Abdul Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 And of those who believe the US Government's version of events, can they please explain the overwhelming evidence that the Penagon was NOT hit by a commercial airliner? I think my question makes sense Yes. There are over a hundred recorded witnesses that saw something that fitted the description of the airliner crashing into the Pentagon. It wasn't a drone / missile / whatever. It was American Airlines Flight 77, and plenty of independent people saw it and there was plenty of hard evidence to support it. The case of the Pentagon building is another interesting matter. Has anybody seen any videos of the Pentagon being hit? I would have thought that, as a military building, there would have been cameras (if not anti-aircraft batteries) all over the city, let alone the building itself... Again, I have read reports that CCTV footage from neighbouring buildings was confiscated and never returned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 i correct you tony: this is from wikipedia: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in fog while looking to land. The modeled aircraft was a 707 weighing 263,000 lb (119,000 kg) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as would be used in approach and landing situations ([16], page 17). The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact. (The Boeing 747, with an empty weight more than twice that of the 767, was in the final design phase when WTC drafting began and the first 747s were constructed simultaneously with the WTC towers; however the known attributes of the 747 were apparently not modeled in designing the towers). but i also stand corrected as they were designed to withstand the impact of a slightly smaller airliner but travelling loads slower.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 and what of the videos for the pentagon? its a good point, where the hell are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonS Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I spent a few days while I was off work ill looking at websites about the conspiracy theories about 9/11. I believed up until then that it was terrorists. Now I think it stinks and it terrified me! There is so much information that the US government gave us and withheld that just doesn't add up to me. To my mind, the US government probably knew about this, maybe they even did it to get their hands on oil. I can't believe that some people on this thread have outright refused to keep an open mind and believe what the news and the US government have told them about 9/11. I wish there could be an independent enquiry but I don't believe there will be. I don't think we will ever know the truth. I think it was all about oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwit Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The case of the Pentagon building is another interesting matter. Has anybody seen any videos of the Pentagon being hit? I would have thought that, as a military building, there would have been cameras (if not anti-aircraft batteries) all over the city, let alone the building itself... Again, I have read reports that CCTV footage from neighbouring buildings was confiscated and never returned... Only one very short clip of CCTV footage was ever released from, a nearby petrol station. All it shows is an orange fireball as the 'plane' hit the Pentagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 i correct you tony: this is from wikipedia: but i also stand corrected as they were designed to withstand the impact of a slightly smaller airliner but travelling loads slower.... Fair comment However the max weight of a 767 is around 20% more than a 707, which is loads when considering structural design at the higher speeds. I can't see any reasons to challenge the structural design as it was correct for its designed purpose. We all saw 2 airliners full of people crashing into them, and any Engineer that is worth his salt who has looked at the incident has confirmed what happened. I've skimmed a few engineering studies (which I understand because I've studied and practised construction engineering) and tragically nothing looks unusual. Everything from desktop studies to reverse engineering to lab tests confirms the same. To be honest, whatever you design for, you need to hope for the best when there is such a catastrophic event. It's impossible to account for every eventuality and you can only accurately design with hindsight. Engineers can only do their best with the tools in knowledge of the time. The interdependent structure of the towers was unique but unusual compared with the structural core technique that is usually employed, but there appeared to be nothing wrong with the principle. There's an old saying in construction; "every regulation is an epitaph". How true that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4U2NV Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 If you look at the videos you can see not bomb blasts but controlled detonation charges, used to bring down high rise buildings. They are obvios to see as the buildings are falling quite agree. the second tower was hit from the side so if gravity was to do its job it should have fell sideways like a tree does when you chop it down. hope someone can explain this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwit Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 quite agree. the second tower was hit from the side so if gravity was to do its job it should have fell sideways like a tree does when you chop it down. hope someone can explain this. The suggestion is that fire alone brought down WTC 1 & 2, as they had withstood the initial impact of the airliners as designed. And as for WTC7, well that's a difeerent matter. No plane impact there. Also, a tripod mounted video camera, which was looking up at one of the towers, shook moments before the tower started collapsing, suggesting some sort of explosion before the collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 When a structural element collapses it 'pops' which simply explains the puffs of dust... not explosives. As for shaking cameras, just because you can't see the outside collapsing it doesn't mean that the process hasn't already begun inside. All of this is a bit irrelevant really because the reality is clear to see. There is no way that a conspiracy of this size could be constructed and carried out. It wouldn't even get off the drawing board, and you certainly couldn't keep a lid on it for 5 years. This ain't Hollywood you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beakerzoid Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 quite agree. the second tower was hit from the side so if gravity was to do its job it should have fell sideways like a tree does when you chop it down. hope someone can explain this. The impact damaged the supporting struts that held the upper floors in place. The impact itself did not cause the building to collapse, but the upper floors exerting pressure on remaining struts, which themselves were slowly being warped due to intense heat, meant that the towers dropped. As the pressure came from above, then the laws of physics would dictate that the upper floors would drop down...as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.