9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
1) The hole in the Pentagon is smaller than an airplane and left basically no airplane debris.

Not true, plenty of debris left inside the building and some outside

2) Larry Silverstein video, NYFD video, and precognition video by BBC all point that Bldg 7 was destroyed by explosives.

again not true - when did anyone have time to lay tonnes of explosives, without anyone noticing?

3) No black boxes.

Some black boxes have been provided, and some examined for data...

4) Melting temperature of steel building frame is around 3000 degrees but airplane fuel and building materials only reach around 1100 degrees.

why assume the steel had to melt? again you are wrong

so we have a "truther" making things up with no idea at all what actually happened!

[edit on 1/2/10 by dereks]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by SuperViking

right.... that picture from the news that happens to IN FACT be smaller than an airplane, is in your opinion NOT smaller than an airplane - brilliant!

It's a picture! from the news! why would you even bother to dispute that... it's a picture of the Pentagon, man! ROFL....

What IS your opinion? Why even bother adding to this if you are denying a well-published picture of the Pentagon is NOT fact?

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by thedman

This isn't the first time I've seen Ol Dave respond followed directly by the D man... coincidence? Hmm.

But, nice post thedman - I appreciate the pictures and reasonable arguments.

Let's take a look at some logical deduction using the pictures you provided and a few facts from an FAA fact sheet.


This is allegedly a hole caused because a 757 crashed into the Pentagon and went through all the levels intact enough to create this round hole... with no fire on it.


Allegedly the flight Cockpit Voice Recorder from AA 77. It was presented as evidence in a trial.

A few facts based on FAA requirements for CVRs (Cockpit Voice Recorders)
* Must be able to withstand up to 3,400 Gs for 6.5 seconds
* Must be able to withstand 1100 degrees F for 10 hours

Planes have fallen from 30,000+ feet, hitting the ground at well over 500 MPH to have the CVR remain 100% intact, in fact this is the norm! They are VERY rarely destroyed.

So, based on your "evidence" a 757 crashed nearly horizontal, stayed intact through 3 wings of a building and the flight recorder somehow turned into a pancake of blackened metal.

Sit with that for a moment. It really doesn't make sense.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Also in the same post he thinks

Smashed & burnt CVR = evidence 757 hit pentagon


Unburnt tinfoil on lawn = evidence 757 hit pentagon

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by GoodOlDave

I don't use innuendo; every quote I've brought up is from a live video except the one from the Larry Silverstein interview.

If anyone but you said what you just did I'd be offended. I didn't accuse or in any way insinuate the NYFD caused this.

This is what gets me with you conspiracy theorists- you have such a rabid zeal to grasp at any straw that even vaguely supports these conspiracy stories of yours that you don't even bother to keep track of the gigantic pile of accusations you're slingign around.

Of COURSE you're accusing the NYFD of being complicit in this secret conspiracy of yours. How can you actually deny it? The Silverstein quote that you're interpreting as instructions to blow up WTC 7 was directed to the New York Fire Dept, and you're admitting they were involved when you say...

"There is a video interview I've seen with the NYFD fire chief stating, on camera, that Building 7 would either come down on it's own, or they'd bring it down if needed. That means certain members of the NYFD new ahead of time that explosives were in Bldg 7, and they got their men and women out. "

...and yet they're keeping the (according to you) explosives in WTC 7 secret and giving lip service to the (according to you) fake terrorist attack story, while all these other (according to you) controlled demolitions are going on at the exact same time, and they're keeping THEM secret as well. The definition of complicity is "guilt as an accomplice in a crime or offense". They're involved in an operation that blew up three buildings which killed 343 of their fellow firefighters and they're keeping it all a secret. How would the NYFD *not* be complicit in this false flag operation of yours?

You actually have the disgusting gall to say you'd be offended?!? How do you think *I* feel? It's patently obvious you'd gleefully drag anyone's reputation through the mud, as long as it advanced your antiestablishment conspiracy agenda. You're not a child so you have to know what you're doing.

Fact: Building 7 collapsed from almost entirely intact, to a pile of rubble in 6.4 seconds. This has never happened in the history of steel frame buildings. You defend your answer for once... why did it happen on 9/11 and never once before or since?

WTC 7 fell (according to NIST) becuase falling wreckage from WTC 1 smashed it up, causing fires that weakened critical supports in the same way the fires weakened critical supports in WTC 1 and 2. Don't even go with the "it never happened before in human history", bub, becuase secretly planting controlled demolitions in three heavily occupied skyscrapers without anyone noticing has never happened in human history either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
It was mentioned earlier that the melting point and the point which can cause collapse are not in synch, that the collapsing point is roughly half the melting point. I'd be interested in a scientific citation for this.

Here is a report by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar, where he explains exactly this principle-

Report by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar

The NIST report mentions this as well, although the location of the initial structural failure differs from Eagar's.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
It was mentioned earlier that the melting point and the point which can cause collapse are not in synch, that the collapsing point is roughly half the melting point. I'd be interested in a scientific citation for this.

Without a citation I'm going to believe the 1,000+ engineers, demolition experts, and scientists on www.ae911truth.org...

There is no single "collapsing point". The point at which the steel will "fail" depends on the mission of the steel, that is to say the loads that it is handling. If none of your 1000+ engineers, demolition experts, scientist, dentist and architectual students told you this then they should have.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

And...that's not the whole the entire plane made.

Why is it you're purposely trying to mislead people?

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by SuperViking
reply to post by Thermo Klein

And...that's not the whole the entire plane made.

Why is it you're purposely trying to mislead people?

Good question. Sadly, it seems that many truthers are prepared to manipulate and downright lie in order to ensnare the gullible.

All this stuff about asking questions and wanting a new investigation is hogwash. The only important thing for most truthers is just to keep the conspiracy allegations alive. Since 9/11 a new administration has come into office in the US but it hasn't even made the truthers blink. They are still going on about fake relatives of fake 9/11 victims being on the government payroll and how people are in danger because of speaking out as though nothing has changed.

Everything, and I mean everything, that I have been directed to by truthers as being a smoking gun or proof positive of a hole in the "OS" has just fallen apart on examination.

Truthers, please give me one incontravertible fact, not your personal opinion about how fast buildings should fall etc, but something I can check and which supports an "inside job".

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by Alfie1

Chill out Alf

No one tells more half truths, deceptive mis-quotes that the OS side.

You have too, your dealing from a losing side, a lie.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by GoodOlDave

Impressive article! Given the exact circumstances the authors provide it exhibits a very plausible means for Tower 1 and Tower 2 to have collapsed straight down. So as I see it, you have given me two authors providing a plausible and scientific description how it happened... and I have given you 1,025 professional engineers with similar credentials saying the opposite. I really do appreciate the scientific citation!

Now how about Building 7? You may recall it DIDN'T get hit by an airplane, so it didn't have the exact circumstances your two authors provide. Yet, it imploded at free-fall speeds when every other steel framed building in the world that caught fire hasn't. Why?

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:26 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

99.99999% of the time I see when I see people moaning and groaning and complaining about why certain buildings collapsed and others didnt, or why a building fell the way it did, its because none of them have a clue as to how the building was constructed or what type of design it was. You are doing just that and I can safely assume you dont have a clue as to designs and construction of the WTCs destroyed.

To put it as simply as possible (because its been explained ad nauseum for the last 7-8 years), the Twin Towers were constructed in a "tube-in-tube" design which meant no conventional steel skeletal framework one would find, in say, the Empire State, or other conventional highrises. Meaning, no lattice work of vertical beams and columns throughout the structure in a box like pattern. Here we would have at the WTCs, all the vertical columns would be placed outside in an exterior perimeter, and a second set of vertical columns deep inside in a smaller box pattern, basically a hollow tube inside another larger hollow tube. This means a lot more open space for offices. The floors between would not be connected and held up with heavy steel I-beams like conventional designs, and welded at each end. The floors would be constructed of light steel trusses laid side by side, with one end connected to the exterior column and the other to the interior with 1" bolts and 5/8" bolts, including a dampener. They would be overlaid with a light corrugaded steel pan which would be overlain with a light concrete mix. This design is very different and not too many buildings at the time had this sort of design.

WTC7 had a unique situation itself. It had to be designed and built over a Con-Ed substation, which was there prior. This meant have special care taken to not disturb the spot, while making sure the WTC7 can be built over it. It was built with the use of transfer beams over the substation which left the base hollow and without much in terms of connection support with the ground. It all rested on the tranfer trusses that hung over the substation. Damaging these trusses with impact and fires would have meant that the structure would have been in big trouble. Add to the fact there was no water used in trying to put the fire out, that was it.

WTCs 5 and 6 were designed with your standard box frame skeleton, as you would find in conventional designed buildings. A large framework of vertical and horizontal steel I-beams all working together to hold the building up. There was some internal collapses in these buildings thanks to debris impact and fires, severe enough to have them be slated for demolition. They didnt suffer global structural failure due to their designs. They did have collapses inside, but it didnt bring everything down. You can look these facts up yourself if you are truely interested in facts and truth.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by GenRadek]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by Alfie1

You can speculate against my motives or a huge generalized group of people all you want, it still in no way explains why a "black box" Cockpit Voice Recorder, designed to withstand 3,400 Gs (and generally lasts to 6000Gs - that's 6000 times the force of gravity) collapsed into a blackened pancake when there wasn't even enough pressure to crack the ground.

Concerning the Pentagon:
* Black box dissolves for no reason
* One piece of uncharred material is left on the lawn
* the hole in the building is SMALLER than the object that supposedly made it.
* the claimed trajectory breaks the laws of physics

There's a picture (page 1-2) that shows the hole, and shows the size of the airplane. I just don't get why people can't see that? It DOES NOT FIT.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:14 PM
@ Dave and Gen

That's some isightful and scientific information you provided on the construction of the WTC complex. I've never seen that and I appreciate it; may just change my mind if I keep seeing things like that!

On the other hand I've heard so many conflicting aspects of this, such as chemical analyses by numerous independant companies that found exploded and unexploded nanothermite. There are also 1,000 engineering and demolition professionals willing to risk their careers on the idea that explosives were used.

What you've given is a plausible scenario and it opened my eyes a bit.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by SuperViking

Why is it you're purposely trying to mislead people?

If you drive a 6 foot wide car through a wall the hole left there is going to be AT LEAST 6-8 feet wide. A hole smaller than 6 feet would mean a car didn't drive through that wall. It's that simple...

Your statement that I'm trying to mislead people is out of line. You explain how a big airplane made a small hole (with basically no wreckage), THEN we can talk.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by Thermo Klein

Not a problem.

A vast majority of the problems occur when people are not fully informed of the whole situation, or were never told the specifics, before they heard or were told some real junk that has no merit. Like here about the designs.

A lot of this stuff about the collapses, and why they should not have happened, or why the WTC7 fell the way it did and it appeared suspicious and so on, occurs because people are ignorant of the facts of the designs. Also some people are unable to think critically or comprehend the complexities of the issues at hand. That is why when "debunkers" point out the flaws that are most obvious in the wildest claims of the "truthers", it requires a little bit of understanding common sense and critical thinking and having the ability to expand in 3D the thoughts and reasonings.

Ok That probably doesnt make any sense
but to put it another way, people should not make such wild accusations without having some sort of logical, feasable, probable explaination for it all. If one claims thermite for example, brought down the towers, then they better be ready to address all the logical methods which would be used, address the technical issues at hand and how they would have been overcome, etc etc etc.

Feel free to investigate the designs, I encourage it. It has made me understand better how the WTCs behaved the way they did on 9/11.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

If you drive a 6 foot wide car through a wall the hole left there is going to be AT LEAST 6-8 feet wide. A hole smaller than 6 feet would mean a car didn't drive through that wall. It's that simple...

Your statement that I'm trying to mislead people is out of line. You explain how a big airplane made a small hole (with basically no wreckage), THEN we can talk.

Well there was a plane sized hole there, but that depends on what exactly do you consider the size of the plane that is suppose to leave the hole. Are you going by the whole wingspan? Or the fuselage alone? Or the width of the fuselage with a section of the wings with fuel? As far as the impact hole, it was roughly the width of the fuselage with maybe a section of the fuel laden wings. Logically thinking, there would not be a complete wingspan size hole in the Pentagon.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by TinFoilBat

No fire ?

Again get your eys checked ......

Notice the soot staining on the wall above the hole? How do think you
got there?

How did the plane smash through the building and still have enough force
to knock hole in C Ring wall?

Well if did any REAL research rather than parroting drivel from conspiracy sites would have found this.....

Interior Damage is Consistent With a 757 Crash

Impact damage to the interior of the Pentagon was primarily on the first floor, and extended in a tapering swath from the first-floor facade puncture to the vicinity of the C-Ring punch-out hole.

Floor Space Between Facade and C-Ring is Mostly Unobstructed

On the first and second floors, the Pentagon has continuous interior space extending from the facade to the inner-facing wall of the C-Ring, joining the C-, D-, and E-Rings. This is because the light wells between the C- and D-Rings and between the D- and E-Rings only descend to the bottom of the third floor. The only structural elements interrupting this space are columns apparently spaced on 10-foot centers along the direction perpendicular to the facade, with each first-floor column having a square cross-section measuring 21 inches on a side.

A figure on the left shows a path from the center of the facade impact puncture to the center of the C-Ring punch-out hole. That path could describe the path of fuselage debris from the facade to the C-Ring wall, where it could have produced the punch-out hole. It shows that there was a narrow path for that debris between the columns left standing by the crash.


This is what caused the hole in C Ring

Part of main landing gear truck - one of the heaviest and strongest parts
on an aircraft

The flight data recorder was found near the C Ring hole - while it is
designed to survive a crash is not indestrucible

As for "tin foil" on front lawn - maybe can send you some to make a hat....

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:47 PM
I mean, did some of you guys think that a plane was gonna punch a perfectly plane-shaped hole in a wall like a cartoon or something?

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by thedman

Airplane crashes leave airplane parts - identifiable parts! The supposed trajectory of AA 77 was low and crashed directly into a building, according to you guys and the complete lack of damage to the ground. Given that, the entire plane should be there - no parts should have dissolved or melted. Especially the black box!

Here's a picture from Pan Am flight 103. It blew up in the air over Lockerby Scotland, then fell to the ground in pieces. Those pieces after being blown up by a bomb and falling to earth are large. There are no pieces like that from the Pentagon... why? How do you attempt to explain an airplane dissolving??

(poor quality - I just grabbed it from the official Pan Am website title page... but you get the idea.]

Typical wreckage after crashing and then an engulfing fire

Typical wreckage from a crash without major fire.

Ground condition after low altitude crash

The story you're telling just doesn't add up...
Crash of AA 77 that went into a building and basically stayed intact. It didn't even hit the ground at a steep angle because there would have been MAJOR damage to the ground. No pieces to identify the plane can be found.
Planes do not dissolve on impact (except in this case)
Black boxes stay intact at crashes far, far worse than this.

There's no explanation for a dissolving plane and flattened and burned CVR.

The wings didn't, as Viking guy pointed out, punch a perfect hole into the Pentagon and the hole isn't big enough for them to fit... so where are they? They SHOULD be outside the building! But they're not because no airplane actually hit the Pentagon that day.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:48 AM
Great news OSers! I found where the airplane hit!

My new theory is that the airplane crashed into this exploded truck... there was some sort of miracle that sucked the entire airplane IN-TO the truck!

It was a few minutes after that picture was taken that the upper floors collapsed, making this...

Case solved! No airplane ever hit the Pentagon. If it did, as some of you will no doubt say while questioning who knows what about me personally, the plane you speak up will have been dissolve-on-contact and about 12 feet high with no wings and no tail.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Thermo Klein]

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in