9/11 staged by the US evidence video

[Shaunessy]

So are you suggesting that a plane mysteriously vanished, a missile hit the side of the pentagon, and then someone magically put the remains of all but one passenger of the plane, as well as a lot of luggage, into the pentagon wreckage?

See that's the thing though. There really wasn't any wreckage on the pentagons lawn. Nothing there to distinguish between a plane and what ever else could of hit the pentagon. There was never live footage of a plane hitting the pentagon and any file tape evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon was confiscated and not released to the public. Plus most of the eye witnesses said it wasn't big enough to be a plane. So what was it? We won't know until that footage is released to the public.

 

[Tagrineth]

See that's the thing though. There really wasn't any wreckage on the pentagons lawn. Nothing there to distinguish between a plane and what ever else could of hit the pentagon. There was never live footage of a plane hitting the pentagon and any file tape evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon was confiscated and not released to the public. Plus most of the eye witnesses said it wasn't big enough to be a plane. So what was it? We won't know until that footage is released to the public.

I used to know someone who was practically across the street from the Pentagon on 9/11 and he sent me a camcorder video of the plane impact. I need to find him some time.

And of course there wasn't really any wreckage outside the pentagon, the plane was moving at 350 MPH, it went all the way into the building.

 

[Rones]

See that's the thing though. There really wasn't any wreckage on the pentagons lawn. Nothing there to distinguish between a plane and what ever else could of hit the pentagon. There was never live footage of a plane hitting the pentagon and any file tape evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon was confiscated and not released to the public. Plus most of the eye witnesses said it wasn't big enough to be a plane. So what was it? We won't know until that footage is released to the public.

Footage has been released. It was even in one of my links. Keep in mind the plane was moving 250mph, so the impact happened quickly. There weren't people standing around with camcoders waiting to film it. The best is a security cam.

Yeah, there was debri left.

Are you expecting to find a bunch of parts you can piece back together and get a plane? I'm not sure how many plane wrecks you've seen, but usually there is nothing left resembling a plane unless it was a gentle landing. Head on collision into something hard though and its pulverised.

Until you can answer these 4 points I posted earlier, you haven't even begun to cast doubt:

1. If it was not American Airlines flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then where is the airplane and the 64 people who were aboard?
None of the conspiracy sites answers that question. Few of them even ask it.

2. If it was not American Airlines flight 77, then why do they have evidence of the bodies of known crew, passengers, and hijackers?
C. Christopher Kelley of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology says that the effort to identify bodies that ended on November 16, 2001, identified all but one of the victims of flight 77.

3. In response to the question of "Where is the Boeing," the answer is "in pieces."
There was plenty of evidence of the airplane at the site including debris from the plane, as mentioned above, the remains of the passengers, and the cockpit data and voice recorders. Associated Press Military Writer Robert Burns reported on September 13,2001, that members of congress who had visited the Pentagon crash site were told by rescue officials that much of the fuselage of the Boeing 757 remained intact inside the damaged Pentagon.

4. Radar tracked the plane toward the Pentagon.
Much has been made on some of the conspiracy sites that the transponder in the cockpit was turned off by the hijackers so it isn't clear what happened to the plane after that. The founder of TruthOrFiction.com, Rich Buhler, is a licensed commercial pilot and says the transponder being turned off doesn't mean the plane can no longer be seen on radar. The transponder is a device that not only makes the airplane more visible on a radar screen, but also gives the radar controller other information such as the altitude, speed, and sometimes the identity of the airliner. If the transponder is turned off, radar controllers can usually still see what is called the "primary target." That means there is a blip on the radar screen showing the location. According to www.airdisaster.com, flight 77's transponder was turned off shortly after departure from Dulles airport near Washington DC, but radar controllers could see the primary target flying directly toward the White House. Then the plane was seen to veer away from the White House and head for the Pentagon.

Don't bother with your video. I suspect it is this one which was posted in the second thread on the subject. It's really no better than the loose change series.

 

[Andreva]

Oh my god! They're right! The US WAS behind the 9/11 attacks!

.................................

And I was the second gunman on the grassy nole.

 

[Trippyhippy]

The last thread about this just kinda died. I looked at those links posted by rones and was sort of waiting for him to finish the video.

Those links had a lot of different information, quite a bit of it being contradictary.

I don't dispute those 4 main points at all. It was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. In the section that was under renavation. Too bad the plans of that day weren't as kind to civilians.

The questions that I seek an answer for are:

1. Why did WTC7 fall?

2. If the way WTC1&2 fell inward was due to their specialized design, why did WTC7 fall in the exact same manner?

3. What were the explosions leading up to the Fall of WTC2? Specificly, the ones that coincided with the flashes of light coming from the helicopter that flew by just before it fell.

4. The laws of physics don't allow a building to fall as fast as WTC7 did unless the matter falling is in a complete vacum. A vacum that would be cause from something like an explosion. There was no jet fuel in that building to explode, as it had not been hit by a plane but it fell like a rock anyway.

5. Why didn't any of the Helicopters attempt to rescue people from the top of the building as they flew around?

6. Why did debris shoot off of WTC2 in such an angle that makes it seem like there was an explosion and not simply a colapse?

There are many more questions, but I shall try to keep from broadening the discussion to too many topics at once.

 

[Rones]

1. Why did WTC7 fall?

I know you won't like the source, but here. That is part of the result of a 24million dollar investigation done into the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7. Short answer, fire.

2. If the way WTC1&2 fell inward was due to their specialized design, why did WTC7 fall in the exact same manner?

They weren't designed to fall like that, it was just a result of the design. Take out the central supports and a building collapses. I would be more suspicious if it tipped over at a right angle or flipped on its head and collapsed. :wink:

3. What were the explosions leading up to the Fall of WTC2? Specificly, the ones that coincided with the flashes of light coming from the helicopter that flew by just before it fell.

Leading question with the assumption that they were explosions. You answered your question before it was asked. I imagine you are referring to the 9/11 eye witness video footage. For that I would point out how out of the hundreds of other people filming the scene most others did not record what looked like helicopters firing missles. I suspect either a fluke of his camera at such a distance (optical illusions) or tampering by the creator. If you've ever seen ghost hunters, you'll see cameras can record some pretty crazy stuff that is completly normal.

4. The laws of physics don't allow a building to fall as fast as WTC7 did unless the matter falling is in a complete vacum. A vacum that would be cause from something like an explosion. There was no jet fuel in that building to explode, as it had not been hit by a plane but it fell like a rock anyway.

Actually, it fell just slightly slower than the speed of gravity. This is to be expected given the design. Once it started there was so much mass and momentum that the support structure was insignifigant. In addition the force wasn't being applied in ways meant for the support structure to hold as it feel, thus it had even less resistance.

5. Why didn't any of the Helicopters attempt to rescue people from the top of the building as they flew around?

Intense heat and smoke prevented them from getting close enough.

6. Why did debris shoot off of WTC2 in such an angle that makes it seem like there was an explosion and not simply a colapse?

Many of the debris were light materials such as flimsy desks and papers. Add to that the extreme force and momentum crashing down on an inclosed space and you have the perfect popping bubble. Its much like blowing up a paper bag and crushing it quickly. The pressure caused the articles inside to explode outward due to the pressure. This is why demolitionists always clear everything out of buildings they are blowing up and make sure it is well ventilated (eg: no windows) to prevent debri from blowing out.

I looked at those links posted by rones and was sort of waiting for him to finish the video.

I did finish the first hour of it, but really didn't see anything signifigant or worthy of comment. He kept pointing to dust clouds at the bottom and flashes of light that I couldn't see. Maybe if I wanted to believe enough I would have, but I didn't see anything but his arrows pointing to nothing.

 

[Trippyhippy]

I know you won't like the source, but...

Indeed.

They weren't designed to fall like that, it was just a result of the design. Take out the central supports and a building collapses. I would be more suspicious if it tipped over at a right angle or flipped on its head and collapsed. :wink:

Why be more suspicious? The way it was done makes it seem like it was in a controlled envioronment. As though it were planned. :wink:

Leading question with the assumption that they were explosions. You answered your question before it was asked. I imagine you are referring to the 9/11 eye witness video footage. For that I would point out how out of the hundreds of other people filming the scene most others did not record what looked like helicopters firing missles. I suspect either a fluke of his camera at such a distance (optical illusions) or tampering by the creator. If you've ever seen ghost hunters, you'll see cameras can record some pretty crazy stuff that is completly normal.

Did you actually see the footage I'm refering to?

Actually, it fell just slightly slower than the speed of gravity. This is to be expected given the design. Once it started there was so much mass and momentum that the support structure was insignifigant. In addition the force wasn't being applied in ways meant for the support structure to hold as it feel, thus it had even less resistance.

There was evidence supporting this statement in the last 30 minutes of the video that you can't seem to stomach all of. At 1hour 44 minutes, it's a long one, but it's worth your time to watch it start to finish, I swear.

Intense heat and smoke prevented them from getting close enough.

I was talking about the helicopters that were already close enough. Hell, there were choppers flying through the smoke. The one that gave off the flashes of light flew directly through the smoke as though to hide itself.

Many of the debris were light materials such as flimsy desks and papers. Add to that the extreme force and momentum crashing down on an inclosed space and you have the perfect popping bubble. Its much like blowing up a paper bag and crushing it quickly. The pressure caused the articles inside to explode outward due to the pressure. This is why demolitionists always clear everything out of buildings they are blowing up and make sure it is well ventilated (eg: no windows) to prevent debri from blowing out.

How about the giant hunks of debris coming from the gaping hole? not too much pressure around there. Again, this is explained in a more scientific manner near the end of that video.

I did finish the first hour of it, but really didn't see anything signifigant or worthy of comment. He kept pointing to dust clouds at the bottom and flashes of light that I couldn't see. Maybe if I wanted to believe enough I would have, but I didn't see anything but his arrows pointing to nothing.

The first hour of it was going over what we saw happening. The last 30 minutes of it, he actually examined why it happened that way. It was a bit repetitive though.

 

[Rones]

There was evidence supporting this statement in the last 30 minutes of the video that you can't seem to stomach all of. At 1hour 44 minutes, it's a long one, but it's worth your time to watch it start to finish, I swear.

Google refused to load past an hour for me the three times I tried. That's why I stopped there.

Did you actually see the footage I'm refering to?

I'm not sure. I saw the footage from the film where he implied the helicopters were firing missles, but I didn't see anything. I saw helicopters, but I didn't see these missle strikes. The flashes could have been the blinking light most helicopters have reflecting off the dust. Not too mention you can't fire missles at an angle like it showed near the end where the helicopter was flying nearly directly above the tower.

However, there are so many thigns wrong with that. If they were trying to do a cover up they wouldn't shoot the building with missles in broad daylight from a helicopter after thousands of people have gone outside to watch. That would be the dumbest cover up in history and would have failed instantly if there were any truth to it. We had tens of thousands of people on locations and millions watching on tv from cameras much closer with a crystal clear view unlike that film. We all would know if it had been shot by missles. This is also ignoring the fact that all the helicopters I saw were civilian and not outfitted for firing missles large enough to hurt the building. In addition there was no need as engineers haven already proven how the structureal supports failed from the planes impact and caused it. I can go on and on. There were no missle firing helicopters.

I'm unsure what his sounds were he recorded and called explosions. I did broadcast television in jr high. Its easy to get unexpected noises recorded that don't match what you really heard. It can be a simple breeze blowing just the right direction, someone walking loudly by that sounds booming, someone bumping the camera, internal structures snapping in the towers, or some other unexpected sound. Yet, the video jumps to the most logical guess that its missles hitting the tower...

There was evidence supporting this statement in the last 30 minutes of the video that you can't seem to stomach all of

Well the only logical explanation is the government created a giant vacum using top secret technology so it could purposely implode the building faster. :roll: There is no reason for the government to try to fake something like that. Building demolition implosions do not have an empty vacuum despite what that video says. I've done my share of physics experiments in the most controlled enviroments and you will never get the exact result science predicts on paper. This is because there are so many outside little variables you can't account for. You can get close, but don't expect it to match exactly.

How about the giant hunks of debris coming from the gaping hole? not too much pressure around there. Again, this is explained in a more scientific manner near the end of that video.

Here is a sample of real demos. As you can see, all the explosions happen at once and start from the bottom up and very quickly. Competly different from the sporatic pops and top down effect on the wtc that follows exactly where the current high pressure load is. Additionaly, demos take months of planning not to mention someone has to fill the building with explosives in all the right places on all the support beams with wiring strewn everywhere. Just a hunch, the thousands of people working there might have seen this, especially the ones who were there evacuating after the plane hit.

 

[Skaw]

Shaunessy, Airplanes are pretty flimsy when you think about it, since they have to be light enough to fly. They aren't made entirely of steel. When they impact head on, they pretty much go accordion. Wings and Tail would snap off, yet still keep thier speed and actually follow the body into the building. It's simple physics man. Quit being such a conspiracy nut.

 

[Chasym]

i just finished watching that long long long video...and they never say anything about helicopters firing missiles, it just says that there were flashes of light and explosion sounds where the helicopter was, the guy who filmed it nor the narrator say anything but missiles, they just question what it was.
and thats ALOT of scientific analysis put into play for each small detail that furthers me to believe as i do.
while i dont claim to understand much of physics and such, they described it and then displayed it so it was understandable, that last 30 minutes spoken of with the gravity test did imply that there had to of been a vaccum.

They say the media and government dont acknowledge the other explosions and smoke coming from the base of the towers after each explosion because there was no video footage. But clearly in that footage, after each explosion you see clouds of smoke rising from the base.
If you actually watch the video,
they guy who filmed it doesnt claim he completley thinks it was an inside job, and doesnt claim to say it was a terrorist attack. Instead he tested everything and put all logic into focus before he made assumptions, and even after that you can tell hes torn, because most of the research just isnt logical with the offical story, and you can tell just by how he talks hes torn over what to believe.
But at the same time you can tell he feels betrayed and stabbed in the back.

and your tellin me that desks and light weight stuff launched out like that, if you think about it when the tower collapsed, The top is coming down first, everything under it is crushed in place, smashed to nothing. Its not gonna launch out at that distance like stepping on the side of a baloon with your foot. It doesnt squish like a rubber ball and shoot out sideways.
The debris that was launched was in that video and shown to be actual parts of the building, that together weighed tons.It was launched 600 feet through the air to the rooftop of wintergarden. That was not a desk or light weight object.

well its 730 am, i just watched that vid and read alot of stuff...and it only gave me more questions, More belief that the official story is not the final story or the real story. I need to get to bed before my wife kills me for staying up all night...again.

 

[alanon]

You guys seriously piss me off. The fact that you guys buy ANY of the BULLSHIT in that loose change video is depressing. You don't need to tell me how you don't understand Physics and how science mystifies you, that is all very apparent in your opinion. I don't know whether to laugh or cry how you can dismiss the findings of THOUSANDS of EXPERTS in related fields in several countries across the globe, yet cling blindy to the conspiracy video made by a HS student with access to lots of video equipment and a theory. Of course it's easy for you to understand! He combines things in such a way that it will lead the weak minded to be convinced of his conclusions. You lemmings are lining up for it, and I consider that an indictment on the thousands that lost their lives that day.

 

[Tagrineth]

while i dont claim to understand much of physics and such, they described it and then displayed it so it was understandable, that last 30 minutes spoken of with the gravity test did imply that there had to of been a vaccum.

No, he didn't display it so it was understandable, he displayed it so you'd believe what he wanted to you believe.

That's what this boils down to.

You know, the theories that we didn't land on the moon, and merely staged the whole thing.. those are pretty convincing too ^^

 

[Rones]

and your tellin me that desks and light weight stuff launched out like that, if you think about it when the tower collapsed, The top is coming down first, everything under it is crushed in place, smashed to nothing. Its not gonna launch out at that distance like stepping on the side of a baloon with your foot. It doesnt squish like a rubber ball and shoot out sideways.
The debris that was launched was in that video and shown to be actual parts of the building, that together weighed tons.It was launched 600 feet through the air to the rooftop of wintergarden. That was not a desk or light weight object.

It most definitly does happen. When you create a mostly sealed room and then put heavy pressure aobve, stuff is going to blow out the sides. I've personally seen this happen to one of my car tires where the side blew out because it was the weakest point. If nothing else, the wind force leading in front of the downward falling mass could be enough to blow stuff out of the way given how light that debri was compared to the mass coming.

.and they never say anything about helicopters firing missiles

I didn't say he did. In my previous post I said it was implied. Implied heavily.

There are two core problems though with both theories that trump everything in the videos and even the scientific discussion he gives.

1st, the helicopters. After the first plane hit there were tens of thousands of people watching the towers from the base and hundreds video taping from adjacent buildings. This is how we got such crystal clear video of the 2nd plane impact and everyone had close up clear view from the news medias. All of these people (we are included if you were watching live on tv) had a better, clearer view of the building than that guys 'eyewitness' film. Missles are very obvious. We would have seen the impacts on the sides of the building as large chunks blew out. However, no one saw anything like that because it didn't happen. He is forced to use a distant camera with blurry view to support his theories because they don't hold up when you can see the situation clearly.

2nd, bombings. If you watched my previous link on demolitions you will see it requires thorough planting. They also must be wired (instead of wireless) to prevent accidental early explosion from a stray wireless signal. Thus you would have had to have people stomping through the tower for days putting explosives in place and wires all over leading back outside. In a building with tens of thousands of people traveling it every day, there is no way you could have set this up without everyone knowing about it.

It doesn't matter if you can twist the result to match the theory if the theory couldn't have been inacted to begin with.

 

[Shaunessy]

Shaunessy, Airplanes are pretty flimsy when you think about it, since they have to be light enough to fly. They aren't made entirely of steel. When they impact head on, they pretty much go accordion. Wings and Tail would snap off, yet still keep thier speed and actually follow the body into the building. It's simple physics man. Quit being such a conspiracy nut.

But where did the video go to? Why was it never shown to the public? Why was the hole smaller than the plane that supposedly hit it, and how come there was no damage on the outside of the pentagon where the wings should of hit it?

 

[Tagrineth]

But where did the video go to? Why was it never shown to the public? Why was the hole smaller than the plane that supposedly hit it, and how come there was no damage on the outside of the pentagon where the wings should of hit it?

That section of the Pentagon had just been renovated with a special kind of "steel cloth", if you will, reinforcing the concrete. When the plane impacted and basically went entirely into the building, the top levels were actually held up for about 30 minutes by the "steel cloth" reinforcement, enough time for many people to get out.

After about 30 minutes, the steel finally melted to the point where the upper levels collapsed down onto the hole the plane had made.

 

[Rones]

Why was the hole smaller than the plane that supposedly hit it, and how come there was no damage on the outside of the pentagon where the wings should of hit it?

Notice the damage specificlaly on the first floor which perfectly matches the width of the wings.

 

[masterorion]

the next statement that will come up from that rones, is why didnt the windows blow out that were next the windows near where it colided.

blast proof windows. they are meant to withstand a blast. just in case some of you decided to stick with what you think instead of reading the rebuttles on everything. ive already noticed that some of the people that are still believing the video are still arguing points that have been tested and busted. IE: shaunessy
the popular mechanics article specifically goes over the theory behind the hole in the pentagon

 

[Stouter]

PBS had an episode of Nova in 2002 called "Why the Towers Fell"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

In the episode they went into great detail about how the towers were designed shortly after a small plane crashed into the Empire State Building. The towers were specifically designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane of the day moving at top speed.

They both failed because the fireproofing around the floor supports was blasted off by the explosion of impact. As the metal floor supports heated up, one gave, transfering it's load onto all the others, the next gave, transferring it's load, and so on, until an entire floor couldn't support the weight above it, and came crashing down to the floor below. A 15 foot drop of all that weight caused the next floor to fall, and it domino'ed all the way down to the ground.

Although this is probably government propaganda too, we all know that PBS is infamous for pushing pro-Bush shows like "Now with Bill Moyers" and distorts the truth unlike the reliable media of Fox News.

 

[Vandoura]

I can't find a video of a jet plane crashes into a concrete block, during the military testing. but for you who watch Discovery Channel and National Geo. Channel or Spike TV may saw it time to time.

On that clip, it show a Jet Plane (without jet fuel) hit a concrete block in around 500-700+ MPH, and the Jet plane turn into a billion of dust and dirt look alike (aka incinerated), and there is rarely a scratch on that concrete block, if the pentagon build in a very tough concrete and reinforce with steel, i'm sure the plane will be the same thing hitting it at 250-500MPH as the jet plane crash testing. but about that hole on C block building... that idk...

if anyone found a jet plane crash into a concrete block, post it please


Edit: Found the links.

here watch this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1556575484235720126&q=Jet+Crash+Test
this maybe the same happen when plane crash into pentagon

 

[Trippyhippy]

bullllllllllllll shittttttttttttt

Sorry, but.. bull shit.

This is nothing more than anti-government idiot fucks like Michael Moore trying to instil anarchy. People need to seriously shoot themselves for this kinda crap.
Sedition, ever hear of it?

You guys seriously piss me off. The fact that you guys buy ANY of the BULLSHIT in that loose change video is depressing. You don't need to tell me how you don't understand Physics and how science mystifies you, that is all very apparent in your opinion. I don't know whether to laugh or cry how you can dismiss the findings of THOUSANDS of EXPERTS in related fields in several countries across the globe, yet cling blindy to the conspiracy video made by a HS student with access to lots of video equipment and a theory. Of course it's easy for you to understand! He combines things in such a way that it will lead the weak minded to be convinced of his conclusions. You lemmings are lining up for it, and I consider that an indictment on the thousands that lost their lives that day.

It is a shame that the world is made in such a way that those who stray from the beaten path get rocks thrown at them by those who don't.