9/11 truth now!

Aluminum is among the weakest of all metals. Those jumbo jets simply went "splat" as soon as they made contact with those enormous steel girders. The planes were big, but they were extremely tiny and very very flimsy in terms of their relation to those gigantic skyscrapers. If you don't believe in virgin births, then you should have no reason for accepting the idea that steel was decimated by fast-moving aluminum on 9-11.

 

The Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed by a piece of foam insulation moving at an high speed into its wing. How can you be so incredibly ignorant?

 

Apples and oranges.
-------------------------------------------------------------
< < "how fast does the space shuttle travel ?"

<< To stay in low earth orbit, the space shuttle needs to reach a velocity of roughly 17500 mph. In space, 150-300 miles above earth, a velocity of 24000mph is required. That is about 5 miles per second. This is ten times faster than a bullet ..." >>
-------------------------------------------------------------
<< "How fast do passenger jets fly?" >>

<< "Best Answer - Chosen by Voters."

<< "Below 10000ft aircraft are not allowed to exceed 250kts, and in class b airspace around major airports, they are limited to 200kts. Once past 10000ft, they go about 400mph. The maximum cruising speed does not indicate the speed that the aircraft cruises at, it indicates the fastest speed it can fly without structural damage, this is known as Vno. The actual cruise is much slower. For example, it takes 4 hours to fly to miami florida from boston Massachusetts, which is about 1100miles when following airways (routes between navaids). that is considerably slower than 500mph. Source(s): I'm a pilot." >>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061218175109AA1ZNaJ

 

Actually aluminum alloys are specifically used for plane fuselages for the high strength-weight capability. Planes routinely fall thousands onto both ground and ocean and they don't just go "splat". Try again.

 

The shuttle was not in orbit when it was struck with the foam insulation, it was still ascending. It is estimated that the foam hit Columbia's wing at a relative speed of 530 mph.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/q0131.shtml

You just said the soft materials impacting harder materials will not cause damage to the more massive and harder object.

Did you not see then gigantic holes left by those "soft aluminum" airliners? Did no one ever tell you that those outside columns that were destroyed were not for decoration, they were a large portion of the support that held the buildings up.

 

The space shuttle was hit on the wing by a piece of foam that broke off from the shuttle's own fuel tank. It's really a very poor analogy because the variables are completely different. The shuttle was hit by an object while it was moving at a much much higher altitude, and so the physics are completely different. It's still a case of "apples and oranges." Jets can spin out of control, and they can crash as a direct result of seagulls getting sucked into the engines, but it's very unlikely that you'll ever hear of a case where a jet plane "exploded" into "tiny fragments" just because it was hit by a seagull. If you ever hear of such a case, i.e. where it's being alleged that a jet airplane "exploded" just because it was hit by a seagull, you can rest assured that this is simply one more example of bad and erroneous reporting on the part of the "news." It's easy to accept the idea that a jet airplane CAN explode into millions of "itsy bitsy" particles, but ONLY providing that conditions are right for such to happen; but on the other hand - it's hard to accept a patently nonsensical explanation for such an occurrence, such as "a seagull is what caused the plane to explode." http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=6658028&page=2 "Birds Hit Planes Every Day, but Don't Usually Cause Crashes."

The jets were able to puncture holes in the weak outer facades of those buildings, but the outer facades weren't pivotal supporting structures, rather they were simply the building's thin outer layer. The pivotal supporting structures were located in the central cores, in the building's interior.

There were many more floors below the crash site than there were above the crash site. I can see how the impact could have resulted in one of the floors collapsing and falling on top of the floor that was located directly underneath it, but the only thing is - the WTC was configured in such a way that a collapsing floor should NOT have resulted in a compromise of the building's structural integrity.

 

Try again. You obviously missed the point of weakened steel and one floor went it took the floors above it out too. No building is designed to withstand a floor collapsing like that unless you plan for the floors above it to be floating in the air. Though in your mind that may have been the plan. And no, the fire hasn't been disproved, in fact the vast general consensus is that's what did it. It's your argument that's been disproven and you've yet to come up with anything that isn't conspiracy bullshit to back it up with solid facts.

Now go deny the holocaust some more.

Really, what is so hard to comprehend about a bunch of pissed off muslims who hate us for what we do to their countries hijacked a bunch of planes and crashed them into some things. It's not that hard to hijack a plane, especially pre-9/11, ever hear of East Germany or Communist Poland? Yea, numerous planes were hijacked from their airlines in the 1970''s-80's by normal people just to get to the west. Or you know, all the other planes that have been hijacked in the past 40 years. Most of those are with relatively little planning, let alone one that was in the planning for probably years.

 

Why waste time arguing with someone delusional? It is impossible to present any evidence to someone living in their own reality that they've created

 

Because there are other people out there who believe in this but are not as militant as him, so for anyone else reading this thread I need to shoot down his paranoid, delusional, and occasional anti-semitic arguments.

 

Can I just add, It wasn't anything "we" did, that made them do what they did...they pretty much had an agenda against anybody that did not believe in what they believed in(a complete Muslim dominated world)...including other Muslims. (other Muslims died in 9/11 too.)

 

True story, bigcity can't accept the fact that maybe they really just do hate us and that's why they did it to scare the crap out of us, you know, terrorism. It's kind of like how he really hates the jews.

 

I think that's just a front...who DOES like the Jews?

Seriously, It's a bit of a cliché, no?

 

Well if you ever taken a gander at the circumcision thread in the men's section he's also militantly against circumcision, all circumcized people are mutilated and don't really enjoy sex, ect, if I recall correctly he had been circumcised and was not happy with this fact, so my guess is he blames it on Jewish tradition that became part of mainstream America culture at one point and this is why he hates the Jews.
*edit*
Went back and looked at it, supposedly he is a Jew. Well now I just don't know what to think.

 

I think I remember that...lol.
If that is the reason he posts endless amounts of ......, then I think he probably needs to let it go.

He's a bit :willy_nilly:

 

lol this is an example of what these people believe. Someone went on a truther rant on yahoo answers and I responded with you're insane, shut up. This is the message I got this morning.

FEMA has concentration camps and Al Queda is a bunch of people living in caves, nothing else. And "small" fires.

He also doesn't believe in global warming and thinks it's an elaborate plan to steal our money. Anyone with a yahoo answers account I suggest going to his questions and sending him a message about how insane he is
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/my/prof...ylv=3?show=4483b0da4755880d6d8e7788b81f2201aa

 

Excellent point !

 

I agree that the steel was definitely in a weakened state before the towers literally "exploded," but this is where we differ ... while you seem to believe that the steel was weakened by a smoldering oxygen-starved fire (the fire was very close to petering out, thanks to the efforts of the firefighters) ... I am swayed by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. No, it wasn't a fire that weakened the steel in those towers ... It was a "thermitic" chemical reaction which caused the steel in those towers to weaken. It was a chemical reaction that set off a sequence of pre-planned explosions, and this -- not the fire - is what caused the steel to explode into many billions of microscopic particles. It was an act of deliberate mass murder. It was a crime that was witnessed by millions of people on their television sets.

The flooring was constructed in a way that was quite independent of the building's pivotal supporting structure. The flooring was built around the perimeter of the central core. The flooring was attached to the central core by a matrix of trusses, and that's why it had no bearing on the building's structural integrity.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html