new 5 min. video on explosions at the WTC

2

Comments

  • DPrival78DPrival78 CT Posts: 2,263
    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?
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • Bwalker545Bwalker545 Posts: 162
    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...
    "Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5" 1984
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    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.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    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.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    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.
  • DPrival78DPrival78 CT Posts: 2,263
    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.
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Without the bankers' support, 9/11 would'nt have happened.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • 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.
  • Bwalker545Bwalker545 Posts: 162
    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.
    "Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5" 1984
  • dkst0426dkst0426 Posts: 523
    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.
  • dkst0426 wrote:
    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.


    How can viewing the tapes from 9/11 harm national security?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • That type of national security sounds like national secrecy to me. A dirty little secrecy? I'm assuming the tapes have long been destroyed...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    I'm still waiting for the answers.

    Anything on the collapse of WTC 7 yet?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • dkst0426 wrote:
    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.

    uh, it already hit the pentagon,... tell me exactly why showing the impact would be a risk to national security?
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • DPrival78DPrival78 CT Posts: 2,263
    Magus wrote:
    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.

    pretty amazing how guys who never flew jetliners before could fly them that fast and that accurately.

    if they were that good, why didn't they crash into the indian point power plant, which they flew directly over? the effects would have been much more deadly and long lasting.

    and why didn't the pilot on the pentagon plane dive right into rumsfelds office window, which they were heading straight towards? rather, the guy who was denied when trying to rent a cessna, flew over the pentagon, made an acrobatic 270 degree turn while diving 3000 feet - which caused air traffic controllers to believe it was a military jet - and slammed into the first floor of the pentagon at 500 mph, without placing a single scratch on the lawn. i guess he was just lucky, huh? i mean, how hard could it be to fly a 767 while facing your ultimate demise?
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm still waiting for the answers.

    Anything on the collapse of WTC 7 yet?

    NIST has not released their new report on WTC 7.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • dkst0426dkst0426 Posts: 523
    uh, it already hit the pentagon,... tell me exactly why showing the impact would be a risk to national security?
    Because it was the scene of an ongoing investigation? Find me a P.D. that'll let you walk into the scene of a crime and film away.

    Sounds like this page needs to be dug up again.
  • dkst0426 wrote:
    Because it was the scene of an ongoing investigation? Find me a P.D. that'll let you walk into the scene of a crime and film away.

    Sounds like this page needs to be dug up again.

    No one said shit about about filming the investigation. We are talking about tapes that already exist that could prove what did hit the pentagon. Now I'll ask again, how could airing these tapes harm security? A real answer please.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • dkst0426dkst0426 Posts: 523
    No one said shit about about filming the investigation.
    You're right--I didn't say shit about filming the investigation either. If you read my post properly, you'll see that I'm talking about film of an actual incident while the investigation into it was ongoing.
  • dkst0426 wrote:
    You're right--I didn't say shit about filming the investigation either. If you read my post properly, you'll see that I'm talking about film of an actual incident while the investigation into it was ongoing.

    How would airing it hurt security?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • BUFFALOBUFFALO Posts: 760
    DPrival78 wrote:
    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?
    yup tv also feared Americans into the war with Iraq(weapons of mass destruction)... America needs money ...implement democracy ...appoint american assured officials to office ... in other words America takes over Iraq ...from behind the scenes that is


    and now they already started there mind control over ya with iran an korea

    in a couple of years or so you will be brainwashed so bad that u believe they are the BAD GUYS....its an easy sell IMO
    Buffalo 96,Barrie 98,Tampa 00,Orlando HOB 03,Buffalo 03,London 05,Hamilton 05 ,Toronto 06,
    MSG 2 08, Buffalo 10, Hamilton 11


    _____________________________
    KEEP OUR COUNTRY ....COUNTRY
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    Magus wrote:
    Yup, our crazy govt is smart enough to pull of the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world...but we cant take control of iraq, seems logical...

    i don't believe they ever intended to create a stable government in Iraq. i've been saying from the start that they knew it would destablize the region, and that's what they wanted. they want war.
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    jlew24asu wrote:
    that "explosion" sound could have been any number of things.


    a slab of concrete falling onto a car, a gas tank exploding, a firemans oxygen tank exploding....

    but you believe it was a government bomb?


    2 of the tallest, heaviest structures man had ever built had just fallen to the ground. many things will be damaged in that area.

    this proves nothing and gives nobody anything to chew on.


    good points. it could be anything.
  • TrauTrau Posts: 188
    I don't understand how this debate is still going on.
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try
  • Trau wrote:
    I don't understand how this debate is still going on.

    b/c there is not enough evidence to prove either way,... there is only a more accepted theory and more logical in most cases, but not all.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • TrauTrau Posts: 188
    There is quite enough evidence to show that this was not a government plot.
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try
  • Trau wrote:
    There is quite enough evidence to show that this was not a government plot.

    there is enough evidence to show complicity. i can do the same thing.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm still waiting for the answers.

    Anything on the collapse of WTC 7 yet?


    well, when the head researcher from the nist was asked a year ago this month he replied:

    "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • TrauTrau Posts: 188
    The nist?
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try
  • TrauTrau Posts: 188
    there is enough evidence to show complicity. i can do the same thing.

    No, I'm afraid there isn't.
    In the shadow of the light from a black sun
    Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
    Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
    I'm freezing

    Are you afraid, afraid to die
    Don't be afraid, afraid to try
Sign In or Register to comment.