9/11 staged by the US evidence video

[Stouter]

why did the building not tip at all when the weak layers started falling on top of the stronger lower layers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

 

[Stouter]

Well thinking like that the towers should of fallen from day one. Now i could of understood a few floors falling down even the top of the building falling off but the whole building falling all the way to the ground. Sorry just dont work for me. Now I might be wrong but wasnt the south tower hit 2nd but fell first? but they both took about 10 secs to fall?

Skyscrapers are built much like bridges. They are made to barely withstand the maximum amount of force that they'll ever see, plus about 10% or so. The force of several tons falling 15 feet and impacting a floor exceeds this tolerance, which is why the whole thing fell.

The reasons there were different times between plane impact and tower fall for each tower was due to how the planes hit. The towers had a concrete core with a stair well in their centers, which was a portion of the support for the builds. One plane hit dead center, taking out the core. The other plane missed the core. This also lead to the fuel being spread around seperately on impact, and the jet fuel fire was the big factor in the collapse.

 

[Torqameda]

Ok, the fall of the twin towers follows the Newton's Theory about inertia, along with the theory by Galileo that states that all objects fall at a set speed, excluding objects that have special properties that prevent them from attaining this speed. The 747's hit the middle of the tower. This caused the structure to become unstable at the top. Because the structure began to collapse, the floors above the "crash site" followed all the laws of physics in a downward motion. This caused immense pressure on the floors below the "crash site", and it couldn't hold up the weight and pressure of the upper floors. This caused the whole tower to collapse. If you don't believe it, then look it up, it's all there.

 

[Trippyhippy]

The 747's hit the middle of the tower.

No they didn't. They hit the middle of the third and higheset section.

|||
|||<-here
|||
|||
||| <-Not here.
|||
|||
|||
|||

 

[Chasym]

Ugh, just skimming this topic at work pissed me off.

Thanks to Trippy for at least putting up the "non-mainstream" viewpoint without sounding like a moron. I'd use the "Thank You!" feature but I loathe it.

To Chasym, who believes in science when it's put in a conspiracy theorist's video as a "plausible simulated destruction" via a controlled demonstration, and not when it's in any video that opposes what he's decided for himself to be true: I don't think you're really winning anyone over to your argument here by saying that such-and-such video is finally "evidence" and that you have known the Truth ever since you saw it on the History Channel and in underground religious ceremonies (re: DaVinci Code).

You opened a can of worms by saying that you had evidence. That means people want you to deal in facts, not rumor-mongering or sensationalism. You're going to have to do a lot better than this if you want me to think you're not just a nut.

actually you could read that i never said i believed the science information in that video,some of it seemed logical, others were just put in place to make you believe. i never said i believed it. and most of it i dont because it was a simple video effect that could be adjusted to fit any angle called transparent overlay.

and no, i dont just believe ANYTHING i see, its rare i believe stuff like this unless it has logical questions that for some reason the people who should know refuse to answer or release the evidence.
most of the stuff i know about that hast o do in relation to the davinci code, i read. and researched by cross checking the bible with the informations. and it fits.
you know i dont sit in a world of televison as gospel cause i hardle ever watch it, unlike most of this generation, i do read.

 

[Chasym]

Science has no core set of beliefs it is only a methodology. Something is always considered a theory unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. No one can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the towers fell right because you(and me) are not educated in the actual physics that we'd need to understand to be explained this.

However mountains of other people who ARE educated this way tell me that this is how the tower was supposed to fall, so I have the choice to believe people who for a living study incidents such as these, or I can believe kids in their basement who are majors in film and politically WANT to blame people who had nothing to do with the attacks except a failure to prevent them.

It's just like the JFK assasination. When the last bullet hit his head, he had was blown into the direction that the bullet struck him.

Idiots have for decades taken this to mean there was a second gunman. Scientists have been able to show why this happened and replicate in expiraments, but people who prefer to believe the conspiracy are not interested in such things.

If evidence means nothing to you that contradicts your view, then stop showing evidence that supports your view. I'm not interested in hearing about another problem with the "cover" that's been long since refuted and nobody cares about. If you don't care about evidence because it shows you're wrong, then stop showing bad evidence yourself. Just say, "I believe the government is responsible because I'm paranoid and I really hate George Bush and want everyone else to too."

Forget all the DNA evidence. Forget the billion witnesses. Forget it was broadcast live all over CNN. Forget the detailed explanations of what happened by trained experts in the fields that study it. Forget the passengers who for some reason never came home, their families who have formed lobbying organizations and are all over the press... no... because..

"I don't think the towers would fall like that, i mean they should fall over come on it common sense!"

its still funny that people in that field that understand the science of things say thats the way it is, but from what ive seen and found, everyone hired by the government to compile those reports are the ones saying it...the government surley wouldnt allow them to say otherwise. Tarnish their image...of course not.
When you look at all the experts who had nothing to do with compiling the official story, they seem to believe the official story is wrong too.
while both sides have good answers and questions to the events, youll never have an agreement on what happened no matter what they say, because no matter what is released if the government asked those people to compile a report or have any connection to them making it, no ones gonna believe it who didnt before.
cause i always get the scenario in my head where some government officials are standing there with some scientists saying "here answer some of these conspiracy questions with somethion fancy that sounds right, and make it look good, and get it as close to what it "looks" like as possible"
in some cases the offical response sounds right to me, in others i get that scenario in my head.

 

[Tagrineth]

most of the stuff i know about that hast o do in relation to the davinci code, i read. and researched by cross checking the bible with the informations. and it fits.

You know, the Da Vinci Code was specifically written that way. That doesn't make anything in the DVC fact...

 

[Chasym]

You know, the Da Vinci Code was specifically written that way. That doesn't make anything in the DVC fact...

never said it did make it fact. I never said it was fact.
but there are some things that tie in with what history has also found that makes some of it put into more research.

 

[Rones]

but from what ive seen and found, everyone hired by the government to compile those reports are the ones saying it...

Or you are only looking at sources that fit your belief and ignoring the rest. I already posted studies from two independent colleges. Stouter posted a detailed source from Nova. In addition we have the engineers and scientists from popular mechanics. None of those were working for the government when they made those reports. There are plenty of indepedent sources that agree with the government in what happened.

 

[Chasym]

Or you are only looking at sources that fit your belief and ignoring the rest. I already posted studies from two independent colleges. Stouter posted a detailed source from Nova. In addition we have the engineers and scientists from popular mechanics. None of those were working for the government when they made those reports. There are plenty of indepedent sources that agree with the government in what happened.

theres more out there than what you posted, some of the stuff you posted that listed long lists of links had many contradictions to each other.
as many independant studies ive seen do the same.

 

[Stouter]

Science has no core set of beliefs it is only a methodology. Something is always considered a theory unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. No one can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the towers fell right because you(and me) are not educated in the actual physics that we'd need to understand to be explained this.

I've taken enough classes in math, physics, and field experience in demolitions to understand what happened, and why the towers didn't simply "tip over." Here's a very crude, half drunk paintbrush drawing to help explain why the towers fell straight down:

The X is the center of gravity. For the towers to tip over, the center of gravity would have to shift beyond a point above A or B, which is approximately 110 feet in either direction. The towers were about 1350 feet tall, meaning the center of gravity was likely 600 feet or so up from ground level. That much of a shift would leave the top floors moving about 250 feet from their standard location. This causes tension and compression on various load bearing beams. Steel and other metals handle tension quite well, but fail miserably at compression. Before the center of gravity could even come close to reaching the point where the towers would fall over, several of the load bearing steel I-beams would buckle. This is where gravity kicks in, and pulls the building down, not sideways.

If you walk up to some unsuspecting person that is supporting all their weight with one leg, and kick the back of their knee of that leg, they will fall straight down, not tip over. This is exactly the same thing that happens when a load bearing beam buckles. The weight starts falling down, and inertia kicks in. You have a vector going straight down, and the amount of force required to make that vector horizontal is unrealistic in any real world conditions.

 

[Rones]

theres more out there than what you posted, some of the stuff you posted that listed long lists of links had many contradictions to each other.
as many independant studies ive seen do the same.

However, your point was that all independent sources disagreed with the government and that all the ones supporting the governemnts view were hired by them. I was just pointing out that was false. You also only pointed out one counterdiction which was actually from a conspiracy site that somehow got mixed in with those others. Of course the conspiracy sites will disagree. Other than that I find little coutnerdiction unless you want to provide more.

 

[Chasym]

However, your point was that all independent sources disagreed with the government and that all the ones supporting the governemnts view were hired by them. I was just pointing out that was false. You also only pointed out one counterdiction which was actually from a conspiracy site that somehow got mixed in with those others. Of course the conspiracy sites will disagree. Other than that I find little coutnerdiction unless you want to provide more.

actually i never said independant sources, i said the sources that were hired to provide the "official story".

 

[Rones]

When you look at all the experts who had nothing to do with compiling the official story, they seem to believe the official story is wrong too.

If this isn't refering to independent sources, what is it? I just pointed out experts who had nothing to do with compiling the official story that do support the official story.

 

[Chasym]

If this isn't refering to independent sources, what is it? I just pointed out experts who had nothing to do with compiling the official story that do support the official story.

yes majority of what i have read, and this is while not specifically searching conspiracy theories has shown more independants dont believe the official story or that of other independants. Thats yes even more sources than previously posted. and majority were not on conspiracy sites or books.

 

[Rones]

yes majority of what i have read, and this is while not specifically searching conspiracy theories has shown more independants dont believe the official story or that of other independants. Thats yes even more sources than previously posted. and majority were not on conspiracy sites or books.

Well I've read more that agree, so there. :nyam:

Anyway, numbers are irrelevent to quality. The ones that disagree with the government's sources tend to lack in quality. Their theories have holes and many questions that can't answer or disprove (as I've posted several in this thread). What theory are you following now? Still with the helicopters firing missles, planted explosives in the towers, and missle at the pentagon?

If you have seen so many that disagree, surely they can answer these problems with the theories I've posted:

1st, the helicopters. After the first plane hit there were tens of thousands of people watching the towers from the base and hundreds video taping from adjacent buildings. This is how we got such crystal clear video of the 2nd plane impact and everyone had close up clear view from the news medias. All of these people (we are included if you were watching live on tv) had a better, clearer view of the building than that guys 'eyewitness' film. Missles are very obvious. We would have seen the impacts on the sides of the building as large chunks blew out. However, no one saw anything like that because it didn't happen. He is forced to use a distant camera with blurry view to support his theories because they don't hold up when you can see the situation clearly.

2nd, bombings. If you watched my previous link on demolitions you will see it requires thorough planting. They also must be wired (instead of wireless) to prevent accidental early explosion from a stray wireless signal. Thus you would have had to have people stomping through the tower for days putting explosives in place and wires all over leading back outside. In a building with tens of thousands of people traveling it every day, there is no way you could have set this up without everyone knowing about it.

1. If it was not American Airlines flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then where is the airplane and the 64 people who were aboard?
None of the conspiracy sites answers that question. Few of them even ask it.

2. If it was not American Airlines flight 77, then why do they have evidence of the bodies of known crew, passengers, and hijackers?
C. Christopher Kelley of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology says that the effort to identify bodies that ended on November 16, 2001, identified all but one of the victims of flight 77.

3. In response to the question of "Where is the Boeing," the answer is "in pieces."
There was plenty of evidence of the airplane at the site including debris from the plane, as mentioned above, the remains of the passengers, and the cockpit data and voice recorders. Associated Press Military Writer Robert Burns reported on September 13,2001, that members of congress who had visited the Pentagon crash site were told by rescue officials that much of the fuselage of the Boeing 757 remained intact inside the damaged Pentagon.

4. Radar tracked the plane toward the Pentagon.
Much has been made on some of the conspiracy sites that the transponder in the cockpit was turned off by the hijackers so it isn't clear what happened to the plane after that. The founder of TruthOrFiction.com, Rich Buhler, is a licensed commercial pilot and says the transponder being turned off doesn't mean the plane can no longer be seen on radar. The transponder is a device that not only makes the airplane more visible on a radar screen, but also gives the radar controller other information such as the altitude, speed, and sometimes the identity of the airliner. If the transponder is turned off, radar controllers can usually still see what is called the "primary target." That means there is a blip on the radar screen showing the location. According to www.airdisaster.com, flight 77's transponder was turned off shortly after departure from Dulles airport near Washington DC, but radar controllers could see the primary target flying directly toward the White House. Then the plane was seen to veer away from the White House and head for the Pentagon.

 

[Ithenas]

This causes tension and compression on various load bearing beams. Steel and other metals handle tension quite well, but fail miserably at compression.

actually stouts, steel and most metals preform extremely well in both tension and compression, i think you're thinking of concrete and got it backwards, which works very well in compress, but sucks in tension. or perhaps you were talking about the steel being heated which drastically weakens it...i'm not sure but i've had to take enough structures courses to know that steel is good in both situations of compression and tenstion. the rest of your explantion seemed pretty dead on to me tho

 

[Chasym]

for one i never said anything about missiles being fired, but if you ask why you cant see it on the live footage. 9/11 eyewitness was filmed from the completley opposite side of the buildings from the television angle. Theres certainly things the live footage couldnt have caught if they hadnt of filmed from that side. But as its been stated before, much of the footage that appeared on live television, never re aired on the repeat plays and for some reason "disappeared". so theres no way unless people, like myself taped it themselves and go back to day 1 footage.maybe it did show up, and they just werent allowed to show it again?

id like to know where the airplane is myself, and why they said live on tv they found 3 of 4 black boxes then the next day said they found none.
It wouldnt be the first time in history people and planes just "vanished" without a trace and were never found or had any real explanation.
what about the cleveland landing of flight 93 that was documented and identified as being flight 93. The people who were documented at cleveland as being escorted to a station, yet their names were never recorded.
Then no bodies found @ flight 93 crash site in shanksville.
how can people expect me to believe that a plane crashes into the pentagon and burns insanley for awhile, yet they recover no identifiable plan parts that can be 100% certainly plane parts, but they recover most of the bodies.
Then flight 93 crashes, no plane found and yet these bodies were all supposedly burned to nothing. It doesnt add up. 2 plane crashes, with two different outcomes, and both without planes, one with bodies, one without. Both burned, pentagon burned more. But for some reason pentagon bodies found, shanksville none. a bit ass backwards.

Sure lets ask, where are the planes? where are the people?
well its been asked, and im sure they would never answer it anyway.

What theory am i following now?
i dont follow any one specific theory at all, ive said it before and ill say it again.
I only believe that the official story is not the complete true story.
Be it what is in the true story i dont know.

What about the teacher in columbus recently? pretty harsh outcome for a comment in a private conversation.
http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/15270/9_11_Opinion_Lands_Teacher_in_Hot_Water

people keep saying i only read what points to conspiracy.
well you might wanna look at this gem that popped up today, its pretty long trying to debunk the pentagon theory.
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/...ng_757_Really_Did_Impact_the_Pentagon_on_9_11
quite extensive.
what about this compilation called undeniable facts
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/13234/9_11_The_Compilation_of_Undeniable_Facts

 

[Rones]

for one i never said anything about missiles being fired, but if you ask why you cant see it on the live footage. 9/11 eyewitness was filmed from the completley opposite side of the buildings from the television angle. Theres certainly things the live footage couldnt have caught if they hadnt of filmed from that side. But as its been stated before, much of the footage that appeared on live television, never re aired on the repeat plays and for some reason "disappeared". so theres no way unless people, like myself taped it themselves and go back to day 1 footage.maybe it did show up, and they just werent allowed to show it again?

I'm refering to the live feed shown by news media to millions of Americans in addition to that from private citizens nearby and eye witness of everyone around the buidling who all had a nice clear view of the towers. All of these people would have easily and clearly seen missle strikes hitting the tower from helicopters if that had happened. Your statement just proves my point that his theory only works if you must depend on his low quality picture and fails as soon as you go off a clearer view.

why they said live on tv they found 3 of 4 black boxes then the next day said they found none.

Rumors and bad news reports. Happened a lot on that day and days to follow. I remember a big one that kept getting repeated was a report of a car bomb at Congress which was totally false.

what about the cleveland landing of flight 93 that was documented and identified as being flight 93. The people who were documented at cleveland as being escorted to a station, yet their names were never recorded.
Then no bodies found @ flight 93 crash site in shanksville.

What crazy source did you get this from? All the bodies were there. Some have even been identified in addition to having the flights black box. We even had people talking on cell phones right before the crash. If they hadn't taken them to some secret location and killed them, cell communication wouldn't have died right when the plane crashed and radar from multiple airports wouldn't have tracked the plane to the crash site.

how can people expect me to believe that a plane crashes into the pentagon and burns insanley for awhile, yet they recover no identifiable plan parts that can be 100% certainly plane parts, but they recover most of the bodies.

Again, where are you getting this info? I even posted a picture of plane parts from the pentagon. The correct conspiracy line is 'they were planted'. :wacko: Your link even shows there are plane parts.

What about the teacher in columbus recently? pretty harsh outcome for a comment in a private conversation.

Lecturing to a class in a public school is not private. Totally off topic.

What theory am i following now?
i dont follow any one specific theory at all, ive said it before and ill say it again.
I only believe that the official story is not the complete true story.
Be it what is in the true story i dont know.

So basically you're calling conspiracy with no basis, reason, or evidence other than you want to think there is one. You don't even have a direction for your conspiracy acusations and haven't done much research. Both of your false statements on the flights were disproved with 10 seconds of googling.

 

[Chasym]

in this very thread im told dont believe what i see online, them im told 10 seconds of googling disproves everything.
i watched some stuff a lil bit ago about no bodies found at flight 93, but went back to the date and it was back before they announced the coroner findings. So that was a bit out dated info.

The planes parts stuff is different tho, the people who build the plains have said in many interviews that they do not recognize the parts found from the planes as being parts from that particular plane. they even go as far to say, they have never seen those parts before. They even compare the parts to possible other places they could have come from, what about the parts that were immediatly carried from the scene? The wing that looked to small to be a boeing in a blue tarp.
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm
theres other links out there but this one had most of em compiled into one. But dont believe the internet remember...

on that teacher, He didnt lecture the class. i watched the actual news report those pictures came from, and it was a private conversation with the principle of the school.

i find it hard to say i am calling conspiracy with no theory, when i really am not trying to say, Oh missle hit here, missle hit there, us did this and that, i posted a video i found, and some more videos and links.
and said it raised questions. never said i believe anything thats in them.
Never said i believed there was a full conspiracy going on.
Im just saying some of the stuff sounds odd.
and lets cut it down to exactly what "I" find odd and what makes me believe the 100% truth hasnt been told.

The explosions were eye witnessed coming from the lower part of the building. And just because there was no videos to prove it, they were unacknowledged.
Tho you can clearly hear them before the towers collapse in just about every video, and strangley when watching any part of it on the news or a biography channel thing, The moments you hear explosions in eyewitness videos, are skipped over. Why is that?

Why were videos and debris confiscated immediatley following the events and never released to the public when we know they are there.

why was the debris of the trade towers shipped away and trashed before forensics or anyone could study them? it was a crime scene, it should have been looked into.

The swift and unexplained clean up of everything with no explanation is what leads "me" personally to wonder whats up.
The conspiracy theories are crazy in their own right, but they raise questions. That i feel some answers provided could easily be lies cause people believe anything. This thread is point and case to that.

i believe there were other internal explosions. The two days the building was clear for "rennovations" or whatever they were doing was certainly time for anyone to get that stuff in there if they wanted to.
i believe theres more to it than said or shown because of the quick clean up, much like roswell. To hide stuff they dont want the public to know about.

Maybe they pissed off E.T. for all i know when he demanded the worlds supply of recees pieces and was told no, so he sent some kamikaze aliens to attack, and the government wanted to hide that.

Thats pretty ridiculous right?
well thats why alot of people say the theories are.
And just as many say the official story is.
Ridiculous.

its two different sides of people believing.
Its catholics vs jews.
Its spiderman is better than superman.
its elvis is dead its elvis is alive.

Its always gonna be two different groups of people, who will never agree. I, for all this time, sat here and never questioned anything. i just believed what the entertainment box and the printed news told me.
but 9/11's story being 100% told in full truth.
i no longer believe.

http://www.911truth.org/