Don't try this at home. Fire and steel building experiment

Now for the pentagon...

The 'death' toll for the plane that hit the pentagon was 185 (the number aboard). So if any of you know anything about planes/plane crashes the following shouldn't be surprising:

1 when a plane crashes there are bodies
2 when a plane crashes nothing shrinks
3 it is against federal law to remove anything from the scene until the investigation is complete.

When the plane crashed into the pentagon it managed to hit the unoccupied section because of construction. But by doing so it flew over someone driving past that has extensive aircraft knowledge and was a medic. When he ran down to help the injured there was no one there, no bodies no pilots. He commented on a conspiracy website saying what he saw was "An unmanned aerial aircraft".

The same man was also told a few minutes later by a FBI agent to "get in line take this garbage bag and place any debris you see inside". When he asked why they were treating evidence like trash the FBI agent just ignored him (there are pic of this).

If you know anything about jet airliners you know that the engine is over 8ft in diameter. The engine found at the scene was consistent to a Global Hawk (UAV) the engine found was 3ft in diameter.

www.rumormillnews.com...

Airplanes now adays have special equipment inside. One of the lesser known is a g-force controller. This device prevents the aircraft from doing more then a certain number of G's, therefore preventing the aircraft from hurting anyone aboard. This device is always set to 1.5 g's and .5 -g's(more dangerous). They only way for this system to be over ridden is for NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense System) to take remote control of the airplane. If/when this happens the little mic that is in the cockpit for the black box is re-routed to the area where NORAD has taken over control so that they can still here the current pilot. The FAA stats the "every aircraft was seen pulling over 7 g's at some point on 9/11."

When the FBI finally decided to release a 3-D visual of the black box data there was something that caught my eye. Right before the plane crashed into the pentagon the altitude meter read 180ft. the height of the pentagon is only 40-80ft above sea level. The lamp posts that the plane "hit" are 40 ft tall. the highest you can get out of that is 120ft up (keep in mind that the plane was skimming the lawn).

The flight that hit the pentagon was REAL suspicious. Just 10 min after the WTC towers where hit all aircraft were ordered to land ASAP somewhere along there current flight path. The flight that hit the pentagon was on it's way to LA and it was in PA when all of a sudden, the pilot asks to make a course change TOWARDS the pentagon. Guess what? THEY SAID OKAY. tsk tsk

The thing that I think was most suspicious is that once a control tower or the FAA realize that there is a hijacking they are supposed to IMMEDIATLY notify there supers (high 'ranking' people in the building) and they are to IMMEDIATLY asses the situation then notify NORAD and give them a SITrep (situation report) so they can take immediate action. The supers were notified but NORAD wasn't notified until just before the one aircraft hit the pentagon.

So basically if standard procedures where followed NORAD could've sent up 6 squads to protect the us and shoot down the aircraft.

Squad 1 would've gone to intercept any current boogies (enemy aircraft)(once a plane is hijacked it is considered and enemy spy plane).

Squad 2 would've patrolled the white house/pentagon.

Squad 3 would've patrolled the eastern coast for more aircraft.

Squad 4 would've done the same and the western coast.

Squad 5 would've done the same in through the central time zone.

Squad 6 would've escorted AIR FORCE ONE (presidents plane).

BUT THEY DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by C21H30O2I


the best thing to do is to look at all the evidence both for and against the gov. not once have seen here "you HAVE to belive this" i always put up a strong argument but i allways say at the end you belive what you want i'm not telling you what to belive

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
well the planes had a contributing factor, did they not? and im still unclear on the whole thing. our gov sent in explosives to bring all the way down?
and for what? to goto war? Ive only been reading into the wtc ct so much, for it makes me sick to think about. i guess im just not smart enough to understand the whole thing. someone plz help expand my mind. i dont know who to believe. and with the pentagon, well thats crazy to me aswell
plane no plane, missle. something happend that awful day. friends of mine were lost in the towers. its just all crazy to me. and anger is the first thing that took over me.

the best thing to do is to look at all the evidence both for and against the gov. not once have seen here "you HAVE to belive this" i always put up a strong argument but i allways say at the end you belive what you want i'm not telling you what to belive

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]

Originally posted by bsbray11
they had severe fires, fully-involved if any of them were, that burned pretty much all day.

this is actually false. only one building had a severe fire and that was building 5. but as you said fire can't destroy a steel building

I forgot to mention a couple things in my rants

WTC building 7 a few years before 9/11 had the 15th floor *upgraded*. they put windows that could withstand a catagory 4 hurricane, fireproofing that is only used on AIR FORCE ONE and high level security access (only Secret sevice and the FBI). plus on this floor you had a perfect veiw of all the other buildings and the top of the towers.

WTC building 7 was virtually untouched by debris and there was almost no fire (the building was a block-and-a-half away) and fell just like a controlled demolition does. Roof caves in and brings down walls on top of roof in a nice neat pile.

Don't forget the fact that only a couple months before the attacks the pentagon did a new practice precidure where a airliner is hijacked and hits the pentagon (i swear to god this is not fake look it up on google)

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]

Originally posted by GwionX
Kind of..but you see the top floors some 100,000 tons didnt collapse on the WHOLE of the structure below. It collapsed on ONE FLOOR at a time. Then some 110,000 tons on the next floor down, then 120,000 on the next, ect.. So even though the bottom steel was larger, the falling weight was increasing -- Does this visual make any sense?

question!!!!! the WTC towers were light weight skyscrapers. that means that every floor weighs about 500 tons. so how do the top 15-20 floors weigh a total of 110,000 tons?

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]

WHAT IS IT WITH EVERYONE THINKING THAT THE PLANES WERE GOING 500 MPH?!?!?!?!?!?!

yes cruising speed is 500mph but that's for saftey. the minimum speed required to keep the plane in the air roughly 275mph wing span pending.

if you watch the tapes closely you will see that both the planes were at an upward arch when they hit the towers. so that right there takes out the 500 mph. plus if it WAS goin 500 then how come only 7 internal beams were damaged in the explosion?

Originally posted by Athenion

You want the mathematics, here you go. This was posted by an ATS member (Garden Spider) quite some time ago:

could i get a link for this i want to show it to my bio teacher and post i in a couple other websites.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]

anyone who thinks that the TOWERS moving at free fall speed is evidence that explosives where used then you need to look here

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]

reply to post by timekiller92


That hypothesis makes the assumption that floors fell on floors. There is no proof, or even evidence, that any floors fell and impacted lower floors.
That paper might prove it's possible, but not probable. They're also trying to tell you the top was heavier than what it supposedly fell on, the lower undamaged structure, i.e. the jar of pennies analogy. The top had no extra weight to overcome the resistance it would have met from the undamaged lower structure.

Have you ever looked at the collapse of WTC2? How does the tilt of the top section effect it's ability to fall and crush the rest of the building? Go look up 'angular momentum'.

Sry but that hypothesis is based on assumptions and ignores other facts that make complete global collapse from gravity an impossibility. Even NIST doesn't support the 'pancake effect'.

If you can't repeat the effect in the lab, as NIST failed to do, then words on paper mean absolutely nothing.

I suggest you do some more research, of your own, instead of just believing something that 'seems to make sense.'

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by timekiller92

 

That hypothesis makes the assumption that floors fell on floors. There is no proof, or even evidence, that any floors fell and impacted lower floors.
That paper might prove it's possible, but not probable. They're also trying to tell you the top was heavier than what it supposedly fell on, the lower undamaged structure, i.e. the jar of pennies analogy. The top had no extra weight to overcome the resistance it would have met from the undamaged lower structure.

Have you ever looked at the collapse of WTC2? How does the tilt of the top section effect it's ability to fall and crush the rest of the building? Go look up 'angular momentum'.

Sry but that hypothesis is based on assumptions and ignores other facts that make complete global collapse from gravity an impossibility. Even NIST doesn't support the 'pancake effect'.

If you can't repeat the effect in the lab, as NIST failed to do, then words on paper mean absolutely nothing.

I suggest you do some more research, of your own, instead of just believing something that 'seems to make sense.'

first off i said that "explosives weren't used"

second it wasn't a global collapse the top 20-25 floors fell then the rest of the building

third HOW IS THAT SAYING THAT THE TOP FLOORS WERE HEAVIER THEN WHAT IT FELL ON?

finally I SAID "ANYONE THAT THINKS THE TOWERS FALLING AT FREE FALL SPEED IS EVIDENCE". obviously someone needs to pay attention to posts before posting themselves

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]

Originally posted by timekiller92
finally I SAID "ANYONE THAT THINKS THE TOWERS FALLING AT FREE FALL SPEED IS EVIDENCE". obviously someone needs to pay attention to posts before posting themselves

LOL I know exactly what you said, nothing earth shattering there. The same BS we've heard since day one.

Huh? It wasn't a global collapse? OK so for the last 6 years we've all got it wrong? Sorry bro you need to do a lot of reading to catch up...

Specifically tower 2 because the tilting top is the most obvious proof the hypothesis you are spreading around is impossible.

Go learn some basic physics then figure it out for yourself. The hypothesis you are parroting is bunk, and only the few people left who haven't actually done any research still believe it. Look around you...

Originally posted by ANOK


Huh? It wasn't a global collapse? OK so for the last 6 years we've all got it wrong? Sorry bro you need to do a lot of reading to catch up...

look at the tapes closely if it was a global collapse it all would've fallen at the same time for the same reason. but did that happen? the explosions took place a few floors below the impact zone. the top floors fell cause of the explosions. the bottom floors fell seconds later cause of the top floors. and even then it fell floor by floor not all at once.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]

Originally posted by ANOK


I suggest you do some more research, of your own, instead of just believing something that 'seems to make sense.'

i finally decided to look around the website a bit and this one thread lead me to a youtube video. upon looking under related videos i found videos that i couldn't argue with. i was wrong about saying explosives weren't used, and i'm sorry for wasting your time.

for anyone who is thinking the way i was look here

but i still stand by my theory about it not being a global collapse (i do not wish to argue about this it's what i belive)

[edit on 5-4-2008 by timekiller92]