9/11 Third Tower Mystery 'Solved'

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

The whole point of my post was that it was not a demolition like fall. In a controlled demolition YOU DO NOT take out surrounding buildings. Tower 7 took out two surrounding buildings. One had so much damage it was no salvageable and later destroyed. The other suffered major damage.

Just because the building did not fall over to the side like a bunch of Jenga block does not mean it was a controlled demolition. So basically my point is that in demolisions they will have to continue blasting in order to avoid taking out surrounding buildings as tower 7 did.

Please Reread Burninator's post (which btw is excellent), and it will explain why the building fell in the way it did.

I already gave props to Burninator, thanks.

What I was looking for from you was some technical reasons for what you stated as fact with no explanation other than some reference to Jenga blocks, whatever they are.

Other buildings can be taken out in a controlled demolition, it just means that it wasn't controlled very well. Maybe explosives were planted by the terrorists, after all they'd done it before.
I'm not a believer that the government conspired to do 9/11, in fact I think that's going into wingnut territory, as I told Looger in his original thread on this topic, but I think there are some questions that haven't been fully answered and they may never be.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I remember seeing a report where a guy had interviewed someone who was with Bin Laden when the news came in. The witness told the reporter that Bin Laden thought there was an outside chance that the plane fires would cause the buildings to collapse and was overjoyed when it happened.

Lets not forget his background, construction.

I don't recall where I saw that and I'm not even sure how to begin a search. Maybe someone else saw the same report?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I remember seeing a report where a guy had interviewed someone who was with Bin Laden when the news came in. The witness told the reporter that Bin Laden thought there was an outside chance that the plane fires would cause the buildings to collapse and was overjoyed when it happened.

Lets not forget his background, construction.

I don't recall where I saw that and I'm not even sure how to begin a search. Maybe someone else saw the same report?

"I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only," he said, according to a U.S. government translation. "This is all that we had hoped for."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/1...den.videotape/

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Appreciated. I think a lot of believe in the conspiracy of 9/11 stems from people wanting big explanations for big events. Events like 9/11 and the JFK assassination make people feel vulnerable. It's scary thinking that 19 people can essentially bring down one of the super powers of the world and change everything, or that one lone nut can take down the president of that country.

Some good stuff to watch or read is:

Popular Mechanics article

The accompanying book

Skeptic magazines eSkeptic article on the conspiracy

History channel had a good show on the conspiracy (it's probably on youtube)

National Geographic had a really good two part show about the events leading up to the attack.

I've read the article, and I've read the book. Both good reads.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/1...den.videotape/

That's the one. Thanks Tranny.

[badnarik]

Everytime I see one of these threads it reminds me of the loose trains. I think someone may have posted this before.

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I already gave props to Burninator, thanks.

What I was looking for from you was some technical reasons for what you stated as fact with no explanation other than some reference to Jenga blocks, whatever they are.

Other buildings can be taken out in a controlled demolition, it just means that it wasn't controlled very well. Maybe explosives were planted by the terrorists, after all they'd done it before.
I'm not a believer that the government conspired to do 9/11, in fact I think that's going into wingnut territory, as I told Looger in his original thread on this topic, but I think there are some questions that haven't been fully answered and they may never be.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

This probably the best and simplest article I have read debunking the conspiracy theories. Thanks again to Burninator for reposting it.

I guess you are right the collapse of the towers could have been the result of a purposely poorly executed demolition. There is, however, no credible evidence to suggest it was. I'm not exactly sure what kind of evidence it would take to convince you that the most plausible explanation was the actual explanation.

I have no problem with people questioning fact. That is a fantastic thing. My problem (not that I am accusing you of doing this) is when people make up outlandish theories and use them to further political goals. This is known as propaganda and has no place in our society. The fact that people are willing to believe things like the steel didn't reach a melting temperature of 2600 degrees so there is no way it could have collapsed is absolutely ridiculous. Everybody knows that metal bends easier when it gets hot. You do not have to melt it to bend it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Thanks.

In my opinion I blame the lack of preparedness for attack was the ignorance of the middle east extremists and the middle east in general. Heck I'll admit that I am quite ignorant about the middle east. Like others had said hindsight is 20/20. But with the Clinton and Bush administration the concern for middle east extremists intelligence was lacking to say the least. I mean Al-Quada attacked the World Center before!

I think it goes back a lot further than Clinton or Bush 2.

Bush 1, even Reagan ignored the threats....and Carter was the first President to start screwing the intelligence community.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by McMack

I think what the War in Iraq has proven is that there is no need to come up with some comic book type consipracy theory to justify American military action when you can just drum up false charges of a nuclear weapons program and not really have to break a sweat. Plus, other than in a comic book, where are you going to find the hundreds of people who are so evil that they are willing to commit such a heinous act of treason and evil doing against their own countrymen?

And if it were all a big conspiracy, why not plant WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Other buildings can be taken out in a controlled demolition, it just means that it wasn't controlled very well. Maybe explosives were planted by the terrorists, after all they'd done it before.

Point is they weren't.

How on earth would the 'terrorists' be able to get into any of the buildings near the WTCs and plant explosives?

And not just a van either, fulled with TNT....instead, we're talking about an impossible feat to plant explosives in one of the busiest buildings in the world, without people knowing about it....and doing it to perfection.

You might want to check out what the people who actually do that kind of stuff for a living have to say. I recall reading about a demolitions expert saying the static electricity in the WTC alone, would probably be enough to set off the explosives before they were ready.

He also said that when they bring down a building, such as the Kingdom in Seattle, they re-checked everything a half dozen times before they actually set it off.

You don't think someone would have noticed Middle Eastern men going back and forth throughout the building a million times?

[Magnum PEI]

While I'm inclined to believe the official story, there is some oddities about the Pentagon that have me wondering. Why were only seven frames of security footage released? Why did it take 5 years for the frames to be released? How could a pilot with limited flying experience fly a jumbo-jet perfectly into a five-story building? Not saying I believe, but it seems weird to me.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

How could a pilot with limited flying experience fly a jumbo-jet perfectly into a five-story building? Not saying I believe, but it seems weird to me.

That's the thing, where did you get that bit of info from- that the plane was flown perfectly.

Part of the reason there was security footage from gas stations to be confiscated in the first place is the plane got low enough a few times to start taking our light posts.

I have flown a plane before. Meaning that at altitude I have taken the controls and made course adjustments and changes in altitude. Landing safely is the real tricky part.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

This probably the best and simplest article I have read debunking the conspiracy theories. Thanks again to Burninator for reposting it.

I guess you are right the collapse of the towers could have been the result of a purposely poorly executed demolition. There is, however, no credible evidence to suggest it was. I'm not exactly sure what kind of evidence it would take to convince you that the most plausible explanation was the actual explanation.

I have no problem with people questioning fact. That is a fantastic thing. My problem (not that I am accusing you of doing this) is when people make up outlandish theories and use them to further political goals. This is known as propaganda and has no place in our society. The fact that people are willing to believe things like the steel didn't reach a melting temperature of 2600 degrees so there is no way it could have collapsed is absolutely ridiculous. Everybody knows that metal bends easier when it gets hot. You do not have to melt it to bend it.

You see, I didn't say that and I pretty much agree with Burninator but I'm throwing ideas out there and trying to do it in a respectful manner.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

While I'm inclined to believe the official story, there is some oddities about the Pentagon that have me wondering. Why were only seven frames of security footage released? Why did it take 5 years for the frames to be released?

You know, why don't have a sit down and a think. Come up with some reasonable explanations yourself.

Here I will throw a couple your way.

1. How many high speed cameras we there, pointing in the right direction, ready for a suicide attack?

2. It is the Pentagon. The head quarters for the defense of the entire country. You can't take a picture of the building without permission. And you are wondering why they don't immediately release all the information to jo-blow just because he has some bad feelings?

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by HOZ

You know, why don't have a sit down and a think. Come up with some reasonable explanations yourself.

Here I will throw a couple your way.

1. How many high speed cameras we there, pointing in the right direction, ready for a suicide attack?

2. It is the Pentagon. The head quarters for the defense of the entire country. You can't take a picture of the building without permission. And you are wondering why they don't immediately release all the information to jo-blow just because he has some bad feelings?

How many movies and TV shows have you seen with shots of the Pentagon? I know I've seen quite a few. I even remember an episode of 60 Minutes where they went to the greenspace at the very centre of the Pentagon.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

How many movies and TV shows have you seen with shots of the Pentagon? I know I've seen quite a few. I even remember an episode of 60 Minutes where they went to the greenspace at the very centre of the Pentagon.

A lot of the information was kept confidential for reasons of national security and there was a trial going on.

As for the few frames of footage, its pretty easily explained. The plane was moving extremely fast. Even a high speed camera could only catch so many frames.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

2. It is the Pentagon. The head quarters for the defense of the entire country. You can't take a picture of the building without permission.

I really doubt that is true. You can take a picture of it from the freeway. You can do a google search and find thousands of pictures of the building. You can make a tour request on the official website. The Army website describes in detail how the building is laid out. It's not a secret lair. There are not state secrets written on banners hanging out the windows. Most sentient adults in the western world would recognize it.

It is one of the largest buildings in the world in the middle of a major city. It would be like trying to restrict people from taking pictures of the Astrodome.

Originally Posted by HOZ

And you are wondering why they don't immediately release all the information to jo-blow just because he has some bad feelings?

Who said "all the information"? There are a lot of Joe Blows out there. Do they not have a right to see what happened, if the evidence exists? I think they do. There is more to it than bad feelings.

I've always wondered why they don't have any decent footage of the plane actually crashing into the building. I kinda figure now that it was just more incompetence of the sort that allowed the attacks to happen in the first place. Some of the cameras didn't work, a few of them ran out of tape, maybe one or two of them were trained on some gal in a short skirt, and all the talk of how secure the area was happened to be hogwash in the first place.

[Morozee]

Found this link with a lot of pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon:

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Between these pictures and reading the Popular Mechanics article, I now believe it was indeed hit by the 757.

The only thing I don't get is why the FBI wouldn't release even one frame of footage showing the airplane? The way they went about releasing certain evidence and not the more concrete pieces of evidence, it was as if they wanted these conspiracy theories to be floating around.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I really doubt that is true. You can take a picture of it from the freeway. You can do a google search and find thousands of pictures of the building. You can make a tour request on the official website. The Army website describes in detail how the building is laid out. It's not a secret lair. There are not state secrets written on banners hanging out the windows. Most sentient adults in the western world would recognize it.

It is one of the largest buildings in the world in the middle of a major city. It would be like trying to restrict people from taking pictures of the Astrodome.



Who said "all the information"? There are a lot of Joe Blows out there. Do they not have a right to see what happened, if the evidence exists? I think they do. There is more to it than bad feelings.

I've always wondered why they don't have any decent footage of the plane actually crashing into the building. I kinda figure now that it was just more incompetence of the sort that allowed the attacks to happen in the first place. Some of the cameras didn't work, a few of them ran out of tape, maybe one or two of them were trained on some gal in a short skirt, and all the talk of how secure the area was happened to be hogwash in the first place.

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

How many movies and TV shows have you seen with shots of the Pentagon? I know I've seen quite a few. I even remember an episode of 60 Minutes where they went to the greenspace at the very centre of the Pentagon.

Rouge and MagnumPEI, walk up to the building and start firing. Please try. Yes they can't stop you from taking a shot from the freeway or miles away. But you cannot walk up to it and shoot. You must get permission. News organizations have permission and file pictures they can use.

BTW: You cannot fly near it either.

Rouge I didn't say it made sense. I just said it is the Pentagon. They kept the U-2 Soviey Union flyovers top secret even after one plane got shot down and everyone new about 20 years later. Only after the freedom of information act did they let trickle out. 5 blurred frames of a jetliner screaming into the Pentagon....I say we got lucky.

[photon]

Aw crap I go away for the weekend and look what I miss!

I like the trains theory.