WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

[Rodin]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

Okay, based on the framerate of that video, the flash could have been the plane from a very long instance, then the next frame would've been it hitting the Pentagon. It seems reasonable for how fast these Airplaines go. They're flying at 600MPH, I believe the Speed of Sound is somewhere close to 823MPH (Not sure). It's well known that security cameras have HORRID frame rates.


The system of checks and balances isn't keeping one party out of control of the entire government. The system of checks and balances was developed to keep one branch from having too much power.

Senate makes the laws.
President enforces the laws.
Judicial penalies those who break the laws.

That's why a president needs approval from Congress to declare war. That is an example of our system of checks and balances.

[AngryUndead]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

I wasn't trying to attack you, just provide counter points that sound a bit more rational. I really didn't mean it as a personal attack.

[Caspian]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

I haven't watched the video yet, but keep in mind the Pentagon is huge. Much larger than your typical 5 story building. This could have something to do with the plane looking smaller.

[WishMaster3K]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

I thought of that as well, however, the frames took place over a 5 second period, and the "plane" also ripped out light poles along the highway, meaning that the angle of approach isn't the angle you're thinking of (believe me, I tried thinking the same thing).

And what I'm meaning about the Checks and Balance system is that not only will one party be able to make laws that will suit their interests, but because of the correlation between branches, these laws will (trying to figure out how to explain this) not have to be burdened with a popular vote weighing in on whether or not it will pass.

Double Post Edited:
And yes, Caspian, the Pentagon is huge, but so are commercial airliners. . .

Double Post Edited:
Triple Post:
And the wing span and the speed and so forth of a commercial airliner would have left larger than a 16 foot hole

[Rodin]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

Going to add to this:

The Twin Towers fiasco is ridiculous no matter which side you take. For two buildings of that magnitude to fall so quickly, in addition to being allegedly designed to withstand things such as accidental building collisions, 70 year Hurricanes, Earthquakes and whatever God or Boeing can throw at it. . . They both fell in less than 90 minutes.

First off, when the towers were designed, there was no way of knowing what would happen if a plane hit them. There had been no statistical data available to engineers about the effects of a plane hitting a building. There was nothing to go on, so they designed it to what the "proposed" effects of a plane crash were. So therefore, no building known to man is "plane collision-proof". Unless of course you built the building out of the material that a black box was made out of. (That's a joke, btw) Okay, and also, "70 year hurricaines"? Now you're just making stuff up. There is no storm that would last 70 years on this planet. That is because the energy of a storm dissipates on our terrestrial soil. The reason storms can last thousands of years on other planets, is because they have gasseous surfaces, and the storm's energy can not dissipate as quickly. The atmosphere and makeup of Earth do not allow for storms to last 70 years.

And the second to be hit, I reiterate, was the first to fall.

Let's take a look at the variables that could have affected this. Was the 2nd plane bigger? Was it traveling at a greater velocity? Was it carrying more fuel? Was there a bigger combustion? Did the plane hit a part of the 2nd tower on a floor with more combustable materials? There's a lot of things that could have contributed to that.

[Caspian]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

I have thought about flight 93 being odd. I do kinda wonder if it was shot down, not b/c of the reasons they believe the WTC were taken down, but b/c they knew it was going towards the White House and knew they had to do something to stop it. I rather doubt it, but its a possiblity and isn't one that screams "the government is out to get me".

[tazirai]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

WoW, I didnt expect the thread to be this big heh.

thanks for the replies I've read them all, and Must say that , I'm convinced theres more to this story. The Fuel was pretty much burned up on impact, And the fact that both towers fell within Minutes of each is a tad more coinkidink, than a lil bit. Also WTC7 wasnt even hit yet it fell straight down also.
I have a two year in architectural engineering and know that when fire is the major cause of a structures damage, the fire would spread unevenly thru- ought the structure. Also when You Ignite a liquid at a high velocity, It tends to FLARE and burn away nearly instantly. Any collateral fire will be not from the fluid. But from the material the Splash creates.

Even if you could discount the evidence of these people, WTC7 Wasnt hit at all. And was VERY small comparitively about the size of a holiday inn. and it too Fell straight down.
Something to think about.

[AngryUndead]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

Here is again a link about the pentagon. The pentagon is f-ing huge. And where did the plane wreckage come from? Was the missile carrying airplane parts? A lot of the data at that link was taken from the Purdue simulation study.

Read the PM article, read the link above.

12 tons of liquid isn't going to behave the way a bucket of liquid would. There is so much more to it and the fluid dynamics. There is no way that all 12 tons hit ingition on impact as not enough oxygen could have gotten to the, still fuild, core.

As for WTC7, what you don't usually see in these tapes is that it was missing most of the face that was pointed at the two large towers, effectively being a tree that was missing the chunk and axe took out of it, like a really big backhoe swiped through it.

[WishMaster3K]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

The tower thing is too advanced for me without research, so I'll concede that point. But, of all the buildings in the area, only WTC 7 fell, aside from the towers. Anyone else from NYC? I am and the buildings are right next to each other, especially in the downtown financial district. If it was "burning debris" how come other buildings didn't suffer a similar fate?

[AngryUndead]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

I don't claim they were burning, just that the "shrapnel" damage to WTC7 was great enough to cause it to cave from the base. I'll see if I can find the link for that tomorrow, I'm almost positive it came from a study run by either NIST or an Ivy League university. Or it came from that PopularMechanics article, which may need some backing up.

[tazirai]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

I don't claim they were burning, just that the "shrapnel" damage to WTC7 was great enough to cause it to cave from the base. I'll see if I can find the link for that tomorrow, I'm almost positive it came from a study run by either NIST or an Ivy League university. Or it came from that PopularMechanics article, which may need some backing up.

Shrapnel is good but the damage shrapnel does Is area of Effect in terminology/ More than WTC 7 woulda been hit with Shrapnel. But the buildings around there suffered minimal damage and such. Whats that all about?

[Brodrik]

Re: WTC A controlled demolition? WAAAAAAY offf Topic.

Executive Branch = Republican
Judicial Branch = Republican
Legislative Branch = Republican

That's the point I was making, sorry you mis-read it.

I see no evidence that the Judicial Branch is overwhelmingly Republican. If it was, and the system of checks and balances is so broken, why all the noise from Republicans about activist judges?

Additionally, you said 20 years. It hasn't been that way for that long.

The Twin Towers fiasco is ridiculous no matter which side you take. For two buildings of that magnitude to fall so quickly, in addition to being allegedly designed to withstand things such as accidental building collisions, 70 year Hurricanes, Earthquakes and whatever God or Boeing can throw at it. . . They both fell in less than 90 minutes.

Being large doesn't protect them from damage, and while they were designed to sustain a number of serious disasters, they were not designed to sustain the particular events that occured to them. At least, the engineers I've been asking say that the whole study of why everything happened is pretty much well-known now and well-covered by researched papers, and knowing now the reasons for failure, it's not surprising that it failed.

And the second to be hit, I reiterate, was the first to fall.

If I shoot one man in the foot and then a second in the head, who will be the first to die?

Double Post Edited:

Yep, but its all for naught when one person out of 100 can say "I call a filibuster" and whatever was up for approval gets immediately thrown out. You don't even have to filibuster anymore, just say the word and you get your way. Hell of a system isn't it?

You still have to filibuster, and they can still fail if enough people to vote outlast you (or if enough people disagree with you do vote to end the filibuster). And we have Aaron Burr to thank for the legal basis for the filibuster. :p