful explosion sounds.

Also watch the 2 videos I posted, one of the guys that reported them loud explosion sounds was the building's structural engineer who was working in one of the sub basements when the planes hit, he was also one of the first to question the official story. a guy with an Engineering degree, not a layperson made that initial claim.
he compared the sounds to Dynamite. Not bending and breaking steel.
  • 0

#50 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:05 PM - 0512450

Remember IS, not only is that 15 floor block crashing down at roughly 90mhp, it is also breaking up (Losing considerable mass) as it goes and the remaining 95 floors/central core and reinforcing skin are pushing back.

wanna get an idea of the forces involved? imagine a Ford Short bus going full on into the ass end of a parked full sized Greyhound bus from 1 block away and tell me who loses. Get the picture?

A collapse originating atthe top of the structure simply couldn't produce the devastation we seen
due to numerous factors, if you really want to duplicate what we seen, you'd have to start the collapse on the lower floors, thus removing any resistance, that would ensure that your 15 floor block doesn't lose it's kinetic energy, it would accelerate, you'd make that 15 floor block into a pile driver. same with tower 2. oh and building 7, building 7 didn't take near the asswhooping buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 did. It collapsed while 3, 4, 5 and 6 were still standing. the official story was that building 7 collapsed due to buckling of one column, really? it would have caused whatever side that column was on to start falling first, the building would have fell with a list to one side. it fell on it';s own foot print. Now like I said, you can forget everything you spent years and money learning including basic common sense and believe NIST's theory or you can wise up and do your own research using non government, independent sources. A better idea is to head to your library, get some books on demolition science, watch some videos of building implosions, burn it into your brain, than watch the WTC towers come down, I tell you what, the similarities will jump out at you like a deer on a highway. Funny how that happens :P

Also a building falling due to loss of one column means whoever designed that building was completely stoned or shouldn't have been designing buildings to begin with. they should've deemed that building unsafe and brought it down years ago if it didn't have enough redundency to survive the loss of one column.
Hell they should have brought the entire WTC complex down years ago if they knew it couldn't survive a 5 floor medium temperature fire. :P
If NIST is right, them buildings were unfit for habitation.
  • 0

#51 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:17 PM - 0512451

http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm

No explosives necessary.

The inner support columns had help, If you apply even basic math, that building should have taked about 45 seconds to collapse, not just 10 seconds.

Help, like the kinetic energy from a plane, the subsequent damage by it, and the stored kinetic energy of it simply standing there being all big and tall?

also explosions as in dynamite or C4 slicing through steel columns.

What? Where?

it didn't deviate off it's vertical axis it fell into it's own foot print (Veritical resistence from that extremely well built and reinforced central core would have caused it to deviate to one side or other), the building fell without any resistence (There was no deceleration, the strong central core would have caused the building to decelerate while collapsing), also it wouldn't be powdered concrete falling, there would be boulders raining down on the streets below.

The core collapsed before the outside showed it. The building did not fall at free-fall speeds. In all videos of the collapse, you see debris clearly falling much faster than the top of the building. Most conspiracy theorists stop the timer when the top of the tower disappears behind the 40-story debris cloud. The problem with doing so is that it is still collapsing.

also it isn't necessary to repeat anything anybody else said when we all seen that complex go down man...
the insurance on that building specified acts of terror/acts of war, it didn't specify controlled demolition, in order to get that money the buildings had to burn abit before they were pulled.

No company would insure demolition. And why wouldn't you insure for terrorism on that building? It's been the target of several terrorist acts in the past. The insurance policy likely also had fire provisions and the like in there.

also the skin of that building served a reinforcement purpose, it wasn't built like a normal skyscraper, in a typical skyscraper, the steel skeleton is it's reinforcement, in WTC, the outer skin and the central core were that buildings backbone.

So, just like every other skyscraper built in and after the '60s. Why is it different?

maybe fanatics did hit the building, but for all intents and purposes it should have burned for hours before collapsing, than it should have only been a partial collapse.

Why is is that? You don't think a large commercial airliner going as fast as it probably could did anything to it?

the Empire state building was hit by a B-29, it's still here, planes have hit buildings before they didn't collapse.

The plane was also going at far less speed. Also, the Empire state building was built completely different.

WTC had help. they had to induce structural failure.

Why do you say that? Some proof would be nice here.

It don't matter who hit it, what killed everyone is what happened in the moments after the impacts.

Just a few sentences ago you were saying it might have been hit by something.

Do you actually think
when they designed that building they didn't take into account that it might experience a prolonged blaze?
Fire was not the only damage that building sustained that day.
also anyone that has ever lit a grill knows that hydrocarbon based fuels burn off quickly, the remaining fire was from building contents. also do we have any firefighters? Can you tell me what was wrong with that fire? Black smoke dude! That fire was oxygen starved. it wasn't burning near as hot as they sold it off as. and not near hot enough to melt steel.

Fire was not the only damage sustained that day.
  • 0

#52 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:17 PM - 0512452

IS are you really going to forget all you ever learned about Physics and science and modify facts to make NIST's shaky and neatly packaged theory work? when other engineering firms have said the gov's version of events simply can't happen?
What happens when you have an accelerating body (in this case that 15 floor block) encounter resistence that is of greater mass (in this case the remaining 95 floors of said building) and start to lose mass. It's going to slow down substantially isn't it? It's going to lose it's kinetic energy isn't it? end result your going to have large pieces of the building (including entire mostly intact floors) left.

Wow, this portion is a whole load of bullocks. Maybe you forgot everything about physics or some such, but none of this is the physics I know.

What happens when you have an accelerating body (in this case that 15 floor block) encounter resistence that is of greater mass (in this case the remaining 95 floors of said building) and start to lose mass.

This simply did not happen. Also, there is no law or rule for what that sentence says in physics. If anything though, the top portion of the collapse will gain mass and have more kinetic energy as it falls, since each floor that is added to the collapse doesn't just magically disappear as what you said imply.

wanna know what a pancake collapse is, look at the after math of the haiti earthquake, or the aftermath of major quakes in california. HAD that collapse been caused by the planes and fires alone, common sense tells us they should have collapsed at a way slower speed and large intact sections of the buildings would remain in the rubble pile, that didn't happen, them buildings were pulverized, now that is only going to happen of the vertical resistence (the frictive force) is removed ahead of the blast wave, the best way to do that is with shaping charges. sure AQ hit them, but that collapse had help, countless engineering firms that were unaffiliated with the government have said that. even some demolition firms have said that.

Earthquakes are a different matter entirely.

no I won't post sources cause I'm not gonna flood this forum with links, I'm gonna let you do your own research.

That's unfortunate, since it seems you have not researched this thoroughly yourself.

If you don't want to accept how crooked our gov is, that is your prerogative, also it didn't stay quiet, lots of people have come forward, the gov has made you believe your an unpatriotic sugar if you believe them, they have embarked on a massive smear campaign. you have every right to forget everything you learned in school and believe NIST's bogus theory. I'm not stopping you.

Lots of people have come forward, huh? Like non-experts talking about things they do not know and conspiracy theorists taking everything they say completely out of context for their own purposes?

also unless they put them things together with Rivets, steel under stress bends (makes a creeking sound) it doesn't make powerful explosion sounds.

So it makes a "creeking" sound when it snaps as well? What sound does it make when it snaps several hundred meters away and the sound is transmitted through the air? How about the sound it makes when it snaps and is transmitted through hundreds of meters of a semi-solid object?

Also watch the 2 videos I posted, one of the guys that reported them loud explosion sounds was the building's structural engineer who was working in one of the sub basements when the planes hit, he was also one of the first to question the official story. a guy with an Engineering degree, not a layperson made that initial claim.
he compared the sounds to Dynamite. Not bending and breaking steel.

A plane just hit the building. Do you know what the sound of an airplane hitting a building sounds like transmitted through hundreds of meters of a semi-solid object? Also, that interview is always taken out of context. That interview took place after the first plane hit, but before the second. He doubted that a plane hit the building because that was absolutely unheard of before that day. Low and behold, seconds later, the second plane hits.
  • 0

#53 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:24 PM - 0512453

A plane just hit the building. Do you know what the sound of an airplane hitting a building sounds like transmitted through hundreds of meters of a semi-solid object? Also, that interview is always taken out of context. That interview took place after the first plane hit, but before the second. He doubted that a plane hit the building because that was absolutely unheard of before that day. Low and behold, seconds later, the second plane hits.


dynamite and plane impact into a building are two VERY different sounds.
  • 0

#54 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:28 PM - 0512454

Remember IS, not only is that 15 floor block crashing down at roughly 90mhp, it is also breaking up (Losing considerable mass) as it goes and the remaining 95 floors/central core and reinforcing skin are pushing back.

Okay, so the top is breaking up. Where do it go? Oh, wait, still down with the rest of it. It doesn't lose mass at all.

wanna get an idea of the forces involved? imagine a Ford Short bus going full on into the ass end of a parked full sized Greyhound bus from 1 block away and tell me who loses. Get the picture?

According to physics, both. However, that's not what happened in the tower collapse.

A collapse originating atthe top of the structure simply couldn't produce the devastation we seen
due to numerous factors, if you really want to duplicate what we seen, you'd have to start the collapse on the lower floors, thus removing any resistance, that would ensure that your 15 floor block doesn't lose it's kinetic energy, it would accelerate, you'd make that 15 floor block into a pile driver. same with tower 2. oh and building 7, building 7 didn't take near the asswhooping buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 did. It collapsed while 3, 4, 5 and 6 were still standing. the official story was that building 7 collapsed due to buckling of one column, really? it would have caused whatever side that column was on to start falling first, the building would have fell with a list to one side. it fell on it';s own foot print.

Source please. And if you so happen to be an expert in the field, I wish to read your published peer-reviewed paper about this incident as well.

Now like I said, you can forget everything you spent years and money learning including basic common sense and believe NIST's theory or you can wise up and do your own research using non government, independent sources. A better idea is to head to your library, get some books on demolition science, watch some videos of building implosions, burn it into your brain, than watch the WTC towers come down, I tell you what, the similarities will jump out at you like a deer on a highway. Funny how that happens :P

I truly wish you would heed your own advice instead of believing everything you see and hear on the Internet or in movies/television.

Also a building falling due to loss of one column means whoever designed that building was completely stoned or shouldn't have been designing buildings to begin with. they should've deemed that building unsafe and brought it down years ago if it didn't have enough redundency to survive the loss of one column.

If it was only a single column, it likely wouldn't have collapsed. Tell me though, do you know how many were damaged from the impact of the plane?

Hell they should have brought the entire WTC complex down years ago if they knew it couldn't survive a 5 floor medium temperature fire. :P

Because a plane hitting the building did nothing more than set a campfire in the hallway.
  • 0

#55 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:32 PM - 0512455

dynamite and plane impact into a building are two VERY different sounds.

Are you sure? Even through hundreds of meters through a semi-solid object? A lot of finer detail gets lost when sound is transmitted through solid objects. I know through air it may sound different, but that is not how the person who was interviewed heard it. Not only that, but planes hitting buildings would be the last thing on everyone's mind. It simply is not a common enough of an occurrence. Hell, most people didn't believe that a plane hit the first tower until after they saw a plane hitting the second. And that even goes for people who heard the first impact outside, but didn't see it. Later, film evidence showed that a plane did indeed hit the first.
  • 0

#56 Dark Wizard

Dark Wizard

    Lailander

  • NADC Assembly
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Location: Mars

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:Dark Wizard
  • Nation Name:New Carnoly

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:39 PM - 0512456

please tell me how a massive flying object going at high speeds colliding with a brick reinforced building is not different then dynamite.
  • 0

#57 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:52 PM - 0512457

I'm not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is even if you did hear one or the other, would you be able to tell the difference? Would you be able to say with 100% certainty that the sound you heard was one or the other?
  • 0

#58 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:53 PM - 0512458

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fFDxQu3bnQc

that is taken from an NYPD chopper, look below the burning floors, NO DAMAGE!
absolutely NONE, now look ABOVE the impact, heavy damage, the 15 floor block was severely weakened,
the lower 95 were structurally solid.
also I'm assuming you never played a game of Pool in your life.
what happens when one pool ball hits another? does the pool ball that got hit go flying striaght up?
no, it moves away from the object that hit it, the energy is transferred lateraly. also NIST's report
never specified that the impacts of them planes had anything to do with the collapse, they blamed it on heat from fires
melting steel. sweet Jesus man, where does Jet fuel burn? It burns inside Steel engine blocks.
it was formulated to not burn hot enough to melt steel, it is too low of octane. Kerosene also burns inside kerosene heaters
why don't we have them melting down? Kerosene is also formulated to burn fast. the kerosene was all burned away by the time the collapse started, As for structural design? the Architect that designed them was working under a tight budget, he was trying an experimental design. he was trying to build a lighter, cheaper building. that building had an exo skeleton, only 2 other buildings are like it, the Sears towers. The Transamerica building, the patronis towers, the Dubai hilton basically every skyscraper built since the late 60s uses a steel endo skeleton, the skin is glass.
Bin Laden is a cheap bastard, had it been entirely his doing he'd of driven a couple semi trucks laden with thousands of gallons of a much hotter more energy dense fuel (Anhydrous Ammonia, and nitrates) into the sub basement and blew the base out of them towers. the WTC towers were light but they were incredibly strong buildings.
the Architect designed them to each survive 2 impacts by Boeing 737's. or one impact by a Boeing 747 and still remain standing. they got hit by a much smaller aircraft, a Boeing 757-200 which is based on the airframe of a Boeing 737.
Like I said, NIST themselves specified that it wasn't the impacts that brought them down, it was loss of structural integrity due to fires, everything that happened that day, the Architect took into account when he chose that design. them were some very well built and smartly designed buildings.
  • 0

#59 EJ Smith

EJ Smith

    Even more advanced member

  • Forum User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:EJ Smith
  • Nation Name:Titanic

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:55 PM - 0512459

c2t your relying on one source, NIST. I posted a video where a PROFESSOR of engineering at MIT proved them wrong and basically proved it was a controlled demolition. I suppose NIST is more credible than one of the smartest people on the planet?
  • 0

#60 C2Talon

C2Talon

    Should be Neiir by now

  • Immortal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • Location: Orsinium

  • NDT Link:[ Link ]

  • Nation Link:[ Link ]
  • Nation Ruler:C2Talon
  • Nation Name:Atheneum

  • Resource One:
  • Resource Two:

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:03 PM - 0512460

One single professor tells all, eh? Was his study peer-reviewed? Was it published in an academic journal? No? Was it taken out of context at all? Sounds like you're the one depending on a single source.

I tell you what, I will spend the multiple hours to download it and watch it again to point out how much is taken out of context and how much of it hardly applies to what actually happened.

You see, the problem with most of these conspiracy theories is that they take one single thing, like the plane hitting the building, and say how that by itself would never make the building collapse. Or the fires, and how they say that fire would never be able to take down the building by itself. However, neither of those happened individually. They happened together. The conspiracy theories never take into account all of the multiple factors happening at once.
  • 0