Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Because the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed?

What about the remains of Flight 77? Where did they disappear? Jet fuel will NOT disintegrate an ENTIRE BOENG 747. So where are the remnants? Where is the black box?

The black box was found at the crash site, as well as the DNA remains of the victims and pieces of the aircraft.

Oh, and eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon and light poles that were clipped near the freeway as the plane careened into the building that a cruise missile wouldn't be able to knock down.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:09 pm --

What building collapsed without being hit by anything?

Building 7 collapsed, as well as the other buildings (5 and 6) that were damaged by the fires and partially collapsed.

The damage to 5 and 6 was consistent with how building 7 collapsed - the steel supports were compromised from the fire to the building and the fire coating that was supposed to protect from fire damage failed to hold up.

Building 5 partially collapsed as a result of the fire even though it was only 9 stories high and the fire only affected parts of floors 4-9.

Both of the buildings were structurally compromised and later demolished as a result of the force generated as WTC 1 and 2 fell in addition to the fire damage they received.

What building collapsed without being hit by anything?

WTC7

See my link to a jet crashing a fortifies concrete wall: it (the jet) vaporizes!

I did. As you can see the concrete wall was barely damaged by the collision, which is not what happened to the Pentagon. And I ask you again, where is the black box?

What 747?

757, sorry.

Somehow, unfortunately, I dont think you realize how foolish and stupid it sound to ask somebody to disprove a conspiracy.

A conspiracy THEORY*

Thank you for mocking my accidental omission of the word 'theory'.

And before you go around mocking me, why don't you answer my question directly, instead of beating around the bush.

Icenic wrote:WTC7

WTC 7 was hit by debris

As you can see the concrete wall was barely damaged by the collision

Please point to the mark where you can see the wall is barely damaged.

A conspiracy THEORY*

Asking somebody to disprove a conspiracy theory is the same level of foolishness.

OK I can't help myself.

event horizon wrote:Building 7 collapsed, as well as the other buildings (5 and 6) that were damaged by the fires and partially collapsed.

The damage to 5 and 6 was consistent with how building 7 collapsed - the steel supports were compromised from the fire to the building and the fire coating that was supposed to protect from fire damage failed to hold up.

EH - steel can not melt with a normal fire. Please tell me how that can happen?
On the other buildings the governments line is jet fuel - even this doesn't make sense for the reasons provided earlier. Please tell me how does steel melt with a normal building fire? Are you suggesting that buildings fires are normally at 1500 C or that there was something else combustible inside the building?

As Icenic said - please explain some of the arguments we have both put forward rather than just mock the evidence as it isn't fruitful.

Have you seen the link DDS posted?

WTC 7 was hit by debris

So debris made the whole building collapse in a demolition-like manner?

Please point to the mark where you can see the wall is barely damaged.

Starting at 0:36. Not only can you SEE that the wall has been barely damaged, but the narratore says, "...but the wall designed to move and absorb energy did it's job well."

Asking somebody to disprove a conspiracy theory is the same level of foolishness.

How is that foolish? It is a valid theory. Instead of dismissing it, disprove it.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:40 pm --

OK I can't help myself.

Hahahahaha!! Classic!! We are one and the same I see!!

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:45 pm --

The black box was found at the crash site, as well as the DNA remains of the victims and pieces of the aircraft.

So where is all the information that is stored in them? Why has it not been released to the public?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the data on the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable.

If the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable, it would be the first time in aviation history a solid-state data recorder (the type used on Flight 77) was unrecoverable after a crash. From a Scientific American feature article lauding the "Better Black Box" in their September 2000 issue:

Nearly 100,000 flight recorders have been installed in commercial aircraft over the past four decades. The prices of the latest models generally range from $10,000 to $20,000. Their survival rate has greatly improved in recent years as the FAA has raised the certification requirements. Although older recorders using magnetic tape were susceptible to fire damage, no solid-state device has been destroyed in an accident to date.

http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight77BlackBoxes.shtml

can be done with $20 bill which is in circulation right now

EH - steel can not melt with a normal fire. Please tell me how that can happen?

I didn't say it melted.

But this is what a report on the fire at WTC 5 said:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ASCE Building Performance Study Team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

That's consistent with the explanation for WTC 7.

Are you suggesting that buildings fires are normally at 1500 C or that there was something else combustible inside the building?

But a bridge did collapse after a fuel tanker caught on fire.

Steel framed buildings aren't supposed to collapse from a fire, we can agree with that...but I guess neither are steel reinforced bridges.

But WTC 5 & 6 did suffer structural damage from the fires (and parts where the fires raged did collapse) and the impact of the force from when WTC 1 and 2 were knocked down.

The structural integrity of both buildings was severely compromised as a result of 9/11 (both buildings were condemned and demolished) and they were much shorter than WTC 7 yet each floor had much larger surface area than WTC 7.

Ok eh, but why did it fall in a demolition-like manner? Damage by debris would not cause that.

How would I know?

Just because I can't explain every bit in the theory of evolution doesn't mean I'll become a creationist.

For me, the collapse of building 7, which was much larger than buildings 5 & 6, is consistent with what actually did happen to those buildings.

If I were a CIA agent, however, and wanted to demolish building 7 for some reason, I wouldn't want to make it look like a controlled demolition.

Well eh, if you watch the 4-part video I posted, and the 8-part video Joe posted, you will see why I say what I do. When you put the video of WTC1,2, and 7 next to a video of a standard demolition, they are exactly the same. It really is scary how similar they are.

And for the record, I'm not intent on attacking the U.S. government, I just find the whole ordeal somewhat suspicious.

EH

If structural integrity is comprimised (and note that the integrity points number many to make the structure extremely strong) does it seem plausible to you that the whole thing came down in a way that looked like a demolition? Shouldn't part of the building where the fire had the most impact fall over? Fire is organic and it would impact part of the building more thant the rest - should that part come away and crumble and the fire continue?

You mention other towers were later demolished on purpose as they weren't safe. OK so these were demolished because it was determined that they were not safe by people using explosives. How is this related to WTC that collapsed on 9/11?

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:17 pm --

The CIA are known to make mistakes BTW...some pretty big ones.

Icenic wrote:And for the record, I'm not intent on attacking the U.S. government

You got us fooled then?:

Icenic wrote:My "beef" is with the American government, who willingly sacrificed a mass of its own people just to push their own political agenda and make money. That is despicable, and I hope all those involved in that rot in hell.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

Icenic wrote:And for the record, I'm not intent on attacking the U.S. government

You got us fooled then?:

Icenic wrote:My "beef" is with the American government, who willingly sacrificed a mass of its own people just to push their own political agenda and make money. That is despicable, and I hope all those involved in that rot in hell.

This is a bit silly and not really about 9/11. I think Icenic means that he doesn't hate the US government as some anti-US hater people do but on this occasion there are unanswered questions and hence his "beef" is with them about 9/11.

FD - you asked for links and info and you were provided them - any thoughts on what has been posted?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

Icenic wrote:And for the record, I'm not intent on attacking the U.S. government

You got us fooled then?:

Icenic wrote:My "beef" is with the American government, who willingly sacrificed a mass of its own people just to push their own political agenda and make money. That is despicable, and I hope all those involved in that rot in hell.

Not inent. Meaning not my main purpose. Answer questions and stop trying to find holes in what I say. It makes you look immature.

JoeTGF wrote:FD - you asked for links and info and you were provided them - any thoughts on what has been posted?

I asked two things during this thread:

-If flight 77 didnt crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to it? No answer has been given.

-How could an organization pull it off to let the towers collapse controlled without being noticed? No answer has been given.

Like I said the alternatives make absolutely no sense. The official story can be explained.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:41 pm --

Icenic wrote:Answer questions

Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer!

What questions have you asked, havent been answered in this thread?

Icenic wrote: and stop trying to find holes in what I say.

Flight 77 is at the bottom of an ocean. Happy?

Do you know what the security situation was like in the world trade center? I don't. I don't know how it was done, but I think the US government has the power and resources to make it happen.

See the problems is you can't have it both way. Where in one scenario you have huge gashing holes with a huge fall out of debris over a wide spread area and things as delicate as paper passports surviving. And on the other hand a 757 vapourizes into a 15ft hole with no debri at all.

Icenic wrote:Flight 77 is at the bottom of an ocean.

Any proof?

Icenic wrote:I don't know how it was done

OK. IMO, I cant be done without being noticed by anybody. The towers were full with offices and workers. preparations for controlled demolition would take a long time with many people, using a lot of instruments and making a lot of noise. A huge operation. Completely impossible that nobody would have noticed.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm --

desertdudeshj wrote:See the problems is you can't have it both way. Where in one scenario you have huge gashing holes with a huge fall out of debris over a wide spread area and things as delicate as paper passports surviving. And on the other hand a 757 vapourizes into a 15ft hole with no debri at all.

At the Pentagon there was a fortified concrete wall. Do you have any indication that the same applied to the twin towers? Are you saying the windows were actually protected by invisible fortified concrete

Flying Dutchman wrote:

JoeTGF wrote:FD - you asked for links and info and you were provided them - any thoughts on what has been posted?

I asked two things during this thread:

-If flight 77 didnt crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to it? No answer has been given.

-How could an organization pull it off to let the towers collapse controlled without being noticed? No answer has been given.

Like I said the alternatives make absolutely no sense. The official story can be explained.

FD - I am sorry I wasn't on flight 77 and am not privy to US government secrets so its a bit of silly question. Its like me asking you where Osama bin Laden is right? Try asking the relevant question which you can others can answer or at least think rationally about - here are a few -

1. How can 3 buildings totally collapse from fire one of which wasn't hit by a plane
2. How can the hole in the pentagon be that size and no damage to the grass and other areas? The video of the pentagon shows a book just near the breach without the pages singed while the jet fuel from the WTC crash supposedly brought down the entire tower?
3. What was flight 93 reported by united as having landed for a bomb check 30 mins before its crash?
4. Why is there not a single picture of the plane crashing into the pentagon when there are over 100 cameras on the building?
5. Why did the 9/11 commission completely ignore the collapse of building 7?
6. Why is there a clear picture of something on the underside of the plane that hit the south tower? Why are there several reports (from people at the scene, newsmen, etc) that the plane had no windows?
7. Why were explosions like detonations heard before/as the towers collapsed by firemen and witness's at the scene?

Flying Dutchman wrote:Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer!

Hmm this word translated into english from the words could mean

Jawohl = "You" something called a "wohl"
Uber-storm-bahn-fuhrer = Very - Bad Weather -Some Highway- Hitler

Therfore

Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer! would mean

You-something called a whohl-Very-Bad Weather-Some HIghway-Hitler.

Here is a little looked at piece of information the WTC was in "power down" mode for almost the entire weekend preceeding the attacks i.e. No electricity in the building as part of Securacom (the company incharge of WTC security) meaning no security cams footage, no movement with in the building recorded nothing -unrestricted access. Eyewitnesses report tell of a lot of movement in and out of the building, engineers and faces not seen before.

FD -

I want to ask you 3 easy questions - here is the first

1. Do you think that the people that caused the crash into the pentagon, the crash of flight 93 and the crash/collapse of the WTC the same people?

Once again I say this to FD and EH:

Joe and I posted video links. Did you watch them? If not, then why not? If yes, then what are your comments on them?

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:06 pm --

zubber wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer!

Hmm this word translated into english from the words could mean

Jawohl = "You" something called a "wohl"
Uber-storm-bahn-fuhrer = Very - Bad Weather -Some Highway- Hitler

Therfore

Jawohl uberstormbahnfuhrer! would mean

You-something called a whohl-Very-Bad Weather-Some HIghway-Hitler.

Hahahahahahaha!! I don't know whether to consider that phrase an insult or just some gibberish!!!

Flying Dutchman wrote:At the Pentagon there was a fortified concrete wall. Do you have any indication that the same applied to the twin towers? Are you saying the windows were actually protected by invisible fortified concrete

Thats is the problem with all explanations trying to prove the offcial version. They pose more questions than they answer.

For the WTC the outer steel mess structure was also part of the building support structure. It was designed with a central "spine" of colums with the steel meshing acting like a exoskeleton. Thui enabling unintrupted floor space without support beams jutting in.

Agreed the pentagon walls were made of reinforced steel, But the windows wern't. The windows on top and to the sides of the so called impact hole are still intact, one would think getting hit at 500mph would at the very least crack even the sturdiest blast proof windows ( This is just as assumption, hoping the pentagon would have those kind of security measures )

If the fuselage, which is basicaly a empty aluminum skinned tube penetrated and damaged 3 feet of reinforced concrete ( the outer and wall of the other pentagon ring each 1.5 foot thick ). The engines which are mostly make of titanium one of the strogest metals on earth would atleast penetrate or even severly damage the outher wall. And these are the best case scenarios trying to fit into the official version.

Again you can't have it both ways. Its either this or that.

Also the lack of alternative explanations does not automactically prove the official one right.

Personaly I think this is what hit the pentagon. A tomahawk missile. The four or five frames released by the security cam blast and fireball look very similar to the scond strike in this video



Just before the blast you just see a small smoke trail in one frame just skiming a couple of feet above the lawn. The hole created in the wall would also be in accordance with a cruise missle strike. The small engine motor seen as wreckage pics of the pentagon also is about the right size for a tomahawk cruise missile motor and not a Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engine.

desertdudeshj wrote:Personaly I think this is what hit the pentagon. A tomahawk missile. The four or five frames released by the security cam blast and fireball look very similar to the scond strike in this video

Just before the blast you just see a small smoke trail in one frame just skiming a couple of feet above the lawn. The hole created in the wall would also be in accordance with a cruise missle strike. The small engine motor seen as wreckage pics of the pentagon also is about the right size for a tomahawk cruise missile motor and not a Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engine.

That is indeed very plausible. The explosion does look very similar. Also, the guidance system makes the source very hazy, therefore fitting into the "conspiracy".

Here is a little looked at piece of information the WTC was in "power down" mode for almost the entire weekend preceeding the attacks i.e. No electricity in the building as part of Securacom (the company incharge of WTC security) meaning no security cams footage, no movement with in the building recorded nothing -unrestricted access. Eyewitnesses report tell of a lot of movement in and out of the building, engineers and faces not seen before.

Building two was in power down mode for a twenty-four hour period and even then tourists could still access the building to take a view of NYC from the observatory at the top.

Are you saying that in a twenty four hour period, agents managed to rig a skyscraper to implode, conceal all the detonator cords, drill the thousands of holes in the walls to plant the thousands of explosives and patch and clean everything up the next day?

Again, demolishing a thirty story skyscraper took four months, unfettered access to the building with no intent to minimize damage to the building as they were planting the explosives and then to patch everything up (including hiding miles of detonator cords) .

It's an insult to anyone's intelligence to claim demolition experts were somehow able to rig three skyscrapers to implode without their work being noticed in an amount of time that only amounted to a couple of hours that in reality would have required thousands of hours to complete.

Hey EH

Do the building collapses look like demolitions to you?

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_19.html

(pic is too big, just click it)





Tomahawk missile?

Better question, if a Tomahawk missile struck the Pentagon, what happened to flight 77? Who took over the plane, where did it go (where was its radar signature), and why didn't it just crash into the Pentagon like the flights that struck the WTC?

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:44 pm --

JoeTGF wrote:Hey EH

Do the building collapses look like demolitions to you?

Sure, they looked like demolitions to me.