September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

a reply to: ISawItFirst

An interior load bearing wall that is perpendicular to the exterior wall is going to give more resistance. The Towers, had nothing inside that help support the exterior walls.

a reply to: AgentSmith
Yawn...

After all that rambling, why don't you take a minute to explain the video below, and why it and many like it were never shown and discussed in MSM, let alone investigated by whatever alphabet agency. Maybe you can come up with one or two questions of your own about this explosion. (Try and keep it short and to the point, and use and bring as much science into it as you want. The more the better.):

soulwaxer

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Not the first time it happened. Several planes that crashed at high speed/high angles into soft ground sank several feet underground, and were found anywhere from 3-5 feet or more underground.

Really? Aside from the one in the waters of the Everglades, might you offer any specifics on where planes have vanished into the ground leaving no trace?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Flatcoat

And how exactly do you and they know that column 79 was the problem? Do you have any evidence? Or just a very implausible theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever

I accept the experts evidence.
Not huxter for profit websites.

As to these super secret agents keeping a lid on 911:
You must mean like the Secret Service and the hooker in some third world country.

Yeah..I'm sure what you said makes sense to someone somewhere, but that doesn't answer my question. do you have any evidence for the failure of column 79? Physical? Video? Photographic? Eyewitness? Anything?

a reply to: Salander

They don't "vanish into the ground leaving no trace". There was debris on the surface, as well as the surface scar at flight 93, as well as the small handful of other crashes that were similar.

a reply to: Zaphod58

what happened to the wings? why are there no wing marks or signs of quite a lot of fuel burning up , why did the trees and bushes in one picture that was posted earlier look , well in the peak of condition , albeit a nearby aeroplane had unleashed one hell of a lot of energy. 40 odd bodies with accompanying luggage ?... surely that would have left a stain in the soil , yet to me the soil looks like, (and after a quick tidy up), you could plant spuds in it

the site doesn't add up visually to me , I get the same kind of feeling when I look back on the Pentagons lawn,.. good enough for putting still

funbox

a reply to: funbox

The wings are the most fragile portion of the aircraft. They're only hollow shells designed to hold fuel. Most of that fuel would have gone up in a fireball at impact. Since the aircraft was at a steep angle, it wouldn't have been scattered forward, like it would in a fairly flat crash, with a horizontal component.

Almost all of the burned area would have been right around the impact site. Just like with the fuel, there was very little forward momentum to throw fire, or debris into the trees to start a large fire.

The USAir 427 crash location is similar. There is a fairly big area of trees right around the impact site, again a nose dive, that are untouched by fire. And that flight came down in a forested area.

The wing marks do show pretty well in high contrast.
What Zaph said about them being of low mass, and exploding violently on impact kind of makes sense, seeing the shallow craters that they leave.

originally posted by: charlyv

The wing marks do show pretty well in high contrast.
What Zaph said about them being of low mass, and exploding violently on impact kind of makes sense, seeing the shallow craters that they leave.

You`d have to be crackers to believe a plane made that....and that`s the end result.
I`m sorry but i just don't buy it.

a reply to: lambros56

Well, I can assure you that I am not crackers. This is what high speed, vertical crashes look like in land. You, certainly do not have to believe that.

a reply to: lambros56

Have you looked at the dimensions of a 757? You can't accurately judge size, but the fuselage is only around 14 feet in diameter. It's a very narrow aircraft, for having the range it does. Add in what's basically a filled in hole in the ground, and you get a small impact area.

a reply to: Zaphod58

how far off ? im trying to understand the picture, this is the only way I can envisage the plane hitting but I might be way off scale ...




comparative?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

The scale is off some but it's close.

Let me give you a visual example.



This is USAir 427. It was a 737, landing in Pennsylvania when they suffered a rudder reversal. As a result, the aircraft rolled onto its back and pitched almost straight down.

This put it in almost an identical attitude as flight 93 at impact. The difference with 427 was that they hit in the mountains.

Notice though that in this crash too, there are trees right next to the impact location that are untouched. Much closer too.

So..A plane hit at the upper floors and it caused enough damage to take out an entire building?
When the jet fuel ignited into the building, it LOST it's power to decimate the surrounding elements
that it was supposed to compromise.
You cannot deny that a simple thing such as fire could have the capability to cause enough energy as
to MELT structural steel that was encased inside cement.
What most people do not understand is...If the theory of the OS is in fact correct, then the planes that
hit the WTC's were somehow capable of creating an anomaly that has never happened before.
The interior "structural columns" were NOT compromised in any way...If they had been, the building would have fallen
instantaneously.... There is NO WAY that any jet fuel went down elevator shafts and somehow compromised the integrity
of the "structural designed integrity" of the building.
For those of you that have never worked around steel, or concrete, or "cutting torches"..(oxygen/aceteline) that we use to cut or weld, then you should probably take yoursel out of this equation....
The heat temps that are thrown around in all the 911 forums are so full of # it is amazing...If you have never operated a "cutting torch/plasma torch or welded a damn thing in your life, then you cannot expand on what might have gone on in the metallurgy about that day.....

For some reason, people are under the concept that a plane hit WTC 1 and it somehow "melted" all the metals in the building.......
Aluminum vs steel vs concrete...vs fuel... and an entire building is "pulverized"...
If you were to take an explosive device and place it in the 99 floor of the WTC, it STILL would not have done that much damage....


I amnot going to link anything and will not respond to brainwashed b.s. that believe in the official (our tenders) story...

I am going to say one thing....You CANNOT melt all the "structural steel" inside of a concrete column from jet fuel...

Heat rises...If the fires from the jets "fueled" the demolition, I really need someone to explain to me how "heat/fire/jet fuel/ has somehow got the ability to go all the way down elevator shafts and "melt" all the structural steel in the building.....Cause THAT is what it would have taken......ALL the STEEL (REBAR) in the building would have to be compromised
for these structures to have come down....

Something is wrong with this entire scenario....911 ...there is something wrong or we would not be debating it....

good luck to all.....

originally posted by: oxidadoblanco
You CANNOT melt all the "structural steel" inside of a concrete column from jet fuel...

What are you babbling about, who mentioned steel melting at the WTC?

and "melt" all the structural steel in the building.....

Again, why are you claiming steel melted?

Something is wrong with this entire scenario.

Yes, what is wrong is you claiming steel melted at the WTC!

a reply to: Zaphod58

now that's a plain crash , albeit I see that the small section of forest to the top of the photo has been incinerated , and the place where it looks like the main explosion of fuel happened, is so black , no details can be seen, even with ramping brightness and contrast in Photoshop.

this lack of fire and burnt fuel in the Pennsylvanian site is what disturbs me.
although there is a blast radius I can discern in the Pennsylvanian photo ,.. but its cone shaped and requires an altogether different angle of entry

funbox

a reply to: funbox

The two were ALMOST identical at impact, but 427 wasn't quite at the same angle, giving a slight horizontal component to the impact. But the same thing happened there, with the fire damage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

the same angle ? you can see where the plane slid into shot in your comparison photo?

but given the cone shaped disturbance of the soil in the left of the Pennsylvanian site Im now thinking something buried ,then exploded.



what ya think ?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

Almost the same angle. Flight 93 was slightly over 90 degrees IIRC and 427 was about 75-80 degrees.

Flight 93 did sort of slide in. It was slightly past vertical at impact. Not much though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

10 degrees from having a wrecked chassis to a vaporized one eh ? .. sometimes all it takes is just a minor difference to have such wildly different outcomes...sometimes

funbox