9/11

If it doesn't fit .. It fits here .. - -

9/11

Postby RaptorF22 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:41 pm

What do you guys think about this one?
Please no politics, this is about the scientific aspects of 9/11. ;)
Please post your thoughts below! :)
Here are some great resources on this topic:

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Image
User avatar
RaptorF22
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1645
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby FSX_Dude » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:45 pm

Faked (not planes but missles with editing process)
I don't need a Sign.....wait......Damn!
User avatar
FSX_Dude
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: Near M34

Re: 9/11

Postby wifesaysno » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:36 pm

Im an aeronautical engineer student and I have to say, those were planes used in the attacks. There is just too much eye-witness evidence and the dynamics of the damage indicate an aircraft. We have discussed the failure of the structural steel in my materials, physics, statics, and dynamics courses and I have yet to see any evidence NOT supporting a plane hit. Ill quick focus on a common point 'against' the gov't story of the collapse of the towers is that the fire would not melt steel. The truth is you do not need to melt steel to make it fail. As you heat a material to even 30% of the melting temp the material begins re-crystalization and crystal growth. During this process the yield strength drastically begins to decrease as ductility drastically increases. So an individual steel beam that is being heated for a sustained period of time (30min is more than enough) plus the increased load due to fewer beams (some were destroyed from the impact) leads to plastic deformation of the steel. As time goes on, the strain (deformation) weakens the material as well as the longer the steel is heated the more crystal growth and reforming occurs leading to a progressively weaker material. So the steel was bound to fail from that hit. A missile impact and detonation would have been much MUCH more impact, just look up videos of missiles hitting targets. Also the way the towers collapsed follows the gov't story. A couple of floors fail, this leads to the floors above it literally falling on the floor beneath (a dozen or so floors of a building falling is a LOT of kinetic energy!) so the floors beneath, the hit causes them to fail leading to it to fall with the others leading to the next floor to fail from the hit and so on. Domino effect. As far as the Pentagon hit is concerned, I first thought it was a smaller aircraft like a corporate jet, but I found out the Pentagon is a freaking bunker so it makes sense its reinforced structure would shatter an aluminum aircraft. Watch the video of a F-4 being fired into a re-inforced cement wall. The F-4 simple evaporates! There is more I can say but Ill keep it as short as possible for now unless someone asks.

I agree, PLEASE no political stuff!!! Nothing about Big Brother either!!! 
wifesaysno
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby wifesaysno » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:38 pm

Here is the F-4vs wall video I was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
wifesaysno
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Jayhawk Jake » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:05 pm

I watched, live on tv, an aircraft hit the world trade center.  End of discussion.

Honestly, I think it's disrespectful to even consider that it was a missile instead of a plane with passengers.

Unfortunately, like the moon landing, there will always be people who refuse to accept the truth.  I guess if it makes them feel better then I'll let them continue to live in denial, but we do NOT need to discuss this here, or anywhere.
Image
AMD Athalon X6 1090T 3.2Ghz::EVGA nVidia GeForce GTX 560Ti 2GB GDDR5::8GB RAM
*The opinions expressed above are my own and are in no way representative of fact or opinion of any ot
User avatar
Jayhawk Jake
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: 9/11

Postby wifesaysno » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:16 pm

True Jayhawk. However, there are enough people that doubt it and considering the doubt entails a plot by our own gov't, its pretty serious. So I think as long as it is kept analytical then those that want to discuss it could. Doubting is not always a bad thing, it leads to further investigation. The problem is we are talking about thousands of lives and really the fate of a nation so I can fully understand why we almost should not discuss it. I cannot stand by though and not speak up if I hear theories that are questionable to me.
wifesaysno
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Ang2dogs » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:17 am

[quote]I watched, live on tv, an aircraft hit the world trade center.
User avatar
Ang2dogs
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:38 am
Location: black mountain hills of Dakota

Re: 9/11

Postby RaptorF22 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:42 am

[quote][quote]I watched, live on tv, an aircraft hit the world trade center.
Image
User avatar
RaptorF22
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1645
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: 9/11

Postby Groundbound1 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:00 am

Regardless of how or why you think it happened, the common truth in both camps is that it DID happen, and a lot of innocent people lost their lives that day. This whole thread is in incredibly poor taste.
Last edited by Groundbound1 on Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Groundbound1
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Michigan, USA


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 487 guests