9/11 Documentary

[yabasta 0]

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.

So again you ignore all the points that you have no alternate explanation for? Shall we try again with my main point?

How does A 110 floor skyscraper hit the deck in a second longer than freefall without some sort of help? The floors would have provided resistance even if the force above was heavier. It is basic science that an object moving into another object will be met with resistance.

You speak with such knowledge on how the towers would need to be demolished. So the dripping metal is not evidence of thermite? Well maybe not but how do you explain the second video. THe hot spots that were seen on thermal images weeks afterwards.

Explosions can be seen as the towers come down but if you doubt that or claim that the explosions are the floors pancaking then perhaps you will listen to the fire fighters in the building who reported exlposions or the many others who reported exlposions coming from all over the building.

Why would the plane have to hit an exact spot? Why would the plane even need a pilot?

As far as preparign the buildings it has been well established that this process take time which is part of the reason that building 7 is such a mystery. There have been reports of power downs prior to 9/11. It is possible to plan the demolition without entering the building and so they would in theory only need a certain ammount of time to set charges. These could be triggered from elsewhere.

You say that somebody would notice the preparation and people have indeed noticed it after the fact. Atthe time people would probably not be expecting such an event.

It is not way beyond the realm of possibility and is in fact the best explanation i can think of that explains the super quick collapse time.

[yabasta 0]

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.

from CNN

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris forms and slowly drifts away from the building.

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.

10:28 a.m.: The World Trade Center's north tower collapses from the top down as if it were being peeled apart, releasing a tremendous cloud of debris and smoke.

So you were close on one tower but the south tower collapsed an hour later. North Tower was an hour and a half. So even then if we assume that is time for jet fuel to weaken the steel enough to collapse both towers it brings us back to the question nobody on the debunk side seems able to answer. How did the towers collapse so quickly and why was there very little resistance from the floors etc? Weakened steel is still going to have some sort of resistance alone but then add floors etc and it does not add up.

Another blanket statement about eye witness accounts? ALL eyewitness accounts?

95TH FLOOR

Patricia Alonso, victim

Marsh & McLennan

She managed one phone call to her husband, Robert. This is his brief account:

She worked in Tower 1, 95th floor. She was on the southeast side looking over the Brooklyn Bridge. I talked to her while she was evacuating. She called me on her cell phone at 9:07. She said she was leaving. She was evacuating.

I said, "I'm coming down to get you.'' And I told her I loved her. And she told me she loved me. She didn't know that a plane had hit the building. She just said there was smoke.

How do you explain this.

This woman is not on fire and yet she is standing at the impact zone shortly after impact.

This is a raging inferno for those who have not seen the movie.

You might not mean to lie so much but it paints you in a negative light when you are seen to make so many false statements.

firefighters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26k0nCE1_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0-5dmSh6TQ

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0VpgWEl90

[rclouse 0]

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.

The jet fuel that burned was gone in a few minutes, but it ignited a fire that could not be put out. That fire was what weakened the steelsuch that it could not support the weight above it.

I forget exactly what it is, but each floor can support the weight of two or three floors. That's how the building is able to stay up, the first floor isn't supporting the weight of 109 floors, it's supporting its own weight plus some extra strength was engineered in for safety. When the weakened steel finally gave way, the floor above suddeenly had to support the weight of 10, 15, 20 floors, it couldn't, and it collapsed. The next floor down couldn't take it, and so on. It happened very quickly, as you could see from the video.

I just realized something. You weren't saying only one floor had explosives on it. You're saying every floor had explosives on it, and when the buildings collapsed you believe that each floor's explosives were detonated in sequence to bring down the building. My god, you're ###### insane.

Sorry, I just can't not say that. That is the most ###### insane thing I've heard. It wouldn't take hundreds of pounds of explosives to do that, it would take tens of thousands. And you believe the government was able to sneak tens of thousands of pounds of high explosives into two very large buidlings with tight security and tens of thousands of people using them, place the explosives where they needed to be to bring it down, yet out of sight, with all the electronics necessary to do the demolition. And how do you power the detonators? You can't depend on the building's electricity after you fly the planes into it, and batteries won't last long enough. Then after flying two planes into the building, you start the demolition at the floor just below where the planes hit, and have it all work perfectly without anyone knowing or blowing the whistle? Holy dogshit, you're batshit crazy.

[VivaMexico 0]

You might not mean to lie so much but it paints you in a negative light when you are seen to make so many false statements.

Excuse me? Lie? This from the guy claiming that 9/11 was an elaborate government conspiracy. On a related note, I love how the same people that claim Bush is an absolute idiot think that he masterminded the most complex scheme ever (and pulled it off with no witnesses).

[yabasta 0]

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.

The jet fuel that burned was gone in a few minutes, but it ignited a fire that could not be put out. That fire was what weakened the steelsuch that it could not support the weight above it.

I forget exactly what it is, but each floor can support the weight of two or three floors. That's how the building is able to stay up, the first floor isn't supporting the weight of 109 floors, it's supporting its own weight plus some extra strength was engineered in for safety. When the weakened steel finally gave way, the floor above suddeenly had to support the weight of 10, 15, 20 floors, it couldn't, and it collapsed. The next floor down couldn't take it, and so on. It happened very quickly, as you could see from the video.

I just realized something. You weren't saying only one floor had explosives on it. You're saying every floor had explosives on it, and when the buildings collapsed you believe that each floor's explosives were detonated in sequence to bring down the building. My god, you're ###### insane.

Sorry, I just can't not say that. That is the most ###### insane thing I've heard. It wouldn't take hundreds of pounds of explosives to do that, it would take tens of thousands. And you believe the government was able to sneak tens of thousands of pounds of high explosives into two very large buidlings with tight security and tens of thousands of people using them, place the explosives where they needed to be to bring it down, yet out of sight, with all the electronics necessary to do the demolition. And how do you power the detonators? You can't depend on the building's electricity after you fly the planes into it, and batteries won't last long enough. Then after flying two planes into the building, you start the demolition at the floor just below where the planes hit, and have it all work perfectly without anyone knowing or blowing the whistle? Holy dogshit, you're batshit crazy.

I will assume that you meant to quote me and respond to you. Not sure why i should respond to you. you not only are you rude but you really think that being rude is an argument. On top of this how do you suggest an office fire weakening steel. The fires didn`t burn very long either. You also faile dto respond to my question. If you are saying you support the pancake theory then how do you explain the lac of resistance? I have asked many times so nobody reading the whole thread can claim to have missed it. Yet nobody has responded.

I don`t appreciate your rude attitude but sadly good manners are something that a lot of debunkers lack it seems.

You might not mean to lie so much but it paints you in a negative light when you are seen to make so many false statements.

Excuse me? Lie? This from the guy claiming that 9/11 was an elaborate government conspiracy. On a related note, I love how the same people that claim Bush is an absolute idiot think that he masterminded the most complex scheme ever (and pulled it off with no witnesses).

Again you attempt to attack my character. You lie constantly. You can say they are honest mistakes but either way they show that you do not know what you are talking about. Would you like me to point out your errors so far in this thread? Or perhaps i should focus on your personal attacks against me or your attempts to put words in my mouth? Somewhere in all that is your argument but it is as hard to find as those WTC blackboxes apparently were.

[VivaMexico 0]

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.

The jet fuel that burned was gone in a few minutes, but it ignited a fire that could not be put out. That fire was what weakened the steelsuch that it could not support the weight above it.

I forget exactly what it is, but each floor can support the weight of two or three floors. That's how the building is able to stay up, the first floor isn't supporting the weight of 109 floors, it's supporting its own weight plus some extra strength was engineered in for safety. When the weakened steel finally gave way, the floor above suddeenly had to support the weight of 10, 15, 20 floors, it couldn't, and it collapsed. The next floor down couldn't take it, and so on. It happened very quickly, as you could see from the video.

I just realized something. You weren't saying only one floor had explosives on it. You're saying every floor had explosives on it, and when the buildings collapsed you believe that each floor's explosives were detonated in sequence to bring down the building. My god, you're ###### insane.

Sorry, I just can't not say that. That is the most ###### insane thing I've heard. It wouldn't take hundreds of pounds of explosives to do that, it would take tens of thousands. And you believe the government was able to sneak tens of thousands of pounds of high explosives into two very large buidlings with tight security and tens of thousands of people using them, place the explosives where they needed to be to bring it down, yet out of sight, with all the electronics necessary to do the demolition. And how do you power the detonators? You can't depend on the building's electricity after you fly the planes into it, and batteries won't last long enough. Then after flying two planes into the building, you start the demolition at the floor just below where the planes hit, and have it all work perfectly without anyone knowing or blowing the whistle? Holy dogshit, you're batshit crazy.

I will assume that you meant to quote me and respond to you. Not sure why i should respond to you. you not only are you rude but you really think that being rude is an argument. On top of this how do you suggest an office fire weakening steel. The fires didn`t burn very long either. You also faile dto respond to my question. If you are saying you support the pancake theory then how do you explain the lac of resistance? I have asked many times so nobody reading the whole thread can claim to have missed it. Yet nobody has responded.

I don`t appreciate your rude attitude but sadly good manners are something that a lot of debunkers lack it seems.

Ok, you're very hung up on the fact that we don't address your "lack of resistance" theory, so let's give it a shot. First of all, I don't know that anyone has witnessed 2 110-story buildings collapsing before, so how are we to know exactly how long it should take (how much resistance each floor would provide)? It's a non-argument. You can say it should take a few seconds, I can say it would be instantanious. Who knows?!?? the fact is that on 9/11 we found out just how long it takes and how much resistance it provided! As others have said, it's completely ridiculous to claim that the government planted explosives. You can continue to ask questions, but the overwhelming evidence (and common sense) points to the fact that the structure weakened and gave out at the point of impact, and the weight of the floors above that point subsequently caused total collapse in a matter of seconds.

Again you attempt to attack my character. You lie constantly. You can say they are honest mistakes but either way they show that you do not know what you are talking about. Would you like me to point out your errors so far in this thread? Or perhaps i should focus on your personal attacks against me or your attempts to put words in my mouth? Somewhere in all that is your argument but it is as hard to find as those WTC blackboxes apparently were.

I did not attack your character nor put words in your mouth. You keep claiming that...please provide an example. It is you who attacks my character by calling me a liar. I have not said anything like that to you. I think i have explained my argument in greater detail than the ridiculous conspiracy allegations merit in the first place.

[yabasta 0]

Well how long it should take is a law of physics. I notice that you finally attempt to address this point after twistign the facts did nto work. How does common sense work in your mind? The laws of physics show that other buildings fall down. The WTC towers did not fall down but they crumbled into themselves. This is very odd in itself. Add to this the law of physics for falling matter. A piece of rubble at the top of the tower would take about one second less time to reach the ground than the top piece of the towers took. A top piece which incidentally had 109 floors below it to slow it down. Common sense tells me that 109 floors would slow down the fall by considerably more unless some sort of assistance was given to the towers.

To call me insane is just a pathetic argument. If i am insane then where is your proof after all?

[VivaMexico 0]

Well how long it should take is a law of physics. I notice that you finally attempt to address this point after twistign the facts did nto work. How does common sense work in your mind? The laws of physics show that other buildings fall down. The WTC towers did not fall down but they crumbled into themselves. This is very odd in itself. Add to this the law of physics for falling matter. A piece of rubble at the top of the tower would take about one second less time to reach the ground than the top piece of the towers took. A top piece which incidentally had 109 floors below it to slow it down. Common sense tells me that 109 floors would slow down the fall by considerably more unless some sort of assistance was given to the towers.

To call me insane is just a pathetic argument. If i am insane then where is your proof after all?

I don't recall saying you were insane. I think you are confusing me with other posters. At any rate, I'm not a physicist, as I already pointed out. But my common sense tells me that it is certainly possible that the towers fell as fast as they did without explosive assistance. You don't have to agree with my assessment.

[dalegg 143]

Actually it is very well documented and widely addepted that the 'confession' tape of Bin Laden was a fake. One only has to view it to see that firstly the guy was a double, merely by his general appearance. Secondly, he is writing with his right hand- the FBI description of his has him as left handed. He also wears a gold ring- which I hear is forbidden by the Islam faith.

This is probably my favorite part of the conspiracy theory, although admittadly the softest. Bin Laden initially denied any part of the bombing, then later this controversial fat Bin Laden tape comes out taking credit for the action.

Now- this may not be a smoking gun pinning 9/11 on Bin Laden, but one thing it should do it put to rest the idea that Osama Bin Laden is an undercover CIA agent for the U.S, because if he was, why didn't he act like a good CIA agent and go along with the plan taking credit right away? Was he on strike for a couple months holding out for some better deal?

[yabasta 0]

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.

I missed this and wanted to comment.

I have only linked pages to counter pages. Other than that i have linked videos which demonstrate evidence. The videos have been short to the point videos and the same goes for pictures that i have posted. the point of the evidence i post is to be as simple as possible. I know if i post lots of links people are unlikely to read them or even click them. The only page i linked that i recall was a counter to your popular mechanics piece. Whether you read it is up to you. I really am not bothered but wanted it posted for the record.

The Pentagon to me is a side issue. It is one piece of the puzzle and it is one of the lesser known events of 9/11. We have no video to study and very few phtographs to look at. The lack of information about the Pentagon leaves it open to debate but that debate will probably never be resolved. I have my thoughts on the Pentagon and i have expressed them. I concede that this could be a straw man set up to knock down although the bad video released did not silence any criticism as it was unclear (literally).

Perhaps i did in part confuse you with other posters but you certainly did imply that i was crazy. Your whole attitude is very negative towards this debate and towards those who have different views to you.

In reference to thePentagon again i think there comes a point when we have to agree to disagree. I will always post information that i believe should be looked at but at some point i expect people to either ignore it or follow it up with their own research. I don`t see any point in endless debate on one issue. If you have anything else to say on the Pentagon by all means do so and if i feel compelled to respond i will.

I did not call you a liar but you have stated some things that were false and therefore i called them lies. Lies is perhaps a little harsh and so sorry if i offended you. You do tend to downplay and dismiss though which seems to show a clear bias when mixed with the adding of time to the burning towers.

[VivaMexico 0]

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.

I missed this and wanted to comment.

I have only linked pages to counter pages. Other than that i have linked videos which demonstrate evidence. The videos have been short to the point videos and the same goes for pictures that i have posted. the point of the evidence i post is to be as simple as possible. I know if i post lots of links people are unlikely to read them or even click them. The only page i linked that i recall was a counter to your popular mechanics piece. Whether you read it is up to you. I really am not bothered but wanted it posted for the record.

The Pentagon to me is a side issue. It is one piece of the puzzle and it is one of the lesser known events of 9/11. We have no video to study and very few phtographs to look at. The lack of information about the Pentagon leaves it open to debate but that debate will probably never be resolved. I have my thoughts on the Pentagon and i have expressed them. I concede that this could be a straw man set up to knock down although the bad video released did not silence any criticism as it was unclear (literally).

Perhaps i did in part confuse you with other posters but you certainly did imply that i was crazy. Your whole attitude is very negative towards this debate and towards those who have different views to you.

In reference to thePentagon again i think there comes a point when we have to agree to disagree. I will always post information that i believe should be looked at but at some point i expect people to either ignore it or follow it up with their own research. I don`t see any point in endless debate on one issue. If you have anything else to say on the Pentagon by all means do so and if i feel compelled to respond i will.

I did not call you a liar but you have stated some things that were false and therefore i called them lies. Lies is perhaps a little harsh and so sorry if i offended you. You do tend to downplay and dismiss though which seems to show a clear bias when mixed with the adding of time to the burning towers.

Ok, that's fair. Frankly we're never going to agree on this issue, so we can probably put it to rest for now. You think that if I agree with the "official" account of events, I am a blinded sheep that doesn't question anything. And I agree that I downplay your position and consider it a bit wacky. So i guess we're even on that one.

[yabasta 0]

Actually it is very well documented and widely addepted that the 'confession' tape of Bin Laden was a fake. One only has to view it to see that firstly the guy was a double, merely by his general appearance. Secondly, he is writing with his right hand- the FBI description of his has him as left handed. He also wears a gold ring- which I hear is forbidden by the Islam faith.

This is probably my favorite part of the conspiracy theory, although admittadly the softest. Bin Laden initially denied any part of the bombing, then later this controversial fat Bin Laden tape comes out taking credit for the action.

Now- this may not be a smoking gun pinning 9/11 on Bin Laden, but one thing it should do it put to rest the idea that Osama Bin Laden is an undercover CIA agent for the U.S, because if he was, why didn't he act like a good CIA agent and go along with the plan taking credit right away? Was he on strike for a couple months holding out for some better deal?

Well any number of scenarios are possible of course but i believe Bin Laden is or was a CIA asset and therefore he is/was used by the CIA and was perhaps not always directly ordered. Perhaps(just an idea) he was just manipulated. Obviously he has been looked after by somebody as his family all got flown out of the USA and he was looked after in hospital whilst on the most wanted list. He also has not been caught. The idea that they could not catch him i find hard to believe. Bin Laden might not be alive anymore for all we know. The whole tape finding is rather a stretch for me. So they found this tape on it`s own or as part of a collection? Was it labelled Osama confession tape? Were the experts who identify people from video on holiday with Bush the day it was found?

Ok, that's fair. Frankly we're never going to agree on this issue, so we can probably put it to rest for now. You think that if I agree with the "official" account of events, I am a blinded sheep that doesn't question anything. And I agree that I downplay your position and consider it a bit wacky. So i guess we're even on that one.

I know you are joking but i really don`t see you as a blinded sheep. I think we all have bias and we all have a lot of ####### to get through to find the truth. I know it is not easy to know what is real because i have looked into history and studied media etc. Everybody is selling something and information is power. I don`t look down my nose at you. It is just annoying sometimes when opinions and views are just mocked or dismissed without any regard. I often play devil`s advocate as i feel debate is a healthy way to understanding.

On that note i should get back to why i am online right now.

[rclouse 0]

I will assume that you meant to quote me and respond to you. Not sure why i should respond to you. you not only are you rude but you really think that being rude is an argument. On top of this how do you suggest an office fire weakening steel. The fires didn`t burn very long either. You also faile dto respond to my question. If you are saying you support the pancake theory then how do you explain the lac of resistance? I have asked many times so nobody reading the whole thread can claim to have missed it. Yet nobody has responded.

I don`t appreciate your rude attitude but sadly good manners are something that a lot of debunkers lack it seems.

I apologize for being rude. I will try to be nice from here on.

Now please, answer me at least one of the following questions:

How could anyone sneak tens of thousands of pounds of high explosives into two buildings with very good security and being used by tens of thousands of people on a daily basis?

How could the explosives be placed where they needed to be, yet out of sight so they wouldn't be discovered?

How could you wire hundreds of explosives into the power of the buildings without being discovered? (we'll assume the detonators have batteries that are used if/when the power goes out due to the planes)

How do you prevent the explosives on the floors where the planes hit from going off too soon, due to a raging fire started by jet fuel and then continuing from the furniture, building materials, office materials, etc. for 60 to 105 minutes?

Again, you are the one advancing a theory that is far removed from what the vast majority of experts accept. You need to present adequate evidence supporting your theory. You cannot point to supposed "holes" or things you don't understand in the official consensus and use that as proof the consensus is wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would argue that the govt dropped the ball on this, which we know from the reports that the adminstration didn't take the terrorist threat warnings particularly seriously.

Ultimately oversight and bureaucratic incompetance is more the cause of 9/11 than some sort of coordinated plan involving some branches of government and law enforcement. After all secrets of that nature are not all that easy to keep.

To put it into context - this happened around the time when Bush was running the country from the golf course and spending all his time fishing in the country. I'm not saying he is to blame for what happened, but certainly its fair to say they got caught with their trousers down...

[ual777 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?

I will address your post in order.

First, you have to remember that the aircraft is impacting the side of the building at over 400 mph. It doesn't matter what part hits first, the whole plane is going to be obliterated in less than a second. It will not slow down because that is not the nature of alluminum. Aluminum crumples, much like my beer can example, but when it is impacting at that mass and velocity, it will impact INTO the structure while being obliterated at the same time.

Second, that flash you see is billowing fire. An explosion from a missle is different in that it goes outward and upward from within the building. If you watch the tape, It clearly impacts inward, and the fire coming outward comes directly from the impact hole due to the huge pressure differencial.

Third, I did not say there would be "no" large pieces of debris, I said there would be VERY few which is consistant with the pictures I provided. I cannot see the ones you posted so I cannot comment. You cannot compare an aircraft impacting a mountain on landing or something similar because the landing speed of the aircraft is about 150-190 mph. NOT 400 so obviously there will be larger pieces of debris. I chose those two accident photos because they are similar to the physics of the Pentagon attacks.

The video that was posted convienantly left out some fotos showing a few twisted pieces of the fuselage of the AA jet. Why? because they want to get their "point" accross and are only showing evidence that supports them. Please post the links to those pictures because I would like to see them.

Four, where did the 757 go then? It obviously had to take off with the crew and passengers and thus where did it go? Your response makes no sense whatsoever. Im willing to wager that they even identified body parts of the passengers using DNA testing, but I lack the patience at the moment to sift through news articles to find it.

Five, When piloting a suicide aircraft, or any aircraft for that matter, you cannot just put it into a nose dive hoping to hit a target with any accuracy. I AM an expert on this as I am a pilot. The speed would build quickly "overspeeding" the aircraft and terminating your control, and would overstress the airplane cause it to come apart in the air further reducing your accuracy. Remember, these terrorists are not dumb and had some flight training and knew this. Further, if you hit the roof, you make a hole. If you Impact on the side at high velocity on a building with "rings" (which I'm sure they studied pictures of) you can create much more damage and destruction.

Six, I understand what you are saying, but this theory is using HEAVY amounts of "selective" evidence to paint the picture how they want it to be seen. Their 'missle' theory is one of the most moronic and implausible things that I have ever had the misfortune of wasting my time listening to. People believe this ####### because they know little to nothing about the nature of aircraft. I cannot remember the amount of times a fellow passenger has told me something idiotic about the airplane we were on.

Seven, The wings will fold INTO the fuselage on an impact of that magnitude. They were also filled with fuel ensuring their obliteration. The tail will be smashed into a thousand pieces when impacting a reinforced structure at that speed.

Aircraft are built to be light weight and carry as much payload as possible. As weight increases so does fuel consumption, range is reduced, and the plane begins to take on the flying characteristics of a brick. Thus, they MUST be light-weight and fragile in order to operate profitably for the airlines.

The reason you see the tail and wings remaining in most airline crashes is because they imoact the ground at a shallow angle of 10-30 degrees, not the 90 degrees of AA 77. Thus often the structure remains intact until it is destroyed by fire. The reason the tail remains is that there is a firewall aft of the pressure bulkhead that prevents its destruction, and ditto for the wings. That being said, those firewalls do you absolutely NO good when impacting a reinforced building at a HIGH speed at a 90 degree angle. Even other building impacts can not be compared because the aircraft impacted at stall speed (appx. 120 mph) at a 40-60 degree angle not 450 at 90 degrees.

THAT is why there is almost nothing left from the aircraft save some titanium fan blades, a smoldering wheel well, and some scattered twisted pieces of the fuselage.

With all due respect, the video's "theory" and your support of it do not stand.

Discuss amongst yourselves.