stock94block

well say he actually was, i just dont see it making sense to go to that great of length to take out 50,000 people just to nab 1 (or a couple) guys. Maybe to strike fear? Maybe to start a war? its clear both are prominent right now..people are scared, there is a war.

but really everyone, theres clear VIDEO evidence that you can actually see explosions going off as the building collapses...and if anyone has an idea on ballistics, there is absolutely no way you can blow a near perfect hole in a solid brick wall by smashing a plane through it....think about it..missles do that.

oh, has anyone actually been to the 9/11 site? I have! I was there about 2 years ago and made a lot of observations. I just want everyone to think about this:

where the towers were is actually surrounded by other buildings, separated by a street. And its NYC, theyre very close together. The towers fell mysteriously straight down, perfectly straight so that the only damage to the other buildings were blown out windows. THATS IT! If it just collapsed the thing would have toppled all over the place probably taking out a lot of surrounding buildings (which again, are separated by a street)..controlled destruction? think about it.

imported_Bruce Fee

stock 94, are you a ballistics expert?

remember that large objects and smalla objects break differently.

imported_spl_civic

i feel that the weight of the falling portion of the towers squashed the bottom portion, the force applied by the falling top portion of the building was too much for the bottom to withstand causing the bottom to collapse, or get pushed down.
i do not know the strengths of the support systems used in the towers, therefore my statement is purely theoretical, but i strongly believe that the weight of lets say 20 floors of a skyrise is enough to collapse the remaining structure.

this is in response to the statement about why the towers fell in a controlled manner, versus toppling over as if it's support was knocked out from under it

imported_Green_Goblin

ok.. if u look carefully the lower portion of the building collapsed b4 the top 20 floors crushed cuz of gravity or the plane weight. Yea I understand the plane may have added that extra weight but the way it fell was still pretty even, the top 20 should have fallen first n then the rest.

As for the building fallin down without hurting other buildings, well I beleive one more smaller building crumbled after catchin fire...they said sumtin about that in the video plus my buddies dad worked closed to it n he says it crumbled too.

As for it falling, Im sure that if the structure was weak for real and there really was alotta weight at the top causing it to break down there is still a high chance that it would have fallen straight down minus the obvious pre-blasts on the floors below.

Anyway, u can argue this **** for days, its old now, the video was just to open up some eyes...its not gonna change the world, neither is it gonna bring out the ones in charge.

stock94block

not at all, but for a round hole to be made in brick whatever passed through there must have been going at a ridiculously fast speed. Now to say that a fuselage from a plane could do that is stretching it a little far, i would expect the wall to crumble to a million pieces..thats what im saying.



it would make sense for that to happen..causing a buckle at the bottom portion because of the weight at the top. But, even though i have no idea what the actual structure was made out of, the steel I beams support and can withstand A LOT of force. I just think that if the top portion actually fell, thats all that would go.

anyway im not going to expand anymore on this. The video brings up some points, theres enough to argue a lot of them though. This is just one of those who dun it things we will never know the 100% truth behind it. Lets just hope it never happens again.

Younes Si

come on now....the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon had two 6 ton (12,000lbs) Jet engines made by almost indestructible steal and there was non found at the site? ok


and a 747 jet going into the Pentagon going over 500MPH would make a bigger whole then that, matter a fact it would probably take out a 1/4 of the Pentagon, not a little scratch like that!

and what did the guy say, they had renovations done to the Pentagon a couple of months earlier to withstand that kind of impact??? coincidence?

imported_Mikeye

Man! This is all old news!

We all know a Boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon! It was first reported as a plane because planes were hitting everything that day! So people assumed!

We all know only 3 (YES! THREE) planes were involved and confirmed in 9/11. 2 hit the towers and 1 was shot down.

NEVER does CNN confirm that a plane HIT the pentagon. They state that "a driver on the interstate witnessed a plane crashing into the Pentagon" and then everyone believed that BS!

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...on.barbara.wav

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

imported_Mikeye

This video by CNN even confirms that NO plane ever hit the Pentagon:

http://www.global-conspiracies.com/c...t_pentagon.htm

imported_dazednconfuzed

that was seriously a fun video to watch.

the parts that made me laugh were
1. the passport made of paper managed to be recovered.
2. the "terrorists" whom are supposedly still alive and working today.
and
3. the whole BIN LADEN scandel with this watch and ring, and his left-handed business.
reminds me of Family Guy BIN LADEN spoof...

I can't say much to this topic but I can say this...

Why won't the government just simply rectify the situation with their proof and findings(lack of better word) as to what REALLY happened. They hold key components and elements to prove whom is behind all of this and why this all happened. Yet they neglect to do so, why?

imported_Moe_Mentum

A lot of people are mentioning how the buildings fell so perfectly and how its all suspicious. I am pretty sure people have heard the it wasn't the planes that caused the building to fall but the fact that the heat from the burning plane melted the steel infrastructure of the building causing it to collapse. The Twin towers were built to withstand a plane crash, but the high temp of the burning Jet Fuel was not taken into consideration and the main Steel beams holding the buildings up weakened. Now as far as architecture goes the building was indeed designed to collapse inward, that was a safety design. That was on a documentary a long time ago before the Sept.11 Attacks.. But who knows it could all be a part of the whole "Conspiracy". Myself I don't believe Bush or the American Gov't for that matter was behind it. Mostly on my opinion that it wouldn't make sense killing innocent people and going through all that trouble to make $$ or start a war. I am sure if they were willing to go that for they would have been willing to plan a much less elaborate and damaging scheme.

imported_hdave

i like bush

imported_Moe_Mentum

So do I.. just not George

imported_Mischev

did u watch the movie? if u did u would remember that the steel would not have melted that fast, from jet fuel

TranceaddicT

lets just say he makes some great points. ( melting points for titanium, and the collaps of the twin towers) and others.

about bush being a puppet.. DUH! government is run by secret organizations, either the Illuminaties, or some others much higher then them.

stock94block

ok i have to throw in this last thing...

well its a good theory. Except (and this is based on what i learn in school about structures of buildings, steels, etc) there is no way a burning fuel can produce enough heat to actually melt, or even weaken the integrity of the steel "I" beams.

To actually be able to melt a steel like that an oxy-acetylene torch must be applied for several minutes (and we're talking about a blue flame here). It just doesn't add up. Even the company in mentioned in the video defended their steel, and they are in the right (in my opinion)

imported_Bruce Fee

we have a lot of tools i see.

imported_Moe_Mentum

That's just it though.. The steel wouldn't have to melt .. it would just have to weaken to a certain point before it gave in to the weight that it was designed to support.

imported_Moe_Mentum

Alright well I could always be wrong.. I am by no means an engineer.. but given what I have read, and researched Jetfuel Burns at 800 -1500 degrees F .. Steel melts at 2750 Degrees F .. ok so its not hot enough to melt steel.. But steel loses about 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees F. Not to mention that the steel is under pressure from weight so it would be easily twisted and warped. This video is no different from what we hear from the Media.. Its very one sided so the are only going to give you the facts that help prove their theory. I suppose if you were to stack up all the evidence to support that a terrorrist performed that attack the ********* theory would have much more evidence to back it up the this one.