the undeniable facts surrounding the second attack on the wtc are often completely ignored by those that would wish to hide the truth concerning 9/11-- whether or not it is ignorance or deception is clearly defined after viewing this evidence-- although there is one other possibilty being discussed HERE which i agree with it does not include the people here that passionately defend the lies-- here is the definitive image of the 737 that struck the south tower-- the details for this anaysis were provided by an ex bush administration republican named karl schwartz whose history in visually identifying aircraft began in the military -- he points out 4 discrepencies which prove beyond any doubt that the aircraft that struck the south tower in the second attack was NOT a 767 but conclusively a 737--

1:the 737 is the only plane that has "bulges" on the body at the wings which were spun as "pods" early into the deception

2:the angle of the wings on the 767 is much more swept back than the 737 and leaves no doubt as which aircraft is being viewed at the right angle which is from below or above

3:the 737 has wings much "thinner" wings than the 767

4:the engines on the 737 are also much smaller than than those of the 767 and placed 5 ft from the bofy rather than 9ft like the 767

now here are the images containing the proof begining with the definitive image of the 737 striking the south tower-- clearly bulges can be seen


here is a comparitive image of a 767 showing all the differences--

*corrected image
here is a 737 for comparison

further proof lies in the fact that the engine of th 737 passed through the south tower and landed on church street where defintitive images of it were taken and confirmed to be the powerplant of a 737 and not a 767 whose turbine is 9ft in diameter



now there is little doubt as to the veracity of these repors as the evidence is plain for everyone to see but i feel it is important at this point to name a few other damning facts which i would like to debate as well in this thread
-wargames mimicking the real life scenario of hi jacked commercial aircraft striking the wtc(bin ladens idea??)
-insider stock trading of short put options revealing foreknowledge which was never investigated
-anthrax terror attacks aimed at free press killing a journalist and democrats during the 9/11 ivestigation procedings
-3 mo proir to 9/11 the owner silverstein re-insured the complex for 198 million which included an "unprecedented" terrorist clause and netted the man 7BILLION dollars instantly propelling him amidst the worlds richest men list
if you cannot admit the truth after this then you are complicit through silence and need to read the article linked above

reference 1
reference 2
reference 3

I don't know, its hard for me to tell but I am not an expert. The engine is clearly not 9 foot across. However, it is missing the fins or propellers (whatever moves the air) and the housing. I have never really put much weight on the theory of the planes being switched. However, if they needed to fit them with specialized equipment it would be easier to do to planes that were not in regular service.



It aslo goes back to why they have not released the black boxes or relevant surveillance videos.

If they switched the planes, then the passengers would have met some other fate. I am not sure about the wtc site but I know remains from the passengers were found at the Pentagon. Anyone know what happened to these remains? Were they rightfully turned over to family members? If so, it would be interesting if some of these remains could be indepentenetly confirmed via dna to be who they are said to be. Of course the the actual passangers remains could have been used (just not from the crash sites). However, its possible the conspirators thought the remains would never be questioned. I know there are some 911 families who question the official story. I wonder if any of them have considered confirming their loved ones were accurately identified.

737 -





767-

I'd say Mr. Schwarz needs to brush up on his aircraft identification skills a bit. Lets take a look ...



Incorrect. Wing root fairings are actually found on most airliners. They help to blend the wing into the fuselage to reduce drag and also provide a space for stowing the main landing gear. These fairings are definitely found on the 767 and are actually larger than than those of the 737. Here's a link to a photo of a United Airlines 767-222 identical to United flight 175 which clearly shows the fairings (Airliners.net)



Incorrect. The 767 has a greater wing sweep angle than the 737:
Boeing 767 wing sweep = 31.5 degrees (reference)
Boeing 737 wing sweep = 25 degrees (reference)



Actually, on both aircraft types the engines are mounted at about 1/3 of the distance from the fuselage centerline to the wingtip. The 737's engines do appear fatter relative to the wing size. Here's a shot of a United 737 from directly below:
(Airliners.net 737)

And here is United 175 just before impact:

This is most definitely a Boeing 767.



This is true. The JT9D engines on the United 767-222s like United flight 175 have a fan diameter of 93 inches (7.8 feet). The CFM56 engines used on current 737s have a fan diameter of about 60 inches (5 feet).



As shown in the better image above, this aircraft is most definitely NOT a Boeing 737. It is clearly a United Airlines 767.



And this aircraft is most definitely NOT a 767 (hint: take a look at the file name ). It's a Boeing 737-548 belonging to Air Baltic airlines. Here's a link to the original photo with the full aircraft information: (Airliners.net YL-BBG)



As mentioned above, the JT9D engines used on United Airlines 767s has a fan diameter of 7.8 feet, not 9 feet. The compressor and turbine sections of the engine have a much smaller diameter. The engine piece shown in your photo is clearly missing the fan section. Here's a full JT9D engine: (link). Note how much larger in diameter the fan section is than the rest of the engine.

image links have been corrected--thanks

Wow, Pericynthion gg'd this thread.

Bush is the king of the US if he wants to coverup 9/11; thats his right as despot....

sonofone, keep grabbing at any straws you can - eventually you may hit on something accurate.

THIS LINK is taken right from Boeing, and is of a 767. You will notice the ONE engine on each wing.

But THIS LINK is of a 747, and shows double engines on each wing...

That pretty picture you link to as being a 767 for comparison pics - is OBVIOUSLY not a 767.

Do you actually check ANY of your "facts" before you post, or are you just a "cut-and-paster" that just regurgitates lies and distortions that others spew? Try doing some research on something OTHER than an Icke or Rense site. You'd be amazed what you can find!

----I edit this because I see the error - you have linked to a pic from Airliners.net illegally, and they put the pic of the 747 up there. My error for not reading the durned caption of the pic. Try using MY link for the 767. Oh, wait... you won't... as that debunks your claim. My bad! Carry on spreading misinformation!

sorry mal for the image discrepencies -- i believe i have found proper images that wont be changed or substituted by the host-- maybe we can continue the discussion or perhaps discuss the other issues mentioned-- i just noticed i forgot to include to pools of molten steel found in the basements of wtc1,2 and 7-- who can deny these issues and the unavoidable conclusion that they force one to draw?

The only unavoidable conclusion they force anyone to draw is that the rubble pile was on fire for a long time (a known and indisputable fact). Thermite burns quick and wouldn't keep the metal molten for weeks, explosives wouldn't leave any molten metal at all, only an ongoing fire could keep the rubble hot enough.

well lets agree that the thermate theory is the only reaction capable of creating the molten pools of steel-- hydrocarbon fires cannot produce what was witnessed in the video with the firefighters no matter how long it burns-- plus they can be put out with water and these fires had been drenched for six weeks just to cool them off enough for clean up operations to begin which is red flag concerning exactly what we were viewing-- i think you may need to click the link in the first post that is under the heading "HERE"

Hydrocarbon fires can't melt steel? What do you think they burn in foundries to melt steel?

Thermite (or thermate, which burns COLDER than thermite) does not burn for weeks, nor would it leave metal hot enough to stay molten for weeks (nothing could, you need a continuous heat source or it will cool).

Oh and by the way, it has not been established that any of the molten metal observed was steel. Do you realize that there was many thousands of tons of aluminum in these buildings, right?

the fact that the stove and heater in my house has not pooled in my basement demonstrates how preposterous this analogy is-- by all means it would be completely reasonable here for you to provide the equations put forth by nist,fema or any other dept,agency or beurau for that matter concerning the 47 core box columns that were heated throughout the entire srtucture to the point of simultaneous integrity failure-- i am just curious as to what exactly convinces you against the use of explosives which the video of the collapses and the eye witness testimonies all clearly support--

Oh now that's just hilarious. Because your stove doesn't melt, hydrocarbon fires can't melt metal. riiiiiight.

You realize there's more to it than just what fuel you use. You can get a wide variety of temperatures without even changing your fuel. For example, a pile of coal lit on fire in the open won't get hot enough to melt metal, but if you put it in an enclosed space and give it good airflow, it will get hot enough to melt steel.

And the failure was not simultaneous, it was progressive. Go google progressive collapse, maybe you'll learn something.

we are talking about high grade construction steel and fire???...right? not furnace conditions or the conditions you would find in the tip of a blow torch--
a progressive collapse includes resistance which the wtc towers 1,2 and 7 did NOT demonstrate-- 110 stories dropping in 10 seconds equals no resistance-- unless you can provide those equaions i asked for which you can obtain from any source you like you are not using a"scientific" approach-- in the collapse video the antenna clearly falls before anything else proving the core failed instantaneously and is the only rational conclusion from observing the 10 second collaspe

pour some gas onto iron...you think it's gonna burn?....

Only one of those pictures shows a plane heading toward the World Trade Center. It isn't a very good picture. How can you conclusively say that plane isn't a 767 based on that picture? The plane looked like a Boeing 767 when I saw it crash into the tower on television.

Incorrect in your assertion Phunk. No it was not a "progressive collapse" nor was it a pancake style collapse, if you are going to argue in favor of this WTC progressive collapse, I challenge you here and now. If you, NIST, and the government for that matter cannot reproduce such a phenomenon which you all claimed that happened on 9/11 why should I or anyone else give credibility to your arguments? In reguards to your WTC collapse claims, scientifically your claims are unsubstantiated.

Challenge.....
All five require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.

Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.

The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.

CHALLENGE #1:

Build a structure with a vertical aspect ratio of at least 2 (twice as tall as it is wide) and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #2:

Build a structure with a square footprint and a vertical aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide), and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the process of collapsing, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is capable of remaining intact in 100 MPH cross wind.

CHALLENGE #5:

Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4. Put up....or shut up. Period.

I wanna see it again......without explosives required. More so, to produce the sort of collapse that we seen on 9/11 you would have to get 47 interconnected steel core columns to fail at about the same time, how do you get that to occur without explosives? A gravity driven collapse wouldnt rip that core apart from the top down all the way to its lowest level, if so I need some proof for such a claim. Extraordinary proof.

First, how would Bin Ladin let alone any of his operatives have known the exact date to plan they're attacks so they would coincide with the war games without having a man on the inside of the U.S government feeding them information?STILL no answer to that question........Debunkers believe extreme coincidence, perhaps even fate at its highest levels. Lets take it a step farther. What are the chances of the U.S government not being responsible when months before 9/11, ProJect For A NeW AmericaN CenTury calls for a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor?????? Debunkers do you understand the amount of astronomical chance that you are invoking? PNAC needs a catastrophic event to occur which will act as a pretext to allow the U.S to start achieve global geopolitical goals and magically months later they get exactly that!!?? How lucky! Are you guys on something??!! How can you say they aren't responsible??????

Haha, PULL-IT.

Haha, did you think that up all by yourself? 2+2=5? Tell us then Phunk, what could have caused motlen metal/steel under the base of all 3 towers? Fire? haha! Ever so wrong......Frank Gale of NIST would agree it coulnt have been the fire. Let's give the debunkers a little refresher.

Fact*1: There were metallurgy test done by NIST's own Frank Gayle, the project leader of WTC Investigation;NIST Metallurgist. He was the leader of project 4 out of 8 projects. Basically, he done the analysis of the steel directly from the impact zone and ground zero.
NIST "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

Fact*2: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel.
NIST page 181" Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking."


Fact*3:"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboritories to conduct test to obtain information on the fire endurance of the trusses like those in the WTC towers. NIST P. 142" "All four test speciments sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing."NIST p.143 Big Red Flag.

Fact*4: NIST P.143 " The results establish that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load,without collapsing, for substantial periods of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on Sept 11th. "

Who would design a building for plane crashes but forget the jet fuel fires? Not the Wtc engineers! The towers were designed by John Skilling. Skilling had this to say in 1993 when asked if he considered plane crashes in his design.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact tha all the Fuel would dump into the bulding.[But] the building structure would still be there."

So Phunk, we can now conclude FIRE did not cause the extreme temperatures and molten metal/steel at the base of all 3 buildings.

I am not commenting on anything but the fires here, but a coal is not jet fuel/kerosene. The fuel loads of the buildings are not the same and the fuels are not the same; also the steel is not your run of the mill steel; it was coated with a insulating material to protect it against fire. There are too many factors regarding the fire that you do not understand, or bother to learn about how fire works to know that the NIST report is not being fully truthful regarding the fires melting the steel. The airflow you mention regarding the towers was good enough to give off a lot of heat, the combustion process was not complete and was not very hot in regards to how hot fire gets(hence all of the dark smoke)...there are a lot of factors that do not add up, and an analogy to a coal doesn't justify or relate to what was going on; it is so much more complicated than that...

He only said hydrocarbon fire, he didn't say jet fuel and neither did I. Hydrocarbons include nearly everything in the offices that wasn't metal. Plastics are hydrocarbon based, carpet, computers, desks, all sorts of things burned after the jet fuel was gone. We aren't talking about before the collapse either, we're talking about the molten metal in the rubble pile, which was found well after the collapse, after the rubble burned for WEEKS. The steel was not melted before the collapse, it was only weakened to the point of beginning the collapse. And the fireproofing is not impact resistant, that was the main flaw in the earlier studies that said the buildings would survive a crash, they didn't account for the fireproofing lost in the impact.

Sorry you're wrong. Do you know what a progressive collapse is? As each core column failed, the load it carried was transferred to the remaining core columns. The more failed, the more load was being transferred to the remaining columns, and the faster they failed. It's an accelerating collapse, it begins slow and might not even be visible from the outside, but once enough columns fail for there to be movement of the overall structure, the movement causes the remaining columns to fail nearly simultaneously. This is what happens in nearly every collapse, with each piece that fails the increased load on the remaining pieces causes them to fail faster and faster, and the last few pieces appear to fall almost simultaneously.


The progressive part I was referring to was the horizontal progression across the core and peremiter columns of the impact zone. After that the weight of the top section of the building falling on the lower section is more than enough to meet all of your strawman requirements below. My challenge to you: Find a single structural engineer who things the collapse should have happened differently than it did once the top section started falling into the building.

Again, go read up on progressive collapse, it explains how the columns that weren't knocked out by the impact would fail nearly simultaneously once a few more of them failed.

It absolutely would. Those core columns were bolted together, they were only as strong when they were kept aligned. The debris falling from above (50 ton steel columns) would be falling mostly between the vertical columns, since their cross section was very small relative to the overall crosssection of the core. As all that debris fell between the columns, it would be landing on the horizontal members, which weren't even load bearing, they were only there to hold the vertical beams in place. The result is that the debris would knock out the horizontal supports, 'unzipping' the core all the way to the ground. The unsupported vertical columns would easily be broken apart at the bolted connections by their own weight alone once the debris knocked out their horizontal support and pushed them away from vertical alignment.

Coincidence, not even remotely extreme, there are wargames going on EVERY DAY withing the military when they are not at war. What do you think they just sit around waiting for a war?

When you learn that corelation does not equal causation, get back to me.

That was a small sample of the columns, not the trusses that held the floors up, were in the hottest location (the ceiling), and were likely the failure point that started the collapse.

Keep taking things out of context and you'll never understand what happened. That test of the trusses was with intact fireproofing, and it wasn't an attempt to cause a collapse, the tests were stopped when the trusses reached a certain deflection, in order to avoid it collapsing. Had the test rig collapsed, it would destroy what they were trying to study.

The samples which only reached certain low temperatures was a relatively small sample of the steel. But they all matched what the FEA predicted. What you have to understand is that they took a sampling of the steel and checked it against the expected temps for that area, they didn't go looking for steel from the hot spots, just steel from a wide variety of locations to verify that the FEA models predicted, and they were a close match (and the FEA models collapsed). You don't verify FEA models by pickout out the extremes, you verify them by picking a variety of samples including the unstressed ones.

In it's undamaged state that they tested, not after being hit by a 767.

Their analysis was of a plane at approach speed to one of the 3 surrounding airports, not a plane doing 3 times the speed limit for the area (nearly 10 times the kinetic energy of what they studied). They didn't account for the amount of damage that was done to the core columns or the fireproofing.


No, because NISTs study was of steel from the impact zone. Steel (and aluminum and other metals) from the bottom of the rubble pile was not what was sampled. And the fire conditions in the rubble were much different than the pre-collapse fires, they were confined, keeping in the heat, they were fed with air from below (the subway tunnels), and they were fueled by plastics and other office materials which burn very hot. Again, the molten metal was not from before the collapse, or the collapse would have spread it thin and it would have quickly cooled. You can't drop molten metal 1000 feet and have it hit the ground still molten, especially when it's splattering agains cold steel from the rest of the building. Any molten metal that pooled at the bottom was from the fires that burned for several weeks after the collapse.

no it is you that is wrong-- it is physically impossible to obtain a "horizontal" progression as the loads in question are verticle-- but besides your obvious lack of basic knowledge and reason concerning the collapses i have to point out what is caught in every single video,which could be linked here with frame by frame analysis if need be,which is the erruption of a ball of fire bursting through the tower windows indicating the entire top of the tower had been sheared by an explosion as it toppled appearing to fall to one side which,had that been the only explosive used,would have sent that piece flying to one side and crashing on the street with an enormous thud instead we witnessed the entire core disintegrate from the breaking point down never giving the piece time to fall off to one side but plummet to earth and land within the original footprint of the tower at the speed a free fall while the obvious pyroclastic flow enveloped downtown ny-- also the terms used also included the examples: "secondary devices" , "detonators...the kind you bring down a building with...boom,boom,boom,boom,boom" , "7 is exploding","they found a bomb"

I can bet with certainty, that you nor anyone else on this forum can give an account of any other steel structured building in history which performed a progressive collapse;with steel high-rise buildings that has never happened. The "total collapse" of a steel-framed buildings is a rare event, even when large earthquakes are involved and have only been shown to occur in ...controlled demolitions. As anyone can see, even with these earthquakes the buildings did not totally collapse, but topple.

I'd love for you to prove to me how do you get a steel structure to crumble from the top down -- as in the alleged progressive collapse phenomenon, without explosives. You take my challenge and settle the debate! You call my challenge a strawman requirement, but guess what? You cant meet it, if so, prove your claim.

The Challenge requires building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted. Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.

1.Build a structure with a square footprint and a vertical aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide), and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.

2. Build a structure as required by number 1 which, in the process of collapsing, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

Phunk, meet the challenge or forever remain silent. It's as simple as that! Instead of answering my challenge you know what you did? You avoided it, not answering anything, then proposed your own challenge which will lead us in to a direction of "opinions"; your proposed credible source on collapses against mine. Let's skip the side walk, answer that simple challenge and let this thread be put to rest. If this newly proposed theory of structural failure is so likely to happen, why is it so difficult to reproduce? Why cant it be reproduced by any of the so called "experts"??? And tell us,why did the tower appear to topple to one side then some how "walk(demolition term)" itself back into alignment with the rest of the building and collapse straight down onto its on footprint while throwing 80% of the mass of the materials outside the footprint? And something else to note about this collapse which refutes your theory, this comes directly from an eye witness " "It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." [Ed Cachia - Firefighter [Engine 53]" Ah, so the building actually gave at lower floor under the impact zone, I wonder what would cause that.... I dont understand. How could this building give at an undamaged lower floor first instead of at damaged top floor first?

cough* ....proof? So what your arguing is that naturally, because of falling debris on the horizonal supports, this would some how cause the building's core to unzip or deassemble itself from the top down.....srry Phunk, I dont believe in magic. But...proof?

QUOTE

First, how would Bin Ladin let alone any of his operatives have known the exact date to plan they're attacks so they would coincide with the war games without having a man on the inside of the U.S government feeding them information?STILL no answer to that question........Debunkers believe extreme coincidence, perhaps even fate at its highest levels.

OH, Phunk I didnt know you believed in magic! Bin Ladin's sleeper cells "just so happen" to execute 9/11 on the same day NORAD was having War Game drills....OF FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS PLUS RESPONDING TO A HIJACKING ATTEMPT. Yes, you are half correct. Norad doesnt just sit around waiting for war to happen, they train, but, they also dont have exercises of flying hijacked planes into high-rise buildings everyday either. You see, thats the only thing you debunkers have to offer when questioned about this bizzare circumstance, your only answer is "coincidence". And you call it coincidence yet this is the exact same "bizzare coincidence" which occured in the London 7/7 bombings. In both circumstances these bizzare coincidences occur, on 9/11 the hijackers coincidentially knew that Norad were having drills of flying planes into buildings which would act as an obstacle to confuse them on the radar had a real one hijacking occured, then in London on 7/7 they're government were also running terrorist drills. Im sorry, to believe that is pure grade Ignorance.

Yea, so how lucky of PNAC to get exactly what they called for in they're own documents! Uh uh uh......there it goes again, another bizzare coincidence. Coincidence Phunk? Buddy, Fox News is playing on your ignorance.

Yeah, and the temperature experienced by the steel directly from the impact zone was no where near the point to weakend or melt steel, so what caused the collapse if it wasnt from the fires? As far as molten metal goes, Phunk you believe you know the answer to the question NIST experts wont even attempt answer let alone acknowledge; actually they deny molten metal even being under the base of all 3 buildings.

No, the test was stopped after 2 hours of stress because the assembly would not collapse under similar conditions like what were present in the wtcs.

NIST P.143 " The results establish that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load,without collapsing, for substantial periods of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on Sept 11th. " They actually were looking for this assembly to fail, just as it supposedly did in the WTCs from FIRE, but it did not fail, which is why Kevin Ryan calls this a Big Red Flag. They even imply such was the aim of the test...."assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load without collapsing"; they put a large gravity load on the assembly to see if it would collapse while under "intense fire".They didnt want to know if the trusses would deflect, they wanted to see if they would collapse under conditions present in the Wtcs.

Horizontal progression does not mean it falls sideways. It means the progression is sideways. As in, a column on the left collapses, causing increased load on the one next to it which then collapses, which increases the load on the next one, etc. Again, learn what the terms mean before you tell me that they are impossible.

The smoke and flame that errupted from the collapse zone as it fell didn't erupt until AFTER THE TOP STARTED FALLING. Quite simply, the it was the smoke and flame inside the building being squeezed out as the floor above it fell.

Those buildings are MUCH smaller than the WTC, and are CONCRETE, not bare steel frames. I challange YOU to find a steel frame that fell over sideways without falling to pieces.

That's hilarious, seriously. The whole point of a strawman argument is to get your oponent to waste time trying to prove something that's not even relevant, and if they can't, claim victory (even though it was irrelvant to begin with)

So you want me to actually build a tower to prove my point, and if I don't you'll declare yourself the winner? Ok then, you build a tower the size of the WTC and get it to topple over instead of falling straight down. If you don't, you lose!

Nice contridiction, how did it both fall within its own footprint and land 80% outside its own footprint? Make up your mind.
The building didn't walk, it tilted a few degrees. If you look at the size of the upper section and how much it tilted, most of it was still within the footprint after it tilted. It didn't fall over like a tree, it fell into itself, one side just fell sooner.

So all it takes is one quote for you to dismiss all of the video that shows the collapse start in the damaged area?

Yes, absolutely. Ask a structural engineer if a box type steel frame will remain standing with the horizontal supports removed.

Unless you can come up with the following, you don't even have a theory, just a coincidence.

1) proof that said drills were occuring on that day
2) proof that they didn't happen on a regular basis
3) some reason why they would want the attacks to coincide with the drills

I've don't watch fox news, and it's not so bizzare of a coincidence, it was more of an inevitability.

They never saw any proof of molten pools of metal, no one has. There is only one or 2 quotes that aren't even consistent, in the context they were cut out of those quotes make it sound more like red-hot metal, not molten. The difference is about 1000 degrees.

If you only read that quote and not the whole report, it might seem that way. But if you read the actual report you'll see that the goal of the tests was NOT to see what it took to collapse the structure, it was to measure deformation of the structure due to fire. By the way, Kevin Ryan worked at an affiliate of UL that tested water quality. He was not remotely involved in any testing of any steel.

this argument is absolutely pathetic-- are you insinuating that the towers were "NOT" architectual marvels and the absolute strongest design ever created?? please find a quote from anyone that indicates the inferiority of the towers design to another


not only was he quoted in an interview with an AFP journalist but the undeniable FACT remains that it took 6 weeks of continuous drenching before "ground zero" was even cool enough to begin excavation--


are you even aware that the core contained a concentrated grid of 47 box columns each with walls 4 inches thick?
there are exactly SIX issues with five being referenced from the first post and the molten steel making six-- if it had just been the insurance and insider trading it might not have been so conclusive but when the video and eye witness testimony is compounded with the wargame drills and the anthrax attacks you have to stop and look-- and when you notice they are trying to pass a 737 off as a 767 and having a republican insider blow the whistle and use his military expertise in visually identifying aircraft to point out not one ,two or even three but four flags of identity that can be backed up with photographical evidence includig parts from church and murray street and also find that there were undeniable pools of molten steel in the basements of the suspect implosions and that it took six weeks to cool well then it starts to get a little SICKENING realizing what the bush administration did and that there actually people either too stupid or even worse too sadistic to even care

I know we're not supposed to bash other members, but Sunofone, if that is indeed your real name... you have some strange ideas and opinions

some how i dont feel so bashed-- strange is a very safe and somewhat innocuous adjective why dont you give your opinion concerning whether or not you feel the theories are reasonable? and perhaps your reasoning if you dont agree

Phunk, your challenge is nonsequitur towards this topic and has nothing to do with the information I was requesting from you. Prove how do you get a steel structure to crumble from the top down -- as in the alleged progressive collapse phenomenon, without explosives.Give a documented account of any steel frame structured building collapsing from the top down. Phunk, you need to understand, your the one making the claim about this progressive collapse occuring, your expected to provide proof for it; its your burden of proof not mine. You claim that this phenomenon occured yet you still can give no documented account of it ever occuring at any point in history. You nor the NIST experts(and ect) can reproduce this collapse theory nor can you even demostrate it in models, be it physical or animated, yet you expect people to accept what you say as fact.

Oh, so your dont consider proving your "progressive collapse" theory relevant to your arguments? I simply requested that you provide proof, yet you call it a strawman. I find evidence to back your progressive collapse theory very relevant to this discussion.

Phunk, are you even reading anything posted? R-E-A-D, instead of glossing over things you care not to respond to. The challenge said build a structure, it can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.Your challenged to make your structure undergo a top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing, then in the process of collapsing, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels.

I knew you were a little slow..... Phunk, read that again.

I disagree, and its evident in the photos.


There are many pieces of video and photo evidence which proves the stories above the impact zone was shattered. How could the steel frame many stories above the impact zone have broken up even before it started to fall? The proponents of gravity-driven collapse maintain that the tops of the towers crushed the floors below the impact zones as they fell. The tops functioned as pistons, according to Bazant and Zhou, crushing the stories one by one. What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone. The top portion of the building above the impact zone started to rotate then stopped, unless the top had already been shattered, it should have continued to rotate in accordance with the law of conservation of angular momentum.

The top had begun to lean to the left, then fell into the exploding cloud of dust. By the time the top disappeared, most of it had cleared the intact portion of the tower. However it never emerged from the dust cloud.

So how many eyewitnesses does it take for you to stop dismissing evidence of a demolition?



1) proof that said drills were occuring on that day
2) proof that they didn't happen on a regular basis
3) some reason why they would want the attacks to coincide with the drills

What were the drills called and what was their nature?
1) OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast.

2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. As we reported back in January, Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?

3)OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.

4)OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN: The details of this exercise are still scant but it is considered to be part of Vigilant Guardian, relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector.

5)OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR: This was referenced in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies'. It is thought to have been the 'attack' component of the Vigilant Guardian exercise. Secondary source:US TODAYAlso, to have the "attacks" coincide with the drill would produce the exact effect as it did on 9/11, NORAD would become confused on the radar, unable to distinguise the real hijacked plane from the exercise hijacked plane, enable the real hijacked plane to run its course. The question then has to be asked, as I stated "how would Bin Ladin let alone any of his operatives have known the exact date to plan they're attacks so they would coincide with the war games without having a man on the inside of the U.S government feeding them information?"

Are you ignorant?lol. Dude, there are like 2343 videos out of the ground workers on 9/11 stating they eyewitnessed "molten metal" flowing like a foundry. Actual Video 1 Actual Video 2 Molten Metal burns still flows 6 weeks after collapse
Why should we believe them? 1. They were there when it happened! 2. The measurement of the temperatures matches such.......

Go read it again jr.........Ive been over this 234234 times.

SHUT DOWN...........

Absolutely correct.

There are no such things as coincidence only the illusion of coincidence.

As Urban Legend said the war games that were going on that day acted as a deterrent so NORAD would not act on the real hijacked planes. If NORAD acted in there normal fashion then the Twin Towers would have been standing today, that is FACT.

Phunk it's also ignorant of you to dismiss such facts as sheer coincidence or something that NORAD does on a regular basis with war games and drills, BUT it gets mighty suspicious when one of the war games was a drill that simulated hijacked planes which coincided with what was really going on 9/11.


Zoo York

It's a strawman because YOU are deciding what the only acceptable proof is, so that you can claim victory when that specific proof isn't met. I won't play your games.

No, you're the 'slow' one here. That second quote was not part of what I quoted. Let's look at what you said, and not take my quote out of context.

THAT is the contridiction I referred to.

Yeah, wow look how much went outside the footprint of the tower.


It didn't, it broke up as it impacted the floors below, as shown in the pics above. You're making the claim that it broke up before it fell, go ahead and show even one picture of that.

They don't claim it remained in 1 piece as it did that. Wether it was one piece or a million, the same amount of mass was falling onto the floors below. At the area where the top and the bottom sections crashed together, BOTH the top and the bottom sections were torn apart.

The cloud of rubble weighs the same as the intact structure, that's how.

The law of conservation only applies if there are no outside forces. Once it started to tilt to one side, that tore free the other side so there was no longer a pivot point there. The tilted section then met the most resistance at its lowest point, providing torque back in the other direction. Both the torque that caused the initial tilt and the torque that slowed the tilt greatly stressed the structure in ways it wasn't built to handle. Also the structure falling at an angle led to different amounts of stress on the lower side and the higher side, creating a skewing force that the structure wasn't designed to handle. These extra stresses along with the continuing impact with the lower sections are what disintegrated the upper section.

I strongly disagree with the use of 'most' in that sentence. Most of the upper section remained within the footprint, it didn't clear the tower. I don't have time now, but here's something you can do. Go find pictures of the tilted section of the building and draw lines extending up from the corners of the lower undamaged section. See how much of the tilted section goes outside those lines. Do this with pics from as many different angles as you can.

I don't have time now but I'll get back to this thread when I do.

K, I think most of your ideas and thoughts on this are stupid. You're looking for and reaching for any far fetched idea that supports how you feel. I'm not insinuating that you are stupid, just irrational. As far as these theories being reasonable, no they are not. I'm no physicist, nor demolition expert. I don't claim to be. All I know is that the collapse of the towers, didn't resemble a controlled demolition. There was no government conspiracy. The theories just don't make sense to me. I think people don't like the President and want him impeached even if lies have to be told to do that.

what a joke-- again i have to stress that if you look at the entire roster of people "convicted" of murder you will find that 90% of them never admitted to performing the felony-- they were convicted using "circumstantial" evidence -- now even though your ignorant and biased ideas and thoughts refuse to acknowledge the physical evidence like the molten steel in the basements,the video,eye witness testimony and photos of a 737 if you were to only observe the "circustantancial" evidence you would still have to draw the same conclusion-- the insurance scam where the entire complex changed owners just 3 mo prior to the attack which included an "unprecedented" terrorist clause and profited silverstein 7 billion dollars from an initial 198 million dollar investment is really all that is needed but just to make it worse we also have the wargames which are undeniable as well as the anthrax attacks that were traced to a us military base-- im really feel sorry for you as you are clearly in denial and should consider reading this article refernced below so that you dont make any foolish coments concerning credentials while denying the denial-- also great job of attacking the evidence i really like the way you can justify your irrational logic

First off, please learn how to spell.

Second testimony and photos of a 737?! Did you not see the "LIVE" news footage of the planes flying into the towers? How is that not evidence? Why do a few fuzzy frames mean 737? that's not evidence.

Third, the insurance scam... I believe he (Silversein) is loosing money.

Fourth, war games and anthrax... If I was the military planning for these attacks as you suggest, why would I perform war games of the same nature the same day the attacks were going to happen? Why not plan the games a few weeks down the road and then after the attacks claim you were working on a solution for that problem but had not yet had time to prep? As far as anthrax, again, why not just lie about the origins of it? If the government is as evil as you suggest, why not lie?

I love how my logic is "irrational", yet my opinions don't change from day to day as I read up and copy a new ludicrous theory that someone blogged, while sitting his his grandmothers basement.

they are very similar-- why hide the engine?? the four identifying markers are clearly evident


pathetic


rediculous-- slander is all that you muster as you cannot defend your ideas-- they ran the drills to distract the air traffic control which are the first line of defense in hijackings-- the attacks would not have been possible otherwise...but i guess that is a little too complicated for you to grasp your anthrax reasoning is laughable at worst and really sad at best

I didn't know that putting forth an alternate theory that you don't agree with counts as slander(By the way, slander is when you verbally defame somebody, libel is when you write it). Apparently my reasoning being laughable as worst isn't libel.... hmm. But you're right, I did call you're ideas stupid... I never called you stupid please read post #32.

Again please learn how to spell. Or use spell check, they are online now. ridiculous. Cheers.

You sit there and make fun of Sunofone's spelling yet you yourself cannot even put together a proper sentence. LMAO. "while sitting his his". Just as the strength of a solitary brick will not save a poorly built structure, your bold typeface does not redeem your craven incoherent words. How about putting that into proper syntax, form, and grammar so that I can at least understand what you are saying before I dismiss it.



Firstly let me get this straight, planes did hit the towers know one on here is suggesting that NO planes hit the towers. What is is being suggested rightly in ones opinion of course is that it was not a Boeing 767 that hit the towers. Evidence to the contrary suggests that it was indeed a 737 as the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage propels a 737, not a 767.

Also, there are eye witness reports suggesting that it was not an American Airlines plane. There is a video out there on the day of 9/11 of people on the ground saying specifically that it was not an American Airlines plane.



You definitely are not using even a little bit of logi