Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Obama version 2.0 / God Bless America

Recommended Posts

Did I say the steel needed to melt ? -No

I said molten steel was found in a building where the max temp possible from office furnishings is not sufficient to melt steel

 

For the collapse to have happened as it did all supporting steel beams needed to fail at exactly the same time

how is that possible when large areas of that building were unaffected by fire and subsequent heat ?

 

When the NIST report stated no evidence of explosives were found they are suggesting they actually looked for

and tested for explosives thus dismissing the possibility of pre planned demolition .

 

If you dont care what those experts in their relevant fields had to say then you have no interest in the truth

why are they more credible ? because they have the knowledge thats why

Why can the authorities not produce a single video footage of the plane crash at the Pentagon ?

There were video cameras everywhere - the answer is simple - no plane crashed into the Pentagon

You have not answered one question you have resorted to belittling others instead

when thats all you have you have your head in the sand

Not one steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire and many have withstood far more intense and longer lasting fires than WTC7

 

I'm sorry if you think I'm belittling you. I'm not. What questions did you ask?

 

Chemists, pilots, etc are not relevant fields when talking about collapsing buildings. They're just not. If they are relevant, can I use my Chemistry PhD girlfriend's non-belief to prove the opposite? What about my architectural engineer flatmate?

 

Even if molten steel was found on the site of WTC I don't think it's possible to say there's no way it could have happened without thermite/bombs/whatever. We don't know precisely what was in the building (you can't possibly say it was only office furnishings) and we need to bear in mind that it was definitely hit by aircraft a full pelt, or in the case of WTC7 a million tons of falling skyscraper. This matters.

 

Are we talking about thermite or explosives by the way? And why do you think that all supporting steel beams would need to have failed at the same time? Even in real "controlled demolitions" they stagger the charges - why is it so hard to believe that either aeroplanes or a million tons of falling skyscrapers took out a lot of the supporting structure, fires weakened more of it and it collapsed in a cascading fashion?

 

It doesn't matter if no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire before - these didn't either - The buildings that collapsed at WTC almost certainly did so due to fires plus massive structural damage.

 

Really importantly, if this is a huge conspiracy why bother crashing planes into the buildings at all? If the whole idea is that it's an inside job to destroy the buildings by planted explosives or whatever, why didn't "they" just blame that on arab terrorists? What is the point of doing all the plane crashing stuff?

 

P.S googled video of plane crashing into the pentagon for you. Jerky security footage, but still counts no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about thermite or explosives by the way? And why do you think that all supporting steel beams would need to have failed at the same time? Even in real "controlled demolitions" they stagger the charges - why is it so hard to believe that either aeroplanes or a million tons of falling skyscrapers took out a lot of the supporting structure, fires weakened more of it and it collapsed in a cascading fashion?

 

It doesn't matter if no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire before - these didn't either - The buildings that collapsed at WTC almost certainly did so due to fires plus massive structural damage.

 

Really importantly, if this is a huge conspiracy why bother crashing planes into the buildings at all? If the whole idea is that it's an inside job to destroy the buildings by planted explosives or whatever, why didn't "they" just blame that on arab terrorists? What is the point of doing all the plane crashing stuff?

I am not very impressed with that argument.

Why crash the planes? (Or make people believe planes were crashed?)

So you can pin the blame on Arab "terrorists" and mount military efforts.

 

But wait a minute, they went after Saddam Hussein. How was he connected to 9/11? Whoops, he wasn't.

But he had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was a threat to us! Wait a minute, that was a lie too.

 

When are you going to wake up to the games that the government is playing with your minds.

 

Or maybe many just don't care. They are too busy watching Footie on the Tellie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother with planes if you're going to use explosives anyway? Why can't you pin the blame on arab terrorists with a bomb?

 

I actually always thought it was wrong to go into Iraq, never thought they had WMD and actually blogged about it extensively at the time... And contrary to what you might think I'm massively anti-government. I just don't take that to mean I should believe in any old conspiracy theory that blames them for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother with planes if you're going to use explosives anyway? Why can't you pin the blame on arab terrorists with a bomb?

 

I actually always thought it was wrong to go into Iraq, never thought they had WMD and actually blogged about it extensively at the time... And contrary to what you might think I'm massively anti-government. I just don't take that to mean I should believe in any old conspiracy theory that blames them for something.

 

Everyone knew Bush used the attack as an excuse to go into Iraq. (Most people didn't actually care, as they hated Sadam)

 

Everyone knew it was nothing to do with Iraq. (Again, many of us marched etc, but most people didn't care, as they hated Sadam)

 

If 911 had been a set up byu Bush et al, they would have used terrorists from Iraq, not their ally Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the fuel was burned off within10 to 15 seconds

the maximum temp possible was 500F so the plane could not have melted

therefore molten aluminum could not exist to cause explosions frrom sprinkler systems

Mixing molten aluminum with water is very dangerous I agree but even if possible

would it be sufficient to collapse these towers .

Lets assume your theory is correct anyway this would have led to a pancaking effect on the floors below

which at each subsequent floor they would meet resistance which would have slowed the collapse and lessened

the subsequent force to the floors below

The collapse speed of the towers would indicate that pancaking did not occur

http://911research.w...wtc/how-hot.htm

There was no blast furnace situation as far as I can see

 

first of all I kept thinking just how much energy would be converted from potential to kinetic to heat and sound as that huge mass of material fell that huge distance. It's massive,

 

This raises another interesting issue

where did the towers go -considering the sheer volume of materiel contained within the towers

there was a very small pile of debris after the collapse and the seismic data was miniimal

At first I thought this theory by Dr Judy Woods was nonsense

http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/key.html

but if you have the time or the inclination to look into it

 

 

I know you're a fire-fighter WJ, but I have been looking around and have seen that even a typical house fire can reach ~1200F (i.e. already hot enough to melt Aluminium).

 

A blacksmith's forge can actually reach ~3000F, so take a burning plane in a building (fuel, and more importantly, luggage, furnishings etc which will burn for a hell of a long time) and add a good wind blowing through a confined space and, even without it getting anywhere near as hot as a blacksmiths forge, I think you'd agree that the temperature would easily melt Aluminium, (and would likely weaken the structural steel of the building too).

 

As for the blast furnace idea, I once aimed my garden blower onto a fire to get it going, (jees it got hot quick). It would be a similar effect in the towers, there would be one hell of an up draught drawn up the lift shaft, stair wells etc in a tower that height, let alone the chimney effect and also the wind blowing at that altitude.

 

So, if the central column of the building (the lift shaft area) has already been weakened from the impact of the plane, an explosion from an Al/water mix could easily blow out that section.

 

If that central section collapses at that point, then the whole lot above that (all those floors above) have suddenly had their central support removed, and that huge block will now drop like a gigantic wrecking ball, right down the centre of the tower. (I.e. no pancaking required).

 

Would you agree that this is at least plausible?

 

 

**********************************************************

 

 

As for where the towers went? Well I assume that a lot of it went into all the basements (very deep area as was seen when they cleared the site) and a huge amount turned into dust as was clear from the TV that day (whole island looked like a ball of dust, and from the TV cameras showing people running away, that dust was very, very thick, even several blocks away).

 

Watching demolitions, old fashion ones like Fred Dibnah (no explosives), and modern ones, with explosives and there is s**tloads of dust produced, and it’s not produced by the explosion, as the explosives were wrapped in water bags (to shape the charge I guess, but also to minimise bits of building being blasted out all over the place.

 

Concrete easily turns to dust if dropped from a large height. It happens in small building collapses, so I have no problem at all believing that.

 

(PS couldn't open the video)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

house fires can reach 1100 F under specific circumstances

but thats still below the melting point of aluminum 1220 F

The majority of the fire at the towers lasted for less than 20 secs once the

aircraft fuel had burned off and photos of people (living) standing in the hole

the aircraft made exist suggesting the temperatures after the initial explosion were not great

I dont know how long it takes to melt a plane but Im guessing its longer than 20 seconds

Good to see active debate and questions dealing with facts pity I have to go to work now

as for that vid on the Pentagon -I dont see any plane just a nose of a flying object

a missile maybe ? its certainly not very large and rounded like a Boeing

be back later this evening to kick this around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great contributions, wee Jinky and others.

 

I am enjoying this lively and respectful discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

house fires can reach 1100 F under specific circumstances

but thats still below the melting point of aluminum 1220 F

The majority of the fire at the towers lasted for less than 20 secs once the

aircraft fuel had burned off and photos of people (living) standing in the hole

the aircraft made exist suggesting the temperatures after the initial explosion were not great

I dont know how long it takes to melt a plane but Im guessing its longer than 20 seconds

Good to see active debate and questions dealing with facts pity I have to go to work now

as for that vid on the Pentagon -I dont see any plane just a nose of a flying object

a missile maybe ? its certainly not very large and rounded like a Boeing

 

I saw fires burning from when the planes hit, to when the towers collapsed. (I guess like many people I was watching it all live on TV).

 

I will accept the fuel might have burnt up quickly, but the buildings were definitely on fire for the whole time. (I don't recall seeing people looking out of the holes the planes made, (just out of windows) but, I will gladly agree if you have some pictures?)

 

I guess straight after the crash people on that side of the building, that survived the initial impact, could have got up and looked out, before the fire spread?

 

 

Apparently, the max temp of a fire in a forge is only about 2000F until you add the wind (i.e the bellows) at that point the temp can rise by well over 50% (nearer 75% some say).

 

So, if the average house fire is 1100-1200F (i.e pretty much at the melting point of Al at 1200F), then adding the wind and chimney effect, will easily take the fire way above that temp.

 

 

Flame temperatures in room fires

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

 

http://www.doctorfir...m/flametmp.html

And that's a small house fire, where even the lowest temperatures mentioned are still hot enough to melt Al (~600 DegC) and the higher ones would easily weaken steel. I have also been told that a bigger fire produces higher average temperatures, so a large office (many floors burning) would, on average be much hotter too.

 

 

be back later this evening to kick this around

 

I know that trick, you just want me to have another sleepless night! :P

 

 

PS As for the Pentagon, I'll try and stick with one thing at a time if that's OK, otherwise it'll get all messy. But I'll just say for now, if they were going to do that, it would've been much easier to try and pull of a missile attack, or military plane crash, if it were dark :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html

 

heres a link to the photos

Now Im not claiming this is proof of anything , one of the big problems we have when viewing vids and pics is

knowing whether they have been digitally altered or interfered with by official or conspratorial types.

Damning evidence of a conspiracy can be produced by Govt in order to disprove them at a later date

thus damaging the credibility of all those who question the official version

Im sure we all remember tv pics of people waving from and jumping from the towers from the day

if they are real and I have no reason to believe they were'nt then how did they survive the extreme temps

of aluminum melting heat at least temporarily

Can we also consider the very different reactions between planes and buildings at the towers and the Pentagon

at the Towers the planes sliced straight through the building whereas at the Pentagon the impact where the wings supposedly hit didnt even break the windows . I dont understand how aluminum can cut through steel its really screwing up my rock paper scissors game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I agree the towers were burning from impact to collapse but at what intensity ?

as for the damage from falling masonry inflicted on WTC 7 it was far less than damage to

the other buildings closer to the Towers and cannot be described as massive

and affected only one side of the building ,if it played any part in the collapse then it would have lessened the resistance

on that side only and not led to a uniform collapse . If one side has less resistance than another then that side would have collapsed

quicker but it didnt . The NIST report claimed that one single beam was responsible for the collapse and when that gave way everything else followed . Do they build buildings that are reliant one one single beam to hold up the rest of the building ?

Its a steel framed structure not a game of Ker Plunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://whatreallyhap...wtc1_woman.html

 

heres a link to the photos

 

Im sure we all remember tv pics of people waving from and jumping from the towers from the day

if they are real and I have no reason to believe they were'nt then how did they survive the extreme temps

of aluminum melting heat at least temporarily

 

It certainly does look like a woman waving from a few floors below where the fire is (at the impact side, which I suggested above might be possible straight after the impact, before the fire spread), so I'm guesing this was taken pretty soon after the impact.

 

If she was a few floors above, I guess it would be much hotter than it would be being a few floors below.

 

The people jumping were mainly from floors further up AFAIR, as they (and some on lower floors) couldn't get to, or down the stairs and as the fire spread they became trapped (I'd imagine fire and smoke would have been shooting up the stairwells as the fuel etc was flowing down, horrible :( ).

 

Now Im not claiming this is proof of anything , one of the big problems we have when viewing vids and pics is

knowing whether they have been digitally altered or interfered with by official or conspratorial types.

Damning evidence of a conspiracy can be produced by Govt in order to disprove them at a later date

thus damaging the credibility of all those who question the official version

 

I really do not give the USA Gov etc the credit or capability you appear to (as far as I've seen over many years, they really couldn't can't run a piss-up in a distillery ;) ). I honestly just don't think they could pull off something like this. I really don't. And if they really wanted to do something to rile up the people etc, there are a million easier, cheaper, and better ways to do it.

 

Where I think there is a possibility of conspiracy is in poor quality construction of the towers, the Saudi connection and the way the only flights allowed after 911 were to collect and fly out all the members of the Bin-Laden family that were in the US at that time.

 

Can we also consider the very different reactions between planes and buildings at the towers and the Pentagon

at the Towers the planes sliced straight through the building whereas at the Pentagon the impact where the wings supposedly hit didnt even break the windows . I dont understand how aluminum can cut through steel its really screwing up my rock paper scissors game

 

:) I can imagine.

 

As for the buildings, totally different designs/methods of construction. Pentagon has large areas of reinforced concrete (RC) with a few windows. WTC had thin strands of RC with long windows between. I'd assume these would have acted quite differently to one another if a plane flew into them. But that's a different subject :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I agree the towers were burning from impact to collapse but at what intensity ?

 

I arrived the temperatures I posted previously by not assuming any kerosene etc, so equivalent to a normal house fire high, but up in a skyscraper.

 

Judging by the pictures of flames and smoke, they were pretty big fires, hence the amount of heat (or energy of the fire) involved was much greater than a normal house fire, with a big thermal mass too (i.e volume on fire much, much greater than a house).

 

Also seems even a normal plane fire can result in temps of >1500 deg F

 

In a confined space fires fueled by flammable or combustible liquids (jet fuel, hydrolic fluid) can easily reach 1500 degrees

 

http://answers.yahoo...12200723AAlR9KY

 

However, only had a quick look so will need more independent confirmation that this is valid if you have any?

 

Whether or not you go for the Aluminium explosion theory, it seems clear that the temperatures, and the amount of heat involved, were easily enough to melt the Aluminium.

 

WT7 is a different story (we can look at that later if OK).

 

But for this one, I have to ask again, do you not agree that it is, at the very least, plausible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The twin towers is more plausible than WTC7 -

due to the impact of the planes it adds that extra dimension to things

and I'll be the first to admit I have no experience of planes impacting buildings (not many do)

so when Im discussing 911 I try to stay focussed on WTC7

There are so many questionable events of that day

the money trail - the doubling of the insurance premiums just 2 months earlier

Silverstein not turning up for work that morning

the 5 Mossad agents who admitted they were there to capture events (prior knowledge)

The Bin Laden family leaving before anyone else was allowed back in the air

Bush and Rumsfeld demanding only to testify in private and together

Burnt out vehicles 2 miles from the attacks ,lack of debris , the recovery of the passport undamaged

nano thermite particles , the removal of steel beams to China, how ground affect didnt happen to the Pentagon plane

500mph at ground level ? the precision corkscrew turns that pro pilots claim they couldnt perform and many many more anomalies

Then we look back at what was achieved

Invasion of Iraq ,invasion of Afghanistan(Iran now surrounded) , turmoil in the ME, overthrow of Gadaffi , capture and execution of Bin Laden (show me the body ,ooops buried at sea never mind) later images of OBL dont look like the early ones (did he die years earlier?) When did the financial collapse begin ? The Patriot act implemented ,the NDAA act brought in

So Billions of $$$s made, Billions of debts written off, empire enlarged , dictators liquidated ,enemies surrounded ,citizens rights removed and a fair chunk of gold went missing to boot . Who gained and who lost ?

 

Anyway sleep tight :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports from eyewitnesses, who saw "the real shooter" of JFK

 

The Men Who Killed Kennedy; The Smoking Guns (full movie)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LbNWUNfnaA

 

The Warren Commission got it wrong

 

Part 3 : The Cover-up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

"Absolutely!", says ex- CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer

 

... amongst many other things in this revealing interview:

 

Kerry Cassidy interviews Susan Lindauer for AFR

 

MP3 : http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Project-Camelot-32k-111412.mp3

 

Kerry discusses her idea that Petreus may have been the leader of a coup.

SL says it is possible, and agrees it could be aimed against the Bush cabal.

 

Lindauer speaks very highly of Petraeus, and thinks this story was invented to frame him.

("What is the FBI doing, reading 20,000 pages of private emails?" ...

"They want budget". "The FBI was acting like a KGB in Iraq. They are privatizing now.")

 

KC: "Petraeus was getting ready to point the finger at Hillary Clinton for Bengazy."

SL: "I think it is bigger than that. It is a coup. The military knows what is coming, and is resisting it."

. . . : "I heard Stevens was heavily involved in arming the Syria freedom fighters."

. . . : "Stevens was sodomized. This was an Al Qaeda attack. They are funded by the US."

. . . : "Gordon Duff is an asset, who OFTEN has misinformation. Nevertheless, I love Veterans Today."

 

SL: "Here's what is going on Globally: Israel is trying to pull us into war, by attacking Syria."

. . . : "The Israelis and Obama are trying to open a pathway to war, and they know Petraeus will oppose it."

. . . : "We may be a lot closer to martial law than almost everyone realizes. Maybe only a few months.

 

SL : There is no financial crisis. The $2 Trillion in missing money has been found, & is worth $10 Trillion

We can eliminate the federal deficit. It will fall by $10 Trillion. I know where the money is, & have documentation.

We want to make sure the money goes to the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The twin towers is more plausible than WTC7 -

due to the impact of the planes it adds that extra dimension to things

and I'll be the first to admit I have no experience of planes impacting buildings (not many do)

so when Im discussing 911 I try to stay focussed on WTC7

There are so many questionable events of that day

the money trail - the doubling of the insurance premiums just 2 months earlier

Silverstein not turning up for work that morning

the 5 Mossad agents who admitted they were there to capture events (prior knowledge)

The Bin Laden family leaving before anyone else was allowed back in the air

Bush and Rumsfeld demanding only to testify in private and together

Burnt out vehicles 2 miles from the attacks ,lack of debris , the recovery of the passport undamaged

nano thermite particles , the removal of steel beams to China, how ground affect didnt happen to the Pentagon plane

500mph at ground level ? the precision corkscrew turns that pro pilots claim they couldnt perform and many many more anomalies

Then we look back at what was achieved

Invasion of Iraq ,invasion of Afghanistan(Iran now surrounded) , turmoil in the ME, overthrow of Gadaffi , capture and execution of Bin Laden (show me the body ,ooops buried at sea never mind) later images of OBL dont look like the early ones (did he die years earlier?) When did the financial collapse begin ? The Patriot act implemented ,the NDAA act brought in

So Billions of $$$s made, Billions of debts written off, empire enlarged , dictators liquidated ,enemies surrounded ,citizens rights removed and a fair chunk of gold went missing to boot . Who gained and who lost ?

 

Anyway sleep tight :D

 

Yeah, I had to make sure I didn't look at the thread again after posting yesterday, so I mangaged a half decent sleep last night :D

 

So I guess we can agree that there are at least a couple of plasubible theories for the twin towers (with at least one not including explosives).

 

I'm going to have to have a good look around regarding WT7, as I don't know much about it.

 

However, it's Friday, which means pub night! so I might be a day or two (once I recover) :rolleyes: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://youtu.be/76JNyng6l4I

 

As this vid shows a 12inch wooden pole can slice off an aluminum aircraft wing how was towers with its 14 inch thick steel

able to be sliced through like butter

Another thought - As the plane that hit the Pentagon also hit several steel lamposts before impact why did the wings not shear off

and why was the direction of the flight not affected . It maintained that perfect level trajectory into the Pentagon just 5 ft above

ground level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://youtu.be/76JNyng6l4I

 

As this vid shows a 12inch wooden pole can slice off an aluminum aircraft wing how was towers with its 14 inch thick steel

able to be sliced through like butter

Another thought - As the plane that hit the Pentagon also hit several steel lamposts before impact why did the wings not shear off

and why was the direction of the flight not affected . It maintained that perfect level trajectory into the Pentagon just 5 ft above

ground level

 

Please watch again from ~3.12 tp 3.30 and see if you see/hear what I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am enjoying this lively and respectful discussion

 

So perhaps it's just me that's finding it both ridiculous and distasteful.

 

I know a widow of one of the passengers on Flight 77: her husband even phoned her from the plane. I now understand from some of the posters about that event, that it didn't really happen. Perhaps we should tell her?

 

Is there any chance of separating adult financial discussion, which why I (decreasingly often) visit this site, from extraterrestrials and wacko conspiracy theories, or is that too much to hope for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the wing closest to the body remains intact (but damaged)

but the wing outside of the engine is sheared off

now thats the effect of a piece of wood ,what would be the effect from 14 inch thick steel

and what about 5 steel lamposts surely at the very least it has to effect the flight path ?

The attack on the towers show the wing tips slicing through the 14 inch steel surely thats not possible ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So perhaps it's just me that's finding it both ridiculous and distasteful.

 

I know a widow of one of the passengers on Flight 77: her husband even phoned her from the plane. I now understand from some of the posters about that event, that it didn't really happen. Perhaps we should tell her?

 

Is there any chance of separating adult financial discussion, which why I (decreasingly often) visit this site, from extraterrestrials and wacko conspiracy theories, or is that too much to hope for?

 

Over 1 million people have died due to 911 and the subsequent actions taken

Nobody is salivating at this horror ,quite the reverse , we are trying to match the facts to the official story.

Maybe you believed politicians when they told you about WMDs in Iraq which led to some people I know

coming back in body bags . So NO I won't be sticking my head in the sand and believing whatever guff they feed me .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the wing closest to the body remains intact (but damaged)

but the wing outside of the engine is sheared off

now thats the effect of a piece of wood ,what would be the effect from 14 inch thick steel

and what about 5 steel lamposts surely at the very least it has to effect the flight path ?

The attack on the towers show the wing tips slicing through the 14 inch steel surely thats not possible ?

 

Sorry WJ, but it says/shows in that video that the outer panel of the wing (towards the tip) is sliced, but also, that the inner structure (between the engines) easily breaks the larger pole apart.

 

The commentary even states very clearly that "The basic wing structure remains intact" (around 3.20)

 

However, the storyboard clips keep saying "watch again, the wing was cut off by a 12’ phone pole"

 

Now that is a little disingenuous to say the least, as clearly only the outer panel was cut off by the pole, while the main part of the wing smashed a bigger pole to bits.

 

It's quite clear that the people who made this video (using old footage) have done so from the perspective of a conspiracy and have tried to skew the data from the original footage to make their case.

This is a very flawed example and clearly not an independent analysis. Indeed, looking closely it actually makes the case that a wing can easily smash through a very thick pole.

 

Now there is loads of footage of the planes going into the towers, and the wings leaving holes. It's also true to say that these planes are far more modern that the one in the film clip.

Older planes had thicker panels on their wings so probably didn't need such strong support from the subframe.

 

Today, plane panels (often called a skin) are much thinner and so I wouldn't be surprised to find the design of the modern planes includes the subframe extending much further out towards the wing tips, unlike the old plane.

 

I am, therefore, still more than convinced that those planes made those holes, and that they could easily account for the lamposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see about 5ft of wingtip being sliced off so wouldnt be too critical of the vid heading

If only Mythbusters would do a 911 special but they have been told not to Hmmmm

Im still of the opinion that aluminum wing cant slice through 14 inch steel and an aluminum

plane cannot penetrate 6 reinforced walls of the Pentagon when its wings cannot even penetrate the glass windows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see about 5ft of wingtip being sliced off so wouldnt be too critical of the vid heading

If only Mythbusters would do a 911 special but they have been told not to Hmmmm

Im still of the opinion that aluminum wing cant slice through 14 inch steel and an aluminum

plane cannot penetrate 6 reinforced walls of the Pentagon when its wings cannot even penetrate the glass windows

 

I think this is a mistake. The whole story about a little hole was discredited some years ago.

 

Indeed, it looked a compelling argument until it was shown that the “hole” picture people used to imply a small hole, was actually on the 2nd floor (not the ground floor as the pictures had suggested).

 

Here is a more detailed study showing the location of the hole in the original picture with a composite below showing it's actual location.....

 

post-277-0-62381300-1353170380_thumb.jpg

 

This illustration shows the relationship of the 18-foot-wide second-floor puncture to the far more extensive first-floor punctures. (The lower image is a montage and does not accurately depict the positions of objects such as cable spools relative to the facade.)

 

The conclusion that no jetliner crashed there seems simple and inescapable when presented with certain photographs. However, analysis of the available photographs shows that the debris outside the building is difficult to quantify, and the dimensions of the impact hole (or more accurately, holes) are frequently underestimated.

 

http://911review.com.../smallhole.html

 

In addition, all the eyewitnesses at the scene at the time (they all saw a big passenger plane by the way) say that they were surprised as the plane seemed to disappear into the building (much like I was surprised when I saw that happen with the plane that hit the second tower).

 

The more I look into this, the more I am finding rather large holes (excuse the pun :rolleyes:) in the arguments/evidence of the conspiracy theories that I previously was not aware of

 

I used to think it really was a little hole (as that's what the picture I saw showed) and perhaps the wings had folded back on impact and that maybe momentum had then carried them through the smallish hole.

 

I hadn't realised that hole was on the 2nd floor, and that there was a much larger hole either side below as TBH I hadn't bothered to check, (well you wouldn't normally would you).

 

 

PS Ground effect is used by pilots (and birds) and the wings are distorted to enhance this effect (much like flaring when parachuting), but if you don’t want to use the effect to your advantage, I guess you just point the plane down, that'll overcome it no problem (much like not flaring when parachuting will mean you just pile into the ground, as Mrs Doe once did some years back*).

 

*She was so excited she forgot to flare at landing, but luckily she did several rolling breakfalls and lived to tell the tale with just a couple of scratches and a small bruise :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×