Fifth Estate on channel 6 right now

[vtec4life]

They're talking on CBC National Television about 9/11 and it is a very interesting point of view, check it out!

[vtec4life]

come onn its pretty crazy isnt it?? I havent beleived the media for years about it but finally they are on national television talking about the theory that members of the american government were behind the whole 9/11 attacks

[oogaboogie]

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVHh8tVyDRM

[black13]

yea i watched half of it the other night. Some very compelling evidence. I'm really surprised how this hasn't caught more attention.

I'm guessing people brush it off as just another wild conspiracy theory like the moon landing.

Just shows how typical media all have an agenda on how to change people's opinions. The US wanted oil, they had to sacrifice a bunch of their own so no one would oppose anything until its too late.

Reminds me of the Watchmen which pretty much had this exact theme in it. Well except the fact that the bad guy in the Watchmen had a good cause for it while people behind this did it for the money.

[oogaboogie]

This is the latest story 29 November 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4vFunDyMaE

[atgilchrist]

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/04/weekend_diversion_do_tinfoil_h/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[masoncgy]

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

Seriously guys... this subject has been fogged to death for over 8 years now... ugh.

[ZenOps]

Well..

If you truely want to believe the current explaination from the US, then you do have to believe that the US military is totally incompetent at protecting local interests. The current idea is that the US cannot protect against an knife attack that can cause tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars damage to New York buildings and the Pentagon... "Do You Really Want To Believe That"™

However - it does set a bad precedent as some nations may now be looking for weaknesses in North American security to exploit.

It does kind of come down to whether you believe a conspiracy theory, or believe the US military is actually in shambles.

Personally I'd think the US military would "like" to believe the conspiracy theory - as it would legitimize them to spend more money on upgrading the military. The common public probably still prefers the terrorist theory. Either way - its a win win scenario for invading another country.

Me - I want to believe the US military/govt did it themselves, or else it proves that the US military is in fact - totally incapable or protecting its own citizens which is *subjectively* far far worse than the conspiracy theory any day.

If its not a conspiracy theory - I suggest that Canada could invade the US today, and win. I will take a city in California thankyouverymuch.

[scat19]

I've never believe the "official" story and never will. How stupid do you have to be to believe that crap.

I enjoyed the documentary, Fith Estate is always a good watch.

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by ZenOps
or believe the US military is actually in shambles.

Yeah, I DO believe that actually. Look at how poorly the Iraq & Afghanistan missions have been handled...

You can't look back at the pre-9/11 days and think... well, how could a group of dudes hijack a plane with boxcutters?

Well... at the time, such an occurrence was unfathomable to 99% of people... maybe 99.9% of people... you can't just sit back and say, 'there's no way that could have happened without some kind of government involvement...' because at the time, who would have thought that someone could pull it off.

The world changed on 9/11...

[Mckenzie]

I caught about 40 mins of it. Nothing there is really new, nor is the evidence overly conclusive, but at the least, it is very thought provoking, which I think is very healthy for people who cannot comprehend questioning the reliability of something presented to them as absolute fact.

[freshprince1]

I don't believe the conspiracy theory that the attacks were covertly carried out by the US government. People who want to believe this have seen too many movies.

But they do have a couple valid points, monstly around the whole Pentagon thing. I think the US is hiding something...but I do not think they brought down the towers etc. on their own.

[ZenOps]

Yeah me too, I actually believe the official story that the US military is totally incompetent. I have some boxcutters in the basement, anyone want to make the USA the 11th province of Canada?

No wait: We shouldn't make them a province when we invade, that would mean it would be under monarichal control. The Queens got too much land as is.

I'd like to believe the conspiracy theory though. Sabotage seems an easier pill to swallow than gross incompetence.

The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

[DayGlow]

I would love the tinfoil hat brigade to explain how a conspiracy of this magnitude can go on without a leak. It's laughable to think that the 1000's needed to make it happen are all so evil in their hearts that they would believe an attack was necessary. It's also laughable that it could be contained in secrecy for so long.

I would challenge anyone to find 40 people they know and know each other and invite half of them to a dinner party and have it kept secret from the other half, let alone the numbers needed here to drop the towers.

ZenOps, you are so out of touch with reality. Confusion in the initial few hours it how it happened. Info doesn't flow cleanly from top to bottom. Look at the most recent mass hysteria event in the media, the shooting at Ft Hood. It took a full 24 hours for the real story to filter through. For the longest time there was info of multiple shooters, etc because massive amounts of info does not flow smoothly. You need to get your head out of movies and fiction, it's destroying your brain to reality.

[ZenOps]

I DO believe the official media story. I want to believe the conspiracy theory (but can't)

The official media story makes me think that the US is weaksauce and prime for takeover. Thats my main point.

[dexlargo]

Why does 9/11 mean the american military is weak? Civilian airliners were hijacked - their security was not provided by the military.

Unless you're suggesting that the american military was incompetent for not shooting down the airliners sooner?

I didn't watch the Fifth Estate episode, so hopefully I'm not missing some specific point from that broadcast that you're supporting.

[canadian_hustla]

I saw it. Definitely a good watch.

I am not one to believe in conspiracy theories but there was some compelling evidence.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by dexlargo
Why does 9/11 mean the american military is weak? Civilian airliners were hijacked - their security was not provided by the military.

Unless you're suggesting that the american military was incompetent for not shooting down the airliners sooner?

I didn't watch the Fifth Estate episode, so hopefully I'm not missing some specific point from that broadcast that you're supporting.

The US military/intelligence is incompetent for letting terrorists even enter the planes in the first place. Not shooting them down was the last mistake (and perhaps somewhat difficult to prevent at that point) It should have been caught well into the pre-planning stages (and the importance of spies, which are more valuable than 10,000 soldiers or a fleet of F-16's nowadays.)

It takes about a dozen or so mistakes before someone should be able to damage the Pentagon (The World Trade tower might be slightly more understandable as a trade hub, but NOT ever the Pentagon) BTW: If someone had managed to somehow smuggle a 52-kilogram ball onto that flight - The US would have lost WWIII before it even started.

http://news.aol.com/article/michaele-salahi-and-tareq-salahi-crash/787013

Next thing you know, Osama is going to shave off his beard and take over the US by sneaking past the secret service with a pair of boxcutters. Incompetence at its finest.
If you believe the official story, 19 terrorists had this coordinated attack planned for many months if not years.

[vtec4life]

One theorist on the show believed that there were actually no terrorists on the two planes that hit the towers and that all the phone calls made from the planes to their loved ones were faked. Someone did a test at 5000 feet during the show and there was no reception whatsoever. think about 35,000 feet. and do plane telephones actually work?? seems plausible considering they can just track your every phone conversation for months and get a proffesional to impersonate you over the phone. :dunno: It was one new angle I havent heard yet anyways.

Think about how they figured it was terrorists from the middle east in the first place... all the passengers were apparently burnt to dust yet somehow they find a perfectly intact passport of a "suspected terrorist" amidst the rubble of the demolished twin towers. fuck that

[5hift]

Originally posted by DayGlow
I would love the tinfoil hat brigade to explain how a conspiracy of this magnitude can go on without a leak.

You mean like JFK

[HiTempguy1]

Someone did a test at 5000 feet during the show and there was no reception whatsoever. think about 35,000 feet. and do plane telephones actually work??

Oh trust me, it does. I have the roaming charges to prove it, and have received text messages as well. :banghead:

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Oh trust me, it does. I have the roaming charges to prove it, and have received text messages as well. :banghead:

Really? are you flying on a hang glider? cause whenever I accidentally leave my phone on, I get off the plane with a dead battery because it's been searching for a signal the whole time.

[CUG]

Originally posted by masoncgy
http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

Seriously guys... this subject has been fogged to death for over 8 years now... ugh. More brilliant 5th estate reporting. They must be fucking bored.

[nich148_9]

The "evidence" of alternate theories is compelling to anyone who doesn't have an understanding of physics, didn't actually read the 9/11 report or never bothered to watch the footage for themselves. This YouTube user (http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#g/u) brings science into the mix, and puts the debate to rest.

The fact of the matter is that any time there are a few questions asked, people tend to lump the alternate theories into an equal 50/50 chance with the understood happenings based on reports from engineers, physicists and other respected professionals from scientific disciplines. The simple story is that these theories are false and undermine any chance of progress and understanding. Moreso, they show a complete lack of respect for the lives that were lost.

[vtec4life]

Originally posted by nich148_9
Moreso, they show a complete lack of respect for the lives that were lost.

I think its more disrespectful to let the families go on believing that it was a terrorist from the middle east that killed their family, which only spreads more hatred, rather than knowing the truth. How is trying to discover what really happened disrespectful in the first place??

[TorqueDog]

Originally posted by nonlinear
Really? are you flying on a hang glider? cause whenever I accidentally leave my phone on, I get off the plane with a dead battery because it's been searching for a signal the whole time. Your battery must suck then - from a full charge, mine usually still has 80% battery life remaining. :D

That said, I can agree with what HiTempguy1 said - not so much the roaming charges, but I once received a Facebook message notification on my BlackBerry while in the middle of a flight from Winnipeg to Calgary. So there must be small patches of coverage somewhere... and likely in Saskatchewan of all places. :nut:

[ZenOps]

Ground based internet relay punching up information from an east west Yagi-style antennae array to a gyro stabilized reciever underneath the airplane.

Yes, you can definitely get phone on a plane. You can also get Live TV signals as well.

http://www.bce.ca/en/news/releases/be/2005/05/18/72380.html

Its surprisingly simple, like a backward version of a satellite/satellite dish except over a much smaller distance (ground to 60,000 feet is considered a very short distance)

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by TorqueDog
Your battery must suck then - from a full charge, mine usually still has 80% battery life remaining. :D

That said, I can agree with what HiTempguy1 said - not so much the roaming charges, but I once received a Facebook message notification on my BlackBerry while in the middle of a flight from Winnipeg to Calgary. So there must be small patches of coverage somewhere... and likely in Saskatchewan of all places. :nut:

For sure, and given the sheer population density on the US east coast, it would come as no surprise that passengers onboard those aircraft could make calls... think about the kind of cellular coverage that exists in the NYC & Washington DC areas.

Oh.. and a response to the poster who talked about the passengers being turned into dust... that's not true... human remains were dug out of the Twin Towers for weeks following the attacks, some belonging to victims onboard the aircraft.

Better tighten those tinfoil hats...

[Beerking]

Originally posted by nonlinear


Really? are you flying on a hang glider? cause whenever I accidentally leave my phone on, I get off the plane with a dead battery because it's been searching for a signal the whole time.


I once called my dad while flying from Cancun to Edmonton to see if he was picking me up...this was while we were over Montana.:dunno: Crisp and clear the whole time.

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by vtec4life


I think its more disrespectful to let the families go on believing that it was a terrorist from the middle east that killed their family, which only spreads more hatred, rather than knowing the truth. How is trying to discover what really happened disrespectful in the first place??

Arguably the biggest forces behind the "truther" movement are Alex Jones and the three people behind the Loose Change movie.

Alex Jones gets a metric shitload of cash from his books, DVDs and radio show, and believes in a vast array of conspiracy theories (usually centring around Freemasons and their alleged control of the entire world).

The three behind Loose Change have argued that there were no passengers aboard the planes, causing much grief for the affected families of the lives lost. They also are willing to sell as many copies of their $20 DVD as they can. In addition, Loose Change originally started out as a fictional screenplay after Dylan Avery (the producer) was repeatedly rejected from film school.

Profiting off the lives lost while arguing a point that is completely false is simply unethical and disrespectful. The side of the story that the 9/11 report provides is as correct as is possible without talking to the nineteen dead terrorists.

Regarding the phone stuff: who says they were at 5,000 ft? They may have been about 5,000 feet above sea level. However, the area they were flying over fluctuates between about 2,200 ft and 2,800 ft above sea level. If there's a cell tower in the area, it only needs to broadcast 2,000 feet up, which is substantially less than the 5,000 feet you guys are citing.

[ZenOps]

Usually a ground based cellphone tower will have an antennae that is dipole vertical omnidirectional, which means very low signal strength immediately above it.

All the strength is diverted downwards to the horizon. But there are also plenty of 3-way divergent (diversity) antennae towers now, which are much more likely to pickup a faint signal from any direction.

At the proximity of the flights though especially the NY one - there would easily be a minute or so where someone could phone their loved ones using a normal celltower before the plane crashed.

As to why there are not more phone calls - many people don't know the flight path coming into New York. And if the hijackers confined themselves to the cockpit, noone would be the wiser until the last 15 seconds or so.

[scat19]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Ground based internet relay punching up information from an east west Yagi-style antennae array to a gyro stabilized reciever underneath the airplane.

Yes, you can definitely get phone on a plane. You can also get Live TV signals as well.

http://www.bce.ca/en/news/releases/be/2005/05/18/72380.html

Its surprisingly simple, like a backward version of a satellite/satellite dish except over a much smaller distance (ground to 60,000 feet is considered a very short distance)


True, they have this now - not in 01.

[Mar]

Originally posted by TorqueDog
So there must be small patches of coverage somewhere... and likely in Saskatchewan of all places. :nut:
Saskatchewan uses Sasktel as their provider and other Canadian providers don't have a data agreement with them anywhere but Saskatoon and Regina. So unless you were right over one of these 2 cities, it couldn't have been a data transmission coming from a Sasktel tower.

But I don't know what else people need to hear about the World Trade Centers.
1. You think they couldn't do it without a leak? They did it twice, it was bombed in 1993 (that right?) but they didn't use enough explosives to do anything.
2. There's a video on YouTube of the guy that leased the building just prior to the attack (Larry Silverstein) talking about how he gave a demolition team the order to detonate Building 7 on that day. Right from Larry's mouth.
3. Something like 6 of the hijackers from those planes are still alive......because they were never on the planes. But the US won't update the list to take them off.
4. There's a video of what hit the Pentagon from a gas station nearby and it was confiscated by the federal government. They still haven't released it.
5. Where's the plane that hit the Pentagon? Vaporized. Where's the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Vaporized. If you believe in vanishing airplanes then you must be David Copperfield's number 1 fan.

If both stories came from unknown sources, I'm willing to bet a lot of people would believe the conspiracy story. But because one was an officially released document from the government, it must be true.

[atgilchrist]

Originally posted by Mar

5. Where's the plane that hit the Pentagon? Vaporized. Where's the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Vaporized. If you believe in vanishing airplanes then you must be David Copperfield's number 1 fan.


The planes didn't vapourize, they exploded at speed of ~900km/h. Many of the pieces of the planes were found everywhere around the impact sites.

[scat19]

Originally posted by atgilchrist


The planes didn't vapourize, they exploded at speed of ~900km/h. Many of the pieces of the planes were found everywhere around the impact sites.
:facepalm:

Go look at any other plane crash in the world.

You'll see a tail section at least, wing sections, and most importantly - the engines will be very noticeable.

mar is right - they were there within SECONDS of the crash to snap up any video.

[DayGlow]

how many crash sites have you studied that have gone into a building?

[mx73someday]

Mar, as another user posted above your post, watch this youtube user's videos and then come back and say that you believe the same things:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#g/u

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by Mar

But I don't know what else people need to hear about the World Trade Centers.
1. You think they couldn't do it without a leak? They did it twice, it was bombed in 1993 (that right?) but they didn't use enough explosives to do anything.
2. There's a video on YouTube of the guy that leased the building just prior to the attack (Larry Silverstein) talking about how he gave a demolition team the order to detonate Building 7 on that day. Right from Larry's mouth.
3. Something like 6 of the hijackers from those planes are still alive......because they were never on the planes. But the US won't update the list to take them off.
4. There's a video of what hit the Pentagon from a gas station nearby and it was confiscated by the federal government. They still haven't released it.
5. Where's the plane that hit the Pentagon? Vaporized. Where's the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Vaporized. If you believe in vanishing airplanes then you must be David Copperfield's number 1 fan.

1. Not even going to touch this. The reports all lay the blame on a group of terrorists. The FBI was monitoring the group via informant, but were not involved.
2. He said "pull it". "Pull it" is not a demolition term for "detonate explosives." In context, he meant "pull the firefighters." He realized that they couldn't put the fires out and gave the order to pull out.
3. What? [citation_needed]. As far as I know, some of the hijackers were given temporary "John Smith" names (rather, the Islamic equivalent thereof).
4. Uh, the videos have been released. They show a plane hitting the Pentagon. There's one angle from the security booth and another from that gas station.
5. There were huge amounts of debris at both sites from the airplanes that crashed. Look for the pictures yourself and stop trusting "Loose Change." They don't know anything.

scat19: Most plane crashes with significant, whole, intact pieces of debris happened at relatively low speeds. The aircraft that crashed in the field in PA and into the Pentagon were travelling at 400+ MPH. When an object that large (200 tons) going at that speed decelerates so quickly, much of the kinetic energy is converted to heat. However, many large pieces were still found. (1) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P200061.jpg), (2) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P200062.jpg)

[TorqueDog]

Originally posted by Mar
Saskatchewan uses Sasktel as their provider and other Canadian providers don't have a data agreement with them anywhere but Saskatoon and Regina. So unless you were right over one of these 2 cities, it couldn't have been a data transmission coming from a Sasktel tower.I know, I was being facetious. If I received the message 'in the middle' of the flight, and Saskatchewan is inbetween Manitoba and Alberta, then odds are that I was in Saskatchewan at the time.

That said, all I know is that I didn't have the message when I took off, and had it before I landed, so I got it somewhere in the air. When exactly I received the message is unknown to me, didn't bother checking the timestamp.

[masoncgy]

The planes were 'vapourized' on impact, eh?

United Airlines N612UA (Flight 175):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/WtcUA175debris.jpg

American Airlines N334AA (Flight 11):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Landing_gear_aa11.jpg/446px-Landing_gear_aa11.jpg

United Airlines N591UA (Flight 93):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/P200062.jpg/739px-P200062.jpg

American Airlines N644AA (Flight 77):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg/800px-Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

Hmmm... that's 4 of 4 planes from the 9/11 attacks... wreckage found from all 4 aircraft at their respective crash sites.

Like I said, tighten the tinfoil hats some more.

All of these pictures took me about 2 minutes to Google. Wow... pretty difficult stuff!

[TorqueDog]

That's just 'vapour' in really big pieces. ;)

[ApexDrift]

loose change

7E3oIbO0AWE

[dirtsniffer]

i remember listening to the instructors from the flight school where the terrorists went. one instructor said it would take a very skilled pilot to maneuver that jet into the pentagon even at a slow speed. and what about the thermite found in the world trade center? they started putting this in buildings? as of when?

and what about building 7, not even mentioned in the 911 commission reports. give me a break. i was born at night, but not last night

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
and what about the thermite found in the world trade center?


By this statement, you've confirmed everyone's suspicion that you haven't read the report and you'll believe anything you're told.

No thermite was found. End of story.

[dirtsniffer]

I'm Not sure if you have seen any pictures of steel girders from 911 but the girders failed along perfectly straight lines. I'm not to sure how the steel would have failed in a building collapse, but from my knowledge steel won't fail along a line like that. And being a third year mechanical engineering student I have taken classes on the properties of steel.

And I typed this message on my iPhone so if it doesn't make sense it's because I didn't edit it

[atgilchrist]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
I'm Not sure if you have seen any pictures of steel girders from 911 but the girders failed along perfectly straight lines. I'm not to sure how the steel would have failed in a building collapse, but from my knowledge steel won't fail along a line like that. And being a third year mechanical engineering student I have taken classes on the properties of steel.

And I typed this message on my iPhone so if it doesn't make sense it's because I didn't edit it

Read this: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

[97'Scort]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
I'm Not sure if you have seen any pictures of steel girders from 911 but the girders failed along perfectly straight lines. I'm not to sure how the steel would have failed in a building collapse, but from my knowledge steel won't fail along a line like that. And being a third year mechanical engineering student I have taken classes on the properties of steel.

And I typed this message on my iPhone so if it doesn't make sense it's because I didn't edit it

There have been a few looks at this. The most popular theory is this: the heat from the burning jet fuel softened the steel girders, yes, but it was the riveted joins that were the problem. When the rivets failed, the floors literally fell down on each other, starting a cascade that took the whole building down.

Also, there are a few conspiracy websites that show pictures of girders that were torch-cut out of the clean up site, and used to "prove" thermite ;)

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
I'm Not sure if you have seen any pictures of steel girders from 911 but the girders failed along perfectly straight lines. I'm not to sure how the steel would have failed in a building collapse, but from my knowledge steel won't fail along a line like that. And being a third year mechanical engineering student I have taken classes on the properties of steel.

And I typed this message on my iPhone so if it doesn't make sense it's because I didn't edit it

Being a third-year mechanical engineering student (extraordinarily different from a structural engineer, but nevertheless) you should have known this:


Originally posted by atgilchrist


Read this: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Thermite doesn't produce clean lines.

[dirtsniffer]

Haha The only thing I know about thermite is it burns hot enough to melt steel, I'm pretty sure jet fuel doesn't. And my problem with the "pancake" theory is that it would take time for each floor to continualy pulverize the floor below it. I didn't do the math personally and this is from memory but these floor by floor colisions would have to occur at a rate of over ten floors per second. And what about about all the molten steel in the basement still there during the clean up? You can see pictures of excavators literaly pulling up buckets of molten steel, where did that come from? And what happened to wtc7???

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
Haha The only thing I know about thermite is it burns hot enough to melt steel,


And that led you to believe they brought down the WTC with it? OK...



I'm pretty sure jet fuel doesn't. And my problem with the "pancake" theory is that it would take time for each floor to continualy pulverize the floor below it.


Jet fuel won't melt steel in that environment, no. Maybe civil engineers go more in-depth into the properties of structural steel failure than mechanicals do, so I'll tell you that steel loses strength MASSIVELY long before it hits the melting point. You heat steel, it gets weaker rapidly. Will burning jet fuel heat steel enough to cause it to lose enough strength to erase the safety factor built into the beam design? You bet your ass it will.

Floors don't need much "time" to pulverize lower ones. A building's per-floor structure is designed to take X load for Y occupancy. When the steel girders failed, they impact-loaded the floors below it, something they were never designed to withstand, and were already weakened by heat. The kinetic energy if a falling floor or two would easily be enough to overcome the strength of the floor(s) below it, and once the chain reaction of floor failure begins, the kinetic energy keeps increasing, and the whole building goes. If you look at a demolition video, the collapse is completely different - they knock out the bottom supports and let the weight of a whole falling building as a single mass cause the chain reaction. The WTC fell from the top down, as the individual floor collapses built up the energy required to cause failure in the succeeding floors.



I didn't do the math personally and this is from memory but these floor by floor colisions would have to occur at a rate of over ten floors per second.


Source, please.



And what about about all the molten steel in the basement still there during the clean up? You can see pictures of excavators literaly pulling up buckets of molten steel, where did that come from? And what happened to wtc7???

OK, buckets of molten steel? If an excavator was pulling up buckets of molten steel, the excavator would melt. If you meant excavators pulling up a lot of steel that looked melted and deformed, maybe having the steel heated up to huge temperatures and then having a fucking skyscraper dropped on it might have something to do with that.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
And what happened to wtc7???

A bunch of shit from a nearby collapsing building fell on it. Ironic as that may seem.

[dirtsniffer]

2. buildings fell in 9 or 11 seconds, you can find this out yourself. atleast 90 stories up.. approx 10 floors a second..

3. wtc1 was 1368 feet tall. which is 417 m.
change in height = initial velocity * time + 0.5 * gravity * time squared
assuming an initial velocity of 0. a ball dropped from this height would take the sqrt(2*change in height/gravity) seconds. which is 9.22 seconds.
ok so now you'll say that the collapse didnt initiate at the top of the building fine. 90 floors up is 341 m, using this value in the above equation yields a time of 8.3 seconds. And i am to believe that all these floors slamming into each other only added, on average, 1.7 seconds to the time of the collapse? personally, i find that hard to believe. but, we all get to make up our own minds.

i cant find a good source for the molten steel thing so its probably a crock. but i did the math so we'll call it a wash?

and what happened to wtc7?

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by Antonito


A bunch of shit from a nearby collapsing building fell on it. Ironic as that may seem.

if enough debri landed on wtc7 to make it collapse, what about the 40 story buildings in between wtc1 and wtc7?
http://www.ethikpartei.ch/wtc.jpg

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
2. buildings fell in 9 or 11 seconds, you can find this out yourself. atleast 90 stories up.. approx 10 floors a second..


I'm glad that you did the math for yourself, but your initial figures are wrong. The south tower fell in over 15 seconds and the north tower in over 22 seconds.

Please research (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4) before citing "facts". See also. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg)

[ZenOps]

The heat of that much airplane fuel would be enough to bring the steel girders of the structure to near melting point.

Steel, like all metals conducts heat very well. If there is heat on the girder at the top floor, you can pretty well be assured that the girder is hot all the way to the basement. Its just like a giant heatsink.

Once the concrete reforced steel gets to critical temperature (usually melting) the entire length of it from the top to basment literally undergoes a rapid critical phase to liquid change due to the tremendous gravity stress it is under even without the stress of heat. As it begins collapsing, the act of collapsing itself contributes to the phase change (like pressurizing water at near zero temperature, the phase change is nearly instant)

At that point in time - all that is holding together the building is concrete without steel re-inforcement. Which will definitely crumble into dust.

No conspiracy.

[BigMass]

IMO, bombs in the buildings was always the weakest link in the conspiracy. Did the collapse of all three buildings look like a controlled demolition? Yes. Is that evidence enough to prove a controlled demolition? No. A conspiracy based on intelligence and manipulation of assets is easily compartmentalized and kept quiet by select individuals. To physically plant demolition charges in three different buildings is a completely different mission that just doesn’t seem plausible.

There are still many questions surrounding the events of 911. ISI and Saudi connections leading up to and on the day of 911. Taped recordings of forewarned attacks by ISI. Money trails, the story of Sibel Edmonds, the story of John O'Neill (CIA head in charge of Al-Qaida and tracking Osama) and the trail of the terrorists leading up to the attacks from Germany, UK and the US. All much more interesting to me than “bombs in the buildings”. In the end, we’ll never know because it’s obvious people in the US government have no intention of telling us the whole story. That has already been confirmed by members of the 9/11 investigation team. So bottom line is, we don’t know shit and probably never will.

[dexlargo]

My biggest problem with this is why would they need to do something so complicated as to rig the buildings to blow up and have planes crash into them?

If the US wanted an attack on US soil to justify an invasion of Iraq, isn't crashing the planes into the buildings sufficient without the need to make sure the buildings collapsed?

If they went to all the trouble of rigging the buildings beforehand, why use airplanes? Blame the buildings being rigged by Al Qaeda - after all, there was the precedent of it being tried before with a van full of explosives.

[Toma]

Traces of THERMITE have been since found.

They "neglected" to test for it the first time around, and when the report was being "fabricated"

Having said that, I, like 80% of the US public, KNOW that the "official" story is BS, and there are alot of unknowns at the moment.

However, I do not "buy" some of the alternative explanations either.

I KNOW it did not happen as "advertised", however, I really do not know the details of how it did happen.

And as for controlled demolition. It certainly was not "as controlled" as a real one, however, certain elements WERE fishy.

However, the BIGGEST thing is that we have no clue who did this.

Since we claim to be a civilized, law abiding society, I need to point out that the US does not posses evidence that would on its own stand up in a court of law that proves Al Qaeda did this. In fact, UK prim minister at the time of the Afhgan invasion admitted this as well after his "briefing" with the war criminal, GWB.

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat

If you look at a demolition video, the collapse is completely different - they knock out the bottom supports and let the weight of a whole falling building as a single mass cause the chain reaction. The WTC fell from the top down, as the individual floor collapses built up the energy required to cause failure in the succeeding floors.

i dunno man, the argument for the WTC is the the top of the buildings (or what was left on the top after the part fell off the first tower) is accelerating at freefall - like a controlled demolition. looking at the video, it sure looks like that's the case. of course i haven't measured it, but it wouldn't be a difficult task.

however, this could also happen if the jet fuel drained to the bottom, ignited, and the steel columns at the base of the tower failed.

[Toma]

Originally posted by dexlargo
My biggest problem with this is why would they need to do something so complicated as to rig the buildings to blow up and have planes crash into them?

If the US wanted an attack on US soil to justify an invasion of Iraq, isn't crashing the planes into the buildings sufficient without the need to make sure the buildings collapsed?

If they went to all the trouble of rigging the buildings beforehand, why use airplanes? Blame the buildings being rigged by Al Qaeda - after all, there was the precedent of it being tried before with a van full of explosives.

This is the Zionist aspect of the conspiracy theories.... since the aging buildings were controlled and heavily insured by Silverstein, and some evidence pointing to Mossad involvement... well...

Like I said... more questions than solid answers.

[DayGlow]

you know those crazy jews and their need to blow shit up good!

[Toma]

Originally posted by DayGlow
you know those crazy jews and their need to blow shit up good!
Totally agree for once... The fanatical ones....

From the 1946 King David Hotel bombing where they impersonated Arabs, to the USS Liberty Bombing... and dozens of instances in between that have drawn UN condemnations, and resolution after resolution...

Them there folks KNOW how to bomb shit and get their way.

[Mar]

Originally posted by Toma

Totally agree for once... The fanatical ones....

From the 1946 King David Hotel bombing where they impersonated Arabs, to the USS Liberty Bombing... and dozens of instances in between that have drawn UN condemnations, and resolution after resolution...

Them there folks KNOW how to bomb shit and get their way.
Hitler set his parliament building on fire and blamed it on the Jews to try and instill hatred in his army.

[CUG]

Originally posted by Mar

Hitler set his parliament building on fire and blamed it on the Jews to try and instill hatred in his army. Hitler was actually a jew, trying to get the jews to rise against the.. errm.

Impersonated Arabs hahahahahahaah

[dr_dreidel]

Originally posted by DayGlow
you know those crazy jews and their need to blow shit up good!

hey that's not cool man

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by nonlinear


i dunno man, the argument for the WTC is the the top of the buildings (or what was left on the top after the part fell off the first tower) is accelerating at freefall - like a controlled demolition. looking at the video, it sure looks like that's the case. of course i haven't measured it, but it wouldn't be a difficult task.

however, this could also happen if the jet fuel drained to the bottom, ignited, and the steel columns at the base of the tower failed.

I did hear about burning jet fuel flowing down the elevator shafts, but I'm not sure that would have caused a big difference. No, the first few floors fell the fastest because the steel on those floors was by far the hottest and thus the weakest. The heavily weakened girders and beams would thus offer the least resistance to the falling concrete and debris, and as such would do little to slow the cascade of falling floors. Once the wave of failing floors hit areas that hadn't been superheated yet, the steel would be stronger and slow the acceleration , although at that point the change would be marginal. However, once enough floors fell to accumulate enough kinetic energy to counteract the resistance of the unheated beams, the collapse would again begin to accelerate faster, nearer to freefall (although not actually reaching it.) Although the debris cloud obscures the upper floors rather badly during the collapse, the fall does seem to follow that pattern.

[ZenOps]

Hitler? Hitler was just a deep undercover Japanese spy sent to destabilize Europe.

They gave him growth hormones so that he would grow facial hair, but they applied it wrong - so thats why he's got the small moustache.

Now Hitler did manage to have a son before his capture, and that family moved to Canada - Resulting in Rob Anders.

:clap:

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by dr_dreidel


hey that's not cool man

sarcasm.

[BigMass]

Is it possible, just for once, to have a thread without bringing up Hitler? Please?
http://madpwnage.net/images/emo_hitler.jpg

[ZenOps]

Hey, Godwin was right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

BTW: The point I am making is of course - Rob Anders is Japanese :eek: