The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[leftysergeant]

unfortunately, plane fuel tanks in the thin aluminium skin wings are filled with jet fuel, not coke. if a real plane,(not a cartoon one), did fly into the towers, the fuel would explode on impact.

NO.

this is why John Skilling, the chief engineer who built the towers made the walls from 2in thick box girder steel...

Those were core columns, the perimeter columns were much lighter and just bolted together.

...and claimed they would survive the impact and fire from a hit by a 707, which, although slightly smaller than a 757, had a higher cruise speed and therefore more kinetic energy.

Horse hockey. He said it would penetrate, but that it would be no worse that putting a pencil through a screen door.

Let's compare your theory to a real world example, although on a smaller scale. We can assume that most aircraft would behave about the same way hitting a perpendicular steel surface.

By scale, the Betty that hit the Hinsdale was about equivalent to the 757s that hit the WTC.

The Hinsdale came out on top. The engine was destroyed, but they could be towed to a safe port. All the deaths on board were the result of immediate damage.

 

[MikeW]

Can you source John Skilling claiming the towers would survive the fires that follow the impact?

I suspect it's a reference to this article.

 

[000063]

unfortunately, plane fuel tanks in the thin aluminium skin wings are filled with jet fuel, not coke. if a real plane,(not a cartoon one), did fly into the towers, the fuel would explode on impact. this is why John Skilling, the chief engineer who built the towers made the walls from 2in thick box girder steel and claimed they would survive the impact and fire from a hit by a 707, which, although slightly smaller than a 757, had a higher cruise speed and therefore more kinetic energy....

1. Provide calculations.
2. The WTC was hit by 767s.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
3. It was claimed they would withstand such an impact. For obvious reasons, it was never tested.
4. The claim was that they'd withstand the impact, not the impact and the subsequent fire.

 

[George 152]

unfortunately, plane fuel tanks in the thin aluminium skin wings are filled with jet fuel, not coke. if a real plane,(not a cartoon one), did fly into the towers, the fuel would explode on impact. this is why John Skilling, the chief engineer who built the towers made the walls from 2in thick box girder steel and claimed they would survive the impact and fire from a hit by a 707, which, although slightly smaller than a 757, had a higher cruise speed and therefore more kinetic energy.
why not fill the can with jet fuel and try the stunt again?

Seldom do I see more errors in a claim than this one..
The fuel did explode but only when an ignition source became present... see in the videos where there is a large fireball opposite the impact site...
No-one made such a claim about high speed aircraft impact and the aircraft hijacked by the mad muslims weren't on the drawing board when the Twin Towers were constructed...

 

[silver birch]

Can you source John Skilling claiming the towers would survive the fires that follow the impact? I doubt he ever said such a thing.

The towers for sure did survive the impacts. But not because they "made the walls from 2in thick box girder steel". It seems you believe that John Skilling's assessment that the towers would survive implies that the impacted columns would survive, or that their thickness was predicated by the impact scenario? Well, they weren't designed and built with plane impacts in mind. Their thickness was predicated by the vertical (gravity) and wind loads they had to expect. Skilling much later, long after design was finished, determined that a 707 cutting out the perimeter columns it meets would not make the building collapse, as other columns not hit by the plane would take and survive the redistributed loads.

So please, can you source John Skilling claiming the towers would survive the fires that follow the impact?

New pearl harbour revisited, by David Ray Griffin,
page 12-
NIST's final report put out in 2005, said that the building codes for buildings to be used by the general population, do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact. NIST thereby implied that the twin towers had not been designed to withstand the impact of a large airliner.
however, a 1964 document, which was in the files of the port authority of new york and new jersey, summarized a structural analysis of the twin towers carried by the firm of worthington, skilling, helle and jackson. one of the points said,
the buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner, (boeing 707) travelling at 600 mph. analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse.
in january 2001, frank de martini, who had been the on-site construction manager for the world trade centre, said of one of the towers, the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners.
those 2 statements led to one of the questions to which NIST responded to in a 2006 document, answers to frequently questions, namely, if the world centre towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts of 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
NIST, failing to acknowledge that the question was based partly on de martini's statement, replied that the port authority, indicated that the impact of a (single, not multiple) 707 aircraft was analized during the design stage of the wtc towers. by ignoring de martini's statement, NIST implied, with its bracketed words, that the question was based on faulty information.
then, in seeking to refute the idea that if a 707 would not induce collapse, neither would a 767, NIST said that, a boeing 767 aircraft.... is about 20% bigger than a 707. that fact alone would not necessarily mean that a 767 would do more damage, as NIST itself acknowledged, the damage on 9/11 was caused by the large mass of the aircraft and their speed and momentum. in other words, speed as well as mass had to be considered. this point is crucial, because the 1964 analysis spoke of a 707 travelling at 600 mph, whereas the 767s that hit the north and south towers were reportedly travelling at only 440 and 540 mph. as a result the kinetic energy of the envisaged 707 would actually have been greater than the kinetic energy of the 767s, especially the one that hit the north tower, which was reportedly going only 440 mph. there was accordingly, no justification for NISTS's insinuation that the 767s, because of their greater weight, would have caused more damage than the envisaged 707s
another problem with NIST's argument was that it failed to acknowledge a STATEMENT BY JOHN SKILLING, who was responsible for the structural design of the twin towers. in 1963, after the bombing of the world trade centre, he said that, according to the analysis, if ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WERE TO SUFFER A STRIKE BY A JET PLANE LOADED WITH FUEL, THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD BE KILLED, BUT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE WOULD BE THERE.
NIST failed to provide any good reason to conclude that the impact of a 767 would have caused sufficient structural damage to help initiate collapse.

 

[000063]

New pearl harbour revisited, by David Ray Griffin,
page 12-[words]

Damage and fire. Not damage alone. And a 707 is not a 767. I already linked to the 911 myths page.

as a result the kinetic energy of the envisaged 707 would actually have been greater than the kinetic energy of the 767s, especially the one that hit the north tower, which was reportedly going only 440 mph. there was accordingly, no justification for NISTS's insinuation that the 767s, because of their greater weight, would have caused more damage than the envisaged 707s

Pop quiz; what is the kinetic energy of each? You do realize that an increase of 20% over the 707's weight means additional tons, right?

Your excerpt also uses the same "impact or fire" canard Truthers have been hearing for years, and does not source the quote.

 

[bynmdsue]

in 1963, after the bombing of the world trade centre

That seems important, how come it's not brought up more often?

Seriously though, the tragedy is that John Skilling didn't live long enough to see he was wrong.

 

[carlitos]

New pearl harbour revisited, by David Ray Griffin,
page 12-
NIST's final report put out in 2005, said that the building codes for buildings to be used by the general population, do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact. NIST thereby implied that the twin towers had not been designed to withstand the impact of a large airliner.
however, a 1964 document, which was in the files of the port authority of new york and new jersey, summarized a structural analysis of the twin towers carried by the firm of worthington, skilling, helle and jackson. one of the points said,
the buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner, (boeing 707) travelling at 600 mph. analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse.
in january 2001, frank de martini, who had been the on-site construction manager for the world trade centre, said of one of the towers, the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners.
those 2 statements led to one of the questions to which NIST responded to in a 2006 document, answers to frequently questions, namely, if the world centre towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts of 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
NIST, failing to acknowledge that the question was based partly on de martini's statement, replied that the port authority, indicated that the impact of a (single, not multiple) 707 aircraft was analized during the design stage of the wtc towers. by ignoring de martini's statement, NIST implied, with its bracketed words, that the question was based on faulty information.
then, in seeking to refute the idea that if a 707 would not induce collapse, neither would a 767, NIST said that, a boeing 767 aircraft.... is about 20% bigger than a 707. that fact alone would not necessarily mean that a 767 would do more damage, as NIST itself acknowledged, the damage on 9/11 was caused by the large mass of the aircraft and their speed and momentum. in other words, speed as well as mass had to be considered. this point is crucial, because the 1964 analysis spoke of a 707 travelling at 600 mph, whereas the 767s that hit the north and south towers were reportedly travelling at only 440 and 540 mph. as a result the kinetic energy of the envisaged 707 would actually have been greater than the kinetic energy of the 767s, especially the one that hit the north tower, which was reportedly going only 440 mph. there was accordingly, no justification for NISTS's insinuation that the 767s, because of their greater weight, would have caused more damage than the envisaged 707s
another problem with NIST's argument was that it failed to acknowledge a STATEMENT BY JOHN SKILLING, who was responsible for the structural design of the twin towers. in 1963, after the bombing of the world trade centre, he said that, according to the analysis, if ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WERE TO SUFFER A STRIKE BY A JET PLANE LOADED WITH FUEL, THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD BE KILLED, BUT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE WOULD BE THERE.NIST failed to provide any good reason to conclude that the impact of a 767 would have caused sufficient structural damage to help initiate collapse.

As for the highlighted part, that actually did happen. How in the hell would they have evacuated the building if it wasn't still there. Derp.

I have no trouble believe that DRG would include ALLCAPS in his books.

 

[beachnut]

unfortunately, plane fuel tanks in the thin aluminium skin wings are filled with jet fuel, not coke.

Not unfortunate, it is only a fact. You have no clue what physics is. Coke does not burn in a jet engine efficiently, no thrust, no go. Failure shows up in first sentence... and continues unabated. Let me guess, you are anti-science.

if a real plane,(not a cartoon one),

It was a real plane, to say otherwise is a sign of insanity at best. RADAR data confirms each plane at impact. Bet you don't do RADAR, like you don't do physics.

did fly into the towers, the fuel would explode on impact.

Wrong, the fuel has to be ignited by a heat source, the fuel would be at best room temperature, and will not light by itself; you need a source of heat, higher than (i believe off the top of my head) 430 C to auto-ignite the jet fuel. There is no source of 430 C in the wings or when hitting the building. The source is the engine. When we crash our jets, we are by procedure to cut the engines prior to impact; not done on 911, so we have the engines to ignite the fuel, and this happens after impact, after the plane is in the WTC. You failed on this topic, can you mess up more? Worse? yes

this is why John Skilling, the chief engineer who built the towers

Oops, Robertson was the chief structural engineer, you failed again. Your google must be stuck on 911 sources, which are false, and you end up posting moronic claptrap out of ignorance. Don't let that stop you.

made the walls from 2in thick box girder steel and

Oops, the thickness of the wall went down to 1/4 inch. You failed again, you got the lower thickness correct, and failed on the impact zones. Poor showing so far.

claimed they would survive the impact and fire from a hit by a 707, which, although slightly smaller than a 757, had a higher cruise speed and therefore more kinetic energy.

Wrong again.

The towers were not designed to survive an imapct at cruise speed, they were designed to stop an impact at 180 mph, low on fuel, lost in the FOG, trying to land. The most likely accident from a plane. Can you get something right? do you try?

You say 707 has a higher cruise speed than a 767. Wrong again. At sea level, like where the WTC lives! The 707 maximum speed, thus the maximum cruise speed allowed for continuous operating was 390 mph, the 767 comes in at 414 mph. Oops again. You failed to do the research, and spew nonsense based on delusions you googled from liars and morons.

Then the big lie you try to make. The 707 had more kinetic energy than the 767. You failed to give the kinetic energy for the design of a 707 impact at the WTC. E=1/2mv² - the design impact for a 707 was equal to 184 pounds of TNT.

The impacts of 11 and 175 were 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT.

You failed to do the physics, and your lack of knowledge is exposed.

Kinetic energy:
Design impact 707 - 386,000,000 joules
Flight 11 - 2,840,000,000 joules
Flight 175 - 4,380,000,000 joules

You don't do physics, you don't do rational research.

why not fill the can with jet fuel and try the stunt again?

Will the physics change? You are joking, right? You are pretending to be a 911 truther who can't do math.

New pearl harbour revisited, by David Ray Griffin,
page 12-
... the 1964 analysis spoke of a 707 travelling at 600 mph, whereas the 767s that hit the north and south towers were reportedly travelling at only 440 and 540 mph. as a result the kinetic energy of the envisaged 707 would actually have been greater than the kinetic energy of the 767s, especially the one that hit the north tower, which was reportedly going only 440 mph. there was accordingly, no justification for NISTS's insinuation that the 767s, because of their greater weight, would have caused more damage than the envisaged 707s....

Never get a theologian who is insane on 911 issues, a guy who write books filled with poppycock made up out of ignorance to supply your information on physics and engineering. Try an engineer next time who is not a truther, let alone a person who has no clue what physics is, or how to do proper research. It appears if DRG is smart, he is making up lies to sell to morons. He is a snake-oil salesman, his snake-oil is lies filling books you think are evidence for your claims, which are only delusions.

The impact design was 180 mph, not 600.
The white paper was a marketing tool, not from the engineer who did the study. The white paper is wrong, the speed was 180 mph, not 600 mph, the white paper is not factual, it is bragging, marketing, BS. With research you could have figured out DRG spreads lies and delusions.

If you want to know the design impact speed, you don't look at a white paper designed for marketing propaganda, you go to Robertson who did the design.

Why do you fail to do the research?

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bri...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx

http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345 Why do you fail to figure out 911 given the answers and 10 years to identify DRG is a fraud? Gullible?

 

[ozeco41]

New pearl harbour revisited, by David Ray Griffin,
page 12-...

Why are we wasting bandwidth considering the dishonesties of DRG?

Probably more to the point why is silver birch quoting this excerpt which is self debunking.

Let me just illustrate a couple of points - I have left what seem to be multiple misspellings in place without marking them "[sic]". Ditto the all capitals emphasis which is probably not in the original:

NIST's final report put out in 2005, said that the building codes for buildings to be used by the general population, do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact....

Probably true - even if we don't pick on the present tense "do" when "did" could be more appropriate in the 9/11 setting.

...NIST thereby implied that the twin towers had not been designed to withstand the impact of a large airliner....

False implication BUT probably intended by DRG to deflect from the real issue. Both towers withstood the aircraft impacts. So two sentences which combined show DRG to be an untruthful person following a stock standard tactic of truther dishonesty.

Need we go further???

...however, a 1964 document, which was in the files of the port authority of new york and new jersey, summarized a structural analysis of the twin towers carried by the firm of worthington, skilling, helle and jackson. one of the points said,
the buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner, (boeing 707) travelling at 600 mph. analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse...

...so what? both towers did withstand the initial impacts sustaining damage which did not result in collapse from that impact damage.

...in january 2001, frank de martini, who had been the on-site construction manager for the world trade centre, said of one of the towers, the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners....

We don't know if that was true but it is only de Martinis opinion. (Or even worse - DRG's opinion which he lacks qualification to give??)

...those 2 statements led to one of the questions to which NIST responded to in a 2006 document, answers to frequently questions, namely, if the world centre towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts of 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?...

an outright lie by DRG - the the world centre towers were NOT designed to withstand multiple impacts of 707 aircraft as his preceding sentences have just established. Does he think we cannot read successive sentences???

...NIST, failing to acknowledge that the question was based partly on de martini's statement, replied that the port authority, indicated that the impact of a (single, not multiple) 707 aircraft was analized during the design stage of the wtc towers. by ignoring de martini's statement, NIST implied, with its bracketed words, that the question was based on faulty information....

The premise is false so the attempt to attribute an implication to NIST fails.

...then, in seeking to refute the idea that if a 707 would not induce collapse, neither would a 767, NIST said that, a boeing 767 aircraft.... is about 20% bigger than a 707. that fact alone would not necessarily mean that a 767 would do more damage, as NIST itself acknowledged, the damage on 9/11 was caused by the large mass of the aircraft and their speed and momentum. in other words, speed as well as mass had to be considered. this point is crucial, because the 1964 analysis spoke of a 707 travelling at 600 mph, whereas the 767s that hit the north and south towers were reportedly travelling at only 440 and 540 mph. as a result the kinetic energy of the envisaged 707 would actually have been greater than the kinetic energy of the 767s, especially the one that hit the north tower, which was reportedly going only 440 mph. there was accordingly, no justification for NISTS's insinuation that the 767s, because of their greater weight, would have caused more damage than the envisaged 707s...

More attempts to "prove NIST wrong". Why do truthers lose track of their objectives??? That aside the whole mish-mash of this paragraph is premised on the implication that the aircraft impact damage caused the collapse. Fail.

...another problem with NIST's argument was that it failed to acknowledge a STATEMENT BY JOHN SKILLING, who was responsible for the structural design of the twin towers. in 1963, after the bombing of the world trade centre, he said that, according to the analysis, if ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WERE TO SUFFER A STRIKE BY A JET PLANE LOADED WITH FUEL, THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD BE KILLED, BUT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE WOULD BE THERE....

this clown gets sillier,. Do people really buy his books? Whether or not DRG could establish any relevance of Skillings 1963 claim so what? He was either wrong outright or has been quote mined. Not my problem to determine which - a failure of argument by DRG. And the whole thing is a side track anyway - the buildings fell and NIST was explaining why NOT explaining why some other commentator was wrong (if he was). Shame DRG???

...NIST failed to provide any good reason to conclude that the impact of a 767 would have caused sufficient structural damage to help initiate collapse.

Trivial faulty logic not worth comment - except the deceitful way it is used - probably to mislead the gullible non-critical readers.

 

[leftysergeant]

New pearl harbour revisited, by David Ray Griffin,
page 12-
NIST's final report put out in 2005, said that the building codes for buildings to be used by the general population, do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact. NIST thereby implied that the twin towers had not been designed to withstand the impact of a large airliner.

Well, DUH! They just had a look at their plans later as an after thought and concluded they were right.

What that pompous ass Griffin misses is that engineers are not always right. Maybe we should require him to watch endless loops of the collapse of Galloping Gertie for a day or two.

And don't get in my face about calling the nattering poppingjay a pompous ass. He has strayed into my area of expertise with no cedentials of any kind to do so.

 

[BasqueArch]

New pearl harbour revisited, by David Ray Griffin,
page 12-
......

DRG doen't know which end of the nail gun is up. The gullible quoting the clueless.

" Respected theologian David Ray Griffin detailed evidence of controlled demolition in an April 18, 2005 address to the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which was aired twice on C-SPAN2's BookTV. Griffin's remarks included:

.....Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.​

This from Gage's web site. What an embarrassment to rational architects. He's like your crazy masturbatring old aunt at the party.
Do you know why this claim is cuckoo?
I didn't think so.
​

 

[bynmdsue]

Do you know why this claim is cuckoo?
I didn't think so.

A personal favorite of mine.

 

[silver birch]

As for the highlighted part, that actually did happen. How in the hell would they have evacuated the building if it wasn't still there. Derp.

so we agree that actually did happen- the towers survived the hit by an airliner, that is if they were hit by one, which is another theory. which ever way you look at it they were standing for some time, in the case of the north tower, almost an hour. why did the north tower hit first collapse second?
so, the fires were starting to go out then the demolition started. the demolition also killed 343 firefighters who entered the towers expecting the steel framed building to remain upright.
have a look at firefighters for 9/11 truth site. there is a statement by a NY fire chief who calls the official explanation impossible.

 

[beachnut]

so we agree that actually did happen- the towers survived the hit by an airliner, that is if they were hit by one, which is another theory. which ever way you look at it they were standing for some time, in the case of the north tower, almost an hour. why did the north tower hit first collapse second?
so, the fires were starting to go out then the demolition started. the demolition also killed 343 firefighters who entered the towers expecting the steel framed building to remain upright.
have a look at firefighters for 9/11 truth site. there is a statement by a NY fire chief who calls the official explanation impossible.

You can't do the physics, fire science and engineering, so you spew delusions, repeat lies and spread moronic claims. Good job, 10 years and you have no clue. What is your encore? More lies? Can't wait for Flight 93 and 77 claims - which failed lies will you recycle out of ignorance and gullibility.


Why did one tower collapse before the other. The one burning for a shorter time, collapse first, the one hit second collapsed first. PHYSICS, I warned you about physics, and here you are no clue.

Flight 11 hit with 7 times the impact energy of the design for a 707. 175 hit second, it was 11 times the energy of the design 707 impact! This is what we call significant in engineering terms, an order of magnitude bigger than design. You should have gone to engineering school to give you the tools you are missing, and for something to think about instead of the woo you dish out.

First aircraft hits with the energy equal of 1300 pounds of TNT, a BIG impact, it took out 6 core columns after easily entering the building which was only designed for 184 pounds of TNT impact.

Second aircraft hit with energy of 2000 pounds of TNT, takes out 10 core columns! Physics, something you don't do; you must be too busy finding lies to post, and quote-mining your way to false claims.

Thus the second impact did more damage, which caused the collapse; in addition there was more building above the impact zone, more mass, more stress, etc... engineering stuff. You might want to ask an engineer, only 0.01 percent support your claims, and those guys are nuts.

There was no demolition, you are spreading lies, made up by idiots you googled.

 

[silver birch]

as a twoofer believing in the 'no planes theory' I feel I have become sidetracked.
there is no evidence the planes were hijacked, there is no cctv pictures of the hijackers at the airport the planes departed from. if the hijackers were on the planes they would not have got into the cockpit. airlines have been prepared for years to combat hijackers, no code 7600 (hijack) was received, which would have taken the pilot seconds. so the hijackers had 'boxcutters', short bladed knives. on an average airline flight there would be many male adult passengers, could the hijackers take them all on? if I was there, a piece of luggage from the overhead rack would have been thrown to their head hard.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=channel_video_title

oh, what about the phone calls?
what about the phone calls,
listen to the recording of the call from the flight attendent on flight 93 to her husband, who does not think it is genuine, it is obvious she is reading from a script under pressure, and is almost certainly not airborne
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJzoGD_zsiM&feature=channel_video_title
the most obvious lie is the pentagon story. the 5 frames of the security video do not show an airliner, hanjour, who was supposed to be piloting it could not handle a cessna, according to his flight school instructor. experienced pilots on pilots for 9/11 truth site say they could not make the manoevre 77 was supposed to have made. if it did it would pull 10g and break up. many witnesses arrived at the scene in a few minutes and did not see any wreckage.

 

[silver birch]

You can't do the physics, fire science and engineering, so you spew delusions, repeat lies and spread moronic claims. Good job, 10 years and you have no clue. What is your encore? More lies? Can't wait for Flight 93 and 77 claims - which failed lies will you recycle out of ignorance and gullibility.


Why did one tower collapse before the other. The one burning for a shorter time, collapse first, the one hit second collapsed first. PHYSICS, I warned you about physics, and here you are no clue.

Flight 11 hit with 7 times the impact energy of the design for a 707. 175 hit second, it was 11 times the energy of the design 707 impact! This is what we call significant in engineering terms, an order of magnitude bigger than design. You should have gone to engineering school to give you the tools you are missing, and for something to think about instead of the woo you dish out.

First aircraft hits with the energy equal of 1300 pounds of TNT, a BIG impact, it took out 6 core columns after easily entering the building which was only designed for 184 pounds of TNT impact.

Second aircraft hit with energy of 2000 pounds of TNT, takes out 10 core columns! Physics, something you don't do; you must be too busy finding lies to post, and quote-mining your way to false claims.

Thus the second impact did more damage, which caused the collapse; in addition there was more building above the impact zone, more mass, more stress, etc... engineering stuff. You might want to ask an engineer, only 0.01 percent support your claims, and those guys are nuts.

There was no demolition, you are spreading lies, made up by idiots you googled.

you didn't have long to wait for flight 93 and 77.
93, thats the one where the terrorists bandana and flight attendents id must have been flung out of the window just before the plane disappeared into the abandoned mine at shanksville

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

you didn't have long to wait for flight 93 and 77.
93, thats the one where the terrorists bandana and flight attendents id must have been flung out of the window just before the plane disappeared into the abandoned mine at shanksville

.. and left a huge crater with debris everywhere. Isn't much of a disappearing act.

 

[Oystein]

...
have a look at firefighters for 9/11 truth site. there is a statement by a NY fire chief who calls the official explanation impossible.

Link, name and quote, please?
Last time we researched this website, there wasn't even a single plain firefighter from NY anywhere to be found with anything that would support their case.

 

[beachnut]

you didn't have long to wait for flight 93 and 77.
93, thats the one where the terrorists bandana and flight attendents id must have been flung out of the window just before the plane disappeared into the abandoned mine at shanksville

Add aircraft accident investigation to the subjects you have no clue. We find things not burned, not smashed in aircraft accidents similar to the "on purpose murder" on 911, by 19 terrorists you can't comprehend. You are awash in ignorance and lies, and you don't seem to mind being wrong. You act like spreading lies is honorable. Good for you, your delusions permeate you completely. Better to happy and delusional, than rational and face the everyday problems. I envy your ignorance and gullibility, since it cost nothing to buy ideas, unless you bought the DRG books; then you were taken. Why did you come to a skeptics forum, when you fall for lies so easily?
I have investigated aircraft accidents, fatal accidents, and some articles survive as if they were new. You have no clue on this subject, you have not attended one class on aircraft accident investigation, whereas I went to USC for my education as a board president and aircraft accident investigator; beats google U. And I am average.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/AircraftCourseOrg800.jpg
Why have you failed to educate yourself?

The plane did not disappear, you are spreading more lies. Why do you lie? Why do you repeat moronic claims? Why? Because you have no clue what happen on 911 and can't do rational reality based research. And you are proud of it.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris22sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11c.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris12.jpg
Oops, flight 93 parts, you lied, 93 did not disappear into a mine, you lied! Why do you lie?

The cool part of your failure. If you are smart, you will recover for this momentary period of repeating lies. But so far your posts are not indicative of someone who will find the ladder of knowledge to climb out of the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth. You may be lost forever in ignorance and bias. Spreading lies, being disrespectful of those who died on 911.

... there is no evidence the planes were hijacked, there is no cctv pictures of the hijackers at the airport the planes departed from.

Yes there are, you are a liar. Why do you lie?

...if the hijackers were on the planes they would not have got into the cockpit. airlines have been prepared for years to combat hijackers,

Wrong, it was easy to get into cockpits on 911, you must be too young to have flown before 911. Wrong again. Add flying to your list of no clues.

... no code 7600 (hijack) was received, which would have taken the pilot seconds.

We put in the code when we have time; we actually use the RADIO and tell ATC we are hijacked. But when our throats are cut in a barbaric act of murder, we can't do much more than die. Dead pilots don't set the code, and pilots use the RADIO first, no need to squawk the code, except to tell ATC when WE CAN'T TALK!

Dead pilots can't set the code! Alive pilots use the Radio, and tell ATC, we talk first, squawk when we can't talk! You have no clue so far, why are you so ignorant on pilot procedures? Did you fail to research this too?

... so the hijackers had 'boxcutters', short bladed knives. on an average airline flight there would be many male adult passengers, could the hijackers take them all on?

They used mace or something to keep people back. Did you try to research this? The crew told headquarters about this, you are really pathetic on this subject. How rude of you to fail to check out the last words of the crew! How sick are you?

You come with lies and don't try to be skeptical of the lies you fell for. How sad.

... if I was there, a piece of luggage from the overhead rack would have been thrown to their head hard.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=channel_video_title

Once again you fail to understand much. The standard hijacking mentality before 911 was to sit and be quiet, not to attract attention. You don't read much, add that to your list of things you don't understand.

...oh, what about the phone calls?
what about the phone calls,
listen to the recording of the call from the flight attendent on flight 93 to her husband, who does not think it is genuine, it is obvious she is reading from a script under pressure, and is almost certainly not airborne
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJzoGD_zsiM&feature=channel_video_title

Making fun of the dead with lies. How sweet you must be.

... the most obvious lie is the pentagon story. the 5 frames of the security video do not show an airliner,

The 5 frames do show an airliner, and the video is from the parking lot camera, a fish-eye distorted lens, made to look at cars moving 5 mph, not planes at 488 knots. Another fact you fail to comprehend.

... hanjour, who was supposed to be piloting it could not handle a cessna, according to his flight school instructor.

Another lie. He could fly a Cessna, but the FBO required he took more instruction before he could rent a plane; he was not a good pilot. Bet he had a problem lining up straight, on a single course to land on a 40 foot wide runway. But you don't comprehend, his target was 900 feet wide! And any course could be used to hit it. He could not line up on single course, but he had infinite courses to hit the Pentagon. You failed again.

BTW, the instructor said he could hit the Pentagon, so you are spreading more lies. Good for you; spread those lies.

Note:, the flight with the instructor in the DC area, was a recon flight, he was seeing the local area so he could find the Pentagon on 911. You have no clue, you really are clueless and don't know it.

... experienced pilots on pilots for 9/11 truth site say they could not make the manoevre 77 was supposed to have made. if it did it would pull 10g and break up. many witnesses arrived at the scene in a few minutes and did not see any wreckage.

Wrong, the maneuver to hit the Pentagon only required 1.7 g average. You failed again due to math and physics. And that was only the last 3 to 5 seconds; the rest of the flying a moron could do, even Balsamo on a good day.

That is because Balsamo and his pilots for truth are the only pilots on the world who claim they can't hit the Pentagon in the safety of a simulator, a feat even the worse pilots in the world can do, Hani did it, but Balsamo can't, and he tells you he is not as good as a terrorists pilot. I took kids in a simulator, and they had no problem hitting a 150 foot target with no flight training, the first time. The WTC towers are a minimum of 207 feet wide and the Pentagon is 900 feet wide, or more. Big failure for Balsamo's pilots who can't figure out 911 and you.

You sure like to spread lies.

Wreckage from 77.\
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111pentagonplanedebris.jpg
You lie and say no wreckage, and here are thousands of parts! Why do you lie? Ignorance, or on purpose?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111pentagon77debris.jpg
Debris from 77 in the Pentagon; makes your claim a lie. Why do you lie?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pentagonbrickwall.jpg
more parts from 77, in the Penagon. Why do you lie?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77engine.jpg
Engine part from 77 found in the Pentagon.

FDR was found in the Pentagon. RADAR shows 77 at the Pentagon. ... you spread lies, and ignore evidence.

What is your next delusional lie based on ignorance? 10 years of failure, and you are pushing lies, and you don't know it. Why are you unable to comprehend RADAR?