9/11 what do you think?
- Thread starter smokermore
- Start date
echelon1k1
New Member
So far, All I can find out is the photos were taken by Joel Meyerowitz. I cannot find any with time or date stamps, but he does have a book out that may include that information, I just can't find it online atm... http://www.amazon.com/Aftermath-World-Trade-Center-Archive/dp/B00CF5W498
If someone can find a date for the following that would be awesome, it too was taken by Meyerowitz. I can understand if the picture was taken say after September 17 the cuts came from construction workers, but if the picture was taken before I would seriously question the how that angle came to be...
echelon1k1
New Member
A tabloid paper, please also note the final image is NOT that of hani hanjour passing through dulles.
Here's hanjours FBI summary - http://www.scribd.com/doc/13120414/-FBI-Summary-about-Alleged-Flight-77-Hijacker-Hani-Hanjour
pay particular notice to his physical description. - http://www.latimes.com/la-092701atta2_gjx7r3ke,0,5043624.photo
Heres a hi-res of hanjour. verified by the us government -
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/GX00014.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/GX00014-1.html
And where is your wild Vegas party story coming from?
As for the pictures: I see a short man at the airport who physically resembles your last photo.
His biography says he was on the site for 9 months and took 8,000 pictures of it.
This is on the book web site: "Once there he systematically began to document the wreckage followed by the necessary demolition, excavation and removal of tens of thousands of tonnes of debris that would transform the site from one of total devastation to level ground."
In looking for an answer, I saw that the US government exhibited this photographer's work. That they would exhibit evidence of the conspiracy they so masterfully pulled off seems dubious.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I'd have to say explosive/incendiary-devices. There was opportunity for them to be placed during a two-week period prior to the event. They are the only logical explanation under the failure of basic physics to definitively satisfy the questions.
What leaves me unsettled now are the follow-up questions. WHO is responsible? Why?
That's where the tin-foil hats come on though, and I have no idea how to wade through such a cesspool of misinformation, hatred and ignorance. Even so, one can find many plausible hypotheses from the socio-economic implications in the aftermath, but it is beyond my ken to definitively identify a sum motive.
There are too many branches and not enough light to get a clear picture of the roots.
echelon1k1
New Member
Until I see a verified time/date stamp, i'll remain sceptical...
echelon1k1
New Member
I'd have to say explosive/incendiary-devices. There was opportunity for them to be placed during a two-week period prior to the event. They are the only logical explanation under the failure of basic physics to definitively satisfy the questions.
What leaves me unsettled now are the follow-up questions. WHO is responsible? Why?
That's where the tin-foil hats come on though, and I have no idea how to wade through such a cesspool of misinformation, hatred and ignorance. Even so, one can find many plausible hypotheses from the socio-economic implications in the aftermath, but it is beyond my ken to definitively identify a sum motive.
There are too many branches and not enough light to get a clear picture of the roots.
This also makes verifying information/documents etc so hard, as to really shine light on the roots, would require a high level SCI clearance which isn't the easiest to come by. Those kind of clearances also come with very clear legal stipulations regarding the punishment for disclosure to someone who isn't read in.
echelon1k1
New Member
The vegas parties have been well documented so have their connections with prostitutes. But you can also look at it from the view of sheep-dipping.
I'd have to say explosive/incendiary-devices. There was opportunity for them to be placed during a two-week period prior to the event. They are the only logical explanation under the failure of basic physics to definitively satisfy the questions.
What leaves me unsettled now are the follow-up questions. WHO is responsible? Why?
That's where the tin-foil hats come on though, and I have no idea how to wade through such a cesspool of misinformation, hatred and ignorance. Even so, one can find many plausible hypotheses from the socio-economic implications in the aftermath, but it is beyond my ken to definitively identify a sum motive.
There are too many branches and not enough light to get a clear picture of the roots.
Since we don't have video evidence from inside and the buildings weren't wired with sensors, the questions are impossible to definitively answer. All we can do is theorize. Our theories may not be entirely accurate. Perhaps the planes caused more core damage than we're estimating; perhaps there was more combustible material near the core than we're estimating; perhaps the effects on the fireproofing were worse than we're estimating. But I think the timeline works against the idea of explosives:
WTC 1: North (first hit)
10:06: NYPD officer warns that the building is going to come down and advises pulling emergency vehicles back from the building.
10:20: NYPD helicopter reports that the top of the tower is leaning.
10:21: NYPD helicopter reports that tower is buckling on southwest corner and leaning to the south.
10:27: NYPD helicopter warns that the roof is going to come down very shortly.
10:28: Building collapses.
Comment: The helicopter reports the top is leaning 8 minutes before the building collapses; it reports buckling and more leaning; it warns that the top is going to come down; and then it does. Wouldn't a detonation of explosives just bring the thing down? Instead we have an 8 minute span.
WTC 2: South (second hit)
9:37: 911 call says a floor collapsed below people in the 90s; they moved to 105.
9:41: NYPD dispatcher tells units someone on 106 reports that the floor is collapsing.
9:51: NYPD dispatcher tells units that people on 106 report that the floor is crumbling.
9:52: NYPD helicopter warns large pieces are falling from the top of the building.
9:58: NYPD helicopter warns that the building is going to come down.
9:59: Building collapses.
Comment: The 911 calls are less reliable than the helicopter, I'd say, because people are terrified they're about to die. If accurate, there's some kind of floor collapse in the 90s at 9:37; then there's another event on 106 at 9:41; then there's evidently a more serious event at 9:51. Here, the helicopter can verify, noting that large pieces are falling off the top (right after the report from 106 that the floor is "crumbling"). The helicopter warns it's going to come down, and then it does. We have a 28 minute span from the first report that a floor had collapsed.
In both cases, witnesses throughout the building are calling 911 and family members reporting fires and heavy, worsening smoke that's forcing people to break windows; they also report that the sprinklers aren't working; and some of these calls were terminated on the collapse, with no audible explosions and no reports of explosions from the people who were on the calls. In the call posted in this thread, for example, the caller just screams out before the call is terminated, presumably because a floor is falling down on top of him or because a floor gave out beneath him.
But until you have one, you should not assert that those pictures are evidence of controlled demolition when we know there is a far more reasonable explanation available: that they were cut in the cleanup. We know with absolute certainty that the wreckage was extensively cut up for the purpose of removing it.
Alright then, let's see the documentation! You don't need to keep telling me it's well-documented, I'm asking to see it, just like you demanded to see my link.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Many columns, many devices, plenty of time to do it bit by bit by bit.
Like a perverse game of Jenga, the instability accumulating.
Each break reducing local shear-strength by 90%...until that last breach is made...
And once the ball starts rolling, just clear the path. No need to muck around with discretion since the roar of fracturing and crushing materials will muffle any further blasts.
After all, the conservation of momentum becomes an enemy to the "natural" process of a cleanly collapsing building.
But there is one way to overcome the effects of that pesky law...
Remove the resistance...
This is another outdated article, but it was published in an engineering journal and written by an MIT engineering professor: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html. He doesn't seem to be bothered by conservation of momentum at all. What is the flaw?
Edit: NIST's summary explanation is in the gray box on the right side: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html.
This page has some discussion of momentum and physics math: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm. What doesn't square in either?
Doer
Well-Known Member
No you don't get the milliseconds....simple. 1000 full and fat milliseconds for microsecond events to occur. You have to train your brain to visualize at 1000 frames per second.
Now. Now has no duration at all, in science....remember that. It is vast, not small. The entire universe happens only NOW.
So, visualize. The nose smashes and cockpit enters the building under massive deceleration load. It will drop from 500 mph to Zero in about 1/2 second and carry all the way across, taking out the center shafts. The air crew is already jelly against the instrument panel. 100 milliseconds.
The mass is shredded the building and the building is shredding the plane. Human life is irrelevant now. 200 miliseconds.
The wings impacts the only thing that is solid enough. The cores. We saw the wing prints across many floors. Those Flimsy floors were like reed mats to the 100K pounds of Aircraft. And the wings were knives at that speed.
The wings impacted the elevator cores and burst the fuel tanks.
300 miliseconds.
When that fuel burst, it burst down the shafts as fluid and it the environment as vapor.
Now what is that 300 millisecond environment?
1) giant heat from the collision
2) an aerosol of instant thermite from aluminum and steel vapor
3) a brew of fat and plastic, paper gases and boiled paint and everything in an office that will burn....all of it.
300 millisecond delay is hardly instantaneous explosion.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
The flaw is this:
could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips.
...
a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
When using poor assumptions, one can coax out the "official" story. The same goes for the last link you provided.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Thank you! What did they expect? For the top structure to go sailing off into the wind? It falls straight down and everything was blasted out of the way by the inertia of the falling mass.
Are you in the ball park with those masses?
Drop a 50 pound kettlebell on a egg. Now, what had to get out of the way?
No one even talks about the air pressure wave below the falling mass. Very considerable. And easily able to blast apart the floor structures below.. The only real resistance is from the shattered in impact those concete shafts.
The one building simple left the shafts standing at the bottom 1/3 and the shafts shredded the upper building and the upper building debris took the bottom out of the shafts.
A shock wave. If this is all give up!
There is no other way this could have happened.
There are so many forces at play, that the SCAC ignores.
Now why the planes were flow in? False flag, false brains? I care not. War it was and war it is.
Are you in the ball park with those masses?
Drop a 50 pound kettlebell on a egg. Now, what had to get out of the way?
No one even talks about the air pressure wave below the falling mass. Very considerable. And easily able to blast apart the floor structures below.. The only real resistance is from the shattered in impact those concete shafts.
The one building simple left the shafts standing at the bottom 1/3 and the shafts shredded the upper building and the upper building debris took the bottom out of the shafts.
A shock wave. If this is all give up!
There is no other way this could have happened.There are so many forces at play, that the SCAC ignores.
Now why the planes were flow in? False flag, false brains? I care not. War it was and war it is.
Those numbers aren't necessary to the conclusion, though:
"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight."
If 300,000 is reasonable, how should it be divided between the floors and the rest of the building? At an even split, there's still a problem if a floor comes down, based on the above.
Similar threads
