Anyone else seen this take on 9/11?

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:55 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0224991194

I know it's old but first time seeing it. I must say, I was surprised that the pentagon and the crash in Pennsylvania appeared to have no real signs of a plane impact but this video raises a lot more questions about the events on that day.

I also found it odd that the buildings fell so straight, like a controlled demolition.

Don't know that I'm willing to go full on government planned but it sure does raise some important questions.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:22 pm

Yeah, I posted here about some of the Alex Jones stuff a long time ago, but got little response.

The thing that is particularly suspicious is the fire and collapse of WTC building #7.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:31 pm

Are we really going down this road again?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:02 pm

Topher wrote:Are we really going down this road again?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

great (even though you keep referencing that article... it is crap)... now find articles to combat the 'controlled demolition' appearance of the towers collapsing, the videos showing the 'pre-explosions', explain tower #7's collapse, why the 'admission' tape of usama bin laden does not look or act like usama bin landin, including his handedness, and sheer disrepect for his own religion. while you are at it, explain how 7 of 8 black boxes were destroyed, which is mathematically improbable, yet a single paper-passport survived just fine. actually, why don't you watch taht video, or any of the other reports which show pretty clearly that 2+2 are not quite adding up, and then link that stupid article again.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:54 pm

Topher wrote:Are we really going down this road again?

Sure, what the heck.

Linkfest here and here.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:45 pm

Fyrephlie, please listen carefully, and understand what G. Gordon Liddy said about secrets: \"Two people can keep a secret. But only if one of them is dead.\"

This is the thing about conspiracy theories, unless they rely on JUST ONE PERSON keeping their mouth shut, then they are laughable IN ALL CASES.

It is impossible to keep the truth from the world. Particularly in a situation like the 9/11 Pentagon crash. You probably believe the moon landings were faked too. But consider: to fake the moon landings would have actually been MORE expensive than doing it for real, and you'd have to have over 20,000 people keep their mouths shut. And that aint gonna happen. (Also, consider 800 lbs of moon rock, in over 30,000 samples, examined by over 300,000 geologists over the last 30 years. Where did it come from, when there was no way for that stuff to be brought back from the moon, unless picked up by a person? Robotics was a joke back then. Also, all geologists agree: those rocks were from the moon.)

Occams Razor dictates the truth in these situations. The simple explanation is always correct. Simply: a plane hit the ground and plowed into the largest building in the world. The fact that it IS the world's largest building MIGHT JUST have something to do with the fact that it did not look too severe.

Anti-Occam hyopthesis: A ridiculous story with crazy assumptions, and backed with no evidence whatsoever.

You choose.

Why didn't the towers fall sideways? OK, come and see me at my place tomorrow. I'm gonna smack you in the head with a hammer. I'm gonna smack you REALLY hard. Hard enough to knock you out you in fact. I'm going to hit you on the left temple. Now: which way will your body fall? I'll tell you, you head will snap sideways, and your body will fall DIRECTLY TO THE FLOOR. This because gravity pulls downwards DIRECTLY, and not in any other weird direction.

The towers did the same thing. If you watch the first tower go, you cabn actually see where the outside skin fails, which causes a very slight tilt to the stories above them. However, the building completely failed when the outside skin failed, and so the ENTIRE building simply falls down, because IT IS NO LONGER RESTING ON ANYTHING. In other words, even that slight tailt makes no difference to the way the tower falls, because gravity is in total control.

Work it out for yourself. Watch the video of the buildings collapsing. Time the time is takes between the start of the collapse, and the end of the collapse. Now, use your Mechanics equation of - ★■◆●, I forget the equation for T. Derive it from S=UT + 1/2AT^2. Anyway, it'll show you that the towers were actually in free fall when they came down.

Problems solved. My work here is done.

Unix · Post by **Unix** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Sometimes it's nice to have you around, Mobi.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:09 pm

Mobius wrote:Fyrephlie, please listen carefully, and understand what G. Gordon Liddy said about secrets: "Two people can keep a secret. But only if one of them is dead."

lol...

Mobius wrote:This is the thing about conspiracy theories, unless they rely on JUST ONE PERSON keeping their mouth shut, then they are laughable IN ALL CASES.

Right, like when your wife is cheating on you with your best friend?

Mobius wrote:It is impossible to keep the truth from the world. Particularly in a situation like the 9/11 Pentagon crash.

no, it wouldn't. you, like many people, seem to completely underestimate the incredible level of stupidy walking and talking around you.

man is intelligent, men are stupid.

what you are saying is that it is more likely that this half-assed group of al-quaeda managed to pull off these 'multiple' simultaneous hijackings, and with limited training managed to hit targets you couldn't hit in a flight simulator with limited training.... then above all else, when all of these experts and witnesses state various things about it, and things don't seem to add up, we just think... well whatever.

i am not saying that i am certain of anything, but i am very uncomfortable with it.

Mobius, for some reason, wrote: You probably believe the moon landings were faked too. But consider: to fake the moon landings would have actually been MORE expensive than doing it for real, and you'd have to have over 20,000 people keep their mouths shut. And that aint gonna happen. (Also, consider 800 lbs of moon rock, in over 30,000 samples, examined by over 300,000 geologists over the last 30 years. Where did it come from, when there was no way for that stuff to be brought back from the moon, unless picked up by a person? Robotics was a joke back then. Also, all geologists agree: those rocks were from the moon.)

since i have family involved with nasa at the time, and they assured me that it did happen... i assume that it did. thanks.

Mobius wrote:Occams Razor dictates the truth in these situations. The simple explanation is always correct. Simply: a plane hit the ground and plowed into the largest building in the world. The fact that it IS the world's largest building MIGHT JUST have something to do with the fact that it did not look too severe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_buildings

Mobius wrote:Anti-Occam hyopthesis: A ridiculous story with crazy assumptions, and backed with no evidence whatsoever.

You choose.

Watch that video... it discusses the evidence you don't seem to know about.

Mobius wrote:Why didn't the towers fall sideways? OK, come and see me at my place tomorrow. I'm gonna smack you in the head with a hammer. I'm gonna smack you REALLY hard. Hard enough to knock you out you in fact. I'm going to hit you on the left temple. Now: which way will your body fall? I'll tell you, you head will snap sideways, and your body will fall DIRECTLY TO THE FLOOR. This because gravity pulls downwards DIRECTLY, and not in any other weird direction.

Nope, not the same thing. funny though.

Mobius wrote:The towers did the same thing. If you watch the first tower go, you cabn actually see where the outside skin fails, which causes a very slight tilt to the stories above them. However, the building completely failed when the outside skin failed, and so the ENTIRE building simply falls down, because IT IS NO LONGER RESTING ON ANYTHING. In other words, even that slight tailt makes no difference to the way the tower falls, because gravity is in total control.

No... actually the skin is not the support for the building. Jet fuel would not have burned hot enough to actually cause the steel to fail, as a matter of fact, that video you didn't watch goes into detail about that too.

Mobius wrote:Work it out for yourself. Watch the video of the buildings collapsing. Time the time is takes between the start of the collapse, and the end of the collapse. Now, use your Mechanics equation of - *****, I forget the equation for T. Derive it from S=UT + 1/2AT^2. Anyway, it'll show you that the towers were actually in free fall when they came down.

watch that video, please.

the fact that the buildings were in freefall means that the lower floors were falling first. i.e. if you jump out a window and fall, it is different then jumping out a window and falling through a tree, snapping branches the whole way down.

Mobius wrote:Problems solved. My work here is done.

no... you have shown an incredible level of ignorance. congrats.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:12 pm

I'm havin a watch now. some interesting points, that's for sure.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:13 pm

SEPERATE POST FOR CLARITY!

i don't know one way or another, all i can is that a lot of 'evidence' in the 9/11 fiasco does not add up, from day one, watching at home, nothing seemed quite right.

this, as with many other things, is something i am just not sure about.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:05 am

I've seen this one before. There are definitely a few points presented that shouldn't be ignored. The collapse of the WTC #7 building definitely looks distinctly like a \"pull\" (aka controlled demolition). I'm not saying that it was for certain, but it the possibility shouldn't be ruled out. Not that we'll know for certain since all the physical evidence is gone.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:13 am

No... actually the skin is not the support for the building. Jet fuel would not have burned hot enough to actually cause the steel to fail, as a matter of fact, that video you didn't watch goes into detail about that too.

The skin was the support for the WTC.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter.

I predict this thread will cycle as follows:
- Radical idea presented as absolute truth but with no reference to facts.
- Statement of facts and points about how radical ideas are wrong
- Denial of facts with little reason and then quickly changing topic to new radical idea.

I personally believe that consipracy theorists piloted weather balloons into the WTC to promote Taco Bell's new spicy bean burrito, which is just about as plausible and falsifiable as having enough dynomite inside of two skyscrapers to perform a controlled demolition that destroys the target of Building 7 but without anyone being the wiser because they had remote controlled passenger planes run into the buildings just for good (media) measure.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:30 am

i don't buy 90 percent of what alex jones says. but the owner of the WTC buildings is ON TAPE saying that #7 was pulled while the official story is that it fell due to the damage of the planes. that's quite a discrepancy.

topher, your mind is totally closed if you don't think it's worth investigating.

mobius, a silent consipiracy is one thing, but there is evidence that (at the very least) the official story of building 7 is fishy.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:43 am

I'm closed to trying to satisfy a conspiracy theorist's query. There will always be an instatiable thirst to stirring up more hornet nests by taking another frame of grainy blurry footage and extrapolating it to unimaginable lengths no matter how many questions they ask are answered. You could sit down with the guy that made that video for hours and he would still be flinging questions at you, any reasonable explanation will be met with some outrageous alternative. Instead of trying to prove what happened, some people want you to prove everything else didn't happen. Until someone proves that all conspiracy theorists were not the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks, we probably shouldn't be answering their questions.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:14 am

Topher wrote:any reasonable explanation will be met with some outrageous alternative

what i am saying is that these are not UNREASONABLE questions.

i am saying that it is reasonable to ask these whys, because these things do not add up.

i am not saying that i beleive anything one way or the other, just that having seen a lot of it from day one, it just doesnt sit right with me.

World War Woodi · Post by **World War Woodi** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:59 am

There are facts you all are leaving out you know.

There are verifiable records and witnesses of the terrorists training to fly those planes, but not land them, remember?

If a jet hits the ground at 600 plus mph, there isnt alot left but a flaming skid mark, and I'm not suprised at all that traffic cameras missed it passing by. What kind of shutter speeds would you need to even catch a jet at that speed and very close?

I've seen reports that the towers were insufficiently protected against a long hot fire. It seems very reasonable to me that that was a very hot fire for an extended period. Those planes had just left the airport and were fully loaded with jet fuel, you know all this right?

Those fires burned hot, very hot and intense right next to the main supporting structures of those buildings, not the sides, but in the center, the main supports of those buildings were centered around the elevator shafts. Metal fatigue is not a far cry in this situation.

Look where the planes hit the buildings, a good distance from the top, leaving tremendous weight above the damaged structures and fire fatigued supports, it has already been said this was by design of the terrorists.

The tapes of the final collapse of both towers show the same scenerio, the floors where the fires were burning the longest collapsed, and then with the rest of the buildings weight in movement, gravity does the rest, floor by floor, crushing the rest of the building right to the ground. Understand when those supports collapsed, the whole upper part of the building was in freefall.
So it is very reasonable for me to believe there was no way any of the undamaged supports could \"catch\" and \"stop\" the top part of the building from crushing right through. {This was all on Discovery channel, with scientists analyzing every step, didnt you guys see that?}

Now with all of that weight falling down, really even through the ground into the underlying structures under the towers, and around them, it isnt hard for me to believe that 7 was damaged enough to come down too.

About the passport surviving, remember when the planes hit and exploded? Is it so hard to believe a paper passport could be ejected from something exploding?

I would believe that before I would expect a black box surviving explosion, hours long jet fueled fire, umteen million tons of concrete crushing it to dust, and 10 days[?]I believe, of smothering fire.

I dont think it was designed to make it through all that.

WWW

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:04 pm

The thing about the fire is that thermal scans (which were shown in the movie) didn't show fires hot enough to actually melt the steel gurters.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:09 pm

Popular Mechanics had a good \"debunking the 9/11 myths\" cover story a while back.

I have friends who went by the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 who saw pieces of an airplane out on the lawn. If it wasn't hit by an airplane, somebody snuck the parts in pretty damn fast, and none of the hundreds of people who were there and saw it happen or saw the immediate aftermath later thought \"hey, where did that come from?\" when they saw the parts...

The thing about WTC #7 is definitely odd, but certainly not enough to base a whole conspiracy off of. It's not too hard to imagine the possibility that there were plans to collapse it (because it was unsafe) but that it collapsed on its own before those plans were carried out.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:34 pm

Lothar wrote:The thing about WTC #7 is definitely odd, but certainly not enough to base a whole conspiracy off of.

I agree. but i think there's sound evidence for bldg 7 consipiracy.

Lothar wrote:It's not too hard to imagine the possibility that there were plans to collapse it (because it was unsafe) but that it collapsed on its own before those plans were carried out.

but the bldg owner is ON TAPE saying it was pulled after it came down. not before. there is much much more that is suspicious about wtc 7. i'm not going to recount the whole thing. but go to alex jones site and read for yourselves and then come back and debunk it.

i think it's silly for topher to say these things when he obviously has no clue what he's talking about. there is much more than grainy video to suggest something is fishy.

i don't buy the whole thing. but i believe some aspects should be investigated further.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:52 pm

Lothar wrote: I have friends who went by the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 who saw pieces of an airplane out on the lawn.

did they happen to see a huge scar on the ground where a wing or fuselage may have hit?

or any kind of skidmarks?

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:01 pm

MD-2389 wrote:The thing about the fire is that thermal scans (which were shown in the movie) didn't show fires hot enough to actually melt the steel gurters.

Who says it has to melt? Heat weakens metal, the metal bends and the building collapses.

Palzon wrote:i think it's silly for topher to say these things when he obviously has no clue what he's talking about. there is much more than grainy video to suggest something is fishy.

Show me.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:25 pm

MD-2389 wrote:The thing about the fire is that thermal scans (which were shown in the movie) didn't show fires hot enough to actually melt the steel gurters.

Aluminum's melting point is 660 C. The Concorde had some titanium skin because of the heat on the outside of the plane at supersonic speeds, which got up to 153 C at some points. Aluminum wouldn't *melt* at that temperature, but it would start to lose some strength.

Page 4 of the Popular Mechanics story talks a little bit about this from the structural steel perspective, but you don't need to consult experts to know metal loses strength well below its melting temperature.

Palzon wrote:the bldg owner is ON TAPE saying it was pulled after it came down. not before.

Right. I suggested the possibility that the owner might have *thought* it was pulled because the plan had been discussed. Would it surprise you if there was a breakdown of communication of that sort?

Palzon wrote:i'm not going to recount the whole thing. but go to alex jones site and read for yourselves

I've read a number of sites like this, possibly including Alex Jones' site. Never been impressed by them. If you find some particular argument convincing, post that actual argument, and you might convince me the guy has something else worthwhile to say.

Ferno wrote:did they happen to see a huge scar on the ground where a wing or fuselage may have hit?

or any kind of skidmarks?

I didn't ask. I just mentioned the conspiracy theory, and my friend laughed like mad. I may be able to ask at work tomorrow. I'll let you know.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:49 pm

A bit more interesting reading (a bit long)...

http://www.physics911.ca/Holmgren:_Phys ... agon_Crash

I do not know the credibility of the author but I am definately intrigued.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:57 pm

fyrephlie wrote:since i have family involved with nasa at the time, and they assured me that it did happen... i assume that it did. thanks.

Good for you. It happens that I have family (my sister and her husband) who were in New York on that fateful day. I also have a close neighbor who's son was working in the Pentagon on that day and nearly lost his life in that mess.

Guess what I believe?

Now let's all quit undermining each other, and work together to stop terrorism and work for peace, instead of fighting each other. OK ?

World War Woodi · Post by **World War Woodi** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:23 am

TechPro wrote:
Now let's all quit undermining each other, and work together to stop terrorism and work for peace, instead of fighting each other. OK ?

Who's fighting dude?

All I see is some interesting conversation, and opinions.

Any one taking offense to this thread?

Well anyway I would strongly recommend reading Lothars link to Popular Mechanics article, very very informative.

Djcjr · Post by **Djcjr** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:36 am

The Pentagon building crash is something I'll have to look into more. I don't have enough information on the subject, so, I won't comment on it.

However, after watching this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0224991194) to the point where it starts to create a conspiracy about how the 2 towers fell... I have a hard time believing the rest of it.

At one point in the video they keep showing video/commentary of an \"explosion\" which, according to the narrator of the video, is what brought the towers down - and NOT the fire or plane impact. Think about that for a second. What else would possibily create the sound of an explosion which is described in speculative detail in the video? I'd say, well, the initial compression of the building collapsing. Which would cause a very large noise, which was cause debris to travel a great distance from the towers.

Also, the explosions they are showing in the video that are happening AS the building is falling. It seems that all the \"explosions\" are within a 5-20 floor distance from the 20-30 levels which are already at the mercy of gravity. Thousands of tons of steel and concrete are falling on top of the levels below. Those \"explosions\" would be caused by air being compressed within the building. Air which is being pushed out of the building at a great speed.

Then, the point where they mention (earlier in the video) that other buildings in the past had been caught on fire; involving multiple levels, and didn't cause those buildings to collapse. Well... did any of the other buildings also happen to have a 747 traveling at several hundred MPH crash into them, destroying or damaging critical floor supports? Same shape, height, weight as the twin towers? Obviously, no.

It's simple really.... people love controversy. There's no getting around that fact. Anyway, it's late (2:30! ack). More discussion will have to wait!

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:01 am

Yeah i want to bring out the same points as Djcjr prettymuch. I've seen a few of these types of Documentarys, and i've read commentary about them online. Some Ducumentarys are good, some are bad. There are so many theorys and descrepancys about the 911 story that every theorist should probabaly describe their beliefs on the matter much like someone may describe their religion, ie: they can say what individual things they DO believe in, what they DON'T, and what they are agnostic about.

I've also seen 911 conspiracy theorists who believe that some of the Documentarys comming out are so POORLY researched that they seem to be COUNTERINTELIGENCE. know what? I AGREE! it is a tactic of counterinteligence to mix bogus info (disinformation) inamongst the valid info so that people will dismiss the valid info by association.

This video, while bringing out some very good points, also seems to mix in some BAD investigative reporting.

example: They suggest in some parts that a missile hit the pentagon, then they talk about the pieces of the plane (eg: turboprop engine) that do not match the commercial airbus.

So what is it? a missile? or a plane? in the documentary they just leave the issue hanging! BUT MISSILES DO NOT USE HUGE TURBOPROP ENGINES! Issues like this they just leave without asking all the questions, leaving the whole issue hanging without even suggesting a plausable explanation for it being a rocket with a huge turboprop engine. *sigh*

personally i LOVE controversies. So the suggestion of disinformation isn't too disheartening, but it does force the ol-noodle to kick up a few gears

.

For those playing the \"so what's true and what isn't?\" game at home, it's probabaly a good idea to keep notes. Coz no self-respecting paranoid-schizophrenic conspiracy nut is without a wall in his house covered in scribbled ramblings, newspaper cutouts and lines interconnecting all of them.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:30 am

I looked at some of the engineering stuff behind the WTC buildings failing. You guys have it right concerning the metal not having to melt. The issue was that the cross members (ones parallel to the ground) failed at the joint with the vertical structural members. This created more of a column effect in them, and since almost a quarter of the exterior ones (the ones that provided the building with the majority of it's strength) where already competely severed, the other ones started to buckle. Everything kind of added up. the heat weakened the structure, the cross bracing failed, and eventually the support buckled. What everyone fails to remember is that buckling ocurred, not toppling. Once the top portion failed and it's weight started coming down on the structure under it, that lower structure simply wasn't strong enough to support the load. Engineering-wise I don't see any problems with how the WTC's failed.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:52 am

Djcjr wrote:Then, the point where they mention (earlier in the video) that other buildings in the past had been caught on fire; involving multiple levels, and didn't cause those buildings to collapse. Well... did any of the other buildings also happen to have a 747 traveling at several hundred MPH crash into them, destroying or damaging critical floor supports? Same shape, height, weight as the twin towers? Obviously, no.

You forgot the biggest factor in the fire: the full load of jet fuel that the planes where carrying.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:23 am

TechPro wrote:
fyrephlie wrote:since i have family involved with nasa at the time, and they assured me that it did happen... i assume that it did. thanks.
Good for you. It happens that I have family (my sister and her husband) who were in New York on that fateful day. I also have a close neighbor who's son was working in the Pentagon on that day and nearly lost his life in that mess.

Guess what I believe?

Now let's all quit undermining each other, and work together to stop terrorism and work for peace, instead of fighting each other. OK ?

I in no way saying that several thousand people did not lose their lives tragically that day. I am not saying that terrorism is not responsible. What I am saying is that I find some of the information that everyone has taken (including myself) up to now as "truth" upon further review has some weaknesses is interesting and worth looking into.

I have seen plenty of air crashes in my 34 years on the planet, and all have had some kind of identifiable pieces. I can't remember a crash where there was even a question as to what crashed.

I don't for a minute believe that 2 planes crashed into the WTC and 1 crashed in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, there seems to be no real identifiable pieces. This raises the question in my mind as to if the plane was shot down or blown up before impact, not whether a plane and its occupants were killed.

As for the Pentagon...It just doesn't "look" like a plane crashed into it. However I must state that since I have never since a plane crash into the Pentagon, I would have no idea what it would look like.

The single hole and the pictures just don't "add up" in my personal view of what one would expect to see.

As for the WTC, I see it both ways. The building collapsing, would cause floors beneath to buckle out causing what appears to be demolition explosions. However, even with that said, the second plane hit towards the corner, not the middle as the first did and yet that building, like the other, collapsed straight down. Again, not being a structural engineer, I have no real idea what other possiblities there are.

I watched 9/11 for days immediately following the event, and I wept and I watched when we went to war, and I cheered. I took everything presented at face value and perhaps I should have stayed that way but I am very inquisitive.

Things that struck me as odd following 9/11...

1) We went to war too fast imo.
2) We invaded Iraq while we were already in Afghanistan and then the focus seemed to shift entirely to Iraq. Why? I thought the bad guys were in Afghanistan and yet we have all this "shock and awe".
3) The explanations for the war in Iraq seemed iffy, and evidence non-existant.

Again, I'm not meaning to hurt those who were directly involved with 9/11. I do however think that discussing such things as if there are things not revealed should be alright but if the thread progresses into those involved and those not involved simply going at it, well, then I think the thread should be closed.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:56 am

SuperSheep wrote:In Pennsylvania, there seems to be no real identifiable pieces. This raises the question in my mind as to if the plane was shot down or blown up before impact

Sirian lives in that area. He wrote about a close family member seeing the plane just a few miles before it crashed. That creates a pretty tight window for the plane to be shot down or blown up...

from what I recall, there were several identifiable pieces scattered along the ground. But I'd have to look for more information.

As for the Pentagon...It just doesn't "look" like a plane crashed into it.

I guess the question is, what should a building look like if a plane crashes into it? I'd expect to see a hole about the diameter of the fuselage, maybe a bit bigger, and possibly with indentations where the wings and tail would have sheared off.

Google tells me a B-25 hit the Empire State Building in 1945 and left an 18'x20' hole. The plane has a 67'7" wingspan. It appears the wings and tail sheared completely off.

the second plane hit towards the corner, not the middle as the first did and yet that building, like the other, collapsed straight down.

I don't think it's a question of corner vs mid-side, but a question of where the fire burned the hottest. If the central supports gave out first, the building would definitely fall straight down.

But, even if they didn't, here's an experiment for someone to try: build some sort of toothpick-and-gumdrop structure, with inner and outer supports, and put a couple phone books on top. Then bust some of the toothpicks and see what direction it falls. I'm willing to bet gravity is the overriding force -- once those phone books start going down, they're not going to make much sideways motion at all. The only way they'll go sideways is if the structure below them is strong enough to actually deflect them sideways, in which case, you'll have phone books going one way and toothpicks shooting out the other way.

The top 30 or 40 floors of the WTC towers all started coming down at once. I'd imagine they'd behave the same as the phone books in the above experiment, and I'd imagine the structure below them wouldn't be strong enough to "deflect" them significantly.

2) We invaded Iraq while we were already in Afghanistan and then the focus seemed to shift entirely to Iraq. Why? I thought the bad guys were in Afghanistan

There are lots of "bad guys". Not all of them are part of Al Qaeda.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:46 am

I don't think it's a question of corner vs mid-side, but a question of where the fire burned the hottest. If the central supports gave out first, the building would definitely fall straight down.

True however some have mentioned that the buildings skin is an integral part of its stength therefore wouldn't losing the skin or a large part of it on the side or corner lead to a possible failure on that side first?

Again, I am not a structural engineer, so I simply am commenting at how amazed I am that the buildings, all three, came down almost perfectly within their footprints without being professional demolished. I guess a well placed explosive (or plane) high up or damaging the side of a building (WTC 7) is sufficient so why the need for professional demolition experts? Yes, some sarcasm intended.

There are lots of \"bad guys\". Not all of them are part of Al Qaeda.

Yes there are. They are in every country even. My point was that attention IMHO was shifted too soon with what seemed diminishing importance on bringing it to those who brought on 9/11 and bringing it on those that could at some point in the future.

I am not anti-war, but I am for taking things in some sort of logical progression. Why not take out Bin Laden first and then worry about other matters?

For my part, I think the attention was shifted for reasons that don't seem related to a \"clear and present danger\" but rather to further policy.

Sirian lives in that area. He wrote about a close family member seeing the plane just a few miles before it crashed. That creates a pretty tight window for the plane to be shot down or blown up...

Yes, and missiles can move pretty quick. Let's say hypothetically that the plane was shot down. The fact that passengers were in the process of taking it over would be shadowed by that. People would ask \"why didn't you wait to see if the plane could have been taken back?\" or \"did you really have to shoot it down then, why not later?\"

The fact that the plane was not in direct radio contact coupled with the fact that the phone calls were to civilians would not come up or would be brushed over when regarding a possible military intervention.

Couple of sites discussing flight 93 with pics...

http://www.september11news.com/Flight93.htm
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/UA93/ ... yNews.html
http://www.bartcop.com/flight93.htm

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:14 pm

SuperSheep wrote:True however some have mentioned that the buildings skin is an integral part of its stength therefore wouldn't losing the skin or a large part of it on the side or corner lead to a possible failure on that side first?

Perhaps. This is why I suggested the toothpick experiment. I don't think a structural failure on one side would lead to the building toppling, but rather, falling straight down.

If one side of the structure failed while the other remained completely intact, perhaps you could get a toppling effect. But if one side failed and the top of the building started to lean and then the other side failed, the building should fall straight down. The only two forces involved are gravity and the upward force generated by the supports. You're not going to get sideways falling unless the supports on one side of the building are enough stronger than the supports on the other side to actually deflect the building as it starts to fall.

There are lots of "bad guys". Not all of them are part of Al Qaeda.
Yes there are. They are in every country even. My point was that attention IMHO was shifted too soon with what seemed diminishing importance on bringing it to those who brought on 9/11 and bringing it on those that could at some point in the future.

Here, I disagree with you. One of the fundamental changes in my thought process after 9/11 was the realization that we're not dealing with a few isolated nutjobs like in Waco or the backwoods parts of northern Idaho, but with a whole messed up culture -- a culture that blames America and Israel for all of their problems, that wants to forcibly convert the whole world to their religion, that views people as crazy as Pat Robertson as great leaders. Taking out the nutjobs is a losing proposition, because the culture keeps producing them. Changing the culture is the only winning proposition.

I think the attention was shifted for reasons that don't seem related to a "clear and present danger" but rather to further policy.

Agreed. Though, I would say the policy is "reduction of danger over the long-term", and it's a good policy to be pursuing.

missiles can move pretty quick.

I know. What I'm suggesting is that the timing of the missile being fired and hitting would have to be pretty precise in order to not have anyone on the ground notice it. We know of at least one person who was on the ground who saw the plane overhead very close to when it went down, and who didn't report anything unusual in the air with the plane...

Couple of sites discussing flight 93 with pics...

http://www.september11news.com/Flight93.htm
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/UA93/ ... yNews.html
http://www.bartcop.com/flight93.htm

None of those pics are really very good. Ground level pics of the crater don't show what's inside the crater, and the aerial pics are too far off to see the debris.

I think the right approach would be to get some close-up aerial shots, and compare them to other crash sites.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:48 pm

In the first link at the end of Sheep's post, officials noted that debris showed up eight miles away from the Penn crash site. 8 miles is a long way for crashed metal to float. Did the plane break apart? 400+ knots at 500 ft is going to kill the metal skin but it should hold at that speed, what's logical, a sidewinder.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:05 pm

SuperSheep wrote:Again, I am not a structural engineer

Keep in mind that Osama bin Laden IS a structural engineer and knows about shear, buckling, and the other forces that a buildings structure has to withstand. People seem to forget that this was not a rag tag band of ignorant peasants that pulled this off. They were very intelligent, motivated people with plenty of time to plane and rehearse.

Try to remember that a lot of the conspiracy theorists "evidence" comes from eye witnesses. Any law enforcement officer will tell you how poor eye witness information tends to be. That is even more apparent when you are talking about things of a technical nature.

Some people reported hearing what sounded like a missile flying overhead right before the plane hit the Pentagon. Do those people know what a missile sounds like compared to a commercial airliner flying in cruise configuration and speed? Most people know so little about aircraft that they still believe that explosive decompression will occur if a bullet goes through the side of the fuselage at altitude. I can assure you that it doesn't.

I have heard that the plane crash that happened in that field couldn't have happened because of how little wreckage there was. A lot of people are convinced that is should have looked like the crashes they have seen on the nightly news. Well guess what? Most of those other crashes happened at significantly lower speeds than the one in Penn did. The vast majority of plane crashed happen either at take-off or landing (both roughly 150 mph for a commercial aircraft like a B757 or B767). The plane that crashed in Penn was probably traveling in excess of 500 mph when it hit. I have seen wreckage of a commercial plane that crashed at a high speed into the ground. There wasn't much left to identify it as a plane unless you were right there on the scene and knew what you were looking at. I suspect much the same happened in Penn.

The same thing would apply to the lack of initial damage to the Pentagon. The building would not have had to have been the plane’s first point of contact for there to be that much damage. If the plane hit the ground just in front of the building or the point where the building meets the ground there wouldn’t necessarily be a fuselage shaped hole in the building. The majority of the plane’s structure is aluminum. By comparison to the masonry of the building it is soft, light, and doesn’t have much density. In other words, it will dissipate energy quite quickly. The high strength steel of the landing gear or engines is a different matter all together. For you physics cats out there, how much energy and momentum does a 2000 pound engine (the core of which is high strength steel) with a diameter of roughly 6 feet have when traveling at 500 mpg? Is it enough to punch through a few levels of the Pentagon?

Is this the way it happened? I don’t know. I am merely trying to put some rational thought behind some of the events. Things almost never happen in real life like they do in Hollywood. Most people don’t have an understanding of technology, physics, and the interaction between them. So for most people hearing a loud whooshing sound just before the Pentagon was hit means that it must have been a missile of something else. After all, anyone who has flown knows that an airliner at cruise makes that nice steady rumbling sound of the engines and wind. They are also convinced that if someone were to shoot a hole in the plane, they would be sucked out.

SuperSheep · Post by **SuperSheep** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:26 pm

Ok, got another question...

How does a plane fly into the WTC and not come out the other side, and yet makes it through 3 rings of the Pentagon each having two walls of steel reinforced concrete?

Also...More interesting videos...
Part I - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ade+center
Part II - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ade+center

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:28 pm

SuperSheep wrote:True however some have mentioned that the buildings skin is an integral part of its stength therefore wouldn't losing the skin or a large part of it on the side or corner lead to a possible failure on that side first?

Again, I am not a structural engineer, so I simply am commenting at how amazed I am that the buildings, all three, came down almost perfectly within their footprints without being professional demolished. I guess a well placed explosive (or plane) high up or damaging the side of a building (WTC 7) is sufficient so why the need for professional demolition experts? Yes, some sarcasm intended.

If by perfectly you mean obliterated anything around them.
http://www.derekcrane.com/WTC%20photos/ ... rhead2.jpg

How would you tell the difference between demolitioning a building by blowing up its supports at the 80th level or so and having a plane crash into and collapsing from the missing supports? Either way the top is going to cave in and destroy the rest of the building as it falls down. I guess I'm missing how the collapse proves their were demolition experts involved. Are you trying to say that if they were hit by planes, the buildings would have toppled on their sides instead of coming straight down? (FYI: it wouldn't happen)

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:00 pm

Back where I grew up, there was a controlled demolition of the Bow Valley Center (AKA Calgary General Hospital). WTC 1, 2, and 7 looked just like that.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:30 pm

Ferno wrote:Back where I grew up, there was a controlled demolition of the Bow Valley Center (AKA Calgary General Hospital). WTC 1, 2, and 7 looked just like that.

I once saw a picture on the Internet of damage done by an earthquake, a tsunami and an atomic bomb. Maybe they brought down building 7...

SuperSheep wrote:Ok, got another question...

How does a plane fly into the WTC and not come out the other side, and yet makes it through 3 rings of the Pentagon each having two walls of steel reinforced concrete?

Also...More interesting videos...
Part I - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ade+center
Part II - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ade+center

The Pentagon is not the World Trade Center. The WTC is lined with steel beams much tighter than the Pentagon was, "not being a structural engineer" I can't say for sure, but I'd venture a guess that the WTC was built to be stronger than the bomb-resistant Pentagon was. Plus, in the center of the WTC is the elevator core. Check it out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worl ... ngment.jpg

Even with all that, the second plane did go through.
http://www.geocities.com/streakingobjec ... s-wtTH.jpg

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:37 am

Speaking as a mechanical engineer, the way the WTC towers failed is the way it would be expected to fail. When the supports near the damage failed, the others suddenly had to try to pick up the slack, just couldn't, and buckled. (Remember that everything in the area had been significantly weakened by the fire.) Tom's idea about using toothpicks is a decent one, but I would do straws instead. Basically, the lopsided-ness of the support did cause the building to tip some, but the supports became so overwhelmed so quickly that they didn't have enough time to make a significant difference. Thus, if you use careful measurements, you will probably see the parts above the damage tipping a slight bit, but not really enough to be seen with the naked eye. Under the damage everything was evenly supported, and there is no reason for it to fall off to any side. (make any symmetrically supported tower, and drop something heavy on it- you will see how the weight overwhelms the supports so quickly that everything simply falls down.)

To address the questions about the controlled demolitions: I don't know a whole lot about how controlled demolitions are done, but I'm pretty sure that the basic premise is to cause the \"core\" of the building to fail first, and relatively symmetrically. If you get the inside falling first, it will tend to pull the outside of the building in toward itself, thus causing there to minimal debris flying out in other directions. This also acts to prevent one side from failing while than another side doesn't- which would lead to a toppling effect. The WTC's would lend themselves naturally toward the type of failure, since most of the structure was focused around the outside of the building, and the center was relatively unsupported. It makes sense that the inside would break first, tending to pull the outside in toward itself was it fell. Like I said earlier, this would also tend to cause the whole outside to fail symmetrically, rather than one side before another.

Anyone else seen this take on 9/11?

Anyone else seen this take on 9/11?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: