Discussing something that will never be truly solved is disrespectful? I would say it's quite the contrary. Trying to find out what really happened to those civilians, bringing light to the situation.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

PoloFloyd wrote [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

The wings didn't reach the second floor.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Rhetoric wrote

PoloFloyd wrote

The wings didn't reach the second floor.

The image is not pointing out that there should be damage on the second floor but rather that there is no damage in that area from where the wings should have hit.

The attacks of 9/11 are highly debated. Some believe That the story the US government told is true, and others believe it is false. The attacks of 9/11 used 4 planes, hijacked by 19 militants. When all was said and done, there where three targets, three planes hit their target but the last one fell short. It is believed that the last one fell short because the passengers took control of the plane. 2,977 people died that day.

Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania flight 93 had crash landed in a field killing 40 passengers and crew members. It is believed that the plane did not reach it's intended destination made by the hijackers because the passengers of the plane tried to regain control of the aircraft. Within a few days of the attack, there where reports coming out about a second debris field about 3 miles from the crash site. Only 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers where able to be identified.

Onward to the Pentagon. The story that the United states government puts out says that a Flight 77 had hit the side of the pentagon, killing 125 pentagon workers, 59 passengers, and 5 hijackers. There where multiple cameras aimed at the pentagon, yet none of them can clearly see any plane hitting the pentagon. The FBI had confinscated 84 out of 85 security videos showing the attack on the pentagon. Looking at the released video, there is no plane wreckage flying around, and more importantly you do not get to see a plane hitting the pentagon. Getting down to the facts, flight 77 was a Boeing 757 which has a 124' wingspan, and a tail height of 44'6". The impact hole in the pentagon was estimated between 15-17' wide, a far cry from 124'. It is odd that the no parking sign right next to the hole is still there, there are still windows intact, and there is a lack of plane wreckage.

Looking up to the twin towers, we have two planes, and two towers. The government wants us to believe that the planes brought down the towers. There are multiple eye witnesses saying that there where explosions before the planes hit, infact there are videos proving that. Flight 11, and flight 175 where the designated planes to hit the towers. The first plane hit around the 80th floor, and about 18 minutes later another plane hits the other tower near the 60th floor. About 15 minutes after the terrorists hit the towers, the south tower collapses. At 10:30, the other tower collapses. All in all, nearly 3,000 people died including 343 firefighters and paramedics, 23 NYC police offivers, and 37 PA officers. There where about 10,000 people treated for injuries. First responders said they had seen molten metal, though it has been tried and true that burning jet fuel could not melt the towers' structure. Leslie Robertson designed the world trade centers, and said "I designed it for a 707 to hit it". She would go on to say that they "Could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners".

When looking at the tragic day, there are many facts you see when you look into the story that really make you question your government. For example, $15 million was given to investigate 9/11, but over $60 Million was spent investigating Bill Clintons affairs with Monica Lewinsky. More on topic, the US government said that there where 19 hijackers. BBC says that at least 7 of the listed hijackers are still alive. To add, there was no video evidence of all 19 hijackers bording the four planes. We can now clearly see that the story the US government release has its flaws, and things just don't add up.

Many of you say that the difference in heat from jet fuel burning and steel beams melting are different. They are but you are forgetting that when metal becomes that hot it becomes weak, therefore making it prone to buckle with the thousands of tons of building on top of it.

002 wrote

Rhetoric wrote

PoloFloyd wrote

The wings didn't reach the second floor.

The image is not pointing out that there should be damage on the second floor but rather that there is no damage in that area from where the wings should have hit.

There is damage in that area on the first floor. The picture is saying the wings should have hit the second floor, when they didn't or shouldn't have.
If the wings didn't hit there how can there be damage there?
People are acting like the wings are made of solid steel and that they're going to destroy anything in their path.

There is not near the damage that there should be. Also I want you to keep in mind that the plane didn't come in straight like that, it came in at an angle from the sky. At least that's what the government tells us. With no plane wreckage and a hole that a plane can't fit in, a plane did not hit that building. It was a bomb.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

002 wrote There is not near the damage that there should be. Also I want you to keep in mind that the plane didn't come in straight like that, it came in at an angle from the sky. At least that's what the government tells us. With no plane wreckage and a hole that a plane can't fit in, a plane did not hit that building. It was a bomb.

A visual comparison of the damage to the Pentagon and the Twin Towers suggests a problem with the absence of impressions on the Pentagon's facade of the wings or vertical tail section. However, there are some limitations to this comparison.

First, while the impact impressions in the towers extended to the ends of the wings, the steel columns were not severed by outermost portions of the wings. Rather the thin aluminum cladding was scored. Second, the curtain walls of the towers are hardly comparable to the heavy masonry walls of the Pentagon. While it can be argued whether the towers' walls were stronger, the mass of the walls is a very important factor in such a high-speed collision.

Despite uncertainties regarding the construction and reinforcement of the Pentagon's facade, it does seem peculiar that there is intact facing (limestone?) in areas where the wings and tail apparently would have impacted. If the impact speed was over 400 mph, as the ACSE report suggests, it would seem reasonable to assume that the wings and tail could have folded back and thereby avoided impacting those areas.
The lack of impressions of the plane's extremities is perhaps the strongest single piece of evidence adduced by supporters of no-Boeing theories. However, this is not evidence that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon. Rather it is evidence that no intact 757 crashed into the Pentagon's facade. If the extremities of a 757 were shredded just before impact, they would have failed to make impressions in the facade. A similar scenario is explored by French researcher Eric Bart, who suggests that explosives in the plane's fuselage just prior to impact caused the wings to rotate and impact the facade in a trajectory different from that expected in a simple crash. Bart's theory also accounts for elements of eyewitness accounts not explained by the simple 757 crash described by the official story.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]