9/11 staged by the US evidence video

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ithenas said:
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
Click to expand...
Steel does handle compression somewhat, but it's much like a straw. Set up properly, a straw can hold 50 pounds, but if you apply a small sideways force, 5 pounds could collapse it. I-Beams are shaped specifically to lessen this effect, but for the towers to tip over would have taken a 10 degree shift or so, and steel can't handle compression under those circumstances.
 
Stouter said:
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.
Click to expand...

You say they are made to barely withstand the maximum amount of force that they'll ever see..... twin tower were made to withstand hurricanes and planes hitting them. them makers of the building said so them selfs.
 
what it should have looked like
170506doctored.gif
 
Chasym said:
what it should have looked like
170506doctored.gif
Click to expand...
So the wall should have exploded the second the nose of the plane touched it? Huh, I always thought it was the jet fuel on the plane that that was the reason for the explosion, but guess those walls will explode if you hit them hard enough. I must have got lucky I hit a window with that baseball when I was a kid, if I had hit the wall itself the entire house would have gone up.

Stirce said:
You say they are made to barely withstand the maximum amount of force that they'll ever see..... twin tower were made to withstand hurricanes and planes hitting them. them makers of the building said so them selfs.
Click to expand...
Yes that is the worst case scenario, maximum force they'll ever see. A plane hitting a building is dramatically less than 30 floors for a 500,000 square foot skyscraper free falling for 15 feet. Steel and all metals lose their strength when heated. At 800 degrees F that beam won't be able to hold the same load it held at 70 degrees F.

If you honestly think that only a controlled demolition could cause the implosion of the towers, I can't see anything changing your mind. You don't understand the phyics of structures or materials enough to convince you otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Stouter said:
So the wall should have exploded the second the nose of the plane touched it? Huh, I always thought it was the jet fuel on the plane that that was the reason for the explosion, but guess those walls will explode if you hit them hard enough. I must have got lucky I hit a window with that baseball when I was a kid, if I had hit the wall itself the entire house would have gone up.


Yes that is the worst case scenario, maximum force they'll ever see. A plane hitting a building is dramatically less than 30 floors for a 500,000 square foot skyscraper free falling for 15 feet. Steel and all metals lose their strength when heated. At 800 degrees F that beam won't be able to hold the same load it held at 70 degrees F.

If you honestly think that only a controlled demolition could cause the implosion of the towers, I can't see anything changing your mind. You don't understand the phyics of structures or materials enough to convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

i didnt make the image, someone else did. And he clearly stated it wasnt the point of the explosion, its the point you can actually see a plane and not just dead air then a boom.
 
Chasym said:
i didnt make the image, someone else did. And he clearly stated it wasnt the point of the explosion, its the point you can actually see a plane and not just dead air then a boom.
Click to expand...
If it was a missle then, shouldn't you have seen a missle in the video?
 
Stouter said:
If it was a missle then, shouldn't you have seen a missle in the video?
Click to expand...

you do, sorta, a blur of a white image that's the "missile"
 
so, if the plane didnt hit it, where is that plane today?
if it were a missle, it would not have made it through near most of the building because of simple physics. a normal guided missle would have detonated on impact. a bunker buster would have made it through MAYBE the first section. if that.
it wouldnt not have caused the dmg it did on the inner ring that has the "missle size" hole. to cause that hole, it would have gone complete through each ring and just fell to the ground after it punched that last hole. there would also be blast marks on the outter ring of that hole.
 
Back to addressing the "small hole," ever watch an indy car race? Have you ever seen one of those cars crash into a concrete wall, and leave a hole the size of the car? OMG auto racing is a conspiracy!
 
Chasym said:
i didnt make the image, someone else did. And he clearly stated it wasnt the point of the explosion, its the point you can actually see a plane and not just dead air then a boom.
Click to expand...

At 250 MPH, it would be dumb luck to catch ANYTHING moving through a 20-30 yard radius at the frame rates of your standard security cam.


I have another one for you! George Bush and Paul Tagliabue were in league together to flood New Orleans. Bush wanted a football team in Houston, so he conspired to weaken the levees. Pauley T double crossed him though and is moving the Saints to LA.
 
masterorion said:
so, if the plane didnt hit it, where is that plane today?
if it were a missle, it would not have made it through near most of the building because of simple physics. a normal guided missle would have detonated on impact. a bunker buster would have made it through MAYBE the first section. if that.
it wouldnt not have caused the dmg it did on the inner ring that has the "missle size" hole. to cause that hole, it would have gone complete through each ring and just fell to the ground after it punched that last hole. there would also be blast marks on the outter ring of that hole.
Click to expand...

As previously stated, it hit the upper portion of the building, not the middle. I have no clue why I previously said it hit the middle. But anyways, the reports say that the jet fuel igniting caused the massive explosion. Yes, just the airplane hitting the tower alone would cause an explosion, but with the explosion, came the ignition of the jet fuel. Jet fuel is extremely volatile, and more sensitive to heat. Therefore, the explosion would be much greater than that of any day car fuel. And with the "white blur" or the "missle", why in God's name would the government set-up something like that? If it were a missle, and said it was a plane, and had the airport officials vouch for the government, wouldn't they have thought that people would suspect a missle? No, because it wasn't a missle. And as Masterorion stated, a missle would explode on impact. Some other heavier missles like ones used to elimante bunkers or heavily armored units would make it into a few sections, but not make it through as far as the plane did on 9/11. Also previously stated, it is simple physics. Any object will slow down upon impact or friction. So the more sections that it would hit, the slower it would go. Now, with a missle, it wouldn't come to a complete stop. But, missles are designed to explode in either a specific radius, or a general radius. A general radius would have been a missle that was large enough to destroy a whole section, left to right, of the tower. But I highly doubt this missle would resemble a 747. Then missles that have a specific radius would not cause such an explosion as did on 9/11.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't these type of missles look smaller than a 747? Even from a distance, and making it a "white blur", you would still see a significant difference.
 
Elemmire said:
you do, sorta, a blur of a white image that's the "missile"
Click to expand...

i've seen a blur of a brown thing in the woods that supposed to be bigfoot, it doesn't mean it is. i find it rather interesting that proof of all the stuff like that (and the missle in this case) is always out of focus, yea i know it was moving but so what. there's a thing called optical illusion, planes look like planes in the air because of the distance between the object and the viewer. when viewing most things at high speeds up close they begin to distort and stretch in your vision. at 350 miles an hour up close the nose of a plane could very possibly appear pointed if you were close too it, that doesn't mean it is. in that same video clip isn't there a frame where you can actually see the plane?
 
Last edited:
There is actually, if you are able to download the film clip, slow it down as far as you can until you see frame by frame. A few frames before the plane hits the tower, you can distinguish it as a plane, well, if you look close enough, it resembles a plane, not a missle.
 
High speed impacts are funny, elasticity is different than you might expect from what you witness in normal speed. Just a bat hitting a baseball in slow motion. The bat actually goes inside the ball, morphing its shape. The ball then recovers its shape, going back to its original form, moving it hard into the direction the bat struck it. The way energy is tranferred at high speeds is not the same as it is low speeds as energy is tranferred in strange ways. Therefore some guy looking at a plane crash from his basement with no training on how the physics of it works is not going to convince me he knows something I don't.

But you can say all the scientists studying are all part of the "conspiracy" but everytime you do that, you include more of the people in on this plot. When you consider the nature and scale of this crime you have to start to ask yourself how many people you've met in your life would be willing to take part in this? You think you could recruit 1,000 people to do it without finding one person who goes public and turns you in?
 
in this very thread im told dont believe what i see online, them im told 10 seconds of googling disproves everything.
Click to expand...
You are misreading and taking comments out of context. Basic facts from reliable news sources can be easily googled and relied on. However, you shouldn't believe the conspiracy sites heavy on theory with few facts (or lots of made up facts).
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.
Click to expand...
And there are other experts who agree those parts do match. Again what matters is the quality of the sources. If you want to argue it wasn't the boeing that hit the pentagon, you still need to answer the other question in addition to the obvious: Why go to all that trouble to make it look like a plane, but not actually use the plane? There is no motive for that in addition to it disagreeing with all the facts we have related to the event. Radar tracked the plane right to the pentagon. You can't simply make a plane disapear from radar there to match the crash time.
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.
Click to expand...
No, not the explosions weren't. That video tries to make it look like that. However we have many videos of closer up in addition to the thousands on the ground who saw there were no explosions. Missle hits are very easy to see. This relates back to my statements about helicopters. Stop saying it was missles unless you can answer my previous counter to this. Repeating the same argument over and over is meaningless if you can't defend it.
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?
Click to expand...
Two possible situations here. 1. There were no explosions or helicopters firing missles. 2. Helicopters shot the tower with missles in broad daylight and only this man with a film over a mile away saw it and all the world's media is intentionally passing up the chance to report this. Don't forget the thousands of eye witnesses who are in on it too.

Out of these two possible you choose number two as most logical?
Why were videos and debris confiscated immediatley following the events and never released to the public when we know they are there.
Click to expand...
Confiscated to prevent tampering. What is there has been or is being released through the freedom of information act. Anything else like didn't exist. How hard is to claim the government took your security camera film and accuse them of hiding it when it actually never existed to begin with?
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.
Click to expand...
It had to be cleaned up because it was putting out toxic fumes. The debri was taken to a secure location where every piece was catologed and examined. I remember seeing a news special on this a few months after the event that showed a few pictures of the site.
The conspiracy theories are crazy in their own right, but they raise questions
Click to expand...
Questions that have been answered and proven over and over again. Ignoring facts don't make them cease to exist. The facts have always been there, they just don't choose to include them in their theories.
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.
Click to expand...
It was undergoing renovations for a lot more than two days. In addition there were still people working there, or did you forget how many workers died in the crash at the pentagon? That's the first I've heard of someone claiming explosives planted at the pentagon. What are you basing this on? The total lack of other explosions there?

How, after all this, you can still believe any of the conspiracy theories I don't understand.
 
Rones said:
How, after all this, you can still believe any of the conspiracy theories I don't understand.
Click to expand...

If someone lies to you and you catch them... Multiple times...

would you doubt every word they tell you?

Logic would dictate that you should. If my government told me the sky was blue, I'd look up to make sure.

The fact that all the people who believe our government had nothing to do with this don't even questions explanations and explanations of explanations...

that kinda scares me and leaves me with feeling that patriotism is dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top