Austarion

for anyone skeptical about 9/11 and conspiracy theory's should check this out very good watch and explains alot and makes you really think.

go download loose change from:

http://question911.com/links.php


well worth the watch!

I think I have already seen this about 1 year or so ago, but it is very interesting and VERY true. The pentagon part was completely true

WidebodyWoody wrote:I think I have already seen this about 1 year or so ago, but it is very interesting and VERY true. The pentagon part was completely true

Yes I agree the identification of the plane or whatever that actually hit the pentagon seems very suspect.

I saw a clip online the other day from a documentary/dvd that had a name like "the Demolition of WTC" and championed the theory that the WTC tower were systematically "demolished" via a series of bombs/explosions that made them collapse, not the aviation fuel.

NXTIME wrote:I saw a clip online the other day from a documentary/dvd that had a name like "the Demolition of WTC" and championed the theory that the WTC tower were systematically "demolished" via a series of bombs/explosions that made them collapse, not the aviation fuel.

Well I am sure that's not correct. However the security video of the plane hitting the pentagon seems not to show the airliner but something different. Providing that security video is for real of course.
I think everything else seems pretty right except that.

I saw a documentry where they interviewed the guys that designed the towers. Once that level colapsed the impact weight of the upper floors hitting the lower floor was too great. And of course on the way down it would get heavier and heavier and magnify the effect on succesive lower floors.

but the floors should not of given way to begin with due to the burning point of aviaton fuel and the melting point of titanium.

grab the video and have a watch.

Remember fellas, if it's on teh intarnet it must be true.

ah, the internet: repository of all knowledge

Wasn't the tower made from steel, not titanium?

Why would they use titanium in the first place? Towers don't need (to a point) a high strength to weight ratio like things that move do, like tanks and what not, and the cost would be much much greater.

Link wrote:the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy

Link wrote: As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

Watch the videos then try and tell me it wasn't staged

Even from my sceptical scientific point of view, what is being said does raise more questions then what has been answered by the goverments......

AB wrote:Wasn't the tower made from steel, not titanium?

Why would they use titanium in the first place? Towers don't need (to a point) a high strength to weight ratio like things that move do, like tanks and what not, and the cost would be much much greater.

Link wrote:the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy

Link wrote: As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

The above is true, but the steel colums where shattered not bent/twisted such as 'stiffness droppping' suggests from fire

Only the several floors that had very high temperature fires would be "bent/twisted from 'stiffness dropping'" though right? Its not like the entire building frame was heated up to 800+°C right?

The majority of the frame would 'shatter' because it was exposed to stresses far above what it was designed to withstand, which is to be expected from effectively dropping a 30 storey building from 10 or so metres high onto a 70 storey building, which is what would of happened when the burning floors gave way.

AB wrote:Only the several floors that had very high temperature fires would be "bent/twisted from 'stiffness dropping'" though right? Its not like the entire building frame was heated up to 800+°C right?

The majority of the frame would 'shatter' because it was exposed to stresses far above what it was designed to withstand, which is to be expected from effectively dropping a 30 storey building from 10 or so metres high onto a 70 storey building, which is what would of happened when the burning floors gave way.

That's exactly right.

How do you explain some secondary explosives which didn't detonate being found ?

How do you explain, especially with the second airplane, and internal explosion in the wtc appearing 1 sec before the plane actually hit where as they timed it right with the first plane ?

If you look at the melting points of steel compared to temperature of what fire can burn at optimal air mixture you would know something doesn't add up very easily.........

Then to make it worse other exampples ar given of where fires bigger then that of the wtc and the building only buckles a little......

And the most contradicting evidence is the infra-red shot of the ground after 5 days where there was heat patches still above the temperature of fire which points to some very powerful explosives.

Do you have refferences that arn't the documentaries already posted in this read?