Interesting September 11 video

seamus

miju wrote:

LOL that link is funny, half way down the page he unwittingly kills his own argument :-)

Sweet Jesus. Someone watched too much Roadrunner as a kid. I wonder if he thinks that running through wooden doors leaves human-shaped holes too?
I'm curious as to what he thinks the large aircraft-shaped object is in the video footage of the south tower, and how it miraculously disappeared without making a hole in the wall of the tower.
The far-off footage does indeed show the plane hit, a brief pause, and then the explosion. Kersone ignites fast, but not at the speed of light. You wouldn't see an explosion instantaneously on the opposite side of the building. Footage from below the tower at the time of impact shows the ignition of the kerosene much more effectively.

ArphaRima

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

This is a history of building collapses and partial collapses due to fire. Some steel-framed.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf
A report on the conclusions found in the WTC event. It lists building by building the likely cause of collapse. However WTC 7's report is incomplete. It does mention that it had a not insignificant diesel powered power plant in the lower floors though.

The way in which the buildings collapsed looked way too suspicious in my opinion.

But not in the opinion of fire experts, professional engineers and people who generally know what they are talking about. I say again read the report. It makes sense to me.

Jet aircraft do not emit contrails at low altitude, unless they are smoky old DC-9s or some such...

Planes do not emit white trails wilst at low altitudes

Yes they can.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0994780/L/

I think this argument is pretty lame to begin with. I personally saw live on TV a jet airliner smash into the second WTC tower. Half of New york saw the same thing. Countless journalists recorded it on camera. Probably about 100,000 people or more were direct witnesses to the second aircraft hit. I have spent an hour or two perusing the consiracy theory websites and by god are their arguments poor. I have watched countless videos of the collapse. There are no explosions. There is a sizeable fire, with visible flame.

I am a layman regarding the structural collapse. However regarding the crap im reading about the aviation side, you would be surprised at what people are claiming as "fact". I reckon some people are desperate for attention, and others desperate to believe.

seamus

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe that any aircraft is capable of performing an aerleron roll.

/pedantic
To the best of my knowledge, most Airbus aircraft are electronically prevented from rolling past a certain point. I saw it in a program recently. That's not to say it would be impossible if the restriction was removed.

So Glad

Also. I think somebody said that the reason no wreakage was found at the pentagon was due to the aircraft disintegrating on impact. If this is true, why did the craft allegedly crash through 3+ sections of the Pentagon and leave a perfectly round hole at the end?

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/pentagon_hole2.jpg

If the craft was intact enough to plough through another 3 walls and leave a bloody big hole at the end why are there no pieces?

seamus

So Glad wrote:

Also. I think somebody said that the reason no wreakage was found at the pentagon was due to the aircraft disintegrating on impact. If this is true, why did the craft allegedly crash through 3+ sections of the Pentagon and leave a perfectly round hole at the end?

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/pentagon_hole2.jpg

If the craft was intact enough to plough through another 3 walls and leave a bloody big hole at the end why are there no pieces?

Kinetic Energy. You'll find that the damage didn't equate to a perfect cylinder-shaped hole in the wall, rather a pointed, funnel-shape piece of damage as the energy dissipated.

So Glad

Interesting. Anything you could show me regarding kinetic energy?

seamus

Not really in relation to this particular issue. I very much doubt anyone has written a paper on "The Kinetic Energy of an Aircraft travelling 400knots at an altitude of zero".
If you simply know nothing about the concept, this can help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Put simply, a large object travelling extremely fast requires a lot of energy to slow it down. When it hits something solid, how quickly it slows down depends on the properties of the two objects in collision. A plane for example will bear the brunt of the energy in this case, causing most of the aircraft to disintegrate, but the wall will still suffer extensive damage given the amount of kinetic energy involved. Now that I think about it, the damage would be shaped more like a cigar cylinder as opposed to a funnel.
As parts of the aircraft were still strewn over the lawn of the pentagon, these would have been parts which flew off mid-collision, and so didn't have to absorb much of the energy.

Wibbs

fluffer wrote:

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

This is a history of building collapses and partial collapses due to fire. Some steel-framed.

Read it again. The only other total collapse due to fire is a 19 storey concrete Russian apartment block. All other total collapses are from 911. No others. Certainly no other "skyscrapers" have structurally failed to such a degree due to fire. Absolutely none.

However WTC 7's report is incomplete. It does mention that it had a not insignificant diesel powered power plant in the lower floors though.

Incomplete? After the passage of over 5 years. And this was a thorough investigation? I suggest they need more funding. As for the deisel power plant; if you read the report it states that after the collapse, during the clean up operation, they recovered 20,000 gallons of deisel from the underground tanks that were apparently fueling the fire. Why didn't they burn ? They also say at one point in the same report that the fuel pumps were feeding the flames with deisel. Electric fuel pumps, that would have needed a power supply to work. The same power supply that was cut off to the building as a safety precaution soon after the initial attack.

Yes they can.

Well true. Under different high humidity circumstances than what happened in the pentagon attack(if people who saw contrails are even to be believed).

I think this argument is pretty lame to begin with. I personally saw live on TV a jet airliner smash into the second WTC tower. Half of New york saw the same thing. Countless journalists recorded it on camera. Probably about 100,000 people or more were direct witnesses to the second aircraft hit.

I agree. two aircraft hit the WTC. No doubt at all. Saw them myself. The pentagon attack raises some questions though. The lack of photographic and video evidence(some confiscated by the FBI and never seen again) is a bit iffy, considering the location.

I have spent an hour or two perusing the consiracy theory websites and by god are their arguments poor.

90% of it is p1ss poor. Some questions from the less, eh nutty of them do make you think.

I have watched countless videos of the collapse. There are no explosions. There is a sizeable fire, with visible flame.

The visible flame is very small, when compared to other multi storey fires, which as I pointed out before didn't cause anything like complete structural failure in anything like that timeframe.

civdef

Wibbs, you're questioning the work of a lot of experts (by which I mean the NIST panel etc), one might also say their professional competence. WHat level of knowledge / competence are you working from to make those calls?

Just because you don't seem to grasp how something works doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong.

Manic Moran

fluffer wrote:

Yes they can.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0994780/L/

I believe that's a fuel trail from dumped fuel, not smoke or a contrail. However, the argument that the smoke vanished from frame to frame in the video remains unchallenged, so it can't be smoke, vapour, fuel, a contrail, or any such.

NTM

So Glad

civdef wrote:

Wibbs, you're questioning the work of a lot of experts (by which I mean the NIST panel etc), one might also say their professional competence. WHat level of knowledge / competence are you working from to make those calls?

Just because you don't seem to grasp how something works doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong.

Erm, to be honest he was not opposing anything they said he was just pointing out the WTC complex buildings and a Russian CONCRETE building were the only buildings in history to have collapsed from a fire. Also, are we discussing the professionals that said the WTC towers were practically indestructable? The same that said a terrorist attack using planes on the WTC would be "too unrealistic"?

Just because a man has a company or certain government backing his name doesn't mean we should agree with everything he says. Remember America went to war to disarm Iraq's nuclear weapons? Remember all the photographic evidence with which they proved thier exsistance and later were proved not subtantial evidence and the government admitted lieing about thier exsistance. Remember all that? Oh, but we did laugh. You can write massive reports that go on about the smallest of matters instead of stopping all of the conpiracy heads and showing video evidence of the plane hitting the Pentagon (which they HAVE but will not release) and shutting us up.

No investigation party (other than government parties, if even that) were admitted on the sites to investigate thoroughly and piece together events. Every scrap of evidence was shipped away with great speed and secrecy (clean-up workers were watched by armed FBI throughout). Why destroy every bit of evidence? A bit like destroying all the evidence from a crime scene and then starting your investigation. Other planes have crashed into the ocean and sank to the bottom yet people have brought the pieces back to the surface to recreate the planes and find out what went wrong.

Remember, everything everyone has EVER learned, is just that. Something learned not necesserally true...

civdef

Yeah, ok.

It must be great to have the inside track, when all the rest of us dumbasses are in the dark....

So Glad

civdef wrote:

Yeah, ok.

It must be great to have the inside track, when all the rest of us dumbasses are in the dark....

Why yes, it is.

edanto

Commander Vimes wrote:

something not mentioned in that video that was mentioned in one i saw before was that apparently a few weeks before the attacks, just after the new guy bought it, took out a 7 billion dollar insurance policy and replaced the head of secuirty, the whole building was cleared out, all security was turned off and "engineers" were brought in. after that regular sniffer dog inspections were stopped

I'm really skeptical about this. Do you remember where you saw it?

About building 7, it might be that the structure was weakened by the violent collapse of 1 & 2 and then those heavy iron girders that they showed in the video finally came down under their own weight after a few hours of fire.

The video is suggesting a massive conspiracy to fly planes into the WTC, blow the towers up with high explosives and then to destroy building 7 several hours later with more explosives. Consider the logistics of that operation - you would need hundreds of people to sacrifice all of their morals and then to stay quiet for 6 years. Is that plausible? I don't think so.

Some of the very intriguing questions raised by the video are;

Who funded the attacks and why?

What happened at the pentagon and why was the only video footage (e.g. gas station) confiscated and kept secret?

Back to the pentagon - consider the neat round hole in one of the inner rings. If part of the plane was intact enough to punch this hole, then how could it just disintegrate after that? Either the plane disintegrated or it didn't. The hole suggests it didn't and the lack of airplane parts suggests that it did. This contradiction has not been explained.

RoundyMooney

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe that's a fuel trail from dumped fuel, not smoke or a contrail. However, the argument that the smoke vanished from frame to frame in the video remains unchallenged, so it can't be smoke, vapour, fuel, a contrail, or any such.

NTM

To be fair, I doubt he's dumping fuel on short final like that. It's more likely that the hot exhaust gas is more visible due to the light of the sun behind it, and the high level of humidity in the air. As you say however the brief flash of "smoke" on the footage discounts all of the above possibilities (i.e vapour, fuel etc.).

<edited for clarity>

Davei141

Back to the pentagon - consider the neat round hole in one of the inner rings. If part of the plane was intact enough to punch this hole, then how could it just disintegrate after that? Either the plane disintegrated or it didn't. The hole suggests it didn't and the lack of airplane parts suggests that it did. This contradiction has not been explained.

Read the link i posted earlier, it explains what happened to the plane.

SpAcEd OuT

if the American government have nothing to hide then why confiscate the gas station tapes?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

So Glad

Well, there are many possible reasons. The first and formost would obviously be an excuse to go to war. At this point I would like you all to see this website regarding the "Osama Bin Laden" confession tape. The one that places blame on him and gave reason to invade Afghanistan and consiquently Iraq.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

It is obviously NOT Osama Bin Laden.

A common belief is that America is lossing money every day due to the war. That is a farce. America have been making millions from making weapons (Lockheed) and newfound oil businesses not to mention securing the oil fields and extending thier already ravenous hand into another culture.

Another facter would be fear & consumption. We have all seen people sh!tting themselves in America buying gas masks, safety rooms etc. out of fear. If you give the population a reason to be afraid they will support and consume.

Millions of dollars worth of gold were removed from the vaults of the WTC before the incident happened and strangly enough people were buying more stocks of American Airlines merger shares or some form of share that are only bought when a company is going bust. The landlord (who issued the order to "pull" building 7) claimed TWICE the normal compensation totalling an astounding $7 BILLION.

The WTC disaster has only meant profit for America and it bussiness cohorts, and damn good excuses.

So Glad

About the gold:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/sierratimes_gold.htm

http://911review.com/motive/gold.html

Apparently the gold was found already loaded in vans with escort cars but when the clearing team found them there were no bodies around them. As is they were waiting.

I believe somebody asked how would anybody be able to get so many people in on blowing the WTC up. Nobody knows how the FBI and secret service works. They could be crooks or have thier own idiologies or even know whats best for thier people. Money would usher people to do anything too and considering the stakes...

RoundyMooney

So Glad wrote:

Well, there are many possible reasons. The first and formost would obviously be an excuse to go to war. At this point I would like you all to see this website regarding the "Osama Bin Laden" confession tape. The one that places blame on him and gave reason to invade Afghanistan and consiquently Iraq.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

It is obviously NOT Osama Bin Laden.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that link makes a compelling case. Osama E, blurred as he is on the footage, does not look like the others.

I'll tell you what does have the US running scared, the increasing likelihood that Euros will replace "petro-dollars" as the currency of choice for oil trading. That would leave Wall Street big-wigs shaking in their Italian loafers...

So Glad

RoundyMooney wrote:

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that link makes a compelling case. Osama E, blurred as he is on the footage, does not look like the others.

I'll tell you what does have the US running scared, the increasing likelihood that Euros will replace "petro-dollars" as the currency of choice for oil trading. That would leave Wall Street big-wigs shaking in their Italian loafers...

I do belive this was dicussed briefly in the news but then stopped. This is proof that America lied about the war and everything else. I'm just enraged nobody gives a damn about this. This it front page stuff.

edanto

Off-topic, but what roundymooney mentioned reminded me that I heard Iraq had moved to the Euro in 2002 for oil-trading. A quick invasion restored the natural order of things and now they use the dollar again. A quick google found this but I don't know anything about the site.

Davei141 - cheers, I missed the snopes link first time you posted it. I'll have a look through it tomorrow and see if it addresses my question.

JimmySmith

Binomate wrote:

Phones work on planes but only to a certain height. My mate rang me when he was on his way to america from the runway. I was talking to him as he took off and he cut out soome time after he was above the clouds. He was still able to ring me from the air after that for about another minute before he completely lost the signal. When planes are taking off they are not flying at 400 mph. I'd say my mate lost the signal at about 4000 - 5000 feet. I'd very much doubt anyone would be able to call someone from a mobile phone from anything higher than that because a) You'd be out of range from the nearest cell and b)The plane would probably be moving too fast in between cells that if you did get one you wouldn't be in that cell long enough to make a phone call or keep the signal. Bottom line is that planes when they are cruising are flying too fast and too high to pick up any kind of a celular signal.

Thats completely not true. I'd like to know where your expert opinion comes from on this one. I've tried it. I was working for DHL in 1999 and we used to make calls on our mobiles from the planes flying over the UK and 35000 ft. First we started doing it to see if it would work and then we just started making calls whenever we wanted. Only problem was that it cost a fortune if it wasnt over the uk because we were roaming. Very rarely would we lose the signal over land.

So Glad

Also. Since we like quoting professionals, here is a fire chief depicting the bombs he had seen detonating all the way down the WTC towers.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

The firemen and police were the only people alowed up close to these buildings to have witnessed them.

So Glad

JimmySmith wrote:

Thats completely not true. I'd like to know where your expert opinion comes from on this one. I've tried it. I was working for DHL in 1999 and we used to make calls on our mobiles from the planes flying over the UK and 35000 ft. First we started doing it to see if it would work and then we just started making calls whenever we wanted. Only problem was that it cost a fortune if it wasnt over the uk because we were roaming. Very rarely would we lose the signal over land.

About the calls. Here is transcript:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/9-11-flight-93-plane-phone-calls_3563.html

Oddities:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

About likelyhood of the calls being made:

http://www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm

JimmySmith

InFront wrote:

Bush didnt bomb the wto, it was a tragedy involving hijackers in large aeroplanes

What???
You must be bloody joking. It cant be that simple. We must have the government or aliens involved. I insist.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

JimmySmith

Can i just ask everyone who says that the planes didnt cause the wtc to collapse then what did?
Was it God farting?
Because to take a large building down with explosives it requires months of weakening the structures by drilling and planting explosives at the critical points (a lot of them) on every floor. Funny how no-one noticed this going on.

SpAcEd OuT

JimmySmith wrote:

Can i just ask everyone who says that the planes didnt cause the wtc to collapse then what did?
Was it God farting?
Because to take a large building down with explosives it requires months of weakening the structures by drilling and planting explosives at the critical points (a lot of them) on every floor. Funny how no-one noticed this going on.

have you even bothered to read any of the posts and links provided?