9/11 - Controlled demolition?

i note in the video they said "no large building has ever fallen down from fire before, they have burned for days"


no large building has been hit by a jumbo jet and had its central column flooded with jet fuel then ignited before...
 
locutus12 said:
i note in the video they said "no large building has ever fallen down from fire before, they have burned for days"


no large building has been hit by a jumbo jet and had its central column flooded with jet fuel then ignited before...
Click to expand...

dont think a large building has been hit by a jumbo even now ;)
 
locutus12 said:
i note in the video they said "no large building has ever fallen down from fire before, they have burned for days"


no large building has been hit by a jumbo jet and had its central column flooded with jet fuel then ignited before...
Click to expand...

jet fuel vapourises, that has little to do with damage to the steel. That was a normal office fire that done that
 
sidthesexist said:
from sept 2001 probably cos thats when they were found to be alive
Click to expand...

You think nothing has happened in the past 5 years since then?? Real investigations take time. All of this is explained in the link i provided (3 times). I get the impression you havn't looked at it.

Waleed Al-Shehri

Said al-Ghamdi

Ahmed Al-Nami

etc.
 
Last edited:
Zip said:
Here we go :)


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Please note the landing gear and the chunks of engine that is in the pentergon :)
Click to expand...


got bored this afternoon so i decided to read this entire thread and i think all the info in this link pretty much make up my mind.. there is even a link to 'why a plane didnt hit the pentagon' at the bottom so you can see both sides of the idea

conspiracy_tot1.gif

conspiracy_tot2.gif

conspiracy_tot3.gif
 
sidthesexist said:
so a terrorist who's using false id also carries his own passport that would give him away the first instance he is searched? :confused:

first alive

linkeh
Click to expand...
1. Carries his own passport? I was just saying that it appears some of the hijackers used stolen identities (same names, DOB and occupations as those who are still alive), although I may be wrong on this point; it may just be coincidental.

2. The date the article was published is significant (as Johanson pointed out) because in the five years since we have learned a lot more about the subject. We have heard from the family of the hijacker, more reports from the person who is still alive etc.
 
Rather erroneous bump here, but don't tell anyone!

I just stumbled over this article, titled "Your Documents Please", over at the "Screw Loose Change" blog. I must say, it would take one hell of a lot of effort to plant that kind of evidence at the scene. It's hard to believe some people dispute the fact that airplanes crashed into those buildings.

I decided to have a look at the Moussaoui trial prosecution exhibits, of which these personal effects were, and ended up browsing through the list of files for more than an hour. Some of those exhibits are seriously harrowing. There's everything from bank statements and CCTV images to photographs of children mourning the death of their parents and of body parts lining the streets around the World Trade center.

The "Summary of Flight 11" file [Listener discretion is advised] featuring passenger information, phone call information and audio recordings of some of these is particularly harrowing. Hearing Mohammed Atta tell the passengers not to make any stupid moves, that they were heading back to the airport... I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight :(
 
Just read a very tiny part where somebody was denying an explosion that ripped a plane and building apart could leave paper evidence.
Earlier this year my cousin got blown up in his villa in Spain and suffered 66% burns. The villa was completely blown apart by a LPG explosion and nothing left standing. His Ovation acoustic was found 50 yards away on somebodys lawn and inside the case the guitar was perfect. All his documents were found including passport, citizenship and money.
I was in France in 79 and a fire spread through our campsite. The fire service put it out about a hour later but it looked like nothing was left. There were about 30 tents and every single person found remains of their passports and travellers cheques in the debris.
 
ENOUGH ALREADY!

As I keep saying on these threads there IS a conspiracy behind 9/11 but the evidence for it is not to do with buildings falling down or if a passport could have been found in the rubble.

I have been researching the 9/11 subject since 2002 and I can now safely say people like Alex Jones and the Loose Change guys are doing an excellent job of making people look in totally the wrong place.

I don't believe this is intentional, I think they are just very blinkered and poor in their research. However because what they say is much more sensational to the uninformed they get all the publicity.

I suggest all the Loose Change / Alex Jones fans start researching the subject properly, keep a more open mind and grow up VASTLY in their thinking.

Here is where you should start:

This looks like one of the first commercial films that actually tackles the issue seriously:
9/11 Press for Truth

This website is an amazing resource. It's a timeline of events dating back way before 9/11 and is what the press for truth film is based on. There are some amazing articles here dealing with the Pakistani intelligence service and their funding of the attacks: The Complete Terror Timeline

You should seriously check out Mike Rupert’s film on Google video if you havn't: Truth and Lies of 9/11

And the articles on the related website: Articles

That should keep you busy for a while, not that any of you will take any notice…….roll on the next “OMG!!11 missile hit the Pentagon” thread.
 
Last edited:
Samtheman1k said:
Do you have any official source for this dispute?
Click to expand...

I think he's reffering to the common misconception (amoungst conspiracy fans) that all aircraft of the same model use the same engines.
IRC there are about 4 different main engines certified for use in 757's (depending on age and airline) and the conspiracry theorists often point to the fact that the one involved in the pentagon crash did not use the engines Boeing fit as their default option* as being suspicious (it's about as suspicious as me replacing Michelin tyres with Dunlop ones when the time came to replace them on my car).
The fact an engine manufacturer cannot identify an engine as being theirs sort of means nothing when the engine is already known (for those who care to look) not to be one of theirs in the first place (I would be worried if they did identify it as theirs when the documentation says otherwise).

I beleive American Airlines are well documented to have used at least 2 or 3 different engines in their 757's.



*I beleive depending on the intended use some engines are better than others, there is also the fact that different aircraft of the same model may be years apart (and the parts may have been replaced with newer/better ones since the first one rolled off the production line).
 
Sorry to drag this back up, but I found a really good summary of proposed evidence:-

Here is overview that gives you just a couple of reasons to question the official claims the government makes regarding 9/11. This was taken from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. ST911 is a large organization consisting of scholars of all fields including physicists, engineers, architects, university professors, etc. In other words, intelligent individuals knowledgable in their fields who cant be easily blown off and discredited.

1) The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

2) The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

3) UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

4) If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

5) There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.

6) There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

7) Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

8) The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

9) The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

10) Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

11) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

12) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

13) The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

14) The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

15) If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.
Click to expand...

What do people think of that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom