PROOF that 9/11 was FAKE

[adamized01]

Omg how can anyone be soo ignorant and lame to believe such garbage, heck I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but this one I find just offensive and full of crap.

 

All this anti war and anti bush stuff is wrong and bad enough, but this is just sick. Also to post this bs on a gaming forum even if it is in an off topic thread is just wrong.

 

Here is a question are the website authors french? If so then that answers all of my other questions.

 

Anyways I know that america has freedom of speech in our constitution but come on this crap shouldn't be covered any more than kiddie porn should. Thats right I am equating this garbage to kiddie porn.

 

I implore the moderators to remove this horrible thread.

[Albareth]

Adamized: You actually expect people to put any merit in your answer when in one little post you manage to both express ignorance by jumping on the bandwagon of giving a whole nation a label as well as comparing a POLITICAL THREAD to pediophilia?!? And then you dare to call someone else ignorant after jumping on the blame-the-french bandwagon yourself.

 

Please.

 

No matter how much you might disagree with this thread that post was WAY out of line.

 

And "this kind of crap shouldnt be allowed to be said", what would you do if (and I don't think that happened here, but if) your goverment actually DID this or something like this? The reason freedom of speech is so important is precisely so we aren't sheep standing by accepting everything. Even though a lot of people choose to be just that there are always people who are on the lookout for wrongdoings. And that's how it should be - no matter whether the goverment is left-orientated, right-orientated, center or just plain whatever.

[Switch]

Adamized - please don't post like that in here. This is a debates forum. Unless you can discuss said topic maturely, don't post at all please. You have been warned. Thank you. ;)

[Zmid]

Well I don't believe ALL of it without questioning it, it would be hypocracy when I say 'you believe everything on the news' when I would be believing everything shown on god knows what website.

Hey, I'll agree with that. ^_^

 

But still there are a few things that makes me question the official stuff:

 

Why are there no plane debris at the Pentagon and why does the damage not resemble an airplane crash?

 

This is explained in the feedback letter I referred to - the plane was totally obliterated on impact, so there is debris, but you can't see it on the photos because the largest piece is small enough to fit into your pocket. In addition, aluminium melts in fire, so any substantial pieces left may have been melted by the explosion. As for the damage not resembling an airplane crash, there is a hole roughly the size of a 757 fuselage in the photos (if you read the feedback letter, it tells you where) and, as the letter says, the bottom floor of that section of the Pentagon has been 'taken out' by the wings and wooden blocks of some kind have been put in, presumably to try to help support the weight of the wall and stop it collapsing.

 

Why did tower #2 collapse first, while having much less damage?

 

Unknown. Just using common sense and making a totally uneducated guess, perhaps it had more to do with the location of the damage rather than it's extent.

 

Why did both towers collapse so cleanly, especially tower #2 which only had most fires on one side?

 

If I am reading the links posted by Mojlnir correctly, it seems that the way the towers were damaged combined with the way they were built caused the towers to collapse inwards rather than to the side or outwards as would happen in more conventional structures.

 

 

 

adamized01, it seems to me that you seem to have a problem with anyone expounding a position that disagrees with yours. As you can see, I disagree with this theory, but, as someone once almost said, 'I may disagree with what he says, but I will defend his right to say it.' You mentioned that the American Constitution protects the right of free speech. I am not American, but I hold this dear as well, obviously much more so than you do, going by your post.

[Mojlnir]

As I read the reports White Wolf, your summation is correct. In the case of the Pentagon, the plane went in at a very low angle and gutted the first and second floors of three rings of the building. The construction of the building allowed the second and third rings to remain standing, and the damage to their lower floors cannot be seen in any photograph taken from the exterior. The flight recorder was found inside the third ring I beleive, which is very impressive in terms of penetration.

According to reports on the WTC crashes, it appears that the location of the damage had more to do with the second towers collapse than the actual visible amount of damage. The plane that hit the first tower penetrated cleanly into the middle of the building, leaving much of the structure intially intact though it would later be compromised by fire and collapse. The second tower was much more severily damaged. It may not look like it, but to my understanding of the structural design of the building, the damage was much worse than it appearred. The towers relied on the integrity of the external walls as much as the internal and the second plane sheared away too much of the stress bearing exterior walls for the building to remain standing for long.

That the buildings did remain up is the main reason that the death toll was as low as it was as well. People within the towers had sufficient time to escape, at least those on the lower floors. With the central shafts of both buildings compromised, there was no escape for those trapped above the impact sites.

[Shakkara]

As for the no-debris at the pentagon location, as I said, I have seen lots of videofootage of a plane crash into a flat here in Amsterdam (Bijlmer crash), and there were debris allover the place. Also, planes crash into mountains sometimes (as solid as the pentagon) and also in those cases they still leave identifiable debris. In the case of the Pentagon we at least should have seen a tail section. Also, I make my own fireworks, and I use lots of aluminium in it (and I do not mean powder containing aluminium, I mean whatever stuff made from aluminium I can get my hands on, usually rods and foil). If aluminium gets too hot it will not melt, it will burn. If that happens you get a bright white light, more intense then magnesium. It burns much longer then magnesium (that's the reason I use it). Which could clearly be seen in the Pentagon should that happen. Also, I do not think jet fuel can generate the amount of heat necessairy to ignite it, especially since most of that stuff explodes on impact. The 'the plane was obilterated' or even 'the plane was vaporized' stories are complete bullpoo. If you want to persist with these theories I challenge you to give me an example of ANOTHER plane crash (we've had enough of those already) which left NO debris.

 

I disagree with the 2nd tower sustaining more damage then tower 1. Most of the fuel exploded outside the building, and most of the fires were at near the exterior, not near the central core. Also, the fires were dying out when the tower collapsed. If tower 2 has sustained more serious damage, the tower would have collapsed to one side since all damage was located in that area while the other side was practically undamaged. I think only jetfuel could have been generating enough heat to weaken the support structure, not fires generated by materials present in the tower. Most jetfuel exploded OUTSIDE tower 2 (which can clearly be seen on every bit of videofootage of this crash, I need no website to tell me that!), and what remained inside was concentrated on ONE SIDE.

[Zmid]

As for the no-debris at the pentagon location, as I said, I have seen lots of videofootage of a plane crash into a flat here in Amsterdam (Bijlmer crash), and there were debris allover the place. Also, planes crash into mountains sometimes (as solid as the pentagon) and also in those cases they still leave identifiable debris. In the case of the Pentagon we at least should have seen a tail section.

Well, a block of flats is different because it is less solidly constructed than the Pentagon is, and a mountain is different because it has irregular terrain and the Pentagon doesn't. Also, bear in mind this plane was being deliberately flown at the Pentagon, so the speed involved would be much higher than in most other plane crashes.

 

Also, I make my own fireworks, and I use lots of aluminium in it (and I do not mean powder containing aluminium, I mean whatever stuff made from aluminium I can get my hands on, usually rods and foil). If aluminium gets too hot it will not melt, it will burn. If that happens you get a bright white light, more intense then magnesium. It burns much longer then magnesium (that's the reason I use it). Which could clearly be seen in the Pentagon should that happen. Also, I do not think jet fuel can generate the amount of heat necessairy to ignite it, especially since most of that stuff explodes on impact.

 

Well, if I remember rightly, the melting point of aluminium is about 660 degrees Celsius and the boiling point is about 2500 degrees Celsius. Again, if I remember rightly, your average petroleum fuelled fire is about 700-900 degrees Celsius, so the aluminium would melt relatively slowly, but fireworks burn at 1500+ degrees Celsius, which would melt it relatively quickly. This, combined with the fact that, due to it being in foil form, rather than the soild form it is used in plane construction, the reaction is much more rapid, is what causes the aluminium to burn.

 

The 'the plane was obilterated' or even 'the plane was vaporized' stories are complete bullpoo. If you want to persist with these theories I challenge you to give me an example of ANOTHER plane crash (we've had enough of those already) which left NO debris.

 

OK, just as soon as you give me another example of a 757 or similarly constructed aircraft being deliberately flown at a similar speed into a building as solidly constructed as the Pentagon.

 

Well, actually, I do know of one (according to eyewitness accounts, anyway)- the plane that was hijacked and came down southeast of Pittsburgh a short while after the WTC attack. Here's a link to a local news report - http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/9...809/detail.html.

 

I disagree with the 2nd tower sustaining more damage then tower 1. Most of the fuel exploded outside the building, and most of the fires were at near the exterior, not near the central core.

 

Well, first of all, as I said, it has more to do with the location of the damage, not how much the tower was damaged overall. Secondly, what you have said nicely backs up Mojlnir's explanation. It was the damage to the exterior load-bearing walls and the stresses on them which caused the collapse, not the damage to the interior load-bearing walls.

 

Also, the fires were dying out when the tower collapsed. If tower 2 has sustained more serious damage, the tower would have collapsed to one side since all damage was located in that area while the other side was practically undamaged.

 

If you look at the links Mojlnir posted, you will see that, due to the way the tower was constructed, the damage caused the top ten or so floors to collapse onto the next floor down, which overloaded it, causing it to collapse onto the next one, overloading it, which collapses, then this repeats all the way down, causing an accelerating concertina-like effect.

 

I think only jetfuel could have been generating enough heat to weaken the support structure, not fires generated by materials present in the tower. Most jetfuel exploded OUTSIDE tower 2 (which can clearly be seen on every bit of videofootage of this crash, I need no website to tell me that!)

 

If you read Mojlnir's links, you see that steel softens at 425C and loses half it's strength at 650C, which is within the realms of ordinary household (or office) fires (though only just). This, on its own, is not sufficient to cause the collapse, but the heat was also not uniform on the steel. This produced slight deformation in the steel joists and this, in combination with the steel's loss of strength, caused the collapse.

 

EDIT: Also, bear in mind that, because of the large volume of jet fuel these airliners carry, even if most of the fuel exploded outside the building, that could still mean a substantial volume burned inside the building.

 

and what remained inside was concentrated on ONE SIDE.

 

Explained above.

[Shakkara]

As for the no-debris at the pentagon location, as I said, I have seen lots of videofootage of a plane crash into a flat here in Amsterdam (Bijlmer crash), and there were debris allover the place. Also, planes crash into mountains sometimes (as solid as the pentagon) and also in those cases they still leave identifiable debris. In the case of the Pentagon we at least should have seen a tail section.

Well, a block of flats is different because it is less solidly constructed than the Pentagon is, and a mountain is different because it has irregular terrain and the Pentagon doesn't. Also, bear in mind this plane was being deliberately flown at the Pentagon, so the speed involved would be much higher than in most other plane crashes.

 

Also, I make my own fireworks, and I use lots of aluminium in it (and I do not mean powder containing aluminium, I mean whatever stuff made from aluminium I can get my hands on, usually rods and foil). If aluminium gets too hot it will not melt, it will burn. If that happens you get a bright white light, more intense then magnesium. It burns much longer then magnesium (that's the reason I use it). Which could clearly be seen in the Pentagon should that happen. Also, I do not think jet fuel can generate the amount of heat necessairy to ignite it, especially since most of that stuff explodes on impact.

 

Well, if I remember rightly, the melting point of aluminium is about 660 degrees Celsius and the boiling point is about 2500 degrees Celsius. Again, if I remember rightly, your average petroleum fuelled fire is about 700-900 degrees Celsius, so the aluminium would melt relatively slowly, but fireworks burn at 1500+ degrees Celsius, which would melt it relatively quickly. This, combined with the fact that, due to it being in foil form, rather than the soild form it is used in plane construction, the reaction is much more rapid, is what causes the aluminium to burn.

As I said, I use rods and pieces too, NOT JUST FOIL! Jesus, if you cannot read I will just leave parts out next time, since you only focus on the things you want to read, and ignore everything else I say! Sorry, but I can really get frustraded by this kind of behavour. The fact is that after the thing finishes burning, there usually is no molten heap of aluminium and casing, but instead the objects that didn't burn up completely are still very recognizable. Since we got a digital camera last week, I can make some movies or pictures to prove this.

 

The 'the plane was obilterated' or even 'the plane was vaporized' stories are complete bullpoo. If you want to persist with these theories I challenge you to give me an example of ANOTHER plane crash (we've had enough of those already) which left NO debris.

 

OK, just as soon as you give me another example of a 757 or similarly constructed aircraft being deliberately flown at a similar speed into a building as solidly constructed as the Pentagon.

 

Well, actually, I do know of one (according to eyewitness accounts, anyway)- the plane that was hijacked and came down southeast of Pittsburgh a short while after the WTC attack. Here's a link to a local news report - http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/9...809/detail.html.

Please give me an example not 9/11 related. And I hold the opinion that mountain or pentagon makes little difference. ALL other plane crashes to date prove my point.

 

I disagree with the 2nd tower sustaining more damage then tower 1. Most of the fuel exploded outside the building, and most of the fires were at near the exterior, not near the central core.

 

Well, first of all, as I said, it has more to do with the location of the damage, not how much the tower was damaged overall. Secondly, what you have said nicely backs up Mojlnir's explanation. It was the damage to the exterior load-bearing walls and the stresses on them which caused the collapse, not the damage to the interior load-bearing walls.

Damage to the exterior on ONE SIDE yes, and not even on the entire lenght of the building!

 

Also, the fires were dying out when the tower collapsed. If tower 2 has sustained more serious damage, the tower would have collapsed to one side since all damage was located in that area while the other side was practically undamaged.

 

If you look at the links Mojlnir posted, you will see that, due to the way the tower was constructed, the damage caused the top ten or so floors to collapse onto the next floor down, which overloaded it, causing it to collapse onto the next one, overloading it, which collapses, then this repeats all the way down, causing an accelerating concertina-like effect.

Yes, from the moment that the collapse begins to the point of complete destruction it is certain what happened. However, like I have been saying, the damage to tower #2 was not sufficient to trigger such a thing, and IF it could trigger such a thing the tower would NOT have collapsed in the way it did. If we use the theory you provided, it would have instead caused the external support structure on ONE side of the building to fail, while the other side would be completely intact. This would cause the tower to bend over, and the following things could happen then:

 

Either the floors of the upper levels come to rest on the floors of the lower leves, where the support structure is still intact, and the central core and the other undamaged parts of the external support structure (which are much more then just 50%), will hold the levels of the undamaged sides in place (partial collapse but tower remains standing, at least for a while)

 

Or, the same scenario as above could happen, but the lower levels of the damaged side cannot halt the collapsing upper levels, the rest of the supports on all sides will give way, and the tower will collapse to one side.

 

Or, same scenario, but instead the central core and support structure will be weakened and/or fail due to the dislocation of the levels on the other side. The tower will collapse to one side, but less then in case #2, since the opposing side will obtain more lateral velocity.

 

It is impossible to have damage such as this result in sudden structural failure throughout the entire level.

 

 

I think only jetfuel could have been generating enough heat to weaken the support structure, not fires generated by materials present in the tower. Most jetfuel exploded OUTSIDE tower 2 (which can clearly be seen on every bit of videofootage of this crash, I need no website to tell me that!)

 

If you read Mojlnir's links, you see that steel softens at 425C and loses half it's strength at 650C,

 

I wonder why you leave out the next sentances:

"But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. (...) Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire."

 

which is within the realms of ordinary household (or office) fires (though only just).  This, on its own, is not sufficient to cause the collapse, but the heat was also not uniform on the steel.  This produced slight deformation in the steel joists and this, in combination with the steel's loss of strength, caused the collapse.

 

EDIT:  Also, bear in mind that, because of the large volume of jet fuel these airliners carry, even if most of the fuel exploded outside the building, that could still mean a substantial volume burned inside the building.

 

The steel is not directly exposed, most of it is incased in concrete. Also, it is unlikely that there was sufficient oxygen to generate much heat, AND like mentioned before, but still unaddressed by you, the fires were in the process of dying out (If the collapse was triggered remotely, this was probably the real reason why they chose to collapse it at that time).

 

and what remained inside was concentrated on ONE SIDE.

Explained above.

No you have not. Even IF the fires have been the cause of the collapse, which is unlikely in the case of tower #2, the tower would have collapsed to one side, for the reasons stated previously, not in an identical fashion as tower #1.

[Mojlnir]

Shakkara, when you accuse someone of something, you must be prepared to be accused of the same thing yourself. It is clear from your posts that you have not read any of the material that has been posted here that is contrary to YOUR theory, and that you persist in belaboring the same tired points.

White Wolf and I have posted a significant amount of information that is gathered from very reliable sources (MIT is one of the most respected technical institutes in the world) as well as discussing directly the web source that you yourself posted. Do you have experience with highrise fire behavior or are familiar with the construction techniques of modern skyscrapers? If you read the information that I posted concerning the WTC attacks, you will clearly see that in fact Tower #2 was damaged much more severily that it appears on video tape. This is due to structural stress issues which have been discussed at length in this thread as well.

As for the Pentagon, the plane went into the building at an angle which is why there is no visible exterior damage aside from the first ring. And this in fact makes a huge difference because planes that hit mountains do not go INTO them.

Please don't accuse us of selective reading when you yourself seem to have mastered it. That is called hypocrisy.

[Shakkara]

Shakkara, when you accuse someone of something, you must be prepared to be accused of the same thing yourself. It is clear from your posts that you have not read any of the material that has been posted here that is contrary to YOUR theory,

I have read most of it, and even quoted parts of it, so look at my posts before you bark.

and that you persist in belaboring the same tired points.

Because they have not been countered by any valid argument.

 

White Wolf and I have posted a significant amount of information that is gathered from very reliable sources (MIT is one of the most respected technical institutes in the world) as well as discussing directly the web source that you yourself posted. Do you have experience with highrise fire behavior or are familiar with the construction techniques of modern skyscrapers? If you read the information that I posted concerning the WTC attacks, you will clearly see that in fact Tower #2 was damaged much more severily that it appears on video tape. This is due to structural stress issues which have been discussed at length in this thread as well.

The second website you posted has conflicting information of that point, at some points it sais the tower imploded, while on other instances it sais the outside of the building was pressed outwards due to the heated metal expanding (which we have no video evidence of).

 

As for the Pentagon, the plane went into the building at an angle which is why there is no visible exterior damage aside from the first ring. And this in fact makes a huge difference because planes that hit mountains do not go INTO them.

Two things:

Explain your logic behind your claim that the angle the plane entered the pentagon affects the visible damage so I can address your points one at a time.

If a plane does not go into the mountain it has a much higher chance of being obliterated. Try crashing a car at a speed of 200kph into a solid concrete wall or through a wall with glass in it. And, either you or White Wolf first claimed the Pentagon was a solid, fortified, unmovable structure. You want to cancel that statement?

 

Please don't accuse us of selective reading when you yourself seem to have mastered it. That is called hypocrisy.

You are making a completely unfounded accusation.