Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NOTHING ABOUT THE OFFICIAL STORY MAKES ANY SENSE!!
unless you've been asleep for the last decade, everything about the technical reports about 911 is easy to understand and make sense. NIST went out of their way to write a report so that anyone with an 8th grade reading level could understand it.
I have basic physics understanding, and their report makes sense
As for the circumstances, yes a lot of it is confusing BS. but not in the way you want to allege. What was confusing was about why our top investigation organizations didn't share information at the time.
Quote:
Yes well when you lie constantly ITS HARD NOT LETTING SOMETHING SLIP!!
choosing carefully your words to describe an event, is not a lie, and not letting anything slip. YOU're the exact reason why Bush chose his words carefully, because YOU would take his comments out of context.
You mean the 121 foot wide hole at the front of the Pentagon that could fit a plane?
If you're talking about the small hole that is so prevalent in the 911 nutters claims, that's the hole that was found in Ring C of the Pentagon. YOU do know where Ring C is right?
That people like yourself have no intellectual wherewithal to think logically and you would run around like a raped ape because he used the word conspiracy correctly.
Conspire:
1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b:scheme
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>
Conspiracy:
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a: an agreement among conspirators b: a group of conspirators
One question to everyone who believes 9/11 was done by Al-Qaeda, Why was the hole in the Pentagon smaller than the "plane" that hit it?
Because the Pentagon was built in a very different way to most office buildings.
Have you watched any of the "Seconds from Disaster" episodes re the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers.
In regards to the World Trade Centers, at the time, it seemed to me to be very consistent to collapses of other buildings as it was basically of "flat slab construction". It seemed to me to collapse very much like the Sampoong Department Store in Korea - that is, it collapsed in on itself after the supports were unable to support the structures above. If I remember rightly, one of the masterminds behind 9/11 was an engineer.
Quote:
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to support the structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts. He also explained that, once the initial structural failure occurred, progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable.[53]Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."[54]
On September 13, 2001, Zdeněk Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, circulated a draft paper with results of a simple analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Bažant suggested that heat from the fires was a key factor, causing steel columns in both the core and the perimeter to weaken and experience deformation before losing their carrying capacity and buckling. Once more than half of the columns on a particular floor buckled, the overhead structure could no longer be supported and complete collapse of the structures occurred. Bažant later published an expanded version of this analysis.[55] Other analyses were conducted by MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm, who also described a collapse mechanism on September 21, 2001.[56] They later contributed to an MIT collection of papers on the WTC collapses edited by Eduardo Kausel called The Towers Lost and Beyond.[57]
Very true. That's what a lot of people forget when it comes to the Pentagon - it was built far more sturdily than most buildings.
actually, it wasn't. The Pentagon in reality, is an over-sized office building. the walls originally were just concrete.
the Pentagon had just gone under a retrofit on the side that flight 93 crashed into, that just ended three months prior to 9/11. The retrofit was to ADD the steel reinforcement to the concrete exterior. The rest of the building was scheduled for the same retrofit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
