9/11 Truth: Structural Failures vs. Controlled Demolitions

[tamtap]

Only thing I wont dismiss is the possibility that dubya knew about it and failed to act. Only he and his mates know the truth about that. Every other conspiracy theory has been disproved with effortless ease by experts. It just winds me up when conspiracy theorists ignore facts. Take tampon for example. He claimed the 757 had 10 holes in its wheels. It took me all of 2 minutes to find this was incorrect. Or they twist things to suit themselves. See tampons quote from that rolls royce dude. He didnt post the full quote.

Marc sees whay he wants to see. Thats fair enough everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I agree with your remark about bush, the problem with the whole 911 stuff is the gov wont come out with the evidence for reaons only know to them. e.g. the 5 frames of footage they released. Wht not simply releases the whole footage from that cam, the hotel roof cam and the petrol station cam which were siezed right after the bomb.

The pentagon is used as its so easy to disprove. e.g. where the left engine would have impacted the window there is not even broken. so many details that just dont stack up. I guess you would also say the fireman reporting demo explosions throughout the towers were also crack smokers as well.

Tam

 

[Overdriven]

Didn't expect something _I_ posted to last this long... God damn.

 

[Lethul]

http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

maybe this is where the wings went!?
ok, i only posted this cause i like that vid

 

[Morchaoron]

well i dont know what to believe, especially cuz i havent seen much proven, but what i did find odd was that WTC 7(?) collapsed with minimal damage....

 

[chretien]

Marc sees whay he wants to see. Thats fair enough everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I agree with your remark about bush, the problem with the whole 911 stuff is the gov wont come out with the evidence for reaons only know to them. e.g. the 5 frames of footage they released. Wht not simply releases the whole footage from that cam, the hotel roof cam and the petrol station cam which were siezed right after the bomb.

The pentagon is used as its so easy to disprove. e.g. where the left engine would have impacted the window there is not even broken. so many details that just dont stack up. I guess you would also say the fireman reporting demo explosions throughout the towers were also crack smokers as well.

Tam

Where are you getting this 60fps number from for the security camera?
Professional movie cameras only record at 24fps and I very much doubt whether some crappy security camera designed to stop people driving away from a gas station without paying is going to be better than that. So given that the actual rate of the camera is a lot less than the 60fps you seem stuck on, I'd say 5 frames is probably a lot more than I'd expect to be honest. Fast moving aeroplanes at close range are hard to photograph. Ever tried taking pictures of an air display? You need ninja reflexes if you don't want a roll of nothing but blue sky.

I have not seen any evidence at all that convinces me that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon. All the stuff you've come out with is either laughably weak, plain wrong or inflated beyond recognition.

Want to know why the FBI seized all the surveillance camera footage of the incident? I'm not in on any national secrets but I can tell you the answer to that one. It's because the Pentagon is the centre of the most powerful organisations on earth - the US military. Only Cheyenne Mountain has more secret stuff going on there. So imagine for a moment that you are in charge of security for a place like that. Terrorists hit your building and you know that there are a number of cameras that might have caught the attack. The first thing you do is make sure that nothing is on the film that you don't want people to see. Stuff inside the building, high profile individuals in the area and so on. The other point is that there may be something on the film which investigators can use and you don't want some drop-out hocking the tape to CBS before you've had a look at it.
5 frames. If watching 10 minutes of 'Car Park: the movie' is your idea of fun then knock yourself out but I imagine for most people the important bit is the part where the plane comes in. Why would they release more than that? What would be the point?

The rest of the stuff about damage to the building is frankly rubbish from people who have no idea about structural engineering or basic high school physics. One engine punched clean through an entire ring of the building. Parts of aeroplane were everywhere. Why is it so hard to believe that all these bits of aircraft came from a crashed aircraft?

The more you look into these conspiracy therories the flimsier they become. Once you realise that they are built on incorrect assumptions and lazy science, the whole teetering mess comes crashing down. People far more qualified than me have explained exactly why the WTC fell like it did without any explosive charges being involved. They've explained exactly what happened at the Pentagon as far as the plane impact physics are concerned. Idiots who think the Da Vinci Code is a reference book however think they know better than people who have 10 years of qualifications and 40 years of engineering experience.

I don't think the US government has told the whole truth about 9/11. I think that there are some very murky things that they'd rather no-one knew about. However I have no doubt whatsoever that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon and two planes hit the Twin Towers and that those impacts alone were the cause of their collapse. I also very much doubt that the US Government, corrupt and morally bankrupt as it is, would have been actively involved in any of the attacks on it's own people.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Once you realise that they are built on incorrect assumptions and lazy science, the whole teetering mess comes crashing down.

Aha!! So you're saying that the WTC was built on incorrect blueprints and lazy constructions?!

 

[Awarkle]

When i watched this movie with all the helicoptors and explosions and people asking why one of the buildings that was never hit by a plane suddenly fell down.

But thinking about how much effort would have to be put in to put together a demolitions team that

1. Know the exact points on the world trade centre super structure to bring it down IN 1 go. if they screw up the demolitions you risk having the whole building topple instead of collapse in on itself. (ie bringing it down safley)

2. Can be in and out quick enough to plant the explosives and in that video its just not feasable.

you have to remember that the wtc had a massive underground carpark as i would suspect that when the plane impacted the upper floors the central core of the wtc may have been breached there could have been tones of liquid fuel pour down the central lift shafts of the building directly into the carpark.

It only takes it to ignite or blow up several cars or a container of somthing or even a gas pipe like someone said.

The pentagon explosion may have litterally atomised the plane you have to remembr the plane wasnt stationary it was flying at speed into a target.

The best thing to do is wait 50 years for the documents to be de clasified and find out.

 

[Lamp]

Where are you getting this 60fps number from for the security camera?
Professional movie cameras only record at 24fps and I very much doubt whether some crappy security camera designed to stop people driving away from a gas station without paying is going to be better than that. So given that the actual rate of the camera is a lot less than the 60fps you seem stuck on, I'd say 5 frames is probably a lot more than I'd expect to be honest. Fast moving aeroplanes at close range are hard to photograph. Ever tried taking pictures of an air display? You need ninja reflexes if you don't want a roll of nothing but blue sky.

I have not seen any evidence at all that convinces me that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon. All the stuff you've come out with is either laughably weak, plain wrong or inflated beyond recognition.

Want to know why the FBI seized all the surveillance camera footage of the incident? I'm not in on any national secrets but I can tell you the answer to that one. It's because the Pentagon is the centre of the most powerful organisations on earth - the US military. Only Cheyenne Mountain has more secret stuff going on there. So imagine for a moment that you are in charge of security for a place like that. Terrorists hit your building and you know that there are a number of cameras that might have caught the attack. The first thing you do is make sure that nothing is on the film that you don't want people to see. Stuff inside the building, high profile individuals in the area and so on. The other point is that there may be something on the film which investigators can use and you don't want some drop-out hocking the tape to CBS before you've had a look at it.
5 frames. If watching 10 minutes of 'Car Park: the movie' is your idea of fun then knock yourself out but I imagine for most people the important bit is the part where the plane comes in. Why would they release more than that? What would be the point?

The rest of the stuff about damage to the building is frankly rubbish from people who have no idea about structural engineering or basic high school physics. One engine punched clean through an entire ring of the building. Parts of aeroplane were everywhere. Why is it so hard to believe that all these bits of aircraft came from a crashed aircraft?

The more you look into these conspiracy therories the flimsier they become. Once you realise that they are built on incorrect assumptions and lazy science, the whole teetering mess comes crashing down. People far more qualified than me have explained exactly why the WTC fell like it did without any explosive charges being involved. They've explained exactly what happened at the Pentagon as far as the plane impact physics are concerned. Idiots who think the Da Vinci Code is a reference book however think they know better than people who have 10 years of qualifications and 40 years of engineering experience.

I don't think the US government has told the whole truth about 9/11. I think that there are some very murky things that they'd rather no-one knew about. However I have no doubt whatsoever that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon and two planes hit the Twin Towers and that those impacts alone were the cause of their collapse. I also very much doubt that the US Government, corrupt and morally bankrupt as it is, would have been actively involved in any of the attacks on it's own people.

The best post so far in this thread. Well said, Sir.

 

[Sparx]

This is very true for example do you all remember the James Bond Film where he goes up the Thames in a boat? they went past the MI5 building, do you know how much problems they had from that?

Governments dont like ppl videoing their secure buildings

 

[evzy]

Tell me about it - tried to take a photo outside the main court house in New York - had bunch of suits on top of me and teh missus before we even realised we shouldnt be doing it - still got the shots though and of the FBI building I think it is nearby - zoom4tehwin