Must see video of 9/11...

[Mr. Dictator]

I'm saying that being familiar with the building, at the scene at the time and seeing what happened made these people better experts than the 'suits'. Besides which, they often spoke before the party line had been determined and were therefore unaffected by the bahramdipity field. The power of suggestion is very high indeed, and these people were not exposed to it.
You are discounting the only plausible explanation. Why?

why do you suggest that someone familiar with the building could tell the difference between a planned detonation and a collapse, thats ill logic

second i got an explanation that has some video evidence, a plane hit it

 

[Xenocrates]

why do you suggest that someone familiar with the building could tell the difference between a planned detonation and a collapse, thats ill logic

I already said that I ignored the eye-witness comparisons between the collapse and a demolition. It's the primary eye-witness evidence of explosions in the basement etc that I was refering to.

second i got an explanation that has some video evidence, a plane hit it

The official explanation is not that the plane caused the collapse, but that the fire caused the collapse. So you're disagreeing with them too LOL!

A layman might see the fireworks caused by the plane collision and assume that it caused the collapse, but this is physically impossible.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Note the conclusion of this report, which is that there has never been an explanation for the sulpherisation of the steel. Except of course that it was caused by explosives, probably similar to thermite, planted inside the building.

FEMA's report is available here with comments added in red by an anonymous author:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

This links have become unstable for me, I hope you have more luck getting them up.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

second i got an explanation that has some video evidence, a plane hit it

The official explanation is not that the plane caused the collapse, but that the fire caused the collapse. So you're disagreeing with them too LOL!
QUOTE]

but what caused the fire, ohmygod!!! the plane LOL!

 

[Xenocrates]

but what caused the fire, ohmygod!!! the plane LOL!

Touche Mr Dictator Sir, touche. I think we have reached agreement on something!

I'm going to play Civ for a few hours to get my mind off bahramdipity fields and highly suspicious collapses. GL

 

[shadow2k]

Molten Steel -

Quite a few things wrong with this. First off, it was "confirmed" by three sources:

Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
American Free Press newspaper

Loizeaux was merely reporting what Tully told him, he will NOT give personal confirmation, because he can't. AFP was simply reporting what these two said. So one source?

Others who reported it often switched back between molten "steel" and molten "metal". Not to mention many were using second hand info. On top of which, the use of the word molten seems to have been thrown around quite carelessly. The fire was definitely hot enough to heat up the metal to where it was "glowing red", and have it lose it's shape. Molten means liquid. Some of the reports state there were MOLTEN STEEL BEAMS! Molten beams? Are you freaking joking? If it's a beam, it sure as heck isn't molten. And if it's glowing red, it's really freaking hot, but it's not the orange molten liquid most of you are thinking of. Let's not forget, how did they know it was steel, and not some other metal, if it was truly molten?

On top of that, we have other things than jet fuel burning you know. Most modern offices will have large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decorations, furniture, computer/electronics, polymers, plastics, artificial leathers, laminates, etc... The fire becomes much more severe than your standard house fire, let alone an outdoor fire. Enclosed fires will continue to build up heat over time until they reach their peak.

As far as oxygen, it could have filtered in from above, or even below (subway lines). It's not like this collapse created a completely air tight environment on all sides. It's falling rubble, come on.

The fires would have reached 1000C (1832F) quite easily, and was shown in normal tests done by the Structural Fire Engineering department of the University of Manchester. Add in ordinary fuels with a little plastic, and the right conditions, and peaks of 1301C (2372F) can be reached.

It's not just about what temp jet fuel burns at. Not by a long shot. Burn a barrel of it outside compared to an enclosed space, you'll come up with two different numbers.

Nobody really knows for sure how hot it got in there. We might never know. What we do know is that it was definitely hot enough to make steel glow red hot and lose it's structural integrity. We also know that there are a lot of conflicting reports about "molten steel" vs "molten metal" and "molten steel BEAMS". Most of these people are not qualified to even be making such statements. And some did it for dramatic effect. Again, don't just believe everything you read.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


And of course...

Demolition -

I'll keep this one a bit shorter.

Progressive collapses do happen outside of demolitions, it's not as rare as certain people would have you believe.

Again, the root page for the above link also explains things about the speed the building fell at, the "explosions" you see that look like bombs demolishing the building, and all sorts of other stuff.

It's been explained. If you want the real answers, instead of the same questions that have already been addressed, you simply have to look outside the conspiracy theory sites. None of us should have to be bearing out the truth here, just to prove it to you. The answers had already been provided, but you're not looking for them. You're looking for reasons not to believe.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess...

 

[.Shane.]

It's been explained. If you want the real answers, instead of the same questions that have already been addressed, you simply have to look outside the conspiracy theory sites. None of us should have to be bearing out the truth here, just to prove it to you. The answers had already been provided, but you're not looking for them. You're looking for reasons not to believe.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess...

Amen.

Seriously, nice post.

 

[Xenocrates]

I read your link and many of the sub-links. Most people skip the text to the conclusion.

There were many reports of molten steel. Most being reported second hand, exactly as you would expect them to be.

Let’s imagine that people are able to distinguish between ‘molten’ and ‘glowing’, which doesn’t seem unreasonable. Then the question becomes, how do they know that it was steel? Couldn’t it have been aluminium from the plane or the wall of the building? Couldn’t it have been copper from the wiring? Iron from something else? All of these possibilities have been explored in the forums linked from your source. I didn’t find a sensible alternative.

Now, what was able to generate the required temperature? The conclusion of your link:

Not least the idea that explosives are responsible. How much thermite would you need to burn for weeks, for instance? As the conspirators would presumably only want enough to burn for, let's be generous, 30 minutes, wouldn't extending this to a week mean using 168 times as much? If you want to believe that then fair enough, but it makes no sense to us.

Can you see the flaw in the conclusion? If I heat something to, say, 200 degrees and insulate it, after a month it will still be hot. Although not as hot as it was originally. I don’t doubt that additional energy was released from largely anaerobic reactions under the surface, as also pointed out in your link. But this still leaves the problem of the absence of any such intense hotspots from previous collapses, making 9/11 unique. I abhor the glibness of this article and many posts to this thread, although not Shadow’s. People just log in, grunt and log off. This is excusable on trivial threads but not here.

The jet fuel is said to have started the fires that ultimately lead to the collapses. So we can almost take the plane and the collision out of the picture entirely. The only difference between the jet fuel-spread fires and other fires is the speed of spread. This also means that the energy that was released was spread over a wide area, meaning that significant local heating wouldn’t have occurred. If the jet fuel had been spilt into the building and a match thrown on it the result would have been similar. If that had happened, would you still hold no suspicions about the collapses? The collapses were due to an exothermic reaction of something that was within the buildings so we can take the jet fuel out of the picture as well. Meaning that a less visually hypnotic event would also have caused a collapse.

The ‘progressive collapse’ link is extremely weak. But again the author is hoping that people will skip the text right down to the conclusion.

We saw of 9/11 enormous clouds of dust emerging from the upper floors of the buildings before the kinetic energy of the collapse had reached the level required to pulverise concrete into such fine particles.

Your link claims that the speed of collapse of L'Ambiance Plaza was 2.5 seconds longer than the free fall time of 5 seconds. To underline the point, that’s substantially longer than free fall. Approximate WTC fall timings:

1. Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour.
2. The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

So the collapse of a 16 story tower is prolonged by 2.5 seconds and the collapse of two 110 story towers is prolonged by only 2 seconds. It simply makes no sense at all. The UK’s Ronan point collapse was only a couple of years before the completion of the twin towers. No lessons learned?

This link cites two examples of progressive collapse, neither even superficially comparable to what happened on 9/11.

Activate humble mode. There are three main problems facing the 9/11 researcher:

1) The sheer volume of data.
2) The thousands of theories based on the data and the impossibility of determining the credibility of each theory and each source. Even identifying the men behind the sources and their motives is impossible.
3) The barefaced lie.

It’s possible that the molten steel is a good example of the ‘barefaced lie’ and I have no means of knowing.

These problems afflict us all regardless of whether we’re minded to accept the official conspiracy theory or some other. A single guy with a few spare hours and an Internet connection is blatantly incapable of getting to the bottom of this. That’s what the commission should have been for. There was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, there’s no doubt about that, it was the conspiracy of the establishment to overstate their confidence in the single lone gunman theory. The single lone gunman theory seems reasonable to me, but not the certainty with which it was adopted. From that misguided certainty all other theories flowed. The same thing is happening here on a bigger scale. The difference being that your government’s hypothesis is utter BS this time.

This is what I posted on the last 9/11 thread ('911 revisited'):

The US government knew that the towers would be subject to attack (was it in 1994 that the first attempt was made?).

It does not seem beyond imagining that explosives were placed in the buildings to ensure that they collapsed with a 'small' footprint rather than topple, causing more deaths.

I'm not saying that it's what happened but it's concievable that the planes did not directly cause the collapse.

If you knew that two very important buildings in the centre of your most important city were inevitable terrorist targets and you couldn't protect them from such an attack what would you do about it?

The big question is: if there were explosives there, why were they detonated when the towers had appeared to survive the attack? Who's decision was that and why?

You know my hypothesis so consider this: What if the buildings had withstood the plane crashes?

They would have stood for weeks as a testament to the failure of the US military.

They would need to be demolished.

People would need to evacuated from the whole area.

The insurance issue would have been difficult.

It would have had a more damaging effect on stocks and would have cost a fortune to sort out.

New York demonstrably couldn't have coped with this.

I contend again that bringing the buildings down was planned. I DO NOT contend that the attack was instigated by US forces as some do, but that the buildings were covertly demolished afterwards to avoid the possible extra deaths and the results mentioned above.

I have not seen that hypothesis anywhere else, so I'll call it 'mine' . It is not necessary to believe that Mr Bush and a group of like-'minded' plotters in the USA did all of this, to accept that there were demolitions on 9/11. There is a third way!

 

[Spartan117]

did anyone see the new video that was released today?..it was from one of the other cameras by the pentagon

 

[Mr. Dictator]

my thread about this sank to page 2

but i didnt really see anything new

 

[Spartan117]

i still wonder why is was hesitated in being released. it does not give much more footage then the previous version...
did you listen to the pentagon spokesman or whatever that guy was talk... i watched it on abc news

 

[Mr. Dictator]

no, what did he say?

 

[Spartan117]

it was like a 6 minutes clip and the guy was explaining the video what the silevery object was addressed , talked about the memorial, the reason of with holding this video was because of concern about the families involved and the people at the pentagon, they will be sad, by the way this doesnt make sense as how did the first video get released and not both at the same time?..it is a combination of unnecessary evil, dignity of passengers...reasons for video not being released

the pentagon released this because of some freedom information act...sidenote the names of prisoners at gutanomo bay ,cant spell, were also released stuff like that, and to answer conspiracy theorists,

i felt that he was "beating around the bush"mentioning tourists gruops is not really relevant..just my thought

http://abcnews.go.com/?lid=ABCCOMMenu&lpos=ABCNews or simply abc.com then from there go to link to abcnews

 

[Inqvisitor]

The new video looks hardly any different than those frames released four years ago...

 

[Spartan117]

exactly so why with hold this video but not the other video that was releaes 4 years ago? why not just release both at the same time 4 years ago.. i dont know just seems a little fishy

 

[JtheJackal]

Its the logic of the Defense Department, bizzaro logic or something

I watched the video on BBC, its almost real time when the frames are looked at with the proper length

 

[shadow2k]

I read your link and many of the sub-links. Most people skip the text to the conclusion.

I'm not going to go through and refute each point. Truth is, it's impossible for any one of us to truly know exactly what happened point for point. It's certainly not my area of expertise, and I have no first hand knowledge of any of it outside of what I woke up to that morning.

Regardless, people will believe what they want to believe. History has taught us that time and time again.

While not every answer given for 9/11 is fool proof, every one of them is within the realm of possibility. Most of the conspiracy theories have gaping holes sprinkled in.

Take your theory for instance. I can't think of any good reason why, given the option, they'd demolish the building right then instead of later. Having a big pile of rubble in the middle of NYC is no better than a couple of trashed buildings standing above all else. I mean, it's not like simply looking up was the only thing reminding everyone what just happened. 9/11 is still on many people's minds on a day to day basis. I think the buildings having withstood it would have been less devastating, for a number of reasons, but mainly the lives that wouldn't have been lost.

You say they'd need to be demolished. But, that's exactly what you're proposing they did? Wouldn't it be better to do it without live people in and around the building? Not doing it amid the chaos? Controlled environment?

Yes, the area would have to be evacuated. Again, they had to do this anyway. And many of the people who would have been responsible for organizing such a thing were killed in this alleged demolition? Makes no sense to me.

I'm sure insurance was difficult anyway. But the only reason insurance wise I could think of to demolish it right then would be insurance fraud. That's a pretty big case of fraud, considering how many lives were lost as a result of the collapses.

Stocks? Why would it be more damaging to have the buildings still standing? Not following that one. And it cost a fortune to sort out regardless, I don't see that as an issue that would have been considered when talking about whether to demolish it then, or later.

As far as NYC coping (along with the rest of America), I'm not sure why you see the buildings standing as being more brutal. I really honestly believe it would have been better.

And as my main debating point against that theory... If the US didn't carry out the attacks, wouldn't they want their crime scene in tact? Wouldn't they do everything in their power to make sure more lives weren't lost in the aftermath?

I know the demolition theory (one way or another) is a popular one, for many reasons. I just don't buy it, in any form. It would make more sense, to me, if they had carried out the attacks themselves to demolish it. I just see no good evidence to believe the buildings did anything but collapse.

 

[Xenocrates]

Regardless, people will believe what they want to believe. History has taught us that time and time again.

Yes that's exactly the problem. I'm trying to do the opposite and believe exactly what I don't want to believe.

My theory has some major problems:

Explosives would have needed to have been placed long in advance of the attacks. Wouldn't these have been sniffed out by the guard dogs? Maybe they weren't explosives, but incendiary devices that the dogs weren't trained to recognise? I've never dabbled with explosives so I have no idea. If they were placed just before the attack, it shows that the attack was expected soon and therefore it would have been easier to shoot down the planes. However last time the US shot down a plane (maybe) (TWA 800), there was a huge complaint about it.

http://www.workers.org/ww/twa0410.html

Interesting link.

So allowing the attack and demolishing the buildings after the majority of the people were able to ecape may have seemed to some to be the least bad choice, especially since they would be able to capitalise on the attack.

“[9/11 created] the kind of opportunities that The Second World War offered, to refashion the world” - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to The New York Times, 10/11/01

“Think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities” - Condoleezza Rice to senior members of the National Security Council in reference to September 11th, 2001.

“The events of September 11th, 2001 opened vast new opportunities” - stated in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in 2002.

“A blessing in disguise” - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in reference to September 11th, 2001, in an interview with Jim Lehrer on the second anniversary of 9/11

From previous 9/11 thread.

Pentagon video:

Judicial Watch filed the freedom of information request in 2004, but the Pentagon refused to release the video because it was part of the investigation involving al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, the group said.

I'll leave it for you to decide whether this is plausible or not and whether the release of the previous still frame was consistent or not with this explanation.

The clever money is:

Correspondents say the release of the video is not unhelpful to the Bush administration.

The footage serves as a graphic reminder of why the US launched its global war on terror and is still fighting it, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm

Researching 9/11 could become a full-time job

 

[Xenocrates]

I realised that my TWA 800 link was a little old, so I post this one as well:

http://twa800.com/sanders/ceo.pdf

Some passages in this letter look like they come from 9/11 instead of TWA 800. The similarities are extraordinary:

Witnesses or "Untouchables"?
1. The day after Flight 800 was shot down, the Justice Department, helped by 1,000 FBI agents, began the process of converting hundreds of witnesses into the first American "untouchable cast". The political leadership of the NTSB aborted its mission in one surrender of its responsibilities after another. When the Justice Department illegally ordered the NTSB crash investigators to have no contact with witnesses or their statements, and the NTSB complied, the investigation was over, the cover-up and Misprision of Felony Homicide had begun.

2. At the NTSB Public Hearing in December of 1997, the word "witnesses" was not even mentioned. Before and since, they have been ridiculed, slandered and liabled in official videotapes and statements made by government spokesmen.

4. We have access to 107 witnesses on 4 aircraft, 19 boats, and 31 locations ashore. They were located in a 360° circle around the missile engagement. Their live testimony alone will prove the aircraft was shot down. This is why the Justice Department has kept air crash investigators away from witnesses for 2 1/2 years and also one reason they are conducting a malicious show-trial prosecution of author and outside investigator James
Sanders and his wife. It's hard to interview witnesses from a Federal prison. The FBI failed to identify and interview 17 of these people. Among these 17 are witnesses on a boat who may have seen the escaping shooter.

Bold by me. Witness reports have been discredited in both cases, presumably because the official story was untrue.

Note: this group (TWA800.com) postulated at the time that Chinese missile technolgy had been used by the Iranians to shoot down TWA 800, so it's not in support of my proposal, except that the political storm that followed the destruction of the plane or the perceived destruction of the plane would have affected the response to 9/11. I have asked them whether the flight may have been shot down because the authorities believed that it could have been hijacked and used as a weapon. I'll keep you informed about what they say. Other groups continue to believe that the navy fired the guilty missile.

It's the peculiar madness/skill of the conspiracy researcher to find these type of connections. I wonder what will come of this one?