proof that 9/11 was planned by us gov.

[billvon 2,991]

>made an almost perfectly round hole...(I have seen that damage in picutures)

You're seeing a picture of the engine that punched through one of the inner walls of the Pentagon, not the hole where the aircraft hit. See below. That's just from one engine; the engines were one of the few things massive/strong enough to survive such an impact.

[billvon 2,991]

>Since no steel frame buildings had ever collapsed due to fires . . .

Incorrect. I listed three steel frame buildings that did collapse above.

>the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis.

It was. It was moved to the Fresh Kills landfill and analyzed extensively by the FBI and CIA. Only after they were satisfied was it carted off to be recycled.

[no7rosman 0]

You obviously haven't read it because nobody can find what that "engine part" actually goes to.

Rolls Royce has printed documents that it didn't belong to anything they have built.

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

The Trade Towers are a good thing to argue about because nobody will ever be able to prove anything

i disagree if the trade towers collapsed due to fire/damage then scientifically we should be able to; have a reasonable explanation of the collapse, reproduce similar results with a model, have a computer model that makes sense etc.


as for the pentagon, all i have to say is that if they're not hiding anything why not release any of the many videos which show the plane in flight.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[no7rosman 0]

Was it connected to anything? Please post your source.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The Trade Towers are a good thing to argue about because nobody will ever be able to prove anything

i disagree if the trade towers collapsed due to fire/damage then scientifically we should be able to; have a reasonable explanation of the collapse, reproduce similar results with a model, have a computer model that makes sense etc.


as for the pentagon, all i have to say is that if they're not hiding anything why not release any of the many videos which show the plane in flight.

There *are* computer models and theories that make sense... they just don't mesh with YOUR theories, so you discard them - even though your theories don't hold up to scientific evaluation.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

Since no steel frame buildings had ever collapsed due to fires . . .

Incorrect. I listed three steel frame buildings that did collapse above.

billvon we have been over this again and again, this poster simply left out steel framed highrise or skyscraper. you have listed 0 examples because there aren't any. surely as an engineer you must recognize that skyscapers are built differently then large open area factories or whatever your examples were. the point remains that these are the FIRST STEEL FRAMED HIGHRISES TO COLLAPSE FROM FIRE/DAMAGE IN HISTORY which clearly merits a thorough investigation.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[billvon 2,991]

>Was it connected to anything?

Well, it used to be connected to an airplane. Hitting a wall at 500mph can break engine pylons though.

>Please post your source.

Below is a picture of a 757 in flight. Note how the engines are attached to it. For further info I'd suggest the Boeing website.

[billvon 2,991]

>you have listed 0 examples because there aren't any.

I listed an example where the upper floors of a steel-framed high rise collapsed. You ignored that by calling the upper floors a "ceiling" or something, because the fact that they DID collapse didn't fit your conspiracy theory. The people around that building were lucky. It had not also been hit by a jumbo jet traveling at 500mph, and so was strong enough to resist the collapse of those upper floors. Unfortnately, the WTC did have such an incident occur.

>which clearly merits a thorough investigation.

Which occurred. Tens of thousands of people spent hundreds of millions of dollars investigating what happened. Note that the term "thorough" is not the same as "you agree with."

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

There *are* computer models and theories that make sense... they just don't mesh with YOUR theories, so you discard them - even though your theories don't hold up to scientific evaluation

even NIST only tries to explain up to the point of failure and then assumes global collapse. proper science requires an explanation of the collapse itself. and thats not even mentionning wtc7 which has no explanation.

so where are these computer models and theories that make sense and i hope your not talking about the nova docu. because this has been abondoned and is easily ridiculed, and computer models that no one is allowed to see also don't count.

if you're just going to post another link to one of these ridiculous debunking sites then at least give a link directly to the model or theory.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

I listed an example where the upper floors of a steel-framed high rise collapsed

billvon for the third time an example of a building that burned MUCH HOTTER AND LONGER YET DID NOT COLLAPSE is the worst possible example of how buildings collapse from fire.

Quote

Which occurred. Tens of thousands of people spent hundreds of millions of dollars investigating what happened

actually the nist investigation was around 16 million dollars. i think less than 100 people. contrast that with the clinton investigation of 40million$+

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[billvon 2,991]

> for the third time an example of a building that burned
>MUCH HOTTER AND LONGER YET DID NOT COLLAPSE . . . .

I think if you post it three more times it might become true! Give it a shot.

>actually the nist investigation was around 16 million dollars.

And was only one of the many investigations centered on what happened at the WTC on 9/11.

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

You're seeing a picture of the engine that punched through one of the inner walls of the Pentagon, not the hole where the aircraft hit

i havn't heard anyone claim this hole was from an engine. please give us a source for your statement.
also by this logic there should be a second hole for the other engine and a signifigantly larger third hole for the fuselage. i have seen no pictures with two or three holes.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> for the third time an example of a building that burned
>MUCH HOTTER AND LONGER YET DID NOT COLLAPSE . . . .

I think if you post it three more times it might become true! Give it a shot.

>actually the nist investigation was around 16 million dollars.

And was only one of the many investigations centered on what happened at the WTC on 9/11.

"I tell you three times, and anything I tell you three times is true"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

And was only one of the many investigations centered on what happened at the WTC on 9/11.

the other two were less than 1 million$.

Quote

I think if you post it three more times it might become true! Give it a shot.

billvon you are the one who keeps trying to refute the statement-no steel framed highrise has ever collapsed from fire-with examples of steel framed highrises that didn't collapse. even if you post it another three times it still will not work.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[SpeedRacer 1]

OH MY GOD! They took away the wreckage from the buildings and recycled it!!!


OBVIOUSLY an evil & sinister plot!!!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[sundevil777 102]

There wasn't just a clean hole with no other damage.

Attached are some pics from the pentagon early on, where the widespread damage across the face is clear:

Is there any assertion of the conspiracy theorists that you concede is not true?

Do the conspiracy theorists believe that Bush is responsible for it all? I mean, is it just a Republican thing, or both parties?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[SpeedRacer 1]

In 1945 a B25 bomber hit the EMPIRE State building.

Or so the official story goes.


Can anyone explain to me how a B25 bomber, that has a wingspan of 67 feet, could leave a hole only 18 x 20 feet??


Obviously it was all faked by the government.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mnealtx 0]

That was OBVIOUSLY the work of Prescott Bush...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pirana 0]

Quote

For people that talk so much about having "open minds", yall conspiracy theorists manage to NOT think about physical evidence, don't ya?

CT's have a humongous blind spot to anything that contradicts their desired belief. And a huge gaping hole in their judgement that allows absolute garbage in if it supports their desired belief. They basically have the whole critical thinking thing backwards, or sideways at best. Their criteria for credibility is whether or not they like the evidence. Any evidence they do not like is automatically part of the conspiracy. It's an airtight system.

Hard evidence is not their criteria for belief. Desire is their criteira for belief. Look at the whole crop circles fiasco. Even after hooligans admitted to creating them (including those that were supposedly proven to be of alien making) the true believers still won't budge. They just keep repeating tired old ages ago debunked references about how the circles show features like nothing else on Earth. So much BS.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[no7rosman 0]

Good post. Lots of good facts to back up all your knowledge in this area.
--------------------------------------------
Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.
---------------------------------------------

20% doesn't really seem like a good sampling to me in a situation like this. I wonder if any of the 20% that was actually burnt was saved.

[no7rosman 0]

Non CT's have a tendancy to talk shit with no facts. Good post.

[no7rosman 0]

And not to keep beating a dead horse, but here are the pictures I base much of my opinion on. Attached is the entrance hole.

Can anyone show me where the tail or engines hit?

Remember the tail of a 757 is 44' 6. I can post pictures of the lawn that obviously shows no wreckage...Where is the tail? Where did the wings and engine hit?

The diameter of the airplane is roughly 13'6, and it is reported by numerous places the hole is about 16-20 feet in diameter...So in my eyes this makes sense...(The hole is a bit bigger than the fuseloge), but they are still missing where the wing, engines, and tail section hit the building.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

they are still missing where the wing, engines, and tail section hit the building

I thought sundevil's picks showed two engines and a fuselage impact points VERY clearly - not bad at all for sheet aluminum vs concrete. I'd be more skeptical if the tail caused anything visible in the structure - that would be nuts....

I don't have time, but maybe you could take his picture titled "more" and get the scale and see if the spacing aligns to the engine span of that aircraft.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[no7rosman 0]

The first of sundevils pictures shows nothing of the actual crash. I am not sure what is trying to show.

The second is the front of the Pentagon at least 15 minutes after impact when the rest caved in. (It is a great pic), but the damage from the initial impact wasn't nearly that large.

The pics I posted were taken minutes after impact before the rest of the building caved in.

I don't disagree that the tail could have broke off when it hit the building leaving very little visible damage, But in that case I would expect pieces of the tail section laying in the yard which they are not.