Truthers-What if Planes Crashed into the Building?

I hear all of you constantly argue that it HAD to explosives or whatever.

Please tell me what you think would have happened if planes *really* hit the buildings. I am very curious to see what your brand of physics and expert knowledge tells you planes do when they crash into buildings and explode.

Thanks.

i dont consider myself a truther, but ill go out on a limb and say the buildings would still be standing?

I'm not sure what you're asking, 90% of truthers don't deny that planes crashed into the WTC. There were planes and there were explosives in the WTC.

BTW, the physics of the planes hitting and the collapse are covered in many threads here.

Peace

and the firemen that were recorded reaching the fires would have put them out. and we wouldnt be having this discussion, either

reply to post by ragman


I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Planes did hit the towers. The disinfo no-planers will be along shortly to say otherwise, but can you be more specific?

Originally posted by guinnessford
and the firemen that were recorded reaching the fires would have put them out. and we wouldnt be having this discussion, either

Some firemen did reach the fires, but they didn't have a chance to put them out because the towers were brought down.

You're right, though. If the towers hadn't been brought down with explosives, they would still be standing and we wouldn't be talking about this.

So is the general concensus that Al Queda crashed planes into the WTC and the gov't, fearing the towers wouldn't collapse on impact put explosives in the the towers and blew them when they hit?

My question is what happens when planes hit buildings? And explode? How would firefighters even put out a fire like that? The planes acted like a missile-- they rammed deep into the building (like a bunker buster) and exploded-- its almost perfect? Are we to suppose the planes just didn't have enough velocity and fuel to cause the towers to fall? What kind of evidence is there for this?

Is there any data to show that the steel in the building will not liquify at the temperatures experienced in the blast?



[edit on 3/8/2009 by ragman]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


exactly. and im surprised the no-brain.. i mean no-planers havent arrived yet...but are you looking for the ultimate scenario, like would all this crap be happening down the road? would hr3162 be hangin over our heads? that is sooo hard to say.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by guinnessford]

reply to post by ragman


to say al-queda did it is also going to attract alot of other people here for a stop and go. and the fireman that made it to one fire said he neede two lines to take the fire down. most if not all the fuel had exploded outside the building. and i wouldnt say a plane is like a missile. its more like an inflated beer can with rocks attached to each side.

Don't agree that jet fuel exploded outside of the tower. Observe this video. Clearly the plane crashes into the building and explodes inside-- I mean look at the cross section of the building the plane takes out-- It clearly, even before exploding, has done serious structural damage. The explosion rips a hole in the building and weakens the steel allowing the a chain reaction of failing supports and hence the falling of the the tower.

The no planes guys, are the ones trying to discredit the people who say it was an inside job.
We all know planes hit the buildings in NY.
Pentagon and Shanksville, well that's to be decided if they even were planes.
But obviously just having the need for dis info people, to try and discredit these theory's of an inside job, doesn't look very good for Bush and his buddies.
If it were all untrue no one would care, they wouldn't need dis info people.

ok, ill bite. but regardless of where this angle shows the fuel "exploding" or burning, isnt really relevant. 10 minutes after it hits you can see how much of it burned off. there are people standing in the holes, and barely any visible flame. im a welder, and auto mechanic. so i know when i use my torch to cut or weaken metal its gotta be blue. just turning on the acetylene or mapp gas wont melt, weaken or soften metal in any way. not even aluminum. let alone structural steel. and im sure im inviting a whole crap-storm of people to come over to this thread and start bashing me with stuff i dont know, or wheres your degree and all that crap. heres my degree... ive been cutting, bending, and otherwise altering metal for over 20 years. thats enough for me to make a decision.

Originally posted by ragman
Don't agree that jet fuel exploded outside of the tower. Observe this video. Clearly the plane crashes into the building and explodes inside-- I mean look at the cross section of the building the plane takes out-- It clearly, even before exploding, has done serious structural damage. The explosion rips a hole in the building and weakens the steel allowing the a chain reaction of failing supports and hence the falling of the the tower.

My question is why did the whole ting collapse pancake style. It seems to me that if one side of the building was weaker than the other that the weaker side would be the direction of the fall of the part of the building above that impact zone. I think the way a tree falls is similar. The resistance of the solid frame work under the non impacted zone should have helped force the tops of the building to one side as well. There should have been a splintered remnant of tower much higher than we saw on that day. I think one of the collapse videos even shows the top falling to the side yet somehow the rug is pulled out from under it allowing the thing to collapse at free fall speed.

reply to post by stikkinikki


whatever law of physics this thing breaks, id love to see it. and yes, it should fall to one side. both of them should have. and 7 should still be standing.

reply to post by CaptainCaveMan


So wait your accusing me of being 'disinfo.' Thanks, I really like the credit you are giving me. I sort of wish I was part of some kind of massive conspiracy-- it would be fun. But seriously, sometimes things are just how they are and the crazy explanations are just that, crazy.

Why would I try to convince you? Well if I was a disinfo agent as you say. I wouldn't. Its a waste of time. You won't be convinced-- and no one takes you seriously, so its not worth any so called conspirators time. If I really wanted to discredit you or disinfo or whatever, I would join you and spew and encourage even crazier theories that involve reptillians and demons and such in order to completely discredit you.

The 9/11 movement has no foothold-- nothing more than religious belief in something with absolutely no substantiated evidence. I, as a person, somehow, foolishly think I might be able to convince someone out there that this belief is just messed up. Not to mention insulting to the people who died that day.

I will say, I believe the one plane that crashed into the field may have been hit by a missile-- but that's the only thing I find even plausible.

reply to post by ragman


Planes did crash into the towers, their tanks did explode inside the towers and possibly the first section of the towers fell under their own weight.
But the problem is that both towers were built in 3 sections to stop the entire building collapse, meaning that the first section would fall till it reached the bottom of that section and fall no further, even if the top 2 sections were to fall onto the bottom one, it would still not collapse. Therefore another force was needed...explosives!

I am sorry to say it but it is not the smartest question I have seen here. if you know nothing about the inside job "therory" then you should make some small reaserch and read first a little more.

I propose the AE911truth.com. you have it all well explained.

and as many above stated, the "truthers" as you call "us" are not saying that planes did not hit the buildings. all I can tell you that the buildings were designed to survive this kind of accident.

as an Architect I tell you that the problem is not only that the building went down but how and how fast. the official theory is BS when you consider the facts. READ!!!

if it fell in a pancake manner, the center or at least most af the center columns should have been left. even if they fell after, or peeled away like bananas when the floors came down. and i dont think discussing theorys is doing anything to the dead. if anything trying to make sure we do come to a conclusion and let it never happen again is honoring them. regardless of what stance you take.

As far as not falling to the side, I think the reasoning is, is how the buildings are constructed. They are built in some a way to fall straight down-- and actually two posts can be answered at the same time.

The buildings collapsed due to heated steel. I am an engineer, and while I have not worked with explosives, I do know if you cut slits in supports, the whole thing doesn't usually collapse immediately-- its sort of odd, it looses structural integrity-- and then more force is placed on the supports that weren't slitted, and those begin to bend until the slitted members are supporting more themselves, as well, and they begin to bend and BOOM it all comes down. Its quite amazing how buildings and bridges collapse. But, my suggestion is that the steel didn't have to be liquid to collapse, and also, only a few members had to be damaged to cause catastropic failure. This is also why the building would fall straight down rather than to the side.

If the plane had hit with great enough force to 'knock' it down, it would have fallen to the side. Likewise if the blast had been large enough to 'knock' it down it would have been. But it was a loss of structural integrity all around that caused it to fall.

reply to post by ragman

But, my suggestion is that the steel didn't have to be liquid to collapse, and also, only a few members had to be damaged to cause catastropic failure. This is also why the building would fall straight down rather than to the side.

But the steel was liquid. There are plenty of videos showing molten steel pouring out of a hole in one of the towers, as well as reports from firemen and other first responders of pools of molten steel beneath the wreckage of all three buildings, mysteriously staying hot for months after the collapse. There is also video of the "meteorites," big globs of fused steel and other materials that had to have melted together and hardened.
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Office fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel. Therefore, as Marshy10156 stated, another force is needed... explosives!



[edit on 8-3-2009 by outsider13]

To end part of this discussion, the fuel igniting wasn't an "explosion". Explosives cause explosions. This isn't a Hollywood movie where you shoot the gas tank of a car and the whole car explodes into pieces. Mythbusters did a show on that and proved that it cannot happen. They use nitroglycerin in the movies to make cars explode like that.

Here's some NASA footage from 1984 of a Boeing 707 (which the towers were desinged to withstand) being remote controlled into a crash landing. Watch the ignition of the jet fuel. Notice the ignition of jet fuel doesn't blow the plane or the dummies inside to pieces?

Two different views:

www.youtube.com...
www.metacafe.com...