WTC and 911 questions

trodas

I get told that is bad when I say that WTC attacks never happen.

But that is jus not true. Sure it do happen. All I write is, that there is overhelming evidence that it was not done as we are told to be done. I see no proof the Islamic maniacs did it. But I see plenty of proof that US goverment pull it. As the pull the WTC7.
(BTW, Silverstein (jew) owned it ATM (WTC 1, 2 and 7) and has get insured the buildings AGAINST terorist attack (firt insurance like this ever) and for a record price, witch he collected. Still nothing ring the bell?)

There is a big difference in what I write and what is claimed I write.

I was not denny WTC 1 , 2 and 7 demolition.

I denny that any plane hit Pentagon as well, as any plane crashed in PA. That's true.

Did you ever seen plane crash site? Plenty of stuff are there. Manytimes almost complete plane is being reconstructed from the rubble. Certainly engines are the most intact thing, as they are made from most advanced materials known to mankind.
And like I said - show me the engines. Almost 3m in dimater and 6 meters long, weighting 6 tons - of the best material available - they are just what? Disapeared? How much stupid one has to be to believe in such tales and lies?
Same as the "official cause of WTC brokedown"... Flames? No skyscraper building ever collapsed because of fire. It can't. The burning jet fuel temperature is nowhere near the temperature of the weakening point of steel. In fact, the weakening point is twice as high as the maximum recorded temp in the north tower. And melting point is 3x the fuel temp. And now come the tricky part - the steel has thermal conductivity. Good one. So, with all experiments done, the highest temperature recorded ever in case of fire was about 360C - thanks to the cooling by the mass of steel, witch disapeared the temperature quite effectively.

And what about a brief history of time?
8:46 - WTC 1 (North tower) hit by Flight 11.
9:03 - WTC 2 (South tower) hit by Flight 175.
9:59 - WTC 2 (South tower) collapsed just 56min after impact.
10:28 - WTC 1 (North tower) collapset 102min after impact.

Question - what WTC 2 go down in half of the time that WTC 1?
Notice that WTC 1 is standing just half and hour after the WTC 2 do down. This fact alone give in question the "wanna-be explainations" of WTC 7 pull... "The building was damaged and caught fire, arrrrrgh, terrible, we have to pull it..."

Notice that most of the jet fuel, from the second impact to WTC 2 get off the building when the plane ALMOST miss it:


(What is that on the plane belly? I never seen airliner with such stuff...)








That's a proof that the "pull" (short world for demolition) happen to WTC 7 on purpose and not thanks to being "weaken" from the falling debris and little isolated fire capsules, like we are told so.



As you can see, there are many buildings much closer to WTC 1 and 2 towers (WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6), yet they aren't owned by the "right owner", so they stays and did not "collapsed" or not being "pulled" :wink:

And now a million dollar question.
How long it took to prepare pull of building like WTC 7...?

HMS-Dreadnought

well,.. it's certanly an interesting conspiresy theory.

The idea that the building owner paid someone to destroy the buildings.

But I serosly dout it.



The fact is, the twin towes were not as strong as you think they were.

And the reasion why the second hit tower colapsed befour the first hit tower, is simply because the seconed hit tower was hit ferther down, thus more weight was baring down on the week spot after the impact. And so the seconed hit tower took less time to colapse.

---------------------


As soon as each tower started to colapse, the energy released due to the weight, was like a domino affect. it just keeped going.


Americas sky scrapers are not as strong/safe as tall buildings in other parts of the world.

The new freedom tower, when it is built, will be far stronger, and desigened much more like buldings in other parts of the world.

Even the United Kingdom has built some very strong tall buildings.

But such desigen conciderations will be new to America. (the freedom tower will be the first of many, i'm sure)

Nacht

You have alot to learn

Look up what happens to a jet that crashes into steel reinforced concrete the thickness of the pentagon walls. It gets "desintegrated", basically smashed into millions of tiny particles. There is a very good video of this on the net, along with accompanying text.

and airplane engines are not "made from the most advanced materials known to mankind". Those are probably the single most difficult peice to reconstruct, as they have extreme numbers of moving parts, and usually in a crash engines will suck in rubble and debris, destroying it internally.

HMS-Dreadnought

If a peice of straw can go thru a fence post in a hurricane/tornado,. Then I'm sure an airliner heavy can cause havok to a sky scraper.

trodas

These fotos are taken before the outer ring collapsed:


hires version: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...rs2_grande.jpg


hires version: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...rs1_grande.jpg

As you can see, there is a very LITTLE hole. There is no way a 757 Boeing can fit into it. Even it's body (w/o the wings and engines) will have serious problem to fit there! The most interesting thing to see is, that you can see the WINDOWS above the undamaged! Now - the Pentagon was penetrated to 3-rd ring. Now - if the velocity of jetliner is as huge, so even Pentagon - build like a fort - got penetrated badly, then WHERE is the damage of tail sections?! There is NO damage caused by the tail, witch is almost as high, as the whole building.
If there is no damage, caused by the tail sections, then what happen there? Surely, no plane crashed there. No crater on ground, and hey - you can see the coils, still standing untouched before the Pentagon! If a plane crashed there, they has to be - at least - moved!
Should it be a bunkerbuster?
If it was a plane, it should create huge fireball, like what we seen in the WTC hits, right? But the 5 released frames show nothing, just a little suspicious something that looks like a rocket and a explosion. But NO FIREBALL, nothign nowhere near what we can see on the WTC 2 hit pictures is visible!
Is not a proof that hi-grade explosoves was used? And there is also very small fire - now if there i a BIG amount of jet fuel in the plane, where it burned???

trodas

For long, people looking on this photo:



Original: http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/priletaj...%20WTC%202.jpg

And asking what it is, on the little belly that Boing 757/767 and other planes have for the landing gear, just before the right "foot" one
It is obviously are some kind of missile or bunker buster (like what are found buried deep-in Pentagon), that initiate the huge explosion we all saw. At this point I would like remind you, that the integral tanks in plane wings are designed to do NOT blow under any circumstances. In fact, the fuel blow ONLY when it is sprayed into atmosphere. Ohervise it just burn - and only it's exhalation is, what is burning... And you can even light it on palm of your hand and do not get burned.
You are even safe to try it with normal gas

Anyway, what I want to say is, that since everyone seems concerned about the bunker-buster initiator, the division of the plane belly did not seems catch any attention. I have no idea, what it is, but looking on every plane photos on http://www.airliners.net - and I saw them thousads - is obvious that every damn commercial jet airplane have SMOOTH and clean belly.

trodas

Check for yourself, Boeing 757:





Boeing 767:







...you see? Clean nice undivided belly. What about other airplanes? Airbus A300?



Again - no divided belly at all.

Someone cut the plane in half in order to pack it up with explosives?

I don't know what it is, but it apears on all the pictures and it is visible from all anges - and I refuse to believe that this is a terrorist with boxcutter, cutting the poor plane in half.


HMS-Dreadnought - I will address your question later


Nacht - could you provide a link to the video? All it was released was FIVE (!!!) frames from the gas station. And it looking more or less like a missile that a plane:



As you can see:



...planes did not leave anything behing, at least not so directly. The condensation trails occur when temperature there is very low (-20 -40 degrees C) - and on this nice day whas sure above +20C in this area, near Pentagon.

Jitter

I saw the plane crash site in Pa, it was not too far from me. I also suppose the bombings in London were part of an elaborate conspiracy w/ the USA. I am sure the car and suicide bombings in Iraq are also really americans blowing themselves up to give the illusion of terrorism. I bet terrorism doesnt even exist at all. It is something America created to give us something to do....

Falstaff

Ah christ, more absolute bullshit again and again and again....
the truth is out there, we all saw it, we read about it and we know who did it....
this conspiracy crap is a huge steaming pile of excrement....
although anyone can think anything they want....

the truth: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

trodas

Jitter - really? Now that's cool! I saw only photos and the reports that says nothing bigger that, say a foot, was not found. No bigger piece of debris. Can you confirm it, or denny it?
And any photos to prove there was already a plane?

I already got a report that the Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

I would like to remind you, that the "crash site" in Somerset, PA, looked nothing like crash site. I seen many crashsites and many of the debris from plane, however I never seen crashsite so empty...!
As you may or may now know, a Boeing 767 uses either Pratt & Whitney PW4062 or General Electric CF-80C2B8F engines. These are pretty big suxxkas, mate And since they are made of titanium, they are ALWAYS found. Deformed, but found. You hardly can "dispose" them into pile of "next-to-nothing"...

Where is the plane?!







...or at least any piece of it that looks like a plane? There was, up to 9/11 NO CRASHSITE like this - w/o a plane. Alway at least tail section get preserved. Both motors, deformed, but preserved. Always.
Now - where is anything that looks like a plane?!


Falstaff - thanks for you "usefull reply". Instead of covering me with sh.t and cursing "conspiracy crap" I would like to hear some arguments. And I mean arguments, not "debunker site", witch did not backed up the claims with any reasonable sources/examples.

Few questions.

Why no scyscraper ever fall because of fire?

Why people, who point that out get kicked of their jobs?

Why, when "...we should not tolerate outrageous conspiraci theories..." did not US goverment release any kind o informations that would blast the dubts away? For example I would like see from the security cameras on Pentagon what happend.
If it is like what we are told, WHY our Goverment witholding the proofs?

Jitter

It wasnt just a fire, the steel was already deformed/stressed not to mention half of it was wiped out. Plus this was not a normal fire, it was fueled by jet fuel. Not all fires burn at the same temp. You do not need to see security cameras of the pentagon there are hundreds of pictures/videos of the planes crashing into the WTC. People are prob losing their jobs because they need to goto the looney bin. If people truely believe this stuff and are not doing it just to get attention then they should go find another country to live in.

quanta67

Mmm I think you may be on to something here. Look carefully at that photo you printed. If you do, you will see that it was not airplanes at all that caused this tragedy, it was actually Godzilla.



The problem with people like this is that they will tend to only ever see whatever they want to see, no matter what the real evidence might be.

Nacht

Your analysis of the underbelly of the passenger liner is full of misinformation.

The "bulge" you see is simply the bubble where the wing meets the fuelsalage. The light is coming from behind the camera, and the plane is slightly angled away from the camera, making it look larger than it is. If you look at the other pictures you supplied, you will see that the wing bulges exist there too.

There is nothing out of the ordinary.


Besides, if there was a bomb THAT big on the plane - the building wouldn't have stood nearly that long.

yoda133113

That's exactly what I thought the second I compared your pic to the other ones you posted, it looks exactly the same as the bulge at the wings, it's in the right place to be the bulge on the wings, it could very well look bigger on a grainy, low quality image at a wierd angle, it only makes sense to me that its the bulge at the wing.

As far as steel weakening, I've seen steal get red hot in the center of a simple fire in a fireplace at home, not fed by jet fuel, there is no way in hell that the temperature in the towers was colder than even the most blazing fires I've ever had at home.

trodas

HMS-Dreadnought - I never said that the owner paid someone to destroy the buildings. And Im not a fan on conspiracy theories as well. I just asking questions that should be asked and mainly answered by US goverment and serious investigation, and not investigation like when the investigators had no acess to ground zero and have to relly on pure belief that what they getting come from ground zero - unaltered.
That is what I did not call investigation.
But of course, suit yourself...

I will not go into talks about what strong they are or they are not. But their designes designed them to withstand TWO planes hit, and he made this pretty clear. One plane just can't get the building down.

I don't buy this at all. Construction must meet the designed specs to be even allowed to build. And even Im not any big US fan, I refuse to believe that Americans can't build skyscrapers. Hell, after all, they are aparently invented these, so - please - the fact, that average US house is something made like bejbyhouse there from tough cartoons did not make US skyscrapers falling down from event they are build to withstand.

Your explaination that:
Is nice try, however the building (check the blueprints) did NOT stand on their levels. Instead, the levels are attached to the central core, witch is almost half as big, as the outer walls:



...witch means that the floors aren't holding anything, so it does not matter where the plane hit. The building can't be brought down by the plane!

Besides, if it can, then you again missed one important point. WTC 2 was hit by side AND vast majority of the fuel exploded OUT of the building, as pictures nicely show.
So, if the fues get the building down - it just don't make sense. Do it?

Slight problem. Resistance of the support and main rods. The fall speed of the poor buildings are almost exactly the speed of free fall, witch means that there is ZERO resistance on the construction.
Since plane hit about 80 floor, then there is at least 70 floors down undamaged. And yet, they show ZERO resistance when collapsing? Like it was air or something?
The speed of collapsing simply means that these support rods has to be destroyed. And yes, there IS evidence about it:



ONLY EXPLOSIVES CAN THROW STEEL.



Jitter - I never saw the building deformed/stressed (it don't even move when the planes hit!), so I have no idea what are you talking about. The only deformations was caused by explosives, witch throx off the support rods and the then poor building, w/o the critical centrall support go down as we saw it.
Hundreds of pictures? Well, then show me the Pentagon security cameras! Why they are never released in the first place and only after pressure we get the only FIVE frames of something, that definitively looks like a Tomahawk approaching and not a plane.
If there is no doubts, then why withold the infos?
Hndreds of photos? Show them, what do you are waiting for! I was drooling to see them! Besides, do you know, what happen to cars that get close to jets? I mean as close, as they have to be, because the planes has to hit the Pentagon and not overshoot it, so I will somewhat trust the the plane fly VERY low... But do you know, what happen when you stand behind a jetliner?

Ehm, I would not call a Kevin Ryan, an employ in firm that certified the steel components used in WTC, just for pointing out that the steel was resistant to heat and it have to be exposed to at least 2000F temperatures for several hours to start losing it's strenght (even normal steel NOT melt untill 3000F is reached) a conspiration luntic. After all, he reported only what is the pure truth. Just to clarify one thing - the highest temperature was 1377F in South Tower...!!!

In fact, his courage to question and the fact that also other peoples losing their jobs for just exposing truth ONLY supporting the crazy conspiration ideas


quanta67 - damn Gozdilla! Hope US army get it, damn beast!


Nacht - shadow come in ange depending on light. If you see the very same shadow from MANY anges, it is not a just shadow.
Besides, the belly is obviously "divided" or something. Even this is a shadow, WHAT cause the shadow to make the belly of the plane appear divided?
I would like to hear your explaination - shadow just don't do the job. Besides, there was made a serious analys of it:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html
And it was proven beyond shadow of doubt that the oject bellow the plane belly was 3D in nature.

And you again insulting the building Do Americans despise their buildings so often?


yoda133113 - the image is in enougt quality to clearly see the belly division and off bumps on the plane. The main one, on the little belly of the Boeings for landing gear is cleary different from all the shapes and looks of the LITTLE belly out of thousads other pictures.
About the steel in fireplace - you forget the steel thermal conductivity - eg. the whole building construction is connected and work as cooler to LOCAL small fire in WTC 2. Also you somewhat missed the fact that majority of the fues exploded outside of the WTC 2. And the steel in WTC buildins was special, hat-resistand. The fire was low-temperature - that's why it generate the excessive amount of smoke. Your fireplace using fine wood, generating therfore minimum smoke, a white almost transparent smoke, right?
So, make sure you use the same steel and then compare the strenght
Despite the red color, it should not be weaker.
But Im affraid you use plain simple iron.
Remmber, steel is a completelly different thing. It was made in far higher temps.

yoda133113

Actually if it's red it would be weaker, this is just part of materials technology. I did use steel, and they didn't use heat resistant steel on the twin towers (i've seen this numerous places, mostly the History Channel), they instead sprayed the steel everywhere with a thermal insulation foam-like substance, while this is well and good in a fire, when an airplane hits the building the insulating foam gets knocked off in a lot of places, then those great conducting powers of steel you keep refering to would move all of the massive amounts of heat from the jet fuel burning out and weaken more of the steel support beams.

trodas

yoda133113 - yes, red material IS weaker, but NOT significantly

Again - you DID NOT used the same quality steel as was used in WTC in your fireplace. You most likely used pretty normal iron, witch is far different stuff.

History Channel is owner by jews, the same jews that jumped out of joy when 9/1 is in progress. They can sell you anything. There was even existing company, that certified the steel used in WTC building. Do you own research instead of claiming nonsenses about how steel is weak think.

What massive amount of heat? Wast majority of the jet-fuel go off in one huge fireball, as you can check on photos of WTC 2 impact.

You better get your conspiration theory straingt in the first place

montyw47

Has this fool been inside of the World Trade Center or any really tall building( greater than 10 stories). I worked at 1 WTC, 2 WTC and across the street at 165 Broadway(Merrill Lynch Building at one time only 55 stiories). These buildings move with WIND alone. WTC buildings move over a foot in a breeze and strong winds cause the closure of the observation floor. I saw the hits LIVE and personal. I heard the impact and fuel tank explosions & burning fuel spewing everywhere.
If you were not there do say it didn't happen. This reminds me of the NAZI death camps and those who said that it didn't happen.

Jews did this , and Jews did that and the homosexual agenga and the liberal media did something else. Pity the poor conspiracy fool who believes all the propaganda that comes from those who see Satan or whatever everywhere.

You are living an illusion of conspiracy and death. Wake up as the Buddha has said.

klevo

sad but true. what I dont understand is that people are still blind, when you have clear evidence that your own country is attacking and killing its own people for some evil reason.

The_Neon_Cowboy

This Thead like so belongs in the flame warezone


Fuel tank anyone end of story? Assssumeing it not just a trick
of the light as is "most likey"

Boeing 767s hold roughly 23,980 Gallons of jet fuel
and were almost "mostly" full...


Also the bars and support inside the bulding were not properly protected for such an occurace. They were coated in a spray on fire protection / heat resistant. Wich is fine for a normal fire but the impact of the plane removed most of the protection. They never invisioned people ever intentionally flying planes into them so it was never considerd in the buildings desighn...

If the supporting structior was insullated another way its possable the buldings would of
eathier stood longer or would have never fallen. But considering the massive heat of the
jet fuel I doubt anything would of with stood it. As the steel hot enough it lost it strigth the uper levels dropeds and after that began a "pancake effect"

Materials start becomeing weaker and more fexable when heated well bellow thier
melting points expecally when under many, many, of thousands of pounds of stress.
BTW: stress /pressure in it self can = heat...

Dude so many "tons" of force won't throw pices steel??
Try rethinking what you said and apply "logic"

I just flipped a qaurter it still so I must be "explosives" But the same effect
now incress the mass of the qaurter and apply tons of force from the floors above
looky steel is thrown... asumeing that is even steel not a various number of other
debree that was thrown


Not to mention a 23,000 gallons of "jet fuel" wich is like a massive bomb
heat gallore...

--------
PS:

If anyone belives this conspericy stuff I have some emails from nigerians
wanting to hook you up with some fast cash just for you! They just need
your bank accont number, adress and phone number!

As well as a bridge in london, one a kind, I'll sell you for a steal of a price!
-------

Falstaff

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

check that link out again Mike, it pretty much shovels the crap right back on the whole hypothesis...

trodas

montyw47 - so, what are y