short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

69charger · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

did you watch it with audio? They said it was 4 floors of the WTC

Sorry, thought it was the video of the backhoe I've seen elsewhere.

Anyways, Fire + Pressure = Really hot shit

Why's that so hard to understand?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

69charger wrote:

Sorry, thought it was the video of the backhoe I've seen elsewhere.

Anyways, Fire + Pressure = Really hot shit

apparently so

MakingWaves · April 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

so you're saying almost an hour after those in charge say it was obvious america was under attack...a known hijacked plane can enter dc airspace, make a u-turn, re-enter dc air space...and no one thought of sending fighters from andrew's air force base (only 10 miles from DC) at any point? a known hijacked plane, again almost an hour after 2 hijacked planes hit the towers, could deviate from its flight path and no one had the idea of sending any fighters after it?

yeeeeeaaaaaaaaah

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

Does this answer your question or does it just make too much sense to be true?

MakingWaves · April 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

so you're saying almost an hour after those in charge say it was obvious america was under attack...a known hijacked plane can enter dc airspace, make a u-turn, re-enter dc air space...and no one thought of sending fighters from andrew's air force base (only 10 miles from DC) at any point? a known hijacked plane, again almost an hour after 2 hijacked planes hit the towers, could deviate from its flight path and no one had the idea of sending any fighters after it?

yeeeeeaaaaaaaaah

Maybe this will help.

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

MakingWaves · April 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

hahaha you are funny

what about the big heap of molten mass in the video roland (i think) posted? is that out of context, too?

maybe you could put the cut beams and that molten mass into context for everybody?

The cut beams were cut during clean up and I found this explanation for the molten mass.

"Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!"

mookie9999 · April 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

so who is reliable for you? there are plenty of physicists like the professor at byu among others

what is the explanation for building 7?? 5 1/2 years later and they still can't finish their report, in fact the head guy said in an interview that he has no idea what caused it to collapse

Just went through the list again on

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

and did not locate the BYU professor nor any physicists on the link. Maybe it's in a different link. For anyone in the Tri-State area that has Time Warner cable should get out NY1 on demand. It has a special on 9/11 where it shows there coverage from 9/11. A lot of the footage I had never seen, or at least had not seen since that day. Three things stand out to me about this show:

1. A couple of hours before WTC 7 collapsed they were reporting that it was being referred to as structurally unsound due to the continuing fire and is in danger of collapse.

2. They had a couple of shots of the area directly surrounding ground zero within a couple of days showing the charred and extensive damage done to surrounding buildings and buildings over three blocks away that another member on this board seems to think never happened.

3. The one word that kept being used by a lot of witnesses was "explosion". I know this is a major trigger for the Conspiracy Theorists. So I started to think about their description of what they were seeing. I believe that they used the word "explosion" because those close enough to hear and see the building(s) collapse could have described it as explosive. I've seen the clip of one person saying it sounded like an explosion, but compared to what? I doubt that guy (a different video I've seen) had been witness to other buildings collapsing to know the distinctive sound of a bomb going off VS. floor after floor coming down. All of the witnesses from 9/11 on the show that I watched used the term explosion as a way of describing the building coming down, not a single mention of explosives being used, which to me is a huge difference.

MakingWaves · April 2007

mookie9999 wrote:

Just went through the list again on

3. The one word that kept being used by a lot of witnesses was "explosion". I know this is a major trigger for the Conspiracy Theorists. So I started to think about their description of what they were seeing. I believe that they used the word "explosion" because those close enough to hear and see the building(s) collapse could have described it as explosive. I've seen the clip of one person saying it sounded like an explosion, but compared to what? I doubt that guy (a different video I've seen) had been witness to other buildings collapsing to know the distinctive sound of a bomb going off VS. floor after floor coming down. All of the witnesses from 9/11 on the show that I watched used the term explosion as a way of describing the building coming down, not a single mention of explosives being used, which to me is a huge difference.

Good points and this makes me ask the conspiracy theorists two questions?

Was the "explosion" sounds the sound of the explosives?
What type of explosives do you think were used?

El_Kabong · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

Maybe this will help.

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

from Maj DOuglas Martin:
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

and what is 1X7? certianly not 462!!!

According to an article in the Calgary Herald-Tribune from a month after the attack, fighter interception for stray aircraft actually was a weekly occurrence even before 9-11: “Today […] fighter jets are scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or "unknowns" three or four times a day. Before Sept. 11, that happened twice a week. Last year, there were 425 unknowns -- pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Jets were scrambled 129 times.” [3] Was every one of these 129 intercepts in the year 2000 over the ocean in ADIZ areas, with none over the continental U.S.? And in the nine years before that too, with the exception of one famous golfer?

i also found these 2 links

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2

1. Military Now Notified Immediately of Unusual Air Traffic Events, AP, 8/12/02 [cached]
2. Norad on Heightened Alert, 9/13/01 [cached]

and can you tell me what 67X7 is???? 469, almost 462, the number Maj Martin stated

there's lots of info w/ outside links
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

lots of other unanswered questions at
http://www.911timeline.net/

like:

76) 9:25 a.m.: Air traffic controllers inform the US Secret Service as American Airlines Flight 77 approaches Washington D.C.

so they KNEW it was on it's way to DC?? they TOLD ppl it was on it's way to DC????

91) 9:36 a.m.: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport instructs a military C130 aircraft that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to try to identify American Airlines Flight 77. The C130 reports it is a 767 and it is moving low and very fast.

soooo...they knew a hijacked flight was on it's way to DC but sent a C130 from Andrew's Air Force Base but not any of the fighters?????

109) 9:59:04 a.m....wtc collapses...Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

i will get to the other replies later when i have time

but let me guess; you got these 'facts' from popular mechanics or a site reposting stuff from their article?

also, the byu professor is not on the list b/c he was never in government, i think his name was steve jones, there was also a guy who worked for UL (underwriter laboratories), but forgot his name

i don't get it...we are told we are under attack, cheney says this was obvious to him like 50 min before the pentagon was hit...they are told a hijacked flight is heading to dc....but instead of sending a fighter they send a much slower C130?

MakingWaves · April 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

from Maj DOuglas Martin:

but let me guess; you got these 'facts' from popular mechanics or a site reposting stuff from their article?

also, the byu professor is not on the list b/c he was never in government, i think his name was steve jones, there was also a guy who worked for UL (underwriter laboratories), but forgot his name

Yeah, some of these facts are from popular mechanics but I guess logical scientific explanations aren't good enough for you but some whacko and false facts that have been proven false are proof of this ridiculous crap. No matter what anyone says or proves you would never change your mind so it is a waste of time.

MakingWaves · April 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

from Maj DOuglas Martin:
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

This just isn't true. don't know what else to say except OFFICIAL records show that only one plane was scrambled in the previous decade. but i already said this.

MakingWaves · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

El_Kabong wrote:

from Maj DOuglas Martin:
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
and what is 1X7? certianly not 462!!!

According to an article in the Calgary Herald-Tribune from a month after the attack, fighter interception for stray aircraft actually was a weekly occurrence even before 9-11: “Today […] fighter jets are scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or "unknowns" three or four times a day. Before Sept. 11, that happened twice a week. Last year, there were 425 unknowns -- pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Jets were scrambled 129 times.” [3] Was every one of these 129 intercepts in the year 2000 over the ocean in ADIZ areas, with none over the continental U.S.? And in the nine years before that too, with the exception of one famous golfer? .

This just isn't true. don't know what else to say except OFFICIAL records show that only one plane was scrambled in the previous decade. but i already said this

MakingWaves · April 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

76) 9:25 a.m.: Air traffic controllers inform the US Secret Service as American Airlines Flight 77 approaches Washington D.C.

so they KNEW it was on it's way to DC?? they TOLD ppl it was on it's way to DC????

91) 9:36 a.m.: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport instructs a military C130 aircraft that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to try to identify American Airlines Flight 77. The C130 reports it is a 767 and it is moving low and very fast.

soooo...they knew a hijacked flight was on it's way to DC but sent a C130 from Andrew's Air Force Base but not any of the fighters?????

109) 9:59:04 a.m....wtc collapses...Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

i don't get it...we are told we are under attack, cheney says this was obvious to him like 50 min before the pentagon was hit...they are told a hijacked flight is heading to dc....but instead of sending a fighter they send a much slower C130?

I remember watching events that day and when they said that plane had turned around I was able to figure out it was on its way to DC when they said where it was. What you said proves nothing. Just another opinion made to sound like a fact.

As to the seismographs you contradict yourself. This stupid video shows the explosions very hight up the building that is says are explosives. Do you really believe these are these explosions that caused seismic activity? You make it sound like the explosions are at the base of the building but the video shows different. Also you led us to believe that Thermite was used to explain the cut angles of the beams. But thermite doesn't explode so that couldn't be it either.
Now a crumbling building would cause plenty of seismic activity but detenation devices? I don't think so. Look at the Popular mechanics story it clearly explains the seismograph activity.

As far as the plane you say they sent to intercept flight 77. What you said isn't true.
There was a plane in the area and they asked it to confirm that the plane had indeed crashed and it flew over the crash zone and confirmed it. the military plane was in route. the pilot of this plane has confirmed this but now refuses to do interviews because of people like you bothering him so much.

ledvedderman · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

Look at the Popular mechanics story it clearly explains the seismograph activity.

Do you mean the written by the cousin of Michael Chertoff?

69charger · April 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

Do you mean the written by the cousin of Michael Chertoff?

What does that prove? Do you have evidence of another conspiracy? If so, what is your evidence?

At what point does Kevin Bacon come into the picture?

ledvedderman · April 2007

69charger wrote:

What does that prove? Do you have evidence of another conspiracy? If so, what is your evidence?

At what point does Kevin Bacon come into the picture?

I don't believe the official story, but I don't believe some of the more far out conspiracy theories either.

I think Popular Mechanics probably should have had someone other than Chertoff write the article because of an obvious bias towards one side of the argument.

MakingWaves · April 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

Do you mean the written by the cousin of Michael Chertoff?

So what if he wrote it. It is the expert testimony in the story that matters. It isn't like he put his opinions on paper and said they were fact. Just another example of conspiracy theorists blowing off factual information with an opinion that proves nothing.

You gotta do better then that.

MakingWaves · April 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't believe the official story, but I don't believe some of the more far out conspiracy theories either.

I think Popular Mechanics probably should have had someone other than Chertoff write the article because of an obvious bias towards one side of the argument.

I should have read this post before I responed to your other one. I agree that someone else should have written the article and he does have a bias lean towards it. However, that was the purpose of the story and the facts in the story are hard to argue against.

mookie9999 · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

No matter what anyone says or proves you would never change your mind so it is a waste of time.

And therein lies the key. People who hold conspiracies so close to themselves will never let them go. They are probably thrilled that they now have 9/11 to cling on to. After all, Area 51, JFK, and Elvis are all getting a bit old. I believe that 9/11 will keep them going for at least 50 years, which I believe is what they thrive on. Do I think that Bush is a terrible human being who exploited 9/11 to have a free pass to wreak havoc in Iraq and will continue to use 9/11 as answers to pressing questions, even when it does not apply? Absolutely! Do I think that Bush is untrustworthy? You Bet? Do I believe that Bush is behind a mass cover-up and that he and his cronies orchestrated 9/11 and it turns out it was an inside job? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

Specifics · April 2007

mookie9999 wrote:

And therein lies the key. People who hold conspiracies so close to themselves will never let them go. They are probably thrilled that they now have 9/11 to cling on to. After all, Area 51, JFK, and Elvis are all getting a bit old. I believe that 9/11 will keep them going for at least 50 years, which I believe is what they thrive on. Do I think that Bush is a terrible human being who exploited 9/11 to have a free pass to wreak havoc in Iraq and will continue to use 9/11 as answers to pressing questions, even when it does not apply? Absolutely! Do I think that Bush is untrustworthy? You Bet? Do I believe that Bush is behind a mass cover-up and that he and his cronies orchestrated 9/11 and it turns out it was an inside job? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

Really not interested in you're other post we have been over and over that already and i stated i dont give a fuck about it, "chopitdown" dealt with it a lot better and a lot earlier than you, get over it.

Everytime i casually think about 9/11 i have a period where its nice and easy to say to myself, "you know what its all bollocks, of course its as they say it is, theres no problem, fuck it, America took some shit, its hard, but they dish out plenty so of course they're gonna take some"

But you know what it lasts about 5 minutes before the questions come back and i cant give my thinking that lazy easy way out.

I have no invested interest in this, you people can all die for all i care really, Americans, Muslims, i dont give a fuck, good and bad in all, they're all the same to me in that i dont love any.

I like the truth tho, im a bit of an addict so i like to try to get to the bottom of things for a laugh.

You're way is the easy way out, as is most of Americas unfortunately for you.

All some people want is a debate and sensible answers, too many want to cling onto Mom with they're eyes closed and they're fingers in they're ears, if you cant find the weirdness in it all no-one can help ya.

mookie9999 · April 2007

Specifics wrote:

Really not interested in you're other post we have been over and over that already and i stated i dont give a fuck about it, "chopitdown" dealt with it a lot better and a lot earlier than you, get over it.

Everytime i casually think about 9/11 i have a period where its nice and easy to say to myself, "you know what its all bollocks, of course its as they say it is, theres no problem, fuck it, America took some shit, its hard, but they dish out plenty so of course they're gonna take some"

But you know what it lasts about 5 minutes before the questions come back and i cant give my thinking that lazy easy way out.

I have no invested interest in this, you people can all die for all i care really, Americans, Muslims, i dont give a fuck, good and bad in all, they're all the same to me in that i dont love any.

I like the truth tho, im a bit of an addict so i like to try to get to the bottom of things for a laugh.

You're way is the easy way out, as is most of Americas unfortunately for you.

All some people want is a debate and sensible answers, too many want to cling onto Mom with they're eyes closed and they're fingers in they're ears, if you cant find the weirdness in it all no-one can help ya.

As far as I care you can die as well. At no point did I say just accept it for what it was. Since you clearly enjoy ignoring my posts and questions you probably overlooked me asking numerous times to see proof of what the other side claims from someone that is not retired military and is not some kook. Now if you want to provide me with that, great. Otherwise I will continue to search on my own. But the more nutbags I come across in my searches continues to hammer the point home more and more that although not everything may appear as it seems, it does not equate to mass conspiracy, government cover-up, inside job. To draw that conclusion based on the "proof" that I've seen is ludicrous. So, to me your grandstanding is comical at best. Keep it up. It's very entertaining.

short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

Comments

Categories