Interesting September 11 video

eoge

While I strongly believe the official story to be untrue, I admit (in retrospect) that it is foolish to argue on points we fully do not understand. While that photograph (I believe) is compelling, the vast majority of us are not well prepared (educated) to judge it in any way but through common sense. Common sense can be (often is) misleading. So I hear where you all are coming from.

However, I do believe that there are well made arguments out there (within the understanding of but) beyond debunking by laymen like ourselves. If any, open-minded person is interested in this topic, please take the time to look into it as much as your spare time affords you.

This documentary by Canadian journalist Barry Zwicker sets the scene for what happened on 9/11 and asks a few interesting questions about the official story. It's relatively un-sensational and is a good starting point: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623.

This documentary film by American students Dylan Avery et al. is somewhat sensational but really hits hard at some very disturbing questions: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801.

Finally, this website is the home of the Scholars For Truth group. They have published peer reviewed papers that claim proof of controlled demolitions, etc. etc. They are a group of 100+ academics "dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11": http://www.st911.org/.

There are many more great resources (literally hundreds of websites dedicated solely to this) if you are interested.

edanto

Manic Moran wrote:

The nice circular hole is pretty obviously the result of something solid punching through. Even a shaped charge will not result in that effect, let alone a random explosion.
My guess is probably an engine.

I agree - something must have passed through that wall, hot and fast, to leave that mark. It's an educated guess to say that it was an engine, dense metal parts and all.

Are there any more photos of the area shown in http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/punchout-path.jpg Other angles, closer shots etc. [aside - does anyone have an opinion about the realism of this montage - is it photoshopped at all or completely accurate?]

If an engine did make that hole, it wouldn't have stopped. It would have kept going over the area that the fireman is standing and left a big mark/hole on the next wall. That means the engine went through six thick concrete walls and possibly a seventh. Dang.

We would also expect some considerable debris - if something is solid enough to punch through several hundred feet of offices, I think it would just slow down instead of disintegrating. We're not talking about a bunker-busting warhead here, just a big jet engine that was going about 400mph before the explosion. So, there should be a big pile of mangled metal not far from that hole. Anyone ever see a photo of that pile in the papers or on the news?

Manic Moran

edanto wrote:

Anyone ever see a photo of that pile in the papers or on the news?

Nope. but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NTM

edanto

Of course not. I'm kindof surprised that it hasn't been shown though. And I'd be interested to see it, so if anyone on the thread has a link...

tunaman

A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone.

Here is the official explanation.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

Really?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

No sign of any raging fires either.

ArphaRima

First steel framed building collapses in history. Big friggin deal.

Throughout history the following have been built, hailed as the first and best and then failed:
First Ironclad warship
First Triple hulled ocean liner (on her maiden voyage anyone?)
First stealth fighter downed
First heavy cavalry repelled
The first castle, citadel, fort, wooden builidng, brick building. Who cares? They have all fallen.

They (the WTC building in NYC) fell under some spectacular circumstances. Airliners smashed into some them at high speed, causing them to go ablaze and collapse, further worsening the situation of the rest of the buildings. In the process a good proportion of new yorks fire-fighting ability was wiped out on the ground and it most certainly affected the remaing firefighters. Mass confusion and hysteria, with some understandable inaction and delay exacerbated the situation. Im sure had WTC-7's fire been started by a waste-paper basket fire on a normal day encompassing 3 floors, it would have been a challenge to a fully fighting fit NYFD. Imagine how it was on the day.

I have just spent 3 hours watching "Confronting the Evidence" by Ed Begley Jr, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Jenna Orkin, Jeff King, Dr. James Hecht, and Barrie Zwicker. They are related to the following websites: reopen911.org walden3.org, and INN Report.
Remember I am a trained pilot, and most of those living with me are the same, and half of them again were originally engineers of verying disciplines. The room was full of laughter at almost all of the accusations made. My father is a civil and structural engineer, and my friends father a senior fire engineer in the council. I saw the following with my father and discussed it with my friends father at the time. World Trade Center: Anatomy of a Collapse -Discovery Channel documentary http://shopping.discovery.com/product-59265.html


The men I named above are all making money from this. They have all written books and made videos, that you must purchase to find the truth that the mainstream media is not telling you apparently. As far as I am concerned there is very little truth left to be discovered. I am very happy with the official explanation. I gave this theory the benefit of the doubt, did my research again and came up with the same conclusion. The official one. I am happy to discuss this further, answer questions and debate it some more, but It will take some good persuasion to change my position. I see no proof on the theorists side, only doubt. That is not enough.

Archeron

fluffer wrote:

The men I named above are all making money from this. They have all written books and made videos, that you must purchase to find the truth that the mainstream media is not telling you apparently..

There are some excellent arugments on both sides in this thread, however, as regards the aspect of trying to make money of this.
The film in question is available on Ebay Linky linky:
http://cgi.ebay.com/9-11-DVD-TWIN-TOWERS-WERE-BROUGHT-DOWN-WITH-EXPLOSIVES_W0QQitemZ9103989912QQcategoryZ80022QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
The charge is .99p, and it states "There is no copyright on this DVD so freely distribute it to your friends." I have bought this, it is the Ed Begley film, along with another film with some american dude. I have copied it numerous times and given it to friends and colleagues. They actively encourage you to do this, and even include a note with the disc asking you to give copies to as many people as possible.
I personally am in no position to argue with some of the experienced people here on Boards, but I think the above shows that the "only in it for the money" argument is not 100% accurate. You may wish to buy other books and DVD's, but I think this DVD shows a lot of what you would see elsewhere anyway. Definitely worth a look, whatever side of the argument you are on.
There is no denying that there is SOME shameless plugging of books by some of the panel, but thats to be found in pretty much every aspect of the media now, so its no major surpirse that its on this disc as well.

Captain Trips

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well if we're going to add to speculation, I figured why not add this!!!!

Dave!

How could the administration really get away with something as big as this? There would have to be 100's of people involved -- and not ONE of them went "oh, I don't feel like killing thousands of people -- that's not my style"? It seems highly unlikely that nothing would leak about this, just like the whole moon-landing conspiracy thing. I don't think that they could get away with it. There's plenty of dodgey stuff involved, but IMO it wasn't George Bush ordering a load of explosives placed in the WTC, or rockets fired into the Pentagon. At most, the government knew it was going to happen, and took advantage of it. Fairly deplorable in and of itself, but different to the general conspiracies posted here.

BadAcidStudios

"First steel framed building collapses in history. Big friggin deal.

Throughout history the following have been built, hailed as the first and best and then failed:
First Ironclad warship
First Triple hulled ocean liner (on her maiden voyage anyone?)
First stealth fighter downed
First heavy cavalry repelled
The first castle, citadel, fort, wooden builidng, brick building. Who cares? They have all fallen"

eh, i think you have misunderstood what was meant by "The First steel framed building to collapse"
They dont mean it was the first steel framed building ever made, It was just the first one to collapse. And we are not talking about one builing, we are talking about 3 buildings that collapsed on the same day in the same city at the same time. Like waiting on a bus, you wait for an hour then 3 come at once :-(

ArphaRima

Ok, I accept i made a poor point. What I meant was that each new design or material of ANY type has failed eventually.I didnt really mean to say first of each type. That day was an exceptional day as i explained further in my post. Again its just my opinion, I am actually referring indirectly to official reports from people who know a hell of a lot more than me about the collapses. Like the building designers, owners, and fire experts.

lodgepole

BadAcidStudios wrote:

eh, i think you have misunderstood what was meant by "The First steel framed building to collapse"
They dont mean it was the first steel framed building ever made, It was just the first one to collapse.

No you've misunderstood the examples. Only the Titanic was the first ever made, the rest were not.

Binomate

What I don't get about the theory is why Osama Bin Laden confessed to being responsible for the attacks? There was a fake video where a double confessed to them in 2001 but the real Osama confessed again in 2004.

eoge

Binomate wrote:

What I don't get about the theory is why Osama Bin Laden confessed to being responsible for the attacks? There was a fake video where a double confessed to them in 2001 but the real Osama confessed again in 2004.

Did he? Where? Please show us your sources.

Binomate

eoge wrote:

Did he? Where? Please show us your sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

eoge

DaveMcG wrote:

How could the administration really get away with something as big as this? There would have to be 100's of people involved -- and not ONE of them went "oh, I don't feel like killing thousands of people -- that's not my style"? It seems highly unlikely that nothing would leak about this, just like the whole moon-landing conspiracy thing. I don't think that they could get away with it. There's plenty of dodgey stuff involved, but IMO it wasn't George Bush ordering a load of explosives placed in the WTC, or rockets fired into the Pentagon. At most, the government knew it was going to happen, and took advantage of it. Fairly deplorable in and of itself, but different to the general conspiracies posted here.

I agree with you that at the very least, members of the American government knew that something was going to happen. However, most people in this field believe that the administration (as in the government of the USA) were not officially involved, but rather that powerful people in business and in politics played a part.

The "it seems highly unlikely that nothing would leak" argument is the most natural question that any level-headed person can pose. However, I believe that because of this sentiment (and others, such as "why would the US admin. do this to their own people", etc.) such a leak can never hit the mainstream. I have read interviews with dozen of individuals with alleged inside information who make claims about explosives and so on and even I doubt them! I have read these published accounts with the names of these people but you have never heard them. Their claims can only be regarded by "normal people" as irrational conspiracy theories.

I wholeheartedly agree that many many people would need to be involved in such a plot, however only as very small amount would need to know that plot. E.g. a secret service agent can be ordered to recover scraps of metal on the lawn of the burning Pentagon, but he need never be told why and he would know not to ask.

eoge

Binomate wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

That's very interesting. It still does not take from the fact that we were presented with a false video of him (claimed authentic) by the US.

However I'm quick to question any so-called "Osama Bin Laden tapes" because of the language barrier and because of their always-dubious sources.

Still interesting nonetheless. I'd like to have an Arabic speaker tell us what is in the video and what is in the rest of the not shown but published text (and where the 9/11 claim was made)!

Manic Moran

[nitpick mode] The Stealth fighter wasn't a failure: The term 'stealth' was a popular term because 'low observable' (it's official charactarisation) isn't very catchy. F-117 was never claimed by the operator to be invisible, just a lot harder to pick up than the average aircraft. Eventually, it happened.[/nitpick mode]

NTM

ArphaRima

[nitpick mode]

The stealth fighter did exactly what it was designed to. It was a Low Observable aircraft. Did you see the storm it created in the media? The first "stealth" aircraft to be downed. The Layman couldnt figure out how the aircraft that had been hailed as the greatest advance in technology in decades to the public had fallen. The myth was over. It was vulnerable. The pilots of those aircraft knew it, the designers knew it, and the enemy knew it.
The public is a lot harder to convince of the truth. There a plenty of theories as to its downing. What people dont understand they elaborate in over-simplicity or complexity. The truth doesnt matter. Only a version of it that fits their understanding does. That is exactly what is happening here with the 11/09/01 stuff.

tunaman

The following is a brilliant new 40min video with compelling evidence from an MIT professor and BYU physics professor who both explain in great detail why the official story makes no sense.

The official pancake theory is described as complete fantasy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I

tunaman

This is radical stuff and what FLOORS ME is how difficult it is to get people to even LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

So threatened are they by the possibility.

You accept the official story because you think that everyone does.

Here is another link just in case anybody has any balls.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9%2F11+revisited

When the truth finally comes out you will be one of those people telling everyone that you knew it all the time.

You will because the lack of backbone you have shown so far indicates that you won’t be able to stomach yourself when you see how easy this case is to crack and how only a complete moron can not understand that they have been lied to after being shown the evidence.

Manic Moran

Or, there are those of us who have not yet seen a conspiracy theory without holes large enough to drive Arnold Schwarzanegger's Hummer through (And I do tend to look at the videos linked to.)

They are certainly no better on an objective basis than the accepted theories, and are pretty 'far out' on a subjective assessment.

NTM

tunaman

Furthermore you do not care enough about the victims families to take 5 minutes to look at what they are complaining about.

As far as you're concerned the show was over after the towers blew up. In your ignorant mind the show is over and everything is back to normal.

You have probably even complained that you have seen the collapse of those towers too many times.

Either look at the evidence or stop hawking the official story as if you know what your babbling about or until you can provide a piece of evidence to support it.

Davei141

I wonder how much money David Ray griffin made from people like tunaman.

lodgepole

tunaman wrote:

Either look at the evidence or stop hawking the official story as if you know what your babbling about or until you can provide a piece of evidence to support it.

This entire thread was a breakdown of the holes and inaccuracies in the video originally posted. People are watching these videos and then debunking them.

If you read back you'll see that the two people mainly responsible for doing this were a fire engineer and an airline pilot, people who knew what they were talking about.

ArphaRima

until you can provide a piece of evidence to support it.

Please read the entire post again.

only a complete moron can not understand that they have been lied to after being shown the evidence

Oh I'm sorry. I'm stupid because I dont believe a conspiracy theory. A moron because I dont believe claims I know to be physically impossible; and I presented factual and official reports to that effect.
To believe the theories requires you to have a limited understanding of physics, and a completely infantile understanding of world and domestic US politics.
But again, I'm sorry for being a moron because I do not believe that the US government planted explosives that destroyed the world trade centres or the pentagon.

bounty

"Oh, a sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention."


big lol @ tunaman

Manic Moran

bounty wrote:

"Oh, a sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention."


big lol @ tunaman

You kidding? I live in the US. Such a device should be on general issue to the population here.

A satire detector would be even better.

NTM

bonkey

Regarding the WTC collapses...

The collapse was not caused by the steel cores melting.

It is far more likely that the angle-clips supporting the floor-joists failed. While the the fuel-rich firewould still have been incapable of melting these clips outright, it did suply enough heat to weaken at least some of them, It would only have taken one or two floors to collapse from failure of these clips for this to lead to "cascade" effect as the collapse successively overloaded the safety-tolerances of the floors below.

So why did it fall straight down? Well, lets assume that the floors failed "unevenly" - they didn't just fall straight down....would that make any difference? Nope. The total mass of each tower was in the order of 500,000 tons. Thats a lot of inertia, and when you take into account the "wrapping" steel-frame, which served to contain any small momentum the initial floor collapsing might have had (from aforementioned uneven collapse), the expected direction of collapse is more-or-less straight down....just as was observed.

Also, as pointed out, collapse took about 10 seconds with impact speeds of about 200 km/h. The math for a freefall collapse leads to 8 seconds and impact speeds of 300 km/h....so there's no problem there until someone can show (rather than surmise) that 10 seconds and 200 km/h is still too fast for the type of collapse which occurred. Certainly, it was too slow for freefall.

Regarding WTC 7 and the FEMA report, it should be noted that NIST are currently doing further investigations into the collapse. I believe the basic premise is that there was more extensive damage than FEMA reported, which is supported by evidence, and that when this more extensive damage is taken into account, the collapse of the building (again, overloading of stress-points leading to a cascade effect, only of a slightly different nature) isn't that inexplicable or even unexpected.

Why put faith in one formal report when another government agency has continued investigation on the grounds that the initial findings were insufficient. What NIST have found so far is what is of more interest, but no-one seems to have mentioned it. Its hard to take alternate theories seriously when the people advocating them don't seem to be aware of the full set of information that it is they are claiming to debunk.

Which leads me to ask...

...to all these people who are telling us to read and explain the "unanswered questions" that they have posted...

...do you guys actually look to see if anyone has answered them already?

I found all of the inforamtion in this post by taking keywords that "alternate theorists" were using in their posts, and feeding them into google. Never once did I go beyond the second page of results. Never once did I take anything that wasn't attributed to an expert in the field they were discussing. So why are the alternate theories any more compelling, given that they involve massively more complex conspiracies to be in place and a massive cover-up operation (as opposed to a massive cover-your-ass operation which is more like what we did see)? To me, the answer is simple. They aren't.

jc

civdef

what NIST have found so far is what is of more interest, but no-one seems to have mentioned it.

Cough,


though I gave up trying to educate the uneducatable a few pages back...

nxbyveromdwjpg

More of the same
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

PullMyFinger!

Does anyone lend any creedence to Alex Jones' work? I watched all 2 and a half hours of this today in work http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=alex+jones and parts of it seemed a bit over the top. Is he just a Michael Moore wannabe?

sturgo

bonkey wrote:

Regarding the WTC collapses...

The collapse was not caused by the steel cores melting.

It is far more likely that the angle-clips supporting the floor-joists failed. While the the fuel-rich firewould still have been incapable of melting these clips outright, it did suply enough heat to weaken at least some of them, It would only have taken one or two floors to collapse from failure of these clips for this to lead to "cascade" effect as the collapse successively overloaded the safety-tolerances of the floors below.

So why did it fall straight down? Well, lets assume that the floors failed "unevenly" - they didn't just fall straight down....would that make any difference? Nope. The total mass of each tower was in the order of 500,000 tons. Thats a lot of inertia, and when you take into account the "wrapping" steel-frame, which served to contain any small momentum the initial floor collapsing might have had (from aforementioned uneven collapse), the expected direction of collapse is more-or-less straight down....just as was observed.

Also, as pointed out, collapse took about 10 seconds with impact speeds of about 200 km/h. The math for a freefall collapse leads to 8 seconds and impact speeds of 300 km/h....so there's no problem there until someone can show (rather than surmise) that 10 seconds and 200 km/h is still too fast for the type of collapse which occurred. Certainly, it was too slow for freefall.

Regarding WTC 7 and the FEMA report, it should be noted that NIST are currently doing further investigations into the collapse. I believe the basic premise is that there was more extensive damage than FEMA reported, which is supported by evidence, and that when this more extensive damage is taken into account, the collapse of the building (again, overloading of stress-points leading to a cascade effect, only of a slightly different nature) isn't that inexplicable or even unexpected.

Why put faith in one formal report when another government agency has continued investigation on the grounds that the initial findings were insufficient. What NIST have found so far is what is of more interest, but no-one seems to have mentioned it. Its hard to take alternate theories seriously when the people advocating them don't seem to be aware of the full set of information that it is they are claiming to debunk.

Which leads me to ask...

...to all these people who are telling us to read and explain the "unanswered questions" that they have posted...

...do you guys actually look to see if anyone has answered them already?

I found all of the inforamtion in this post by taking keywords that "alternate theorists" were using in their posts, and feeding them into google. Never once did I go beyond the second page of results. Never once did I take anything that wasn't attributed to an expert in the field they were discussing. So why are the alternate theories any more compelling, given that they involve massively more complex conspiracies to be in place and a massive cover-up operation (as opposed to a massive cover-your-ass operation which is more like what we did see)? To me, the answer is simple. They aren't.

jc

Great post!