Didn't the plane explode? There you go. It collapsed. It didn't explode floor by floor. It came tumbling down if you don't understand.

I'm not saying that it exploded floor by floor, but it felt on a vertical direction, like if you'd hit the base of the building, if a plane crashes in a building, it will " cut " trought it, and make it fall in two parts, or at least on the side

So question, where are the documents you have to prove this, who is the person that came up with this theory and most importantly, what classified documents does the government has that they don't want us to know about?   

 

EDIT: Now maybe the government failed to take security measures, but in no way were they the ones that caused 9/11. 

 

Exactly....if there was documents then we would know....and they would be in big trouble.

 

I personally believe the US government knew about it and let it happen so they could push their big war on Terrorism and to allow agency like the NSA to do whatever they wanted including breaking national/constitutional laws. Im not saying they flew the plans in the buildings and all that, but if they would let something like this happen it would cause enough motivational drive from the public and allow us to drop are guard all in the name of national security.

 

Evidence is not required, but i will say name one thing you know the that the government doesn't.......

 

Edited March 6, 201511 yr by MasterTrooper

I highly doubt 9/11 was an inside job.

Terrorist tried it before remember? Back in 1993

It's possible although I doubt it.

 

However, that doesn't mean it wasn't exploited as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and further the surveillance state.  

Well either because they're liberals, don't know anything about 9/11, or they're stupid. This isn't an opinionated subject. It's fact that terrorists are responsible for 9/11.

 

Even if the Terrorists where successful in hijacking the Boeing 767s, a 767 airplane cannot take down the Twin Towers, its just sceintificly impossible, unless of course the whole plane was filled with C4. Just because something explodes, dosent automatically mean it will destroy everything

I highly doubt 9/11 was an inside job.

Terrorist tried it before remember? Back in 1993

 

That dosen't mean anything. It could just give people a reason to believe they did it again, dispite the scientific evidence

Even if the Terrorists where successful in hijacking the Boeing 767s, a 767 airplane cannot take down the Twin Towers, its just sceintificly impossible, unless of course the whole plane was filled with C4. Just because something explodes, dosent automatically mean it will destroy everything

 

That dosen't mean anything. It could just give people a reason to believe they did it again, dispite the scientific evidence

Well then science is wrong on that front. We can't say that something is scientifically impossible when it has already occurred. Planes hit the towers, and they fell. Science was wrong, because the towers still fell. There was no evidence of any explosives or C4.

I actually think that it was an inside-job, the government did that to justify middle east occupation, i've seen multiple documentaries about it, where you can clearly see that the towers aren't falling on a normal way, but part by part, as explosives do on big buildings that have to be destroyed.

I'm not saying that it exploded floor by floor, but it felt on a vertical direction, like if you'd hit the base of the building, if a plane crashes in a building, it will " cut " trought it, and make it fall in two parts, or at least on the side

 

"Documentaries" are hardly proof. I trust physics to explain what happened a whole lot more: http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm

 

tl;dr - the force of the top floors falling was too much for the lower floors to handle, causing it to collapse onto itself floor by floor. This is also the reason it fell downwards and not on its side - had the top floors never caved in, the entire towers never would have fallen.

So question, where are the documents you have to prove this, who is the person that came up with this theory and most importantly, what classified documents does the government has that they don't want us to know about?   

 

EDIT: Now maybe the government failed to take security measures, but in no way were they the ones that caused 9/11. 

 You don't need the documents, its the fact that its physically impossible for a Boeing 767 to destroy a building like the World Trade Center that exposes them.

Well then science is wrong on that front. We can't say that something is scientifically impossible when it has already occurred. Planes hit the towers, and they fell. Science was wrong, because the towers still fell. There was no evidence of any explosives or C4.

Im not saying the planes where filled with C4, im saying is that the "Official Story" is complete bullshit and something more sinister is at work. Yes I know the towers did indeed fall, but im sure as hell it wasn't because of the Airplanes

3. Even if the steel beams did melt, the collapse of the top floors of the World Trade Center would not cause the rest of the building to crumble with it. Even if it did, it would certainly not fall straight down to the ground like we saw in 9/11

 

if your gonna refute me please back it up with some evidence. I'm not trying to be mean here, for all we know you could be right.

And there's evidence refuting this as well (in my last post), but I fail to see any evidence of your own about any of your points.

 

"Documentaries" are hardly proof. I trust physics to explain what happened a whole lot more: http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm

 

tl;dr - the force of the top floors falling was too much for the lower floors to handle, causing it to collapse onto itself floor by floor. This is also the reason it fell downwards and not on its side - had the top floors never caved in, the entire towers never would have fallen.

That dosent make any sense, that would mean the world trade center couldn't support its own weight, thus, it would have been impossible for the towers to be built in the first place.

And there's evidence refuting this as well (in my last post), but I fail to see any evidence of your own about any of your points.

The lower part of the World Trade center was perfectly fine, the top part would have just fallen off

That dosent make any sense, that would mean the world trade center couldn't support its own weight, thus, it would have been impossible for the towers to be built in the first place.

You failed to read the entire article:

Buildings are designed to be stronger than needed, so as to be able to endure wind, earthquakes, and so on. Usually, having the building able to withstand loads a factor of three to five times the actual (static) load is considered adequate for safety. The first floor is simply overwhelmed with a force of 31 times the static load.

Here's an example used in the article to make it easy for anyone to understand:

Most people can hold a 50-pound bag of rocks, However, the impact of that same bag, dropped from 12 feet up, would almost certainly be lethal.

You failed to read the entire article:

Here's an example used in the article to make it easy for anyone to understand:

 

Good point, but you have yet to explain the phone calls, world trade center 7, lack of footage of the pentagon, flight 92, and the fact the that jet fuel cant melt steel beams.

Good point, but you have yet to explain the phone calls, world trade center 7, lack of footage of the pentagon, flight 92, and the fact the that jet fuel cant melt steel beams.

I don't plan to, I was just making an argument for that specific point, which is commonly used by conspiracy theorists and is easily dis-proven.

I don't plan to, I was just making an argument for that specific point, which is commonly used by conspiracy theorists and is easily dis-proven.

at least you provided some good evidence though

I can tell you that the 9/11 attacks were NOT an inside job, prior to 9/11 I was a member of NYPD's joint terrorism task force we went around the city taking down terrorist who had explosives in their possession, we knew an attack was imminent on 9/11 but lacked enough intel to stop it so NO,the attacks were not an inside job the were as stated acts of terror carried out by members of al quada period.As for the way the buildings imploded that was part of the design structure which failed due to the excessive heat from the burning jet fuel taking down the upper floors.

There is a difference between letting it happen, and actually doing it. No, it wasn't an inside job

I struggle with 9/11. I've very pro-governments, I hate to believe that the US Gov. did this, my belief is that the attack on the twin towers was done by Al-Qaeda, nothing suspicious there.

 

However the attack on the pentagon is another matter

 

• The pilot who managed to fly a 757 into the pentagon, (following a steep dive & turn, manoeuvring the aircraft with such precision that he didn't even hit the ground, flying 20 ft off the ground), "Mr. Hanjour failed flying tests, dropped out of flight school twice, and on one occasion, a mere three weeks before the September attacks, was denied permission to rent a Cessna because he showed an almost complete lack of knowledge of aircraft instrumentation to rental personnel". Now one does not simply suddenly learn how to operate a 757 with such precision in three weeks, that's so highly improbable, it's just downright ridiculous to accept that.
• BUT if that were ignored my next issue is the aircraft wings: they disappeared completely, now aluminium melts at 660c, the temperatures at the Pentagon were 500c, thats 160c difference, despite this absolutely 0 trace was left of the two aircraft wings, the fuel is contained only up to a certain part of the wing, mainly its stored in the roots of the wing. The wings cannot bend backwards into the fuselage as it was claimed due to the tensile strength of the wings, they just snap, not continue to bend.
• No data from the black boxes? What?! Really?! I'm sorry, they can withstand all sorts of impact:  
• Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature.
• 
• No wreckage whatsoever of the aircraft, where did the tail-fin go? 
• 
• The images are of Helios 522 & Air France 447, both which crashed into more resistant surfaces (Mountain and sea) than the AA77, yet despite this, no tail-fin remains. In particular might I note the incident of AF447, which plummeted into the sea at a descent range of between 8,623.1 to 12,173.9 ft / min still had debris large enough.  The AA77 had the building to dissipate its energy, which should mean that more wreckage should have survived. but mysteriously no significant evidence remains.

I don't know what happened in 9/11, I won't find out either:  the US Government will not release any document which will prove them to be responsible, especially for such a large death toll, after an invasion of a region as well. I do have a distrust of the official 9/11 which I HOPE I am wrong in, I refuse to believe that the US Gov. would have been responsible for the death of nearly 3000 people. All I'm saying is a lot is wrong with the report for the AA77.

 

I get the whole miscellaneous forum and all, but why bother posting stuff like this? 

Why would people ask this? It's fucking common sense!

 

Even though Government may be a dick, I don't think they spend time flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people!!!!!

 

Maybe in GTA 5, but not in real-life.

 

I struggle with 9/11. I've very pro-governments, I hate to believe that the US Gov. did this, my belief is that the attack on the twin towers was done by Al-Qaeda, nothing suspicious there.

 

However the attack on the pentagon is another matter

• The pilot who managed to fly a 757 into the pentagon, (following a steep dive & turn, manoeuvring the aircraft with such precision that he didn't even hit the ground, flying 20 ft off the ground), "Mr. Hanjour failed flying tests, dropped out of flight school twice, and on one occasion, a mere three weeks before the September attacks, was denied permission to rent a Cessna because he showed an almost complete lack of knowledge of aircraft instrumentation to rental personnel". Now one does not simply suddenly learn how to operate a 757 with such precision in three weeks, that's so highly improbable, it's just downright ridiculous to accept that.
• BUT if that were ignored my next issue is the aircraft wings: they disappeared completely, now aluminium melts at 660c, the temperatures at the Pentagon were 500c, thats 160c difference, despite this absolutely 0 trace was left of the two aircraft wings, the fuel is contained only up to a certain part of the wing, mainly its stored in the roots of the wing. The wings cannot bend backwards into the fuselage as it was claimed due to the tensile strength of the wings, they just snap, not continue to bend.
• No data from the black boxes? What?! Really?! I'm sorry, they can withstand all sorts of impact:  
• Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature.
• '>
• No wreckage whatsoever of the aircraft, where did the tail-fin go? 
• '>'>
• The images are of Helios 522 & Air France 447, both which crashed into more resistant surfaces (Mountain and sea) than the AA77, yet despite this, no tail-fin remains. In particular might I note the incident of AF447, which plummeted into the sea at a descent range of between 8,623.1 to 12,173.9 ft / min still had debris large enough.  The AA77 had the building to dissipate its energy, which should mean that more wreckage should have survived. but mysteriously no significant evidence remains.

I don't know what happened in 9/11, I won't find out either:  the US Government will not release any document which will prove them to be responsible, especially for such a large death toll, after an invasion of a region as well. I do have a distrust of the official 9/11 which I HOPE I am wrong in, I refuse to believe that the US Gov. would have been responsible for the death of nearly 3000 people. All I'm saying is a lot is wrong with the report for the AA77.

Your faulty assumption is assuming those crashes were more violent than AA77. The Pentagon is reinforced concrete. The section AA77 hit had actually just been further reinforced. It hit it pretty much dead-on, at maximum speed. In contrast, neither other flight was at high speed, because in neither other case were the pilots trying to fly at maximum speed into a wall. AF477 crashed at ~120 knots. AA77 crashed at ~470. AF477 hit water; AA77 hit reinforced concrete head-on. I can't find crash speeds for Helios 522, but seeing as it was a properly-trimmed flight with both engines flamed out, I doubt it crashed at speeds much higher than AF477 (it didn't plummet out of the sky, it was in a glide controlled by the autopilot).

Seriously, here's what happens when thin aluminum flies at high speed into reinforced concrete (notice how it pretty much totally disintegrates):

Black boxes are not infinitely strong. They're rated for accelerations of 3400g for 6.5 milliseconds. Past that point, mechanical stress can break open a box. They are not designed for aircraft flying at high speed into a solid wall, because accidental crashes generally do not happen that way (pilots aren't going that fast at low altitude, as a general rule). Their fire rating is assuming the box is intact; the bottom of the CVR case separated from the rest, allowing the fire to enter and make the tape unrecoverable (the FDR data was recoverable, and was recovered).

As for tail sections: Plane tails are not invincible. With a lower-velocity impact, the tail has a better chance at surviving. AA77 was higher-velocity than AA477 by a factor of 4. Kinetic energy goes with velocity squared, so it had 16 times more energy (controlling for mass) than AA477. Don't expect the crashes to be identical.