A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Prove it.
Different structure, different accelerant, different damage, different materials, different temperatures.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.
tpsglick2424 said:
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..
As you see in the video you DO see popping out of the windows before the rest of the building collapses on it..
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...
And I finish this by saying that when the Twin Towers were built, they were built to sustain a Boeing 727...
tpsglick2424 said:
.As you see in the video you DO see popping out of the windows before the rest of the building collapses on it.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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.
waynetravis said:
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.
phillyfan26 said: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.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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.
tpsglick2424 said:
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...
phillyfan26 said:
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.
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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.
tpsglick2424 said:What I was saying with other things that they ARE rumors..I am taking this seriously but I'm just thinking about it....
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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 said:
Exactly, guys, never question authority!