I really don't understand why they can't show the plane making impact. We have all seen the planes make impact on the twin towers.....a thousand times over and we know that other cameras viewed the Pentagon attack......what is the big deal??
Thermite can absolutely melt a beam connection, and quick. It's purpose is for demolition. Look for other sources besides National Geographic.
Hell .......ANY evidence of explosive material should be closely examined by a new investigation.
I remember watching a special (TLC) when engineers packed Thermite around a support beam made of the same material as the support beams and approximately the same size in the WTC and they packed a good quantity around it, and it absolutely did not cut through the beam. One of the archtechs for truth to use the replication done by Robert Moore where they cut a very small Steel rod with a large bucket sized sample of thermite, so even if you went by the theory of increasing sizes you would need extremely large quantities of Thermite to cut through the beams the size of the support structures in the WTC.
Someone also calculated that the mass of suppossed aluminum waste products that fell from the WTC would require 18000 pounds of Thermite to produce
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Oh, well if they're under oath that's going to change everything. If people have been lying for years and getting away with it, why would they stop?
Because in order to cut the deficit down, they're reducing the amount of dollars spent on a "hush hush" program which pays everyone off to shut their pieholes up about the whole thing. Money makes the world go round!
Not to mention there were other metals besides steel in the building, obviously, and many of them were definitely in the melting range of the temp burn in the buildings.
Finding even molten steel in the rubble afterwards isn't surprising, considering with limited air and enclosed under rubble the heat can dramatically increase to points well above steel's melting point.
The flashes were not witnessed when the planes made impact. They were reported right before collapse.
Have you ever blown onto a fire and seen it flare up big? Now think, burning materials have fallen down to the bottom, and are still burning. Now the top of the tower starts collapsing, sending a rush of wind down the shafts, and the fires suddenly get larger. There's your "flash" or what easily could be called an explosion by a observer, especially one would obviously would have been concerned for their life at the moment of observation. i.e. panicking. Also, most people think of "movie explosions" when talking about explosions. What I'm describing would cause what would look like a "movie explosion". If there was an actual explosion to aid the tower collapse, it would not look anything like a "flash." Any detonation that could have been planted without long term planning and installation (obviously very noticable) that could have aided in the building's collapse would have had a shock wave that would likely have killed everyone outside on the street running away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
Wow.......you don't get it.
Do you have any understanding of physics and or structural engineering at all? The weight and inertia of at least 15 floors falling would overload the design load AND the safety factors by what? At least a factor of 100, IMO. The floors would instantly be sheared off of the columns, with virtually no resistance. There's no building contents even remotely strong enough to have any significant effect on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
You're reaching big time. How do you know what the desginers considered?
It's clear that no one had ever considered planes being used as weapons, as they were. Thus, the results of what happened when a plane intentionally hit the buildings were never considered. It's not that hard to understand is it? All the talk around the accident was that the engineers had considered the possibility of a 707 accidentally hitting a tower in some fog on final approach. The 707 is a much smaller plane, and a plane on final approach would not have had a huge quantity of fuel on board, and would have been going 1/3 of the speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck
You shuold really check out what real architects, fire experts and engineers have to say about the collapse.
I've checked out many. Virtually all agree with what I'm saying.
Last edited by You Need a Thneed; 09-13-2011 at 11:12 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
I find it funny when CaptainCrunch believes certain witness testimony to support the pentagon impact and the supposed "bulge" in building 7 (I'm not saying these things are not true/plausible btw), but then dismisses all the witness accounts of explosions/flashes in the basement/lobby sections of the twin towers and WTC 7 (Barry Jennings). Tons of witnesses saw the flashes, heard the bombs, saw the molten steel under the rubble pile.....
.
The quote that Truthers link to.
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” But if you read on... "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
The quote un edited
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
Explosion sounds quote that conspiracy theoriest use
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go... ...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
What was edited out
“When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Thermite can absolutely melt a beam connection, and quick. It's purpose is for demolition. Look for other sources besides National Geographic.
Hell .......ANY evidence of explosive material should be closely examined by a new investigation.
Thermite is a cutting material not an explosive, it is not used to 'demolish' things, it is used to make cuts in steel in order to weaken structures and prime them for the explosives.
It isn't in any way able to bring buildings down instantly on its own.
I've always been confused by the controll demolition of the two towers theory.
This is a controlled demolition
I look at the WTC and unlike above where it collapses from the bottom with the top falling into the debris field, the WTC collapse from the top collapsing onto the bottom which creates the massive debris field.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
This thread (and other topics like it) offers fascinating insight into human nature... The "US Government" on the one hand is capable of organizing an incredibly complex plot to fake the 9/11 attacks, where nobody of the hundreds/thousands insiders leaks anything... Sure, but, you know, it would be a lot more believable if the "US Government" had managed to plant some mustard gas in some dusty corner of Iraq... because, you know, that would have been kind of helpful to advancing the whole "evil" agenda to take over the Middle East... The fact that they couldn't (or, rather, wouldn't) do the latter is very much indicative that they weren't capable of pulling off the former...
Iran/Contra was a pretty minor and harmless conspiracy, yet... couldn't keep it secret.
I worry for you people - you do know X-Files was not a documentary?
Add to that, the hijackers had no connection to Iraq and the US tried to invent the connection later on. Rather than just blaming Iraq in the first place.
The conspiracy makes no damn sense. All people are basing it off is the fact that the buildings falling looked a little like demolition videos they've seen in the past and it kinda seems like a plane hitting the pentagon should have looked different.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
I really don't understand why they can't show the plane making impact. We have all seen the planes make impact on the twin towers.....a thousand times over and we know that other cameras viewed the Pentagon attack......what is the big deal??
There is a video of a plane hitting the pentagon. Should i point out the difference between trying to see a plane travel mere metres at a high rate of velocity before it explodes versus veiwing at a further distance with better cameras (WTC) ? Also finding parts of the plane at the scene (there are plenty of pictures) should trump some foggy video camera that was released.
The problem with the collapse theory is that the "collapse" takes the path of greatest resistance in a matter of 10 seconds or less for all 3 buildings.
There scenario of 9/11 has never happened before, so all theories on how a building collapse should go out the window, as you know have proof of concept!!!!
There is a video of a plane hitting the pentagon. Should i point out the difference between trying to see a plane travel mere metres at a high rate of velocity before it explodes versus veiwing at a further distance with better cameras (WTC) ? Also finding parts of the plane at the scene (there are plenty of pictures) should trump some foggy video camera that was released.
Although I do think a plane hit the Pentagon, why has the government refused to release the footage at the government-owned gas station across the street that apparently caught the footage too? Why has only the footage of what is considered a security checkpoint released to the public? Additionally, why did the FBI do an immediate sweep of the crash area right after the plane hit?
I don't think there is a conspiracy here; it is what it is, but I doubt for a second the whole incident is as innocent as the government's official story made it out to be. There is likely a measure of confidentiality and SCI here for other reasons.
You sheeple are just being brainwashed by all the toxins in the contrails. Not me though, I'm immune. Immune to contrails and government lies! My only vaccine is the TRUTH.
I really don't understand why they can't show the plane making impact. We have all seen the planes make impact on the twin towers.....a thousand times over and we know that other cameras viewed the Pentagon attack......what is the big deal??
Is it not totally plausible that no good quality video exists? 10's if not hundreds of thousands of people (many tourists with cameras) around the towers vs. the pentagon? Add that to the stricter security protocols near the pentagon and it's no longer such a "big deal" that youtube isn't filled with video
Is it not totally plausible that no good quality video exists? 10's if not hundreds of thousands of people (many tourists with cameras) around the towers vs. the pentagon? Add that to the stricter security protocols near the pentagon and it's no longer such a "big deal" that youtube isn't filled with video
I'm not a conspiracy nut by any stretch. Any "knowledge" of the attacks that wasn't acted upon was mostly due to politics between branches of gov, stupidity and incompetence.
All that being said it is kind of ####ed up that there haven't been any videos released of the pentagon, especially when my understanding is that there is at least one video showing direct impact. Not enough that I'd buy into any inside job crap but enough that I am fairly certain there's more to the pentagon scenario. Not sure exactly what, but something.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Although I do think a plane hit the Pentagon, why has the government refused to release the footage at the government-owned gas station across the street that apparently caught the footage too? Why has only the footage of what is considered a security checkpoint released to the public? Additionally, why did the FBI do an immediate sweep of the crash area right after the plane hit?
I don't think there is a conspiracy here; it is what it is, but I doubt for a second the whole incident is as innocent as the government's official story made it out to be. There is likely a measure of confidentiality and SCI here for other reasons.
I am really confused what you meanby innocent. I am also confused what you find weird about the security protocols of perhaps the largest center of military secrets of the most powerful nation on earth.
This thread (and other topics like it) offers fascinating insight into human nature...
That's really the nub of it.
The great irony here is that, as I've said before, there is no one more gullible or more easily led around by the nose than a committed conspiracy theorist, the very person who goes around blithely labelling his/her detractors as a "sheeple."
Arguing point by point with such a person is a complete waste of time.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
Although I do think a plane hit the Pentagon, why has the government refused to release the footage at the government-owned gas station across the street that apparently caught the footage too? Why has only the footage of what is considered a security checkpoint released to the public? Additionally, why did the FBI do an immediate sweep of the crash area right after the plane hit?
I don't think there is a conspiracy here; it is what it is, but I doubt for a second the whole incident is as innocent as the government's official story made it out to be. There is likely a measure of confidentiality and SCI here for other reasons.
A valid questions for sure and i don't have the answers. Having said that it's such a minor detail that it should not trump the evidence - eye witness reports, debri at the scene... FAA radar etc.
