TweetI didn't know Boeing 767 can punch such nice, neat holes in the wall.

Tweetyou know what....?? I think it must have been a 767 that punched a hole in the USS Cole, it looks the same...

Tweeti meant boeing 757

TweetHere ya go, it's a long read but worth it if you really believe that there was some conspiracy....

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

In partular to your questions stout, check out page 7...it talks about the pentegon building.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Merc

some people will continue to believe what ever is feed to them through media with out ever really analyzing the data for themselves

Hmmm interesting statment. Where do you get your data to analyze?

Some people find it much easier to believe a conspiracy....mainly those that want to criticise our gov't constantly.

I'll say it again. A 757 hit the pentegon! Many people saw it happen. There were many people on board that died that day! Pieces of the plane were found. There is nothing "fishy" about it.

As far as the building 7 "fishyness" that is explainable as well. Check out the link I posted above.

Skarn

Tweeti couldnt find the part about building 7 but how can u despute the fact that the owner of the building admitted giving the command to pull the building and also took out a multi million dollar insurance policy on the sears tower and wtc7 a week prior.?

Tweet

Originally Posted by solidground

i couldnt find the part about building 7 but how can u despute the fact that the owner of the building admitted giving the command to pull the building and also took out a multi million dollar insurance policy on the sears tower and wtc7 a week prior.?

Here's another link about the myths...the WTC7 issue is discussed there as well.
https://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...16-241966.html

I guess people will believe what they want to believe, but do you seriously think that a HUGE conspiracy took place to dupe the world into believing terrorists attacked the US, killing many many people, destroyed the WTC, hit the Pentegon all for what......so this Silverman could get the insurance money? In the mean time, many more millions of dollars were lost due to the aftermath of 911....no airline flights for weeks, the cost for the cleanup and rebuild effort, etc. Not to mention the insurance company that paid the claim? Think about that one. Insurance companies are notorious for being tight and not willing to pay...even when they should! They ALWAYS investigate ALL claims and their lawyers will use anything they can to get out of paying a claim.... If there were truly a shadow of doubt it was legit, they would not have paid and the courts would have needed proof of the counter-evidence....

Skarn

Tweetno has nothing to do with the money for silverstein..he just is an eliteist so he knew about it and took a insurance policy ( not sure if he was paid or not)..people who really believe in the truth movement for the most part think it was done to create a police state in the US and around the world..

Tweet

Originally Posted by Skarn

Hmmm interesting statment. Where do you get your data to analyze?

Some people find it much easier to believe a conspiracy....mainly those that want to criticise our gov't constantly.

I'll say it again. A 757 hit the pentegon! Many people saw it happen. There were many people on board that died that day! Pieces of the plane were found. There is nothing "fishy" about it.

As far as the building 7 "fishyness" that is explainable as well. Check out the link I posted above.

Skarn

I think that simply physics would show how the buildings should have fallen, yet they fell straight down. THe temp that steel melts and the temp that fuel burns two different temps.... there are simple inconsistencies that just do not make sense....just something to think about

Tweet

Originally Posted by Merc

I think that simply physics would show how the buildings should have fallen, yet they fell straight down. THe temp that steel melts and the temp that fuel burns two different temps.... there are simple inconsistencies that just do not make sense....just something to think about

Bro, physics does show why the buildings fell straight down. It's called pancaking.

Here's an excerpt from the Popular Mechanics article:
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Skarn

TweetI think its important to remember that not all the steel was compromised the top should have fallen to the side that was hit and a majority of the building should have not fallen. An elementary test, Build a 5 foot model take a baseball throw it at about a foot from the top set it on fire and see if it falls straight down. It will give you an idea of how it should have came down.

Also remember that most of the fuel in the second building was shot out of the other side of the building, it looked like a fire ball coming out of the side of the building.

TweetI am sure you have probably seen this pic but it seems to me that there would be a lot more plane debry all over the grass... I could be wrong

https://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...109114a_hr.jpg

Tweethere is this too kind of interesting

https://killtown.911review.org/flight77/video.html