[JME]

Originally Posted by darkphantom

The Pentagon is under surveillance 24/7/365 - Don't be so ignorant as to think there isn't some sort of surveillance around the military apex of the United States.

Are you an expert on the Pentagon surveillance?

Don't be so ignorant as to think the Pentagon would use something designed to capture crystal clear images of near mach-speed objects when no one in their right mind had any clue someone would think of doing just that.

After watching the second plane hit and both towers collapse on live TV, I don't know how they could have faked that. Not to mention the towers did not collapse from the base, but rather from near where the planes hit and took the base out on the way down. Anyone who has played a game of Jenga can imagine the rudiments of the concept.

[kevinbahnz]

seen something similar called zietgiest but less than 30 minutes was dedicated to 9/11. They made it seem like it was set-up by the U.S. but that's just too hard for me to believe. Some things are just unexplainable.

[alq80]

the video is good, seen it about a year ago and all i gotta say about the heat causing the buildings to collapse (as a senior in architectural engineering) is that it's not really possible that the heat brought down that buildings but then again, this topic is way over-discussed and not all things are a conspiracy

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by alq80

the video is good, seen it about a year ago and all i gotta say about the heat causing the buildings to collapse (as a senior in architectural engineering) is that it's not really possible that the heat brought down that buildings but then again, this topic is way over-discussed and not all things are a conspiracy

I'm not going to knock your degree, but many engineers with years of experience have proven that the buildings could fail due to the heat.

First, you have the planes slicing through main supports, severely weakening the building. Then you have the fires. The steel never had to melt, just weaken. Steel melts at ~2700°F. Jet fuel can burn anywhere from 800°F to 1800°F. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F steel is reduced to less than 10% of it's strength. The jet fuel, coupled with all the combustible material in the building caused extreme temps in the fires. One heat reading registered 1832°F.

If you research how the WTC was built, the design was pretty revolutionary for a building of that size. The main support of the building was a central core and the outside walls themselves. In between was hollow, which is one thing that contributed to great amounts of office space. You have a plane that not only took out pretty significant sections of the outer wall, but that also took out that central core. The heat was so great that the floors actually began to sag, pulling against the walls. There is photo and video evidence of the WTC walls actually bending inwards as the weight of the floors pulled on them. Eventually the walls, which were all that was supporting the floors above the impact zones gave into the stresses and snapped, which caused the top floors to pancake down.

This is a good video that shows the effect of the bowing, and even has a close up of one of the areas of the bowing effect just as it snaps and then collapses (It also reiterates my numbers about the temps of steel) Ignore all the babble, and look at the pictures and video of the walls breaking apart.:

[u2b]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bMZ-nkYr46w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bMZ-nkYr46w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/u2b]

Originally Posted by darkphantom

Prior to it falling, the "impact" hole can be seen MUCH smaller than the plane's fuselage. Also, if you're so keen to think that the pilot maneuvered SUCH a feat, the trajectory/speed of the attack would indicate that the engines' impact would be to the right and the left of the initial impact by the fuselage, i.e. atleast 3 instances of impacts where as there is ONLY one.

I'm citing empirical evidence of a crash. Civil engineers state that should an aircraft of that size come into contact with a structure such as that, there would be 50 columns that would be affected....

The impact hole was not "MUCH smaller" than the fuselage. The initial impact hole was 75 feet across. A 757's body is 12 feet, 4 inches. This section collapsed only 20 minutes after impact. Is this the hole you are talking about?:



If it is, that hole was made in ring C of the Pentagon. The Pentagon is made up of 5 rings, the plane impacted ring E. So that 14 foot hole is 3 rings deep. Damage was reported all the way up to ring B.

As far as impacts, do you realize how the Pentagon was built? First, it has a solid limestone facade. Then it had 24 inches of super high strength reinforced concrete. Not only that but it had a web of steel columns and blast proof windows. The section of the Pentagon that was hit was just renovated and only a few weeks from re-opening. So basically, it was one strong ass building.

Also, when a plane hits something, it doesn't leave a cartoon like hole in the side, especially not when that something is a building as strong as the Pentagon was. The reason there aren't more distinct marks for the wings and the tail section are because those are some of the most pliable sections of the plane. A planes wings are actually designed to move up and down a fair amount, so on impact the strongest part of the plane, the fuselage, acted like a ram, battering a hole. The wings did cause some damage as evidenced by a 75 foot hole, but did not go as deep as the body of the plane. What most likely happened was the wings and tail section were sheered off, and folded back and dragged into the building with the plane.

You still don't have an explanation for why there were many parts of a Boeing 757 at the crash site, and some pieces even had recognizable American Airlines markings on them.



Also, there were eye witnesses who SAW a plane hit the building. And this quote is from the first structural engineer on the site after the crash:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Loose Change is a crock of shit. Rather than giving any data to back up their claims, they make wild assumptions such as thermite and what not, and tell everyone else to prove them wrong. Loose Change has been wrong on many occasions, for instance United 93. Remember how they were saying in the first edition that debris from the crash was found 6 miles away in Indian lake? Well the lake is actually only 1.5 miles from the crash site. The makers had just typed it into map quest, and the site is 6 miles by road, but debris doesn't get on a bus and drive the the lake, it travels in a straight line. The makers of Loose Change conceded this after the fact. And that is my problem. Whenever the are presented with irrefutable evidence that something happened the way it did, they either say ok, and ignore it, or come up with a new idea. You can't just keep making up things.

Whenever some tragedy happens that people can't understand they look for a conspiracy. Be it with JFK, MLK, Pearl Harbor or whatever. This is no exception. People can't come to grips with the realization that what happened actually happened.

[darkphantom]

Ok you win.

/thread

just as a reference

Response to the Simon Wiesenthal Center
and Mark Weitzman
Nov 17, 2007
By Richard Gage, AIA, and contributors

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
supports
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's
'Letter to the Simon Wiesenthal Center'

BACKGROUND:
On Tuesday, November 6th, 2007, a House Homeland Security Subcommittee had a hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" which is connected to the bill, H.R. 1955: 'Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007' (described in a recent Baltimore Sun editorial, Here Come the Thought Police).

The hearing featured presentations from several groups, including Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and was chaired by California Democratic Representative, Jane Harman, and ranking Republican congressional representative of Washington, Dave Reichert. Toward the end of the hearing, Weitzman brought out a PowerPoint presentation, Use of the Internet by Terrorists, which included 9/11 truth websites mixed with websites offering training in terrorist tactics and glorifications of the 9/11/01 attack. Among the websites presented under the heading, "Internet: Incubator of 9/11 Conpiracies and Disinformation", were Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, many of whose members are also members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice.

Below is AE911truth's response to this event.

AE911Truth.org is extremely concerned about the recent portrayal of our peaceful organization and website by The Simon Wiesenthal Center alongside Taliban militant websites at the recent "Homeland Security Hearing" hosted by Congresswoman Jane Harman. By implication we and other 9/11 Truth organizations are branded as terrorists. We are therefore actively pursuing non-legal and legal remedies. The following letter written to the SWC by John Stevenson is posted in order to also express our concern. We will post updates as events unfold. Thank you for your overwhelming show of support!
-- Richard Gage, AIA

A letter written to Mark Weitzman at the Simon Wiesenthal Center regarding his efforts to equate 9/11 Truth with Terrorism, edited slightly for spelling, punctuation, formatting.

Dear Mr. Weitzman,

While I respect your efforts to prevent terrorism in all its forms, your suggestion that the 9/11 Truth Movement is in any way related to terror organizations, or could foment such interests, is ridiculous and dangerous.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is a non-violent effort by thousands (if not tens of thousands) of highly respected professionals in numerous areas of expertise (and potentially millions of other concerned citizens) to demand a legitimate and impartial investigation into the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. There are countless weaknesses, flaws, and overt misrepresentations in the official account that are painfully obvious to those who actually KNOW something about the Systems and Material science involved in building collapse, as well as the numerous suspicious activities by government and various other domestic groups to suppress and even destroy evidence involved in this crime, for reasons at this point unknown. There are far too many important questions unanswered that can be answered with a legitimate investigation, rather than simply sweep this tragic crime under the rug. Is that what you suggest we do?

And if you are suggesting that simply demanding that a woefully inadequate investigation be conducted properly can in any way be aligned with terrorism, you do so in direct conflict with everything this country was founded upon, and in direct opposition to the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution — and that IS in some circles considered a crime.

While I believe your efforts are well-meaning, I strongly request, before you promote such assumptions, that you actually INVESTIGATE for yourself the aspects of 9/11 which are questioned by these experts I mention previously, and, regardless of your conclusion, refrain from incorrectly and libelously suggesting that anyone involved in this movement has any connection to terrorist activities or threats, simply based on their opinions or completely legal efforts in this regard. In doing so you denigrate the noble work the Simon Wiesenthal Center has done in the past, and the lives of those who died over the centuries for our freedoms. The right to freely question and investigate our government at any time and about ANYTHING is critical to the survival of our freedom and this country I love.

Sincerely,
John Stevenson
California, USA

See also:

EDITORIAL: Here come the thought police
By Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson
November 19, 2007
"With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" passed the House 404-6 late last month and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman's Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain. Not since the "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights."

C-SPAN Video House Subcommittee Presentation:
Use of the Internet by Terrorists
Length: 1 hour, 11 minutes
"Witnesses testified about terrorist groups using the Internet to recruit and radicalize their followers. Topics included illustrations of propaganda used on Internet sites, instructions for making bombs, the role of al-Qaeda, appealing to young people, counterterrorism through positive sites, and other solutions."

The Simon Wiesenthal Center

Send Congressman Reichert your message from his contact page.

Send Congresswoman Harman your message from her contact page.

[number335]

But what caused tower 7 to collapse the same way?

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by number335

But what caused tower 7 to collapse the same way?

I took the following from here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html). It is a very good read:

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[alq80]

Originally Posted by Seminole

I'm not going to knock your degree, but many engineers with years of experience have proven that the buildings could fail due to the heat.

First, you have the planes slicing through main supports, severely weakening the building. Then you have the fires. The steel never had to melt, just weaken. Steel melts at ~2700°F. Jet fuel can burn anywhere from 800°F to 1800°F. Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F steel is reduced to less than 10% of it's strength. The jet fuel, coupled with all the combustible material in the building caused extreme temps in the fires. One heat reading registered 1832°F.

If you research how the WTC was built, the design was pretty revolutionary for a building of that size. The main support of the building was a central core and the outside walls themselves. In between was hollow, which is one thing that contributed to great amounts of office space. You have a plane that not only took out pretty significant sections of the outer wall, but that also took out that central core. The heat was so great that the floors actually began to sag, pulling against the walls. There is photo and video evidence of the WTC walls actually bending inwards as the weight of the floors pulled on them. Eventually the walls, which were all that was supporting the floors above the impact zones gave into the stresses and snapped, which caused the top floors to pancake down.

This is a good video that shows the effect of the bowing, and even has a close up of one of the areas of the bowing effect just as it snaps and then collapses (It also reiterates my numbers about the temps of steel) Ignore all the babble, and look at the pictures and video of the walls breaking apart.:

[u2b]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bMZ-nkYr46w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bMZ-nkYr46w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/u2b]






The impact hole was not "MUCH smaller" than the fuselage. The initial impact hole was 75 feet across. A 757's body is 12 feet, 4 inches. This section collapsed only 20 minutes after impact. Is this the hole you are talking about?:



If it is, that hole was made in ring C of the Pentagon. The Pentagon is made up of 5 rings, the plane impacted ring E. So that 14 foot hole is 3 rings deep. Damage was reported all the way up to ring B.

As far as impacts, do you realize how the Pentagon was built? First, it has a solid limestone facade. Then it had 24 inches of super high strength reinforced concrete. Not only that but it had a web of steel columns and blast proof windows. The section of the Pentagon that was hit was just renovated and only a few weeks from re-opening. So basically, it was one strong ass building.

Also, when a plane hits something, it doesn't leave a cartoon like hole in the side, especially not when that something is a building as strong as the Pentagon was. The reason there aren't more distinct marks for the wings and the tail section are because those are some of the most pliable sections of the plane. A planes wings are actually designed to move up and down a fair amount, so on impact the strongest part of the plane, the fuselage, acted like a ram, battering a hole. The wings did cause some damage as evidenced by a 75 foot hole, but did not go as deep as the body of the plane. What most likely happened was the wings and tail section were sheered off, and folded back and dragged into the building with the plane.

You still don't have an explanation for why there were many parts of a Boeing 757 at the crash site, and some pieces even had recognizable American Airlines markings on them.



Also, there were eye witnesses who SAW a plane hit the building. And this quote is from the first structural engineer on the site after the crash:





Loose Change is a crock of shit. Rather than giving any data to back up their claims, they make wild assumptions such as thermite and what not, and tell everyone else to prove them wrong. Loose Change has been wrong on many occasions, for instance United 93. Remember how they were saying in the first edition that debris from the crash was found 6 miles away in Indian lake? Well the lake is actually only 1.5 miles from the crash site. The makers had just typed it into map quest, and the site is 6 miles by road, but debris doesn't get on a bus and drive the the lake, it travels in a straight line. The makers of Loose Change conceded this after the fact. And that is my problem. Whenever the are presented with irrefutable evidence that something happened the way it did, they either say ok, and ignore it, or come up with a new idea. You can't just keep making up things.

Whenever some tragedy happens that people can't understand they look for a conspiracy. Be it with JFK, MLK, Pearl Harbor or whatever. This is no exception. People can't come to grips with the realization that what happened actually happened.

oh fire can definitely cause the steel to fail in the building and in no way can i refute that. but i was just saying that the temperatures they brought up were precise in terms of the limits of the steel vs the possible temperatures of what burned. but also, if the steel did burn, its impossible that all columns of the building got affected equally as to let the building fall on itself... i mean its strange isnt it?
but you also have to keep in mind that the building was made to withstand planes colliding into it... it's not even that which bothers me, it's just the monetary events leading to the attacks that makes you think twice.

anyways, just my response. not really trying to start a fight about it.