9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

[Ginger Lord]

The government version of 9/11 adds up in places, but completly fails in others. We all know what happened, I think there are some serious bluffs going on, especially around the Pentagon.

FBI taking all the tapes showing the impact minutes after. Planes flying that low to the ground without touching it flown by complete douchebag "pilots" and not having backblast affect the cars on the highway...lots of things don't add up there.

[Pericolos0]

steppenwolf i have heard loads of scientific statements from both sides... and i'm pretty sure the engineers that believe it just collapsed because of the plane far outweigh the odd scientist that has another theory. There are scientists that have proof to back up their theory that the holocaust didnt occur... do you believe those too?

also there is no such things as a scientifically prooven fact

[Steppenwolf]

steppenwolf i have heard loads of scientific statements from both sides... and i'm pretty sure the engineers that believe it just collapsed because of the plane far outweigh the odd scientist that has another theory. There are scientists that have proof to back up their theory that the holocaust didnt occur... do you believe those too?

also there is no such things as a scientifically prooven fact

What has this to do with holocaust? :roll:

There are clearly explosions in lower levels visible, some are far below the collapsing levels. How do the other scientists explain these? How do they explain that wtc 7 collapses how it collapses (perfectly straight in free fall speed). How do the other scientists explain that there have been found no big pieces of the pentagon and pennsylvania planes when in EVERY other planecrash that ever happend the places are full of them? :roll:

How do the other scientists explain that some of the steel was vaporized when kerosine can by far not reach the temperature to vaporize steel?

Why have all the wtc steel been sold to asia and meltet short time after the attacks happend? In every fucking planecrash there are investigations over sometimes years where every small piece is collected. why not in the wtc attacks?

Peris i always thought you were open for other opinions. How can you accept all the open questions and even come with this silly holocaust comparison? Some of the questions could be easily answered if the bush administration would give honest answers about what they know. Why dont they give these answers? There can be only three possible answers to this questions imo. 1. they were directly involved in this 2. people close to them were involved to this or did at least knew about it 3. the truth has nothing to do with both theorys but would harm bushs political ambitions since he abused the situation to increase his powers and the power of the united states on the globe

[Fletch]

Well shit, if you saw it on the Internet, it must be true.

Go watch Anatomy of the Collapse on TLC or Discovery Channel sometime (or buy the DVD) (or pirate it). It actually explains the collapse using... what's that called... oh yeah, ACTUAL SCIENCE. This shit in these Google videos uses a high school understanding of physics. The same "scientists" and "experts" in these videos are the same oness that say the moon landing is impossible.

See, with this real documentary, they decided to go talk to people that knew what the hell they were talking about: the architect and the building's chief engineer. Turns out they actually have firsthand knowledge about what stresses the building was designed for and what the flaws were. Here are some spicy tidbits:

1) Yes, the building was designed to withstand a plane's impact: in 1960. The idea of giant jumbo jets with high octane jet fuel was not a thought. They were more worried about small communter planes that crashed into high rises all the time.

2) The support structure wasn't designed for jet-fuel level heat. It was designed to withstand a heavy fire that was concievable during the time. It was treated with flame resistent foam. The problem was that jet fuel made the fire burn outside the acceptible range, melting the foam and softening the support frame. Thus, implosion from the center.

3) Those mysterious "explosions" floors beneath the impact zone? It's called gas pressure. When an area is suddently imapct, the air need someplace to go, so it will flow anywhere it can to escape. Down a stairwell. Through an office. Doesn't matter. So all that escaping gas found a a way to escape by blowing out windows. Some thing happens in any explosion. It why the teams that implode buildings remove all the glass first.

4) WTC 7 was crippled by falling debris. There are pictures of the damage pre- and post- collapse of the two towers. The only "evidence" conspiracists have is that the CIA had a branch office there. SPOOKY! THE CIA! IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHERE THEY HID THE ALIENS! Dumb shits. When a building takes a few tons of debris, it tends to be less stable. When firefighteres don't even touch a fire, it tends to burn for a hell of a long time past acceptible norms consideredin construction and design.

5) The "Where's the Debris Theory" is also complete bullshit. Those towers had so many fucking subfloors. Go to the site in NYC sometime. It's a big fucking pit. You can fit a lot of debris there. (Also consider an average floor on a building is about 5-10% materials and the rest open air.

So in conclusion: if you believe this hoax crap, you're an idiot. Congratulations, you believed shit on the internet. I have some money in a Nigerian Bank you can help me get to, but first I need you to give me some money to start the paperwork. We'll split it 50/50 and be rich as Nazis! Smacktard.

[Steppenwolf]

Well shit, if you saw it on the Internet, it must be true.

Go watch Anatomy of the Collapse on TLC or Discovery Channel sometime (or buy the DVD) (or pirate it). It actually explains the collapse using... what's that called... oh yeah, ACTUAL SCIENCE. This shit in these Google videos uses a high school understanding of physics. The same "scientists" and "experts" in these videos are the same oness that say the moon landing is impossible.

See, with this real documentary, they decided to go talk to people that knew what the hell they were talking about: the architect and the building's chief engineer. Turns out they actually have firsthand knowledge about what stresses the building was designed for and what the flaws were. Here are some spicy tidbits:

1) Yes, the building was designed to withstand a plane's impact: in 1960. The idea of giant jumbo jets with high octane jet fuel was not a thought. They were more worried about small communter planes that crashed into high rises all the time.

2) The support structure wasn't designed for jet-fuel level heat. It was designed to withstand a heavy fire that was concievable during the time. It was treated with flame resistent foam. The problem was that jet fuel made the fire burn outside the acceptible range, melting the foam and softening the support frame. Thus, implosion from the center.

3) Those mysterious "explosions" floors beneath the impact zone? It's called gas pressure. When an area is suddently imapct, the air need someplace to go, so it will flow anywhere it can to escape. Down a stairwell. Through an office. Doesn't matter. So all that escaping gas found a a way to escape by blowing out windows. Some thing happens in any explosion. It why the teams that implode buildings remove all the glass first.

4) WTC 7 was crippled by falling debris. There are pictures of the damage pre- and post- collapse of the two towers. The only "evidence" conspiracists have is that the CIA had a branch office there. SPOOKY! THE CIA! IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHERE THEY HID THE ALIENS! Dumb shits. When a building takes a few tons of debris, it tends to be less stable. When firefighteres don't even touch a fire, it tends to burn for a hell of a long time past acceptible norms consideredin construction and design.

5) The "Where's the Debris Theory" is also complete bullshit. Those towers had so many fucking subfloors. Go to the site in NYC sometime. It's a big fucking pit. You can fit a lot of debris there. (Also consider an average floor on a building is about 5-10% materials and the rest open air.

So in conclusion: if you believe this hoax crap, you're an idiot. Congratulations, you believed shit on the internet. I have some money in a Nigerian Bank you can help me get to, but first I need you to give me some money to start the paperwork. We'll split it 50/50 and be rich as Nazis! Smacktard.

Oh the arrogance over other opinions here :roll:

Ok, lets forget all the physician, engineer, architecture stuff. Lets say the towers were indeed collapsed due to the plane crashes. Still remains the pentagon and pennsylvania stuff and not to forget all the lies and abuses of the situation from the government. Doesn't it bother you that they try to keep you stupid? Why dont they answer questions that they know and that to answer wouldn't harm them if they were not involved and indeed all this shit was planned by Osama Bin Laden? Aren't you the idiot here because you believe what was on TV? You seriously think thats a better source then Internet?

I have seen all the documentarys that came out a few months after the attacks and tried to explain all this. Fact is that many many questions are not answered. The videos that i posted are from this year and i believe that they at least answer a few of these questions and proof other stuff wrong.

[RD]

Oh the arrogance over other opinions here :roll:

Ok, lets forget all the physician, engineer, architecture stuff. Lets say the towers were indeed collapsed due to the plane crashes. Still remains the pentagon and pennsylvania stuff and not to forget all the lies and abuses of the situation from the government. Doesn't it bother you that they try to keep you stupid?

The pentagon stuff is pretty obvious. It would be bad PR showing the HQ of the most powerful military humiliated. Or if youre talking about the pieces, google it. There are pictures of pieces of the aircraft, its engine, its nose, the american airlines logo and more between the smoldering rubble of the pentagon.

Same with pennsylvania. You just use the wrong searchtags on google stepp, youre finding what you want to find.

[Section_Ei8ht]

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve either side, but RD, since those images are so easy to find, post some here then.

[Steppenwolf]

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve either side, but RD, since those images are so easy to find, post some here then.

lol yea this would be a adequate answer

[Kosmo]

Ok, so one question to everybody, me included.

Is anyone here an engineer? Does anyone here work with building materials? Does anyone have anything more than "it was in a documentary, you are poopie head for believing your documentary over my documentary".

Not a single one of us know the cold hard facts, the facts that pay the bills on this matter.

So pipe down and stop insulting each other over something you actually know as little as the other guy.

If you are so sure that something funky went down on the tower that made it collapse, bring me a melted piece of the steel collumn, I'll try to do the same to back up my theories, and as long as neither of us can get some unbreakable facts, it's just guesswork on everyones part.

[RD]

http://images.google.nl/images?q=pentag ... bris&hl=nl

http://images.google.nl/images?svnum=10 ... gon+engine

http://images.google.nl/images?svnum=10 ... tagon+nose

http://images.google.nl/images?svnum=10 ... agon+wheel

Couldnt be any easier

[Section_Ei8ht]

yes, RD, but if you watch the documentry and look at those pics, you see that they are of the same pieces of debris: a few wheels, a small section of the side that is unscarred, and an engine that the documentry claims is not part of the alledged passenger jet that hit the pentagon.

Again, I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve either side of the argument. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

[Steppenwolf]

lol RD the pics show exactly the suspicious parts that are doubted to be parts of a boing by the sceptics. like the tiny aluminium part that doesnt look as if it would belong into the scene and the too small engine parts that definately not belong to a boeing.

edit: well i was wrong here. the engine part _could_ belong to a boeing engine. But what is suspicous is that boing refuses to proof this. Again it would be so easy to get answers if important people would just be honest to us and tell us what they know. Someone MUST know how this part is called and to which engine it belongs.

[The Postman]

I can't believe we're still actually arguing this crackpot crap.

[Steppenwolf]

I can't believe we're still actually arguing this crackpot crap.

I cant believe you are still moderator in this forum. Thanks for participating as such a valuable discussion partner :roll:

The video i posted is one month old and brings some new views into the topic of 911. Nobody forces you to discuss about it. How about you just shut up instead of making silly comments that have no value for the discussion? last time you said i was trolling around. How is that called what you do?

[Bic-B@ll]

i happened to have the same discussion about 9/11 in another forum about a month ago.

about the building collapsing as if it were an explosion:

the way the building was constructed was that it relied heavily on an external support structure in addition to support columns in the center of the building. you can see in pictures the building was just vertical lines of windows and steel. the vertical pieces of steel held the outside of the building. when the top floors dislodged a few after gigantic fucking planes hit into them, they were added to the weight of the floor below, which couldn't handle 2x the weight, so that floor gave. ad so it went on like dominoes. all the floors crashed down the tube of the exterior structure. that is why there are pictures like this:

see this: http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html

towards the end of the video, the guy talks about the fact that other buildings weren't affected. that is bullshit.

that banker's trust building directly to the south is a big sky scraper. it was so heavily damaged that is has to be taken down. because it has asbestos and other shit in it, it has to be taken down piece by piece, it has a gigantic veil over it currently.

i have quite a few links on this stuff:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 explains a lot about pentagon

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3308 this goes into huge detail about the pentagon planes, a big argument.discussion

http://911review.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y popular mechanics thing about many of the main counter points

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm snopes article about the pentagon

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html about the parts and hole in the pentagon

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/hands.htm crazy shit

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ose+change the video the whole discussion was about