9/11 Documentary

[VivaMexico 0]

I have read it before and looked it over again just now. I do actually look into different ideas on this. I know you like to paint me as a whack job and all but i`m really not. Calling an expert names because they do not agree with your ideas is very intelligent of you. The scholars for truth are just that. You might like to attack them or their reputations but the fact remains that they know about physics.

#1 - never painted you as a whack job

#2 - never called an expert names

Which physics experts am I to believe then? The handful that are in the conspiracy camp, or the overwhelming majority that agree with the official account of 9/11? What makes 1 "expert" with a conspiracy theory more credible than all the other experts?

[yabasta 0]

What s/he said. yabasta, you have taken the extraordinary stand. You must supply extraordinary evidence. The side I'm on doesn't need to explain every little "hole" you imagine or every little detail you don't understand. You need to answer the big questions about your theory before I will begin to consider yours. If you say "the moon is made of green cheese", you're going to have to provide extraordinary evidence of its cheesiness before I'll begin to believe you.

for the record i am male.

I have not claimed the moon is made of cheese. this is something much more important. It effects you not just me and not just the Muslim world. It effects all of us. Whether you want to believe me or not is down to you. If you fail at defending the official story then why should i be expected to come up with such evidence? It is a joke to say that i must disprove the official theory whilst you have no reason to defend it.

If you stand by it then i say you should be prepared to explain little details like molten steel as they are quite big issues. If you decide not to then why bother posting on the topic? I am not going to lose any sleep over it. I will try and pass on the information to those who wish to listen and even debate the points with people. It is fair to say that there are still questions. I don`t claim to know it all i just have questions for the most part.

To agree with the official story blindly even if it were 100% true is still foolish in my mind.

#1 - never painted you as a whack job

#2 - never called an expert names

Which physics experts am I to believe then? The handful that are in the conspiracy camp, or the overwhelming majority that agree with the official account of 9/11? What makes 1 "expert" with a conspiracy theory more credible than all the other experts?

I urge you to try and learn about what you dismiss so quickly. The scholars for truth movement is actually a lot more than a handful. They are in fact proving to be more than a handful for the mass media.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

On the above page is a list of scholars for truth. You should check them out. As for experts disagreeing you just have to look at what they have to say and see if you can see any holes in their explanations. The official story has always been incomplete and expert testimony has been known to about turn suddenly in favour of the official story. People who speak out against the official story have more to lose and people who support it have gains to be made i would say.

Are you likely to get that job at Popular Mechanics if you spoke out on the 9/11 physics issues. A pancake collapse(for those who ignored my video links) would take a lot longer than the time the buildings took to come down. The floors would provide resistance in the tower collapse even if the fires were hot enough on their own to weaken the steel. There was almost no resistance on 9/11.

[rclouse 0]

for the record i am male.

I figured you were from your avatar, the statement was directed at VivaMexico.

I have not claimed the moon is made of cheese. this is something much more important. It effects you not just me and not just the Muslim world. It effects all of us. Whether you want to believe me or not is down to you. If you fail at defending the official story then why should i be expected to come up with such evidence? It is a joke to say that i must disprove the official theory whilst you have no reason to defend it.

The "Green Cheese Moon" theory is an allegory. The fact that I have to explain this says something about your cognitive ability.

I have not failed at defending the official consensus (I like that better than "story", thanks Viva), and in fact I do not have to. There are much better explanations by people far better at it than I, all readily available on the Internet. Viva's PM aritlce is just one.

And I did not ask you to disprove the official consensus. I asked you to prove yours. Just come up with some solid evidence! If you're right, it should be easy.

If you stand by it then i say you should be prepared to explain little details like molten steel as they are quite big issues. If you decide not to then why bother posting on the topic? I am not going to lose any sleep over it. I will try and pass on the information to those who wish to listen and even debate the points with people. It is fair to say that there are still questions. I don`t claim to know it all i just have questions for the most part.

As I said, there are far better explanations by real experts who know what they're talking about readily available. You know how to use Google, why should I do your work for you?

To agree with the official story blindly even if it were 100% true is still foolish in my mind.

You assume I blindly believe the official consensus. On the contrary, I believe the official consensus because of the facts, the evidence and the testimony of many, many experts in their field. You have a few nutjobs and no evidence. Why should I believe that?

This is like trying to convince a Creationist to accept evolution. They've decided that evolution cannot coexist with their belief and faith, so they try to destroy it. Never mind science, never mind the experts, never mind the truth. And they do the same things, they find details that haven't been explained or facts they don't understand, and then say the whole scientific theory is wrong. And of course their theory (creationism or intelligent design) has no evidence and no facts to back it, but we're supposed to just accept it. Sorry, I'm going to live in the real world, not some fantasy land where the governement can perpetrate the greatest mass murder in history and get away with it. That is, the greatest mass murder that has been gotten away with.

[VivaMexico 0]

I urge you to try and learn about what you dismiss so quickly. The scholars for truth movement is actually a lot more than a handful. They are in fact proving to be more than a handful for the mass media.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

On the above page is a list of scholars for truth. You should check them out. As for experts disagreeing you just have to look at what they have to say and see if you can see any holes in their explanations. The official story has always been incomplete and expert testimony has been known to about turn suddenly in favour of the official story. People who speak out against the official story have more to lose and people who support it have gains to be made i would say.

Are you likely to get that job at Popular Mechanics if you spoke out on the 9/11 physics issues. A pancake collapse(for those who ignored my video links) would take a lot longer than the time the buildings took to come down. The floors would provide resistance in the tower collapse even if the fires were hot enough on their own to weaken the steel. There was almost no resistance on 9/11.

I've read plenty about 9/11 theories. I read the website you gave me, and it is definitely a long list of people. I don't know any of them, and the fact that most of them are tenured professors frankly doesn't impress me that much. I'm sure if the government had as much time to waste as college professors they could come up with a list of tens of thousands of experts. At any rate, it is clear in reading their press release below that they are simply a group of Bush-haters trying to stir up controversy where there is none...notice their obsession with Bush, Rove, etc:

EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration (oohh...the evil administration) to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures. (bring in the tenured professors!)

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expected from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people , major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation. (another evil Bush lover!)

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:

In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible? (I doubt many have been hit by airplanes either)

The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible? where are they then?

Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible? (they weren't designed as well as he thought? the levees in New Orleans were supposed to work too)

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible? (not a physicist. I'll defer to one here.)

Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible? (umm, we can't confirm or deny that)

Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible? (apparently the pentagon didn't give them the building plans when they planned the conspiracy!)

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible? (who found the little pieces distributed in assorted places??? )

The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible? (maybe no one told her, but she's an evil Bushie, so this is a conspiracy).

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove (the devil himself! He stole the election from algore!), the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

[ual777 0]

ATC can lose sight of AA 77 if they lower their altitude too much or play with the 4096 encoded transponder on the aircraft.

Further, the claim that it was a missle that hit the Pentagon is utter bullcrap.

I shall explain.

Aircraft are made of aluminum, plastic, and glass in that order. They are built to be light-weight so that they can FLY, as bricks with wings do not fly very well. On some commercial airliners, you can actually see the wings bend downward when the wing tanks are full of fuel (747 and 777). Anyway, kinetic energy = mass x velocity squared, so a 200,000 lb. aircraft x 450 mph. SQUARED = a tremendous amount of kinetic energy. With an impact of that magnitude, I'm suprised they found anything at all.

To prove this, go home tonight and press an aluminum beer/soda can against a concrete wall, and see which one wins. Now imagine that beer/soda can is filled with kerosene and impacts that same wall at over 450 mph. and tell me how much of that beer can will be left, and how much of the concrete wall would be left.

Secondly, when missles hit buildings the impact is different. It is far more explosive and takes a kind of "fireball" shape and leaves a LARGE crater due to the fact that is is packed with high explosives.

At the Pentagon there was no upward explosion from within the building, there was no huge gaping crater, and there was no sign of explosive vapor (grey smoke).

Instead, you have an inward, forced directional impact, little or no crater,and thick black smoke that comes from the burning of jet fuel oil from the engines and plastics/wiring/insulation.

If you look at any high velocity aircraft crash, you will notice that there are VERY few large pieces of debris.

American Eagle 4184

USAIR 427

I would provide more pics, but over 95% of all crashes occur after take-off, or on landing, thus most do not have the "high velocity" impact that AA 77 had.

Further, if it was a missle, what happened to the 757, the pilots, flight attendants, and the passengers?

Did they disappear magically?

In addition, I'll be willing to bet that someone on that plane was identified in the wreckage via finger, toe, or some other bodypart (sorry that is gruesome).

Moving on, some people make a stink about the aircraft hitting the only reinforced part of the Pentagon, but lets think about it logically. AA 77 impacted the Pentagon on the side facing the interstate. One of the first things you are taught in flight school is to use freeways and highways to help navigate. So, if you hijacked an airplane and wanted to get somewhere (provided you have minimal flight experience like these guys) how would you find the Pentagon? By navigating along the Interstates to find it. Further, if you are going to structurally re-inforce a building against a terror attack, which side would you re-inforce first; the side facing a river or forest, or the side facing the freeway where a guy could easily drive a truck bomb upto your building a la the OKC bombing?

I think you get the picture.

The simple fact is that some people love conspiracy theories, and love to hate their government. I do not believe that the government is inherently evil. Dimwitted at times? yes. Evil? no.

Finally, I am not an "expert", but I am a pilot, and I have taken classes on aircraft accident investigation, and thus I am providing evidence to you right now, based on what I have learned and what I know from the military, physics, and flying.

P.S. Oh, and that whole argument about the impact hole being too small: The fuselage of a 757 is not much bigger than that of a 737, and the diameter of the fuselage is about 8-9 feet, but no greater than 9. It will not make an impact hole that big on a heavily reinforced military building such as the Pentagon.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Edited August 3, 2006 by ual777

[VivaMexico 0]

ATC can lose sight of AA 77 if they lower their altitude too much or play with the 4096 encoded transponder on the aircraft.

Further, the claim that it was a missle that hit the Pentagon is utter bullcrap.

I shall explain.

Aircraft are made of aluminum, plastic, and glass in that order. They are built to be light-weight so that they can FLY, as bricks with wings do not fly very well. On some commercial airliners, you can actually see the wings bend downward when the wing tanks are full of fuel (747 and 777). Anyway, kinetic energy = mass x velocity squared, so a 200,000 lb. aircraft x 450 mph. SQUARED = a tremendous amount of kinetic energy. With an impact of that magnitude, I'm suprised they found anything at all.

To prove this, go home tonight and press an aluminum beer/soda can against a concrete wall, and see which one wins. Now imagine that beer/soda can is filled with kerosene and impacts that same wall at over 450 mph. and tell me how much of that beer can will be left, and how much of the concrete wall would be left.

Secondly, when missles hit buildings the impact is different. It is far more explosive and takes a kind of "fireball" shape and leaves a LARGE crater due to the fact that is is packed with high explosives.

At the Pentagon there was no upward explosion from within the building, there was no huge gaping crater, and there was no sign of explosive vapor (grey smoke).

Instead, you have an inward, forced directional impact, little or no crater,and thick black smoke that comes from the burning of jet fuel oil from the engines and plastics/wiring/insulation.

If you look at any high velocity aircraft crash, you will notice that there are VERY few large pieces of debris.

American Eagle 4184

USAIR 427

I would provide more pics, but over 95% of all crashes occur after take-off, or on landing, thus most do not have the "high velocity" impact that AA 77 had.

Further, if it was a missle, what happened to the 757, the pilots, flight attendants, and the passengers?

Did they disappear magically?

In addition, I'll be willing to bet that someone on that plane was identified in the wreckage via finger, toe, or some other bodypart (sorry that is gruesome).

Moving on, some people make a stink about the aircraft hitting the only reinforced part of the Pentagon, but lets think about it logically. AA 77 impacted the Pentagon on the side facing the interstate. One of the first things you are taught in flight school is to use freeways and highways to help navigate. So, if you hijacked an airplane and wanted to get somewhere (provided you have minimal flight experience like these guys) how would you find the Pentagon? By navigating along the Interstates to find it. Further, if you are going to structurally re-inforce a building against a terror attack, which side would you re-inforce first; the side facing a river or forest, or the side facing the freeway where a guy could easily drive a truck bomb upto your building a la the OKC bombing?

I think you get the picture.

The simple fact is that some people love conspiracy theories, and love to hate their government. I do not believe that the government is inherently evil. Dimwitted at times? yes. Evil? no.

Finally, I am not an "expert", but I am a pilot, and I have taken classes on aircraft accident investigation, and thus I am providing evidence to you right now, based on what I have learned and what I know from the military, physics, and flying.

P.S. Oh, and that whole argument about the impact hole being too small: The fuselage of a 757 is not much bigger than that of a 737, and the diameter of the fuselage is about 8-9 feet, but no greater than 9. It will not make an impact hole that big on a heavily reinforced military building such as the Pentagon.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

THANK YOU!

[ual777 0]

ATC can lose sight of AA 77 if they lower their altitude too much or play with the 4096 encoded transponder on the aircraft.

Further, the claim that it was a missle that hit the Pentagon is utter bullcrap.

I shall explain.

Aircraft are made of aluminum, plastic, and glass in that order. They are built to be light-weight so that they can FLY, as bricks with wings do not fly very well. On some commercial airliners, you can actually see the wings bend downward when the wing tanks are full of fuel (747 and 777). Anyway, kinetic energy = mass x velocity squared, so a 200,000 lb. aircraft x 450 mph. SQUARED = a tremendous amount of kinetic energy. With an impact of that magnitude, I'm suprised they found anything at all.

To prove this, go home tonight and press an aluminum beer/soda can against a concrete wall, and see which one wins. Now imagine that beer/soda can is filled with kerosene and impacts that same wall at over 450 mph. and tell me how much of that beer can will be left, and how much of the concrete wall would be left.

Secondly, when missles hit buildings the impact is different. It is far more explosive and takes a kind of "fireball" shape and leaves a LARGE crater due to the fact that is is packed with high explosives.

At the Pentagon there was no upward explosion from within the building, there was no huge gaping crater, and there was no sign of explosive vapor (grey smoke).

Instead, you have an inward, forced directional impact, little or no crater,and thick black smoke that comes from the burning of jet fuel oil from the engines and plastics/wiring/insulation.

If you look at any high velocity aircraft crash, you will notice that there are VERY few large pieces of debris.

American Eagle 4184

USAIR 427

I would provide more pics, but over 95% of all crashes occur after take-off, or on landing, thus most do not have the "high velocity" impact that AA 77 had.

Further, if it was a missle, what happened to the 757, the pilots, flight attendants, and the passengers?

Did they disappear magically?

In addition, I'll be willing to bet that someone on that plane was identified in the wreckage via finger, toe, or some other bodypart (sorry that is gruesome).

Moving on, some people make a stink about the aircraft hitting the only reinforced part of the Pentagon, but lets think about it logically. AA 77 impacted the Pentagon on the side facing the interstate. One of the first things you are taught in flight school is to use freeways and highways to help navigate. So, if you hijacked an airplane and wanted to get somewhere (provided you have minimal flight experience like these guys) how would you find the Pentagon? By navigating along the Interstates to find it. Further, if you are going to structurally re-inforce a building against a terror attack, which side would you re-inforce first; the side facing a river or forest, or the side facing the freeway where a guy could easily drive a truck bomb upto your building a la the OKC bombing?

I think you get the picture.

The simple fact is that some people love conspiracy theories, and love to hate their government. I do not believe that the government is inherently evil. Dimwitted at times? yes. Evil? no.

Finally, I am not an "expert", but I am a pilot, and I have taken classes on aircraft accident investigation, and thus I am providing evidence to you right now, based on what I have learned and what I know from the military, physics, and flying.

P.S. Oh, and that whole argument about the impact hole being too small: The fuselage of a 757 is not much bigger than that of a 737, and the diameter of the fuselage is about 8-9 feet, but no greater than 9. It will not make an impact hole that big on a heavily reinforced military building such as the Pentagon.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

THANK YOU!

I aim to please.

[yabasta 0]

The "Green Cheese Moon" theory is an allegory. The fact that I have to explain this says something about your cognitive ability.

Did you read my whole response? I am aware of what you meant. I said this was a little more important than such a claim. Again trying to make me out to be inferior to you is not an argument for your view point.

I have not failed at defending the official consensus (I like that better than "story", thanks Viva), and in fact I do not have to. There are much better explanations by people far better at it than I, all readily available on the Internet. Viva's PM aritlce is just one.

Well i have not had many questions answered satisfactorily and really find it hard to believe that such a poor article as the PM one is seen as a good explanation when it fails to mention many points.

And I did not ask you to disprove the official consensus. I asked you to prove yours. Just come up with some solid evidence! If you're right, it should be easy.

I encourage people to look for themselves and to look in numerous different places. I don`t think solid evidence will ever convince some people because some people simply will not accept solid evidence as being solid and in some cases wont even accept it as evidence.

There is plenty of evidence out there but it is always played off by people. For example the person who said that the fuselage is about the right size for the hole ignores the wings and tail section and how would it fly so well without them?

On the other hand i am aware that the Pentagon could indeed be a straw man set up to be knocked down. Maybe a 757 really did hit the Pentagon i just can`t see how it got into that small hole. I won`t discount the idea just as i won`t discount the idea that it was perhaps a smaller plane and or missile. It certainly seems odd that we have not seen it from 100 angles.

As I said, there are far better explanations by real experts who know what they're talking about readily available. You know how to use Google, why should I do your work for you?

Sure i do use google and i have looked at debunk sites. I have researched the topic a lot in the last few years. I was not asking you to do my work for me at all. It just seems that you have been convinced by something that perhaps i have missed. Some magical airplane theory that explains the near freefall collapse of a 110 floor sky scraper. 110 floors that provide almost no resistance. This is the big problem that people just can not answer. You can make any number of claims but near freefall simply should not happen with 110 floors of concrete and steel. Resistance should be noticeable and i would even suggest that collapse should be non uniform.

You assume I blindly believe the official consensus. On the contrary, I believe the official consensus because of the facts, the evidence and the testimony of many, many experts in their field. You have a few nutjobs and no evidence. Why should I believe that?

I did not say that you necesarily believe the official story blindly. If you have no answer to a simple question like how the towers came down in near freefall then i would suggest that to accept the so called "facts" is also ignoring key "facts".

It is a "fact" that the towers came down in near freefall speed. This is a FACT. The jet fuel would not melt steel. This is another FACT.

Again name calling the person who you think is a " nut job" shows weakness in your argument. If indeed they are a nut job why have they not been proved wrong easily? Again this is not a cheese moon theory. This is not the same thing at all.

Again the "few" is not a few but MANY. That one websites is just a list of scholars. There are plenty of other people to speak out on this subject. People from all areas and political beliefs.

I am not saying you should believe the theories of "nut jobs". I offer you scholars because they know about physics and often people are attacked for their views based on their lack of physics knowledge. If i offer up a person who views the official story as a lie then that person is prompty attacked.

This is like trying to convince a Creationist to accept evolution. They've decided that evolution cannot coexist with their belief and faith, so they try to destroy it. Never mind science, never mind the experts, never mind the truth. And they do the same things, they find details that haven't been explained or facts they don't understand, and then say the whole scientific theory is wrong. And of course their theory (creationism or intelligent design) has no evidence and no facts to back it, but we're supposed to just accept it. Sorry, I'm going to live in the real world, not some fantasy land where the governement can perpetrate the greatest mass murder in history and get away with it. That is, the greatest mass murder that has been gotten away with.

Well firstly apply this last paragraph to yourself and see what you think. You have not convinced me that jet fuel can melt steel and if it weakened the steel then please explain the near freefall collapse. This is the pinpointed evidence. This one piece of evidence is plain to see by all and it is not a creation argument at all. Again your argument is totally side tracking the issue. Trying to make this into something else. Trying to turn the argument into a creationist debate perhaps. It is not an issue with no evidence or facts to support it. It is about physics laws and it is about numerous other facts that simply don`t add up or point to a cover up.

These unanswered facts that you play down should have been answered of course by the 9/11 commission report but they were not. The evidence was destroyed when it should have been preserved.

[GaryC 7]

It is a "fact" that the towers came down in near freefall speed. This is a FACT. The jet fuel would not melt steel. This is another FACT.

Your right, jet fuel will not "melt" steel. But it will soften it enough so the weight of the structure above it will cause it to fail. Once one part fails the rest comes crashing down in a chain reaction.

And thanks Ual777. I said some of the same things you did there but you have a lot more experience in those matters. In a battle between aluminum traveling at 400mph and reiforced concrete and stone the aluminum dosn't have a chance.

Edited August 4, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[yabasta 0]

To prove this, go home tonight and press an aluminum beer/soda can against a concrete wall, and see which one wins. Now imagine that beer/soda can is filled with kerosene and impacts that same wall at over 450 mph. and tell me how much of that beer can will be left, and how much of the concrete wall would be left.

Wouldn`t the nose hit before the fuel exploded? I mean this would slow down the plane somewhat i imagine. Like you i am no expert i amjust offering up an idea. I really don`t know what happened at the Pentagon.

Secondly, when missles hit buildings the impact is different. It is far more explosive and takes a kind of "fireball" shape and leaves a LARGE crater due to the fact that is is packed with high explosives.

Again i am no expert but wasn`t there a flash.

from http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm

If you look at any high velocity aircraft crash, you will notice that there are VERY few large pieces of debris.

American Eagle 4184

USAIR 427

I would provide more pics, but over 95% of all crashes occur after take-off, or on landing, thus most do not have the "high velocity" impact that AA 77 had.

I clicked those links you provided and i thank you for that but there were large pieces of debris there. I also clicked the page 2 and page 1 of each crash picture link you provided.

Yes the destruction was huge but there were large parts that survived.

Further, if it was a missle, what happened to the 757, the pilots, flight attendants, and the passengers?

If you believe a person A murdered person B would the police come to you and say "so where is the body buried then smart guy?". Finding holes in the official story does not automatically give you all the answers sadly.

Moving on, some people make a stink about the aircraft hitting the only reinforced part of the Pentagon, but lets think about it logically. AA 77 impacted the Pentagon on the side facing the interstate. One of the first things you are taught in flight school is to use freeways and highways to help navigate. So, if you hijacked an airplane and wanted to get somewhere (provided you have minimal flight experience like these guys) how would you find the Pentagon? By navigating along the Interstates to find it. Further, if you are going to structurally re-inforce a building against a terror attack, which side would you re-inforce first; the side facing a river or forest, or the side facing the freeway where a guy could easily drive a truck bomb upto your building a la the OKC bombing?

Good point yes but if you were a pilot looking at your suicide target would you not go for the roof? Seems an easier target that would do more damage and cause more death.

The simple fact is that some people love conspiracy theories, and love to hate their government. I do not believe that the government is inherently evil. Dimwitted at times? yes. Evil? no.

Some people look at information available and make up their own minds but that does not mean that they are crazy or gulable or anything. You disagree that does not make you right or superior. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that i agree are fun and interesting but some of these theories have weight behind them. If a theory has no weight behind it then sure it is just a theory. As soon as you have some evidence to support that theory though it becomes as valid an option as the official story. We often learn about history years later and learn that what we were told then was not true.

P.S. Oh, and that whole argument about the impact hole being too small: The fuselage of a 757 is not much bigger than that of a 737, and the diameter of the fuselage is about 8-9 feet, but no greater than 9. It will not make an impact hole that big on a heavily reinforced military building such as the Pentagon.

wings? tail? engines? How dd the fuselage get to the building on it`s own?

It is a "fact" that the towers came down in near freefall speed. This is a FACT. The jet fuel would not melt steel. This is another FACT.

Your right, jet fuel will not "melt" steel. But it will soften it enough so the weight of the structure above it will cause it to fail. Once one part fails the rest comes crashing down in a chain reaction.

And thanks Ual777. I said some of the same things you did there but you have a lot more experience in those matters. In a battle between aluminum traveling at 400mph and reiforced concrete and stone the aluminum dosn't have a chance.

So if it was weakened i ask AGAIN why did the floors below not provide hardly any resistance? Weakened steel would still take longer to come down. You also didn`t watch the video of metal dripping off of the tower did you?

[GaryC 7]

If you look at how a skycraper is built it is only a framework of steel with a curtain wall built around it. Once the middle gave out and the top came crashing down on it then it just pancakes. The structure below can't handle the shock of all that weight suddenly coming down. Then one floor after another fails. It doesn't take a engineer to see that. As far as dripping molten metal dripping goes, there wasn't any. The metal just weakend and gave way. Anyone with half an eye can see that it was structural failure that caused it to pancake like that.

[VivaMexico 0]

If you look at how a skycraper is built it is only a framework of steel with a curtain wall built around it. Once the middle gave out and the top came crashing down on it then it just pancakes. The structure below can't handle the shock of all that weight suddenly coming down. Then one floor after another fails. It doesn't take a engineer to see that. As far as dripping molten metal dripping goes, there wasn't any. The metal just weakend and gave way. Anyone with half an eye can see that it was structural failure that caused it to pancake like that.

Well said I don't know why yabasta keeps claiming that it is impossible for a building to collapse like that. If I remember correctly, the planes hit somewhere around the 80th floor. That means that after the fire burned for several hours, the structure weakened and the 20-30 floors above collapsed. THe weight of that would certainly cause the floors below to fail.

Secondly yabasta, there is plenty of discussion of why the wings and tail of an airplane wouldn't make a cartoon-like hole in the pentagon. Look at the PM article and Purdue video again.

[yabasta 0]

If you look at how a skycraper is built it is only a framework of steel with a curtain wall built around it. Once the middle gave out and the top came crashing down on it then it just pancakes. The structure below can't handle the shock of all that weight suddenly coming down. Then one floor after another fails. It doesn't take a engineer to see that. As far as dripping molten metal dripping goes, there wasn't any. The metal just weakend and gave way. Anyone with half an eye can see that it was structural failure that caused it to pancake like that.

Well said I don't know why yabasta keeps claiming that it is impossible for a building to collapse like that. If I remember correctly, the planes hit somewhere around the 80th floor. That means that after the fire burned for several hours, the structure weakened and the 20-30 floors above collapsed. THe weight of that would certainly cause the floors below to fail.

Secondly yabasta, there is plenty of discussion of why the wings and tail of an airplane wouldn't make a cartoon-like hole in the pentagon. Look at the PM article and Purdue video again.

Again for those who missed it.

video showing molten metal dripping from the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

After six weeks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ

The above videos are like 3 minutes or so in total.

You talk of how a sky scraper is built but you need to be more specific here. How the WTC towers were built. The building was heavily engineered to withstand a jet plane impact. The building did everything that it was designed to do. It swayed and absorbed the impact. Most of the fuel is seen burning in the air outside the towers. The explosions during the collapse are not the jet fuel exploding again. After the plane impact the smoke indicates that the fire is burning inefficiently.

One more time if the pancake happened please explain the lack of resistance from the floors? a freefalling object would land a second or two later so please explain 110 floors failing to slow down the process by anymore than that.

The pancake theory also fails to explain the destruction of the tower above the impact zone. Also the towers were not burning for hours as stated by Viva Mexico. The towers came down very soon after the raging inferno. Oh wait there was no raging inferno.

I am not debating with the websites you have linke di am debating with you. If you wish to quote one of hte pages that you have shown me already feel free to do so. I personally find the Pentagon to be a distraction in many ways. Arguing over whether it was a plane or a missile or whatever. Maybe it was a 757 i just don`t see how it was. I have not been convinced on that one.

also i made no mention of a "cartoon" hole although the hole in the side of the south tower was more plane shaped. The Pentagon was tougher so perhaps more resistant to the impact. The issue i have is with the hole size. I also wonder about the exit hole.

[GaryC 7]

What you saw dripping there could have been anything. Just because the video labled it "thermite" doesn't make it so. Aluminum melts at a much lower temp. There was a 757 buried in there. It could have been that. For the building to have been rigged to go down would have taken an enormous amount of preperation. Someone would have noticed it. And the hijacker would have to hit the EXACT spot that they rigged. I doubt if they could have done that. Have you ever watched one of those shows where they implode a building? It takes weeks to get it ready. They rip out walls and drill holes in structural points to put the explosives in. I really doubt if they could have done that without someone noticing. Also did you see any explosions as the building went down? They would have had to rig it floor by floor in a controlled way. It is way beond the realm of possability for it to have been rigged.

[VivaMexico 0]

Again for those who missed it.

video showing molten metal dripping from the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

After six weeks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ

The above videos are like 3 minutes or so in total.

You talk of how a sky scraper is built but you need to be more specific here. How the WTC towers were built. The building was heavily engineered to withstand a jet plane impact. The building did everything that it was designed to do. It swayed and absorbed the impact. Most of the fuel is seen burning in the air outside the towers. The explosions during the collapse are not the jet fuel exploding again. After the plane impact the smoke indicates that the fire is burning inefficiently.

One more time if the pancake happened please explain the lack of resistance from the floors? a freefalling object would land a second or two later so please explain 110 floors failing to slow down the process by anymore than that.

The pancake theory also fails to explain the destruction of the tower above the impact zone. Also the towers were not burning for hours as stated by Viva Mexico. The towers came down very soon after the raging inferno. Oh wait there was no raging inferno.

I am not debating with the websites you have linke di am debating with you. If you wish to quote one of hte pages that you have shown me already feel free to do so. I personally find the Pentagon to be a distraction in many ways. Arguing over whether it was a plane or a missile or whatever. Maybe it was a 757 i just don`t see how it was. I have not been convinced on that one.

also i made no mention of a "cartoon" hole although the hole in the side of the south tower was more plane shaped. The Pentagon was tougher so perhaps more resistant to the impact. The issue i have is with the hole size. I also wonder about the exit hole.

I watched the videos the first time. What does that prove? who knows whether it was steel beams, the airplane fuselage, or some other metal object, if it even was metal? Secondly, I don't know how you can look at the videos you keep showing and say there was not a raging inferno. All eyewitness accounts from the inside describe a raging inferno. And thirdly, the planes hit about 9 a.m., and the towers collapsed about 2 hours later if I remember correctly (i was running away from the Capitol so I don't remember exactly). That is plenty of time for fires to compromise the strength of the steel structure.

Finally, you continue to link to pages and tell me to read them. i did the same and you told me you want to debate with me. I defer to expert scientists on technical issues, and I trust you can read the websites I give you, just as I have done with the site you gave me. You brought up the pentagon issue a long time ago, so don't tell me that arguing about it is a distraction. you brought it up.