September 11, 2001: What We Saw (500yds from WTC)

[A_Wanderer]

Prove it.

 

[tpsglick2424]

Will tomorrow mornin, 12 at night here and have to do something at 9:30..

 

[A_Wanderer]

Have you heard about the building in Madrid, Spain? It burned for a good 12-15 hours and caught on to 23 floors BUT the building never collasped.

Different structure, different accelerant, different damage, different materials, different temperatures.

There are also people who survive getting shot in the brain.

 

[Liesje]

Have you heard about the building in Madrid, Spain? It burned for a good 12-15 hours and caught on to 23 floors BUT the building never collasped..

Erm, different buildings, most likely different materials, completely different structures. Also, it was not accelerated by 24,000 gallons of jet fuel.

As you see in the video you DO see popping out of the windows before the rest of the building collapses on it..

I'm not sure what this sentance means... Are you referring to the bursts of orange fire at the level of the plane crash, before the first building falls? If so, what does that prove? Perhaps some of the plane's fuel "blew" at that moment, generating the beginning of the collapse. Drive a car off a cliff and it will explode as it impacts. That doesn't mean there was a bomb or pre-rigged explosives in the car.

Scientists dropped a bowling ball from a 92 story building and it drop for 8 seconds, when the whole Twin Towers fell, the both fell at 8 seconds...There is no doubt in my mind that there wasnt planted explosives because a building can't fall that fast unless planted explosives in the building...

This again makes zero sense. ALL matter accelerates at the same rate (9.8 m/s^2, I think), so it's only logical that a bowling ball dropped and a building falling would take exactly the same time. The basic laws of gravity say that the building HAS to fall as fast as a dropped bowling ball.

And I finish this by saying that when the Twin Towers were built, they were built to sustain a Boeing 727...

Where in the world did you hear this? I distinctly remember reading papers (like essays in lit magazines, not .com AP news articles) where the buildings' architect estimated that given the impact of the plane and the presence of the fuel, the buildings would last 25 minutes. At any rate, none of the planes involved in Sept. 11 were Boeing 727s. Also, it's not really the planes that has anything to do with it. You seem to always be forgetting that they were fully fueled. The burning fuel weakened the steel frames of the buildings. Even if they were designed to sustaint impact from a Boeing 727, they were NOT designed to sustain a weakened central frame.


Going back to my questions, you didn't really answer any of them. I asked how these "Explosives" were detonated and you said "the military did it". Um...ok? HOW? A cell phone? A lit fuse? Then I asked how they were detonated by the military and somehow avoided being automatically detonated by the impact of the plane bomb, and you said "maybe the plane had the bomb on it". But I thought your whole gig is that there were rigged explosives in the building? I would not even be surprised if there was a bomb on the planes as a way for the terrorists to take control, but that has absolutely nothing to do with pre-rigged explosives or the US military. The rest of my questions you admittedly have no answer or even educated guess for.

I'm really surprised that you still maintain the possibility of and inside job when all scientific proof, eyewitness testimony, personal observation, and common sense prove totally otherwise. In fact, it's almost offensive. It's really not cool to spout off these conspiracy theories just for the fun of digging up "clues". Thousands of people lost their lives that day. If you're going to turn them into pawns that were burned, or vaporized, or forced to jump to their death because the US military thought it would be handy to take down our most significant economic and political structures, you better have some damn good evidence.

 

[waynetravis]

.As you see in the video you DO see popping out of the windows before the rest of the building collapses on it.

you're talking about the smoke that can be seen bursting out of the windows a few floors down as the bulding collapses, correct?

now i'm not an expert, but i would say that windows are bursting because of the enormous pressure pushing down from the collapse.

 

[tpsglick2424]

Erm, different buildings, most likely different materials, completely different structures. Also, it was not accelerated by 24,000 gallons of jet fuel.





I'm not sure what this sentance means... Are you referring to the bursts of orange fire at the level of the plane crash, before the first building falls? If so, what does that prove? Perhaps some of the plane's fuel "blew" at that moment, generating the beginning of the collapse. Drive a car off a cliff and it will explode as it impacts. That doesn't mean there was a bomb or pre-rigged explosives in the car.


Where in the world did you hear this? I distinctly remember reading papers (like essays in lit magazines, not .com AP news articles) where the buildings' architect estimated that given the impact of the plane and the presence of the fuel, the buildings would last 25 minutes. At any rate, none of the planes involved in Sept. 11 were Boeing 727s. Also, it's not really the planes that has anything to do with it. You seem to always be forgetting that they were fully fueled. The burning fuel weakened the steel frames of the buildings. Even if they were designed to sustaint impact from a Boeing 727, they were NOT designed to sustain a weakened central frame.


Going back to my questions, you didn't really answer any of them. I asked how these "Explosives" were detonated and you said "the military did it". Um...ok? HOW? A cell phone? A lit fuse? Then I asked how they were detonated by the military and somehow avoided being automatically detonated by the impact of the plane bomb, and you said "maybe the plane had the bomb on it". But I thought your whole gig is that there were rigged explosives in the building? I would not even be surprised if there was a bomb on the planes as a way for the terrorists to take control, but that has absolutely nothing to do with pre-rigged explosives or the US military. The rest of my questions you admittedly have no answer or even educated guess for.

I'm really surprised that you still maintain the possibility of and inside job when all scientific proof, eyewitness testimony, personal observation, and common sense prove totally otherwise. In fact, it's almost offensive. It's really not cool to spout off these conspiracy theories just for the fun of digging up "clues". Thousands of people lost their lives that day. If you're going to turn them into pawns that were burned, or vaporized, or forced to jump to their death because the US military thought it would be handy to take down our most significant economic and political structures, you better have some damn good evidence.

Okay, this is what I was saying earlier...I am just saying that I really don't know what happend that day and I'm not blaming any certain people...This was the reason why I didn't want to get into this conversation, because when I talk to people about this they always get the wrong message...I don't have a clue about what happend that day, all I know is some two huge planes hit the world trade center and one hit the pentagon, I am just trying to come up with the same info as everyone else...Did I say the military was behind this and crap, no I didn't. Do I even think George Bush was behind this, not at all but you have to look at things like the pentagon and just look at pictures before it collasped, it was a 15x15 foot whole whith no sight of wings. Did I say the military was behind that, no I didn't but I'm still wondering if it was a plane or not..This whole thread for me wasnt being attacked by someone, it was just to talk about it...

 

[tpsglick2424]

you're talking about the smoke that can be seen bursting out of the windows a few floors down as the bulding collapses, correct?

now i'm not an expert, but i would say that windows are bursting because of the enormous pressure pushing down from the collapse.

Yes, I was talking about that...

And because I'm guessing that before it came down it breaking happend on certain floors...

Believe me, I'm no at all expert either..

 

[Greenlight]

There were a couple of science based programmes screened here a while ago, (I assume they were also shown in the States) explaining the technicalities of why the towers collapsed as a result of the collisions. My hubby works for a large civil engineering company with many structural engineers and architects and apparently they all were in agreement that because of the nature of the design and structure, it was inevitable the towers would have collapsed following such an impact.

 

[phillyfan26]

The primary reason the Twin Towers fell was because the staircases were made of gypsum as opposed to concrete, which melted, causing the top third of the building to fall straight down on the rest of the building, sending the whole thing straight down.

Let me summarize: there is 0% of a chance that explosives were in the World Trade Center other than a burning plane. None. Zero. It didn't happen. It was said in another thread: How could they hook it up when people are working in that building 24 hours a day? They'd be seen. No government can run that smoothly. None. It didn't happen. Terrorists used planes as missles. It worked. They knew too much and took advantage. September 11th happened because of that. No conspiracy from the US Government. Conspiracy theories about 9/11 have never made any sense, because arguments like the ones LLaBM (I came up with that myself ), easily show how they don't make sense.

 

[Liesje]

The primary reason the Twin Towers fell was because the staircases were made of gypsum as opposed to concrete, which melted, causing the top third of the building to fall straight down on the rest of the building, sending the whole thing straight down.

I'm pretty sure most of the staircases were already severed on impact. I believe one remained in one of the buildings, but no one above the impact got down because it was filled with smoke and they were forced to move upward for air. The buildings got most of their structural support from the steel along outside, so the hot fires burning at the core and moving outward weakened all of the steel columns along the outside and the buildings collapsed.

 

[phillyfan26]

I'm pretty sure most of the staircases were already severed on impact. I believe one remained in one of the buildings, but no one above the impact got down because it was filled with smoke and they were forced to move upward for air. The buildings got most of their structural support from the steel along outside, so the hot fires burning at the core and moving outward weakened all of the steel columns along the outside and the buildings collapsed.

That's all true. I'm saying the staircases along with the outer support. Steel melts from fire, but concrete doesn't. The point was that there was a lack of concrete in the building.

 

[Liesje]

Okay, this is what I was saying earlier...I am just saying that I really don't know what happend that day and I'm not blaming any certain people...This was the reason why I didn't want to get into this conversation, because when I talk to people about this they always get the wrong message...I don't have a clue about what happend that day, all I know is some two huge planes hit the world trade center and one hit the pentagon, I am just trying to come up with the same info as everyone else...Did I say the military was behind this and crap, no I didn't. Do I even think George Bush was behind this, not at all but you have to look at things like the pentagon and just look at pictures before it collasped, it was a 15x15 foot whole whith no sight of wings. Did I say the military was behind that, no I didn't but I'm still wondering if it was a plane or not..This whole thread for me wasnt being attacked by someone, it was just to talk about it...

Look, I'm not attacking you, but it seems like you're treating this whole incident like some kind of riddle where the end result doesn't really matter. This is thousands of lives we're talking about. I find it a little inappropriate to continue entertaining possibilities because of a few conspiracy sites on the 'net.

As for the Pentagon, I'm not sure how many ways I have to say it, but the wings of the plane are very light and brittle, compared to other metal structures. The speed and angle at which the plane was travelling could have likely already been damaging the wings, peeling them backward. Upon impact, they most certainly were vaporized or blown into millions of tiny pieces. When a jet of that size, full of fuel, travelling say 400 mph runs into solid concrete walls, it's simply not going to leave a perfectly plane-shaped hole in the building.

A Boeing 757's fuselage height is only 16.5 feet high, thus the reason for the relatively "small" hole in the Pentagon before it collapsed.

If I remember correctly, much of the wreckage landed below ground level, since the plane was sort of pointed at the ground.

Plenty of plane parts and wreckage were recovered from the Pentagon, but your conspiracy websites obviously aren't going to tell you that.

I really can't see why you're taking dumbshit theories posted on French websites and actually considering that they might be true.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support anything BUT the Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Find me evidence and I'll take a look, but so far you've posted nothing that makes even the slightest bit of sense.

 

[Liesje]

That's all true. I'm saying the staircases along with the outer support. Steel melts from fire, but concrete doesn't. The point was that there was a lack of concrete in the building.

Precisely. Whereas the Pentagon was a completely different structure, one with plenty of concrete.

 

[phillyfan26]

There was a guy who was sitting in stopped traffic, and saw the plane run straight into the pentagon. He said with one hundred percent certainty it was a plane.

 

[tpsglick2424]

Look, I'm not attacking you, but it seems like you're treating this whole incident like some kind of riddle where the end result doesn't really matter. This is thousands of lives we're talking about. I find it a little inappropriate to continue entertaining possibilities because of a few conspiracy sites on the 'net.

As for the Pentagon, I'm not sure how many ways I have to say it, but the wings of the plane are very light and brittle, compared to other metal structures. The speed and angle at which the plane was travelling could have likely already been damaging the wings, peeling them backward. Upon impact, they most certainly were vaporized or blown into millions of tiny pieces. When a jet of that size, full of fuel, travelling say 400 mph runs into solid concrete walls, it's simply not going to leave a perfectly plane-shaped hole in the building.

A Boeing 757's fuselage height is only 16.5 feet high, thus the reason for the relatively "small" hole in the Pentagon before it collapsed.

Look before I'm sorry of what I wrote earlier..I was really tired this morning...

And for the Pentagon, Yeah it might actually be that the wings tore to billions of peices upon impact but it is very unlikely that the plane or even wings were vaporized because bodies were found within that destruction...Fire can't burn planes when bodies were found within that destruction...

What I was saying with other things that they ARE rumors..I am taking this seriously but I'm just thinking about it....I

I did see on the news that scientists were saying that when both planes crashed, all of the gas caught on fire and went throught the elevator shaft and burned for about 10 minutes...I can't tell you where I got this exactly from but I can tell you I saw it on the news...

 

[Liesje]

What I was saying with other things that they ARE rumors..I am taking this seriously but I'm just thinking about it....

But why would you take a rumor like that seriously? If you'd spend as much time researching the source of this rumor as you have trying to believe it, you'd see how rediculous it is.

It's one thing to have military officials, pilots, or architects arguing that the planes were not the only cause of the destruction, but you have nothing of the sort. The rumors were started on some French website with an obvious bug in their bonnet regarding the US military.

Trust me, it's not worth thinking about.

If you're still not convinced, then what about the 757s black box that was found at the Pentagon? What about the experience pilot that saw the plane hit and even identified it as a 757? What about the damaged that the wings did to the outside wall of the Pentagon? What about the pieces of the plane's fuselage found in the wreckage and scattered on the lawn?

My problem is that these rumors were not started because someone actually found scientific data pointing towards something other than the 757, they were started because people were already biased against the US military and went looking for a way to stirr up shit. 9/11 is just a scapegoat here. By giving these rumors even two seconds of your thought, you're just doing exactly what they want - believing false information and then trying to pass it on to others.

 

[financeguy]

But why would you take a rumor like that seriously? If you'd spend as much time researching the source of this rumor as you have trying to believe it, you'd see how rediculous it is.

It's one thing to have military officials, pilots, or architects arguing that the planes were not the only cause of the destruction, but you have nothing of the sort. The rumors were started on some French website with an obvious bug in their bonnet regarding the US military.

Trust me, it's not worth thinking about.

If you're still not convinced, then what about the 757s black box that was found at the Pentagon? What about the experience pilot that saw the plane hit and even identified it as a 757? What about the damaged that the wings did to the outside wall of the Pentagon? What about the pieces of the plane's fuselage found in the wreckage and scattered on the lawn?

My problem is that these rumors were not started because someone actually found scientific data pointing towards something other than the 757, they were started because people were already biased against the US military and went looking for a way to stirr up shit. 9/11 is just a scapegoat here. By giving these rumors even two seconds of your thought, you're just doing exactly what they want - believing false information and then trying to pass it on to others.

Exactly, guys, never question authority!

 

[Liesje]

Exactly, guys, never question authority!

Did you not even read the post? I said, it would be one thing if these rumors stemmed from scientific findings, but the fact is that they were created by people who were already biased against the U2 military, way before 9/11 occured, they simply used it as a way to stir their shit.

Questioning authority is fine with me, in fact I think it's often necessary, but no one in a position of any "authority" (meaning a qualified scientist, pilot, military official, architect, etc) was the one starting these outrageous claims.

To me, it's more of an urban legend than even a conspiracy theory.

 

[tpsglick2424]

Yes, I personally think it isn't such a bad deal that we question authorites...This is America and we have the right to have freedom to doubt and question authorities.

And sometimes in the end, you are still doubting authorites fine with me and if in the end you agree with the authorites then awesome.

 

[Liesje]

One of the saddest things I've learned recently was that the building that held a command center suppose to deal with terrorist attacks exactly like 9/11 was one of the WTC buildings that was demolished (the 7 WTC building, maybe? Can't remember which one).

 

[Canadiens1131]

For fuck's sake -

I have about as much respect for people who form sweeping opinions based on slickly-editied flash movies from internet bloggers, as I do for Fox news and its reputable coverage.