new 5 min. video on explosions at the WTC

sonicreducer

EDIT: that was poorly worded.
ill fix it up in a minute, but im taking it off for now

Abookamongstthemany

sonicreducer wrote:

would you argue that same concept when our multi-billion dollar defense system failed miserably to protect the pentagon? im sure they spent more money on securing the pentagon than they did the WTC,... or is that faulty logic?

Apparently there is no decent surveillence system in place at the.....Penatgon, for christs sake!!! Not one video of clear footage of a plane hitting the building. I'm calling bullshit. Also security videos were confiscated from a nearby gas station and hotel. We never got to see these either.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

this sounds like questioning the explosions or rather excuses for what they might have been instead of what they were.

how can you prove what they are? you cant. my explainations are perfectly logical

spiral out wrote:

Well i laugh at the rubbish reasons they have come up with for why 2 building collapsed at freefall speed. When it clearly looks like a controlled demolition.

these were 2 of the heaviest largest structures ever built. as soon as they fall, they have no where else to go but DOWN, and fast.

spiral out wrote:

Yep and the buildings were built to withstand that.

looks like it failed. besides they planes they were talking about where not the same ones that hit the building. they werent around back then

sonicreducer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Apparently there is no decent surveillence system in place at the.....Penatgon, for christs sake!!! Not one video of clear footage of a plane hitting the building. I'm calling bullshit. Also security videos were confiscated from a nearby gas station and hotel. We never got to see these either.

there are also the DOT tapes that would have had a perfect view,... there is no reason to keep those from public eyes. it is not a matter of national security.

MakingWaves

chopitdown wrote:

so let's assume there was a truck in the basement...does that mean the gov't put it there? Of course not, and no truck was found so that makes that theory difficult to prove. Also, people kept using the phrases "like" a bomb..."like" gunfire. That just using a common descriptor to describe what happened.

and of course the media tries to manipulate things to get a desired outcome...that should be no surprise.

As the steel in the building is failing it would be very loud and would probably resemble gunfire or maybe even a bomb. As for the loud explosion sound when the guys are on the phone...that could be some many things considering a building of that size had just collapsed.

sonicreducer

MakingWaves wrote:

As the steel in the building is failing it would be very loud and would probably resemble gunfire or maybe even a bomb. As for the loud explosion sound when the guys are on the phone...that could be some many things considering a building of that size had just collapsed.

there are witnesses claiming to hear explosions well before the building collapses.

and also, why is it okay for you to assume that it would probably resemble gunfire or a bomb? why shouldn't we investigate (we being the commission report) multiple eyewitness testimonies?

if in fact there were explosions, assuming it were the terrorists, wouldn't that be failure to protect our citizens in a different category,...? EDIT: as in not just the FAA and NORAD

they could at least investigate it, but it is nowhere in the official reports,... at least the small portions i've skimmed over. but hey, if you find it, ill gladly shut up about it

onelongsong

sonicreducer wrote:

there are witnesses claiming to hear explosions well before the building collapses.

and also, why is it okay for you to assume that it would probably resemble gunfire or a bomb? why shouldn't we investigate (we being the commission report) multiple eyewitness testimonies?

if in fact there were explosions, assuming it were the terrorists, wouldn't that be failure to protect our citizens in a different category,...? EDIT: as in not just the FAA and NORAD

they could at least investigate it, but it is nowhere in the official reports,... at least the small portions i've skimmed over. but hey, if you find it, ill gladly shut up about it

i was watching the news last night and they were interviewing an eyewitness to a killing. she said she heard 3 pops like a FIRECRACKER. there is no gun in the world that sounds like a firecracker. turns out she didn't actually see anything; just heard 3 pops.

secondly; have any of you ever seen a building implosion? you see a series of explosions. a 3 story building could take over 100 explosions to bring it straight down. and you see every one. not the explosion but the shake or shutter of the building. maybe you should view some implosions and see why this is absurd.

sonicreducer

onelongsong wrote:

i was watching the news last night and they were interviewing an eyewitness to a killing. she said she heard 3 pops like a FIRECRACKER. there is no gun in the world that sounds like a firecracker. turns out she didn't actually see anything; just heard 3 pops.

secondly; have any of you ever seen a building implosion? you see a series of explosions. a 3 story building could take over 100 explosions to bring it straight down. and you see every one. not the explosion but the shake or shutter of the building. maybe you should view some implosions and see why this is absurd.

that does not nullify the 9/11 eyewitness reports

i do not claim to know much about implosions, though i have researched enough be somewhat educated since i started exploring 9/11. the gov't has done a terrible job explaining and being held accountable for what happened on 9/11. you have your theory, which i just can't settle with. i have my theory, which i don't know what it is and im really looking forward to NIST's new report on wtc 7,...

DPrival78

onelongsong wrote:

you're dead wrong there. the buildings were designed to withstand a strike from THE AIRPLANES AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. or is this another majic occurence where the engineers saw into the future?

"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

yes, a 767 is larger than a 707, but not by a huge amount. also, the 707's top speed was about 100 mph faster than a 767. the two planes also had about the same fuel capacity. so while the 707 gives up some size, it makes up for some of that with increased speed. the difference isn't as much as you may think.

BUFFALO

the biggest war method right now is tv ... people are controlled by fear

DPrival78

BUFFALO wrote:

the biggest war method right now is tv ... people are controlled by fear

absolutely. and it was awfully scary seeing the 9/11 attacks happen on tv.

now who has benefitted the most from that fear?

osama?
al-qaeda?
military contractors?
other factions who for decades have openly wished for things like wars in the middle east and a roll back of personal freedom?

Bwalker545

About the plane stufff
Max weight of the heaviest 707 333,600 lb max speed 972 km/h
Max weight of a 767s that hit the towers 395,000 lb max speed 870 km/h
Momentum = Mass X Velocity...
assuming maximums
707= 324,259,200
767=343,650,000
Seems significant to me...

spiral out

onelongsong wrote:

i've played with explosives all my life. it was a necessity. there's not an implosion expert anywhere that would claim they could bring that building down in that manner with explosives. it's impossible.

however; the workings of a jet engine proves the original theory.

My eyes obviously decieve me when i watched the towers fall because to me they fell like all the other buildings that i had seen rigged with explosives to bring them down. Mostly tower blocks in places very close to other buildings, thus the the need to make sure they fell with no damage to thier surroundings. But obviously i was wrong and all buildings just fall in on themselves natrually.

onelongsong

DPrival78 wrote:

"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

yes, a 767 is larger than a 707, but not by a huge amount. also, the 707's top speed was about 100 mph faster than a 767. the two planes also had about the same fuel capacity. so while the 707 gives up some size, it makes up for some of that with increased speed. the difference isn't as much as you may think.

my plane had a top speed of 132 knots. HOWEVER; when put into a dive i could have achieved 200 knots before the plane started breaking apart.
the netting you speak of caused the building to act like a jet engine. or a blacksmiths bellow if that gives you a better visual.

onelongsong

spiral out wrote:

My eyes obviously decieve me when i watched the towers fall because to me they fell like all the other buildings that i had seen rigged with explosives to bring them down. Mostly tower blocks in places very close to other buildings, thus the the need to make sure they fell with no damage to thier surroundings. But obviously i was wrong and all buildings just fall in on themselves natrually.

JUST LIKE? find me 1 implosionist who will say he can implode a building of that size and we'll talk.
edit: without anyone noticing the cutting of structural beams and the other necessary pre-demolition.

DPrival78

Magus wrote:

About the plane stufff
Max weight of the heaviest 707 333,600 lb max speed 972 km/h
Max weight of a 767s that hit the towers 395,000 lb max speed 870 km/h
Momentum = Mass X Velocity...
assuming maximums
707= 324,259,200
767=343,650,000
Seems significant to me...

you assume the maximum, but the planes that hit the towers barely had any people on them (less than half capacity [for whatever reason..]), and their fuel tanks were not 100% full.

according to what the engineers and designers have said, "fully loaded" 707's were considered when the buildings were built. so your numbers for the 767 would need to be lowered.

Ahnimus

Without the bankers' support, 9/11 would'nt have happened.

The Illinoisemakers

DPrival78 wrote:

"Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

yes, a 767 is larger than a 707, but not by a huge amount. also, the 707's top speed was about 100 mph faster than a 767. the two planes also had about the same fuel capacity. so while the 707 gives up some size, it makes up for some of that with increased speed. the difference isn't as much as you may think.

I have heard the analogy about a pencil going through a screen door and a jet hitting the WTC. If your pencil was moving at 300mph and filled with explosive material when it hit the screen I think it you could compare the two.

Just because they said the buildings could withstand a jetliner impact doesn't make it so. They could have been off on their calculations, which saddly it seems they were.

Bwalker545

The planes were traveling faster than cruising speed too, so that number can be increases, the buildings were most likely not designed for the planes to be going that speed either. Im pretty sure they were made to withstand a horrible accident on take off or landing.

dkst0426

sonicreducer wrote:

there are also the DOT tapes that would have had a perfect view,... there is no reason to keep those from public eyes. it is not a matter of national security.

Yeah. I mean, seriously! The nation's military center came under attack via a passenger jet flying right into it. Can't imagine why it'd be considered a matter of national security at all.