What Destroyed The World Trade Centers? - Page 2

Atom · 02-07-2005, 11:04 PM

Looks like they're all sleeping ..

Atom · 02-07-2005, 11:10 PM

I have only conducted one pole in all the time I've been here. But it was a very important one.

http://www.v7n.com/forums/forum-lobby/16103-poll.html

Atom · 02-07-2005, 11:15 PM

I never did get to the mincemeat.

**G10** · 07-08-2006, 06:28 AM

Wow, it's strange to think that this happened September 11th, 2001 - Almost 5 years ago.

It really doesn't seem like 5 years have passed since it happened.

notepad · 02-07-2005, 11:24 PM

yes ...I was viewing it earlier ...I voted ..."I don't"

I think everyone likes a poll ...except this one

...perhaps it's (WTC 911) one of those subjects most want to avoid thinking about (but should).

Atom · 02-07-2005, 11:29 PM

Well yeah but you just started it .. give it some time.

You may end up starting over too, maybe that'll be best. Or who knows, this one could take off... hard to tell.

Hey maybe you should just go ahead and start the private one anyway, and maybe this one will just get burried ..

.. if I quit posting in it, that is ..

Or just post a link here to the new one, maybe?

SN3 · 02-08-2005, 05:40 AM

Do not start another argument about this.

SVB · 02-08-2005, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SN3

Do not start another argument about this.

I don't think there has been an argument, or even a proper discussion about this on V7n before.
Personally I have no idea, it may have been construction faults, apparently it was designed to withstand impact from a plane, which it obviously didn't do...

Atom · 02-08-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SN3

Do not start another argument about this.

Who are you addressing?

greg · 02-08-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notepad

References:
http://69.28.73.17/911bottomline.html
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr67.html

these are hardly decent references. It would be like me going and posting either from a free website or from my home computer what i think about something and using that as a reference. Use real sources if you ever want to be taken seriously.

I am almost sick of the whole 911 consipracies. Guess what, a big ****ing plane flew into the building, i saw it. It just took off less than 20 minutes before it hit. IF you have that much jet fuel burning for an hour yes steel will melt. There was no bomb placed inside the building. GW Bush, as much as i would personaly love to have something to impeach him over, did not order some attack on the buildings just to increase popularity.

docquesting · 02-08-2005, 02:31 PM

Argh not another one of these threads.

Pimpen 2010 · 02-08-2005, 02:35 PM

subsequent fires weakening the structures

That's what I choosed. The WTC's were made to outstand the biggest plane in the 1970's (dunno exact model) Since the 1970's, we've gotten bigger planes, with bigger gas tanks. The steel used couldn't with stand the fire from the plans + gas, therefore the steel melted which started the collapsing. If they used smaller planes, the WTC might still be here today, along with thousands that died.

SVB · 02-08-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pimpen 2010

subsequent fires weakening the structures

That's what I choosed. The WTC's were made to outstand the biggest plane in the 1970's (dunno exact model) Since the 1970's, we've gotten bigger planes, with bigger gas tanks. The steel used couldn't with stand the fire from the plans + gas, therefore the steel melted which started the collapsing. If they used smaller planes, the WTC might still be here today, along with thousands that died.

Yeah, but the planes which hit the twin towers were 737's, released in 1967. The larger jumbojet, the 747, was developed in the 1960's aswell. So I don't think it was to do with the advancement of planes.

littleFella · 02-08-2005, 03:09 PM

I'm still wondering why the same type of plane that is said to have knocked down WTC, didn't come even close to making nearly the same damage at the Pentagon. The relatively little hole in the Pentagon outer ring doesn't appear consistent with the size of the plane, force of impact and the amount of fuel in the plane's tanks. And strangely, the plane evaporated on impact. No plane parts to be seen anywhere around the crash site. If the wings didn't hit the outer walls (it clearly appears they didn't) then where are they?

Oh, and that Pentagon lawn is really tough. Hardly a scratch. If WTC was constructed out of that same material as the Pentagon lawn, then we would still have both towers intact.

So many inconsitencies just can't be brushed off with an accusation of another "conspiracy theory". Things just don't add up. A lot of things.

sundancerz · 02-08-2005, 03:55 PM

I'd like to know what hit the Pentagon too?
It wasn't a plane.
There's a poll for ya.

Atom · 02-08-2005, 04:12 PM

I will not claim that my opinion is correct. I do have one simple question though. If anyone knows the correct answer, that would be helpful I think.

Did a proper investigation of the rubble take place?

Jonathan VanSchaack · 02-08-2005, 05:52 PM

Yes, there were 2 different specials released on the discovery channel on this.

For one thing the braces used in the WTC were "cheap", not gonnas go full into it, just search up on discovery channel, they had engineers and all that. And the fact that the towers stayed up for a solid hour was remarkable. Watched the specials in physics class in college. I'll try to find the names and report.

second, the pentagon (at least the section that got hit) was just reenforced little time before the crash.
Also if your good in physics you'll know the difference in the impacts. Pentagon was a sideways impact at the base, ground absorbed some of the impact.
the WTC were near the top.

Atom · 02-08-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

Did a proper investigation of the rubble take place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan VanSchaack

Yes,..

Do you know who headed the investigation?

littleFella · 02-08-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan VanSchaack

second, the pentagon (at least the section that got hit) was just reenforced little time before the crash.
Also if your good in physics you'll know the difference in the impacts. Pentagon was a sideways impact at the base, ground absorbed some of the impact.
the WTC were near the top.

If ground absorbed some of the impact then:
- where are some major parts of the damaged plane?
- how could the absorbed impact cause one of the plane's engines go through the wall of the 4th ring? (as reported by FBI)

some of the doubt raising suff:

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf (just over 3MB)

Pimpen 2010 · 02-08-2005, 06:38 PM

Didn't Osama admit to hi jacking the 4 plans and crashing them etc...? Theres no conspiracy theory behind the pentagon or the WTC