i hope that you realize that when you have metal supports that go up that high of a distance.....they are not as strong as the ones at the bottom....so when the plane hit....it seriously stressed the supports. So it took a little bit for the metal to give, but it finally did. And when all that weight falls, the lower floors arent ready for that impact of weight, resulting in the building to collapse

for example.....imagine you have 50 pounds held above your head by you arms. you are probably able to to hold that there. however, if you had that 50 pounds....or even 20-30 pounds droped on your arms extended above you head, they would give and "collapse"


the explosions are at the level where the plane hit.....so it is very likly that is where the fuel exploded.....the towers fall above it first cause that is where the support for it was. You also notice that part of the building collapsing first since you use the other tower as a sight reference.

and if it was a bomb....who is to say it wasnt planted by the terrorist in case the planes didnt hit or something

 

I have a 1983 Corvette for sale.

 

mmmm Doesnt it state in one of those Loose Change videos what jet fuel can do to steel? And it proves that it cant do that to steel or somthing......i havent seen it in a while but im 99.9999% positive that it said in one of those videos that jet fuel alone couldnt do that

 

This is a good read: Debunking The 9/11 Myths

Edit:

A pretty good picture showing one of the towers pancaking from top to bottom where the jet made impact, not controlled explosives:



VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

 

didnt the jet fuel all burn off on impact in that big fireball?

 

Some estimates say about 3500 gals would have remained and possibly puddled and burned. That along with all of the other materials in the building that are flammable, and one big impact, would have weakened the structure. The above post is right on when talking about the strength of the lower floors vs the upper. You can see it in almost any multi-story building. And the pile of beams at the site. All twisted and bent. Not burned.

I am confident that no Government agency would have had anything to do with 9/11. Just the huge amount of people it would have taken to organize it, would assure that someone would talk and tell the truth.

I have seen aircraft crashes and witnessed what the heat will do to metal. I am always amazed at what does remain after a crash. But alot is lost to the intense heat.

We will never know all the details about that day. Unless we find the man himself and get his "diary" of the days and weeks preceding 9/11.

Any person can hear a story and turn it around to reflect what they want.
The media has been doing it since the days of stone tablets.

Who is to say what the truth is?

 

The towers fell because of some extremist islamic terrorists. People died, innocent people. That's how the towers fell. You can't tell me jet fuel had nothing to do with it, with survivors smelling burning jet fuel on the trip down to safety. Come on now. Who's making up stuff now?

 

I read something where it was said the goal of the terrorists was to hit the towers in such a manner that they fell like trees (Timberrrrr) so they'd destroy a lot of other stuff in densely packed Manhattan. If that is true, then the idea that they set the buildings up to come straight down, (like a planned demolition) would not hold water. Having them topple over would have destroyed more of Manhattan than for them to simply cave in.

However, to have them collapse straight down, would be in keeping with the idea of a "planned" event by internal agencies... But, I doubt that, and truly hope our own government wouldn't stoop that low. But, it has been conspiracy-theorized that the government killed President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, MLK, Malcolm X, and provoked Japan, then pretended not to know December 7th was coming because we wanted to get into the war, but didn't have a reason to... All conspiracies... None proven, yet...

I've watched a bunch of documentaries on channels I consider trustworthy (Discovery, A & E, History...) The They said steel melts at a temperature nearly 500 degrees cooler than jet fuel burns at. The concrete itself is brittle (No matter how solid it looks). It is the steel that hold up our mega-structures (Overpasses, skyscrappers, bridges, etc..) not the Concrete. The concrete is there to protect the metal, that's it. The engineers said the concrete could only protect that metal for several minutes, before allowing the heat to reach the steel. That instense heat would cause the steel to buckle, and that's what caused the floors to pancake, as the supporting metal buldged outwards, allowing the floors to fall straight down, clacking the next floor, and the next, like so many dominoes.

They also said the buildings were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The 757 and 767 are larger, heavier, and carry more fuel than the 707 did. They also said if a 747 had hit the tower, it probably would have collapsed instantly.

Whoever did this was experience in architectural engineering, and they knew how to hit the towers to destabilize them. They also knew what jet fuel would do to steel, and they intentionally hijacked jets carrying enough fuel to accomplish that goal. I know two of the four jets hijacked were going coast to coast, (maximum fuel). I don't know about the other two.

Somebody really did their homework.

All I can say is this: I choose not to believe our government had anything to do with 9/11. However, if I'm wrong and they did, or if any American supported this activity in any way; may they all rot in hell, slowly.

Something like this would be an extremely complex undertaking, no way could so many people keep their mouths shut about this, if it was an inside job. I guess my only disappointment here, is that a handful of terrorists (20) were able to scar America to the point that the wound is still fresh 5 years after the fact.

Then again, I guess if 20 terrorists did this, maybe it wouldn't take as many inside people as I thought...

We'll never know though, because anything highly secretive/suspect- will be locked away for 100 years, just as the data is surrounding JFK's assassination, MLK's assassination, and other questionable events. Most of us will be ice-cold in the ground before that news surfaces. So, all we can do is speculate... It's hard to put together a 10,000 piece puzzle, when you don't have a picture of what you're trying to put together. Piecing together what "fits" can end up looking like a real mess.

 

@Adam06FX4

Here is a very recent documentary that you'll find interesting also, I think.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003

 

If there are any full time firefighters on here that want to support my claim than go for it. I took a class a little while ago that told us the rate at which steel bends when heated up. I forgot what the exact numbers were but it was a lot. What happened when the planes hit the towers was blow all the fire protection off the steel which made the towers come down faster. Jet fuel burns much hotter than your average fuel so how come buildings that arent nearly as high as the towers can come down but when the towers come down its a conspiracy. Pull your heads out of your ***** and think. I refuse to believe that 343 of my future brothers were murdered by our own country let alone the 3000 other people. Dumb As$!!

 

Some might be convinced.

It can be explained in many different ways. That is called theorizing.

There are many conspiracy theories. They have been debuncked.

I think it's a stretch to believe anything other than that terrorists hijacked American passenger jets and flew them into American buildings, killing thousands of Americans. It's a free country though. People can believe what ever they choose.

 

I don't think that Bush is behind 9/11. I just think there might be more to the story than meets the eye. You know lots of people don't think Lee Harvey killed Kennedy. If you are one of those people, you are a conspiracy theorist. Don't you think it is strange that a B52 Bomber runs full force into the Empire State Building and doesn't fall but the World Trade Center falls?

 

A little more info on the B-25 Bomber

B-25 web site

 

i have watched that video time and time again, and there is some things that are in question. like that big box the FBI was carrying from the pentagon and why there was only frames released...not an actual video. as well as why there was only a single hole and no markings from the engine. i mean i can understand the pentaton is made of brick and all that but there was an impact and there should be at least a mark. there probably more to it than meets the eye but theres one thing im certain of.


a lot of innocent people died for no good reason.

 

The PM article explains it:


CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.


HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE