because they could remove one frame exactly in 15 seconds.
that footage looks ok to me, almost like something is crashing through a building.
that's my theory anyways
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - How the Towers Fell
(1218 posts, started )
because they could remove one frame exactly in 15 seconds.
that footage looks ok to me, almost like something is crashing through a building.
that's my theory anywaysNo, point is that plane crashing was done earlier, CGI.. so when the buildings 'exploded' or whatever really happened, they then aired those fake crashings with the plane, and i'm assuming black frames were added to cover any sloppy job by the 'fakers'.
Lad, you need to stop, they used planes, if they didn't, everyone who was in NY at the time would have just seen the buildings blowing up. There was too many eyewitnesses to cover that up.
And about the Pentagon, I think it's so obvious what happened there (tiny hole, videos tapes confiscated, plane? allowed to enter restricted airspace) that what exactly happened at the towers needs to be explained more because people like the no planers are trying hard to make it more confusing.
Not sure if people here heard this chap telling his experience on 911, his name is Richard Grove, but I'll put it here anyway. He was supposed to be in a meeting on the 90-odd floor on the morning of 911. Very interesting stuff he talks about - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5188081102820402482
That's not my opinnion, i'm just reffering as to what this theory relies on
Oh, sorry, I just got the impression from your post this morning that this is what you thought actually happened...
Let's assume for a moment it's true. Is there any reason at all why to use such overcomplicated solution to imitate terrorist attack? Not only this plan doesn't have any benefits, it's also not cheaper nor more likely to succeed and it makes the whole thing much more prone to disclosure.
How hard can it be to get two decommissioned planes, repaint them to look like commercial airliners and fly them into the towers? We've had radio controlled planes since like sixties, we have UAVs, so no problem there.
I might as well think that few of these conspiracy theories were released by the US Gov themselves to make the conspirators fight among each other an get their minds off the actual case... how paranoid is that?
This, imo, is exactly what is happening.
Wouldn't make sense, as that isn't how they try to brain wash us. That's just looking at other stuff like Christianity/the Bible here.
The CGI idea is just silly anyways, you'd have to be really gullible to believe that.
The CGI idea is just silly anyways, you'd have to be really gullible to believe that.
That response to me? You think it wouldn't make sense to confuse the people who would most likely uncover what you did? That is the first thing I would do. Create as many different stories to make it harder for people to actually figure out what I did. It makes perfect sense.
Well I'm saying normally the US doesn't play stuff that smart, and that's why it doesn't make sense to me. 
i definately believe it was a plane that crashed (if we already diddnt come to agreement there :razz
Back when that happened, i knew somebody, whose fiancée (that the right spell check correction?) was the flight attendant who made the last call to 911 before hitting the towers. (i dont remember what flight it was, but his tears were very real. she had a very real death)
do you really think they took x amount of people who were supposed to fly on those flights, killed them all, and blamed EVERY SINGLE DEATH on hitting the towers?
if you do think that, where did all their lives go?
Back when that happened, i knew somebody, whose fiancée (that the right spell check correction?) was the flight attendant who made the last call to 911 before hitting the towers. (i dont remember what flight it was, but his tears were very real. she had a very real death)
do you really think they took x amount of people who were supposed to fly on those flights, killed them all, and blamed EVERY SINGLE DEATH on hitting the towers?
if you do think that, where did all their lives go?
Well, I think you have been brainwashed into thinking that way, to underestimate the lengths people in power will go to to get what they want. For instance, check out this document, Operation Northwoods from 1962, specifically page 8 section 3(b) and all of section 8 on page 10, but do read it all - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
"They" put people like Bush into power, so ordinary Joe's will think that people in government don't have the mental capacity to carry out an attack like this but, I'm sure you know, he is just a puppet, a figure people can point the finger at or point the cameras to when the sh!t hits the fan.
Have a good read of the document I linked to...
And by the way, the reason Operation Northwoods didn't come to pass is because JFK put a stop to it.
And he got his blown off. I understand your logic.
I was havin a poke at the US gov't when it comes to political stuff in the country and states. Not exactly its military presence, which I think is brighter than many think, but whether that's a good or bad thing we do not know.
I was havin a poke at the US gov't when it comes to political stuff in the country and states. Not exactly its military presence, which I think is brighter than many think, but whether that's a good or bad thing we do not know.
I think it's plausible yeah, but that post wasn't my thoughts, more as explaining as to what they're basing that on.
I just watched that link, and I wouldn't know why someone would want to believe they shot a ball in the building.
I don't think it's impossible, some sort of UAV.. It's much easier to aim with it then a 767. I mean everything sounds more possible then arabs who've flown commercial jet liner for the FIRST time in their lives, hitting 3 out of 4 targets spectacularly. And that angle required for the Pentagon hit, lol.
I mean ok, it could've been planes, but not flown by arabs with plastic knives. But some sorth of smaller device, and then faking the videos, was probably a much safer option.
As for witnesses, well i still don't know what to think of that..
Keep in mind that the terrorists had received flight training.
I'll try and find the link to the video next time I'm on a real computer, not an iPod. Now, throw all the "brainwashed by the national media" BS at me that you want, but I'm probably done with this thread. I find it sickening that people have construed the facts into some of these quite ridiculous conspiracy theories.
I'll try and find the link to the video next time I'm on a real computer, not an iPod. Now, throw all the "brainwashed by the national media" BS at me that you want, but I'm probably done with this thread. I find it sickening that people have construed the facts into some of these quite ridiculous conspiracy theories.
they had flight training and you can fly a plane with no flight training. Landing is the hard bit, and they didn't exactly have to worry about that.
Mythbusters proved that even never having flown a plane, the tower can talk you down safely. Pretty sure that having instruction before hand makes things even easier.
Word.
Mythbusters proved that even never having flown a plane, the tower can talk you down safely. Pretty sure that having instruction before hand makes things even easier.
Word.
Also, a plane flies into a building.
You can safely assume the building will be broken, it's just not safe to land a plane in there.
I understand anyone could fly a plane with little or no training, but to fly them with the precision they were flown on 911? That's a big ask, imo. I watched a documentary before where student pilots(5 or 6 of them) tried to fly a simulator into the towers and couldn't, it even took the flight instructor a few times before he actually hit the tower(not the exact spot obvioulsy). So trying to tell me 3 untrained terrorists could have done it first time, 3 times in one day, into 3 difficult targets? Nah, I can't see that happening.
Lets say for a second they did manage to hit the towers, the towers couldn't have fallen the way they did, it's just physically impossible. It defied the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics, according to Kathy McGrade, a metallurgical engineer (video just released 21st May) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... ature=channel_video_title
So if you want to leave the conversation, fair enough, I'd rather talk about it, just to help people to try and see exactly what happened, and as the lady says in the video interview, all you need to do is watch the footage, you don't have to be a fully qualified anything, you just need to look at it and understand what's happening to the building as it's falling. And if they're lying about that, then the whole thing comes into question.
And copy and pasting stuff that looks like a well written script from a movie (it seems to try and hit certain emotinal chords, then hits you with a theory) with no references or who it's from, is not going to help the conversation. I would appreciate a link of the video you talk about though, just to look over it.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do about this, but you really need to look into it. I know there are some crazy theories out their and the "official story" is actually only a theory, they don't present any hard facts about why the building fell the way it did. "...and a global collapse ensued..."(this is what they say in the NIST report once the first few floors gave way) doesn't go into enough detail explaining how each floor pancaked, or how 50 floors from the impact zone suddenly give way without any resistance. Listen to the "smoking guns" from the metallurgical engineer in the vid and also the related vids by other engineers on the right, they might help you understand things a bit better.
About the Kathy McGrade video: Although she's obviously has a degree in physics, she's missed few important points. She refers to the fire that was blazing in there as the "office fire", but that's very far from true. Burning Jet A1 fuel is hardly an office fire. I said in this thread before, but in case you missed it I'll repeat it for you. Commercial airliners have chemical oxygen generators on board. When generating oxygen these devices can heat up to 260°C plus the oxygen they generate greatly increases the combustion rate. It's hard to tell whether they were working or not (the reaction is EXOthermic, so it wouldn't run well in hot environment). It should be noted that one faulty oxygen generator caused a plane to crash when the fire it caused virtually melted the elevator control rods.
There are also other materials than jet fuel that can burn, some plastics can generate a helluva lot of heat when they catch fire.
As for the pilots not being able to hit the towers. Seriously, am I supposed to believe that an instructor pilot who's supposed to land a plane on a runway in night/low visibility conditions, with crosswind and no advanced instrumentation and possibly technical problems cannot hit 420 m tall building that sticks above everything around it?
There are also other materials than jet fuel that can burn, some plastics can generate a helluva lot of heat when they catch fire.
As for the pilots not being able to hit the towers. Seriously, am I supposed to believe that an instructor pilot who's supposed to land a plane on a runway in night/low visibility conditions, with crosswind and no advanced instrumentation and possibly technical problems cannot hit 420 m tall building that sticks above everything around it?
She was likely beaten on the ACT by a walnut. Metallurgical Engineer - who cares, she clearly lacks expertise in critical thinking skills.
She thinks that was an "office fire"? but a blast furnace is a different story? what does she think a fully fueled 747 crashing into a skyscraper creates? She dismisses it like it's a normal office fire, as if any office fire is normal.
The building falling straight: The building didn't collapse from the damage of the plane, she said that herself when she was talking about the melting steel. It fell because the steel structural supports were put under enough intense heat to cause them to lose structural strength and they eventually buckled under the weight of the floors above them. when the top floors fell The main supports are in the middle of the building which is why it fell symmetrically. on top of the bottom floors it set off a chain reaction and the building fell through itself. The spheres are consistent with this, as for all the metal to weaken that much, I'm guessing some of it had to be molten.
"Heat will not migrate towards itself" she seems to think that this a completely open system. The heat can't dissapate like it normally would, it's trapped inside a building with a raging fire. Seriously, this is some of the worst 'science' I have ever heard.
"Doesn't take an expert to see..." All it takes to believe her is a complete suspension of the laws of physics and common sense. She has my utter contempt as a human and as an engineer.
She thinks that was an "office fire"? but a blast furnace is a different story? what does she think a fully fueled 747 crashing into a skyscraper creates? She dismisses it like it's a normal office fire, as if any office fire is normal.
The building falling straight: The building didn't collapse from the damage of the plane, she said that herself when she was talking about the melting steel. It fell because the steel structural supports were put under enough intense heat to cause them to lose structural strength and they eventually buckled under the weight of the floors above them. when the top floors fell The main supports are in the middle of the building which is why it fell symmetrically. on top of the bottom floors it set off a chain reaction and the building fell through itself. The spheres are consistent with this, as for all the metal to weaken that much, I'm guessing some of it had to be molten.
"Heat will not migrate towards itself" she seems to think that this a completely open system. The heat can't dissapate like it normally would, it's trapped inside a building with a raging fire. Seriously, this is some of the worst 'science' I have ever heard.
"Doesn't take an expert to see..." All it takes to believe her is a complete suspension of the laws of physics and common sense. She has my utter contempt as a human and as an engineer.
So these generators greatly increase combustion rate, would that not cause the jet fuel to burn up even quicker? And I highly doubt a metallurgical engineer would overlook the planes having jet fuel and the temperature it burns at and how long the fuel would burn for. It's obvious the jet fuel wouldn't have time to soak into any of the contents inside the towers because it would burn up quite quickly, hense the massive fire balls we seen. And if there were devices on the planes to cause the fuel to combust at a higher rate then all that would be burning for the hour or so before collapse would be office contents, which would obviously include the other materials you talk about, which I doubt any metallurgical engineer would overlook.
I'm just telling you what I saw. I would think some pilots would find the situation you describe to be very difficult to undertake, look at the crash in Cork airport recently. Of course a fully qualified instructor should, with help from the ground(ATC) and the devices on the plane telling him where the runway is in relation to the plane, be able to land under difficult conditions. But throw him in the deep end without any training in those conditions and I think the outcome would be very different. Anyway, it's not about the instructor, it's about 3 untrained terrorists hitting their marks without any pre-runs or tests, which is extremely unlikely.
---
@RiseAgainstMe! Sorry mate but you obviously have no understanding of what you talk about, the heat had the whole building to dissipate into, the whole tower wasn't burning was it? And, if a structure begins in an asymmetrical collapse it physically can't change to a symmetrical collapse, it's physically impossible, listen to the experts, they know what they're on about. Here's a couple of structural engineers explaining some more
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4y6cweaegI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7oti6KGEf4
I find your argument that the pilots would not be able to fly the planes to be utter bullocks, no offense. 10 minutes on Wikipedia has already shown me that Hani Hajour, who flew into the Pentagon, had a commercial pilots license. He took refresher training prior to the attack and his fellow terrorists also took lessons in an accelerated pilot program. Afterwards, the men trained on flight simulators. If you were really determined to crash a plane into a building as a political statement, then I'm sure you'd have practiced enough that you could do it with your eyes closed.
I think there is amcommon misconception that these terrorists were just a bunch of Afghanis who jumped on a plane and took over. In reality, they were all educated men who could (and did) execute an elaborate plan that took several years to complete.
I think there is amcommon misconception that these terrorists were just a bunch of Afghanis who jumped on a plane and took over. In reality, they were all educated men who could (and did) execute an elaborate plan that took several years to complete.
The fact that Mrs. McGrade called the fire an "office fire" which is something you get when you toss a smoking cigarette into a trashcan and some pieces of paper catch fire definitely doesn't help her credibility. Moreover, a metallurgical engineer is the last expert you'd want to ask for opinion. First you need an aviation expert to tell you what materials are on board of an airliner, how much of them and what usually happens when a plane hits a solid object. Then you need someone with degree in organic and physical chemistry to tell you how would these materials burn, how fast and what would the temperature be under given conditions. Only with these data you can go to a metallurgical engineer and ask him what effect would these conditions have on a structural steel. Asking a metallurgical engineer first is taking completely the wrong end; I'm not calling Mrs. McGrade a die-hard conspirator, I just think that she had to extrapolate from bad data too much which lead her to a wrong conclusion.
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - How the Towers Fell
(1218 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG