Undebunkable 9\11 video.

reply to post by Namaste1001


HI there i'm just curious but is that explosion at the pentagon edited ? or is that a shadow of a rocket or a rock it's self flying into the pentagon? if you look to the right of the footage you will see a blur on the grass is that a shadow or is that silver streak a missile of some kind?

Originally posted by Diabl0Brav013
reply to post by Namaste1001

 

HI there i'm just curious but is that explosion at the pentagon edited ? or is that a shadow of a rocket or a rock it's self flying into the pentagon? if you look to the right of the footage you will see a blur on the grass is that a shadow or is that silver streak a missile of some kind?

The plane was actually coming into the pentagon at an angle, so it's probably the wing you're seeing. Unfortunately, at the speeds the plane was going, the quality of the video was horrible. It's like trying to catch detail of a bullet moving with a camera-phone. The thing will come out blurred so bad that the entire shape looks smaller or distorted.

it look smaller because of the wide angle lens of the camera. a few more feet away from the driveway thing get really small. so the blurry shape of the "plane" is the right size, despite of the conspiracy theories. the explosion is consistent with fuel explosions. fire - smoke transition points to high octane fuel. rules out any military grade warhead. even napalm. napalm explosions have heat clustering and burns longer.

another part of the C theory goes like, a plane hitting that building cannot fit into the damage area. but that theory fails. the outer walls of the pentagon are much stronger then normal. the longitudinal compression strength of a plane is enormous compared to the bend resistance of the wings. the wings are designed to resist lift, their own weight and drag. the wings are not designed to resist folding forward.

so the momentum of the wings forces them to fold towards the nose when the fuselage hits the wall (pointing out: a strong wall). especially when they hold enough fuel to cause that huge fireball.

so at this point the body of the plane is half immersed into the building successfully penetreting the outer wall and loosing most of it's momentum.

the tail of the plane as the fuselage before it offers no more resistance (because all the supports where either broken or bent away), continues forward. so the tail segment is holding the remaining momentum. as part of the fuselage it's strong compared to the wings and it's diameter is smaller then the rest of the plane. so basically the tail drags the tail wings into a hole.

the tail wings are lightweight, so on impact with the "hole" they peal back. that is why the windows above the hole remain intact. by the time the tail wings arrive they are almost completely pealed back by the hole. pealed? yes, because they are not designed to shatter. like the main wings. they bend and twist.

the reverse T pattern on the wall is perfectly consistent with a plane hit. even if that plane is bent and pealed.

so at this point you have a plane stuffed into an area smaller then it used to occupy and high octane fuel under enormous pressure. and here comes the turbo charged explosion inside a hallways of high strength concrete. which is kinda violent. the footage supports this. so there is no wonder that nothing remained intact after the explosion. the satellite image also supports this. you can see which doors where left open. and the radius of the inner fire.




it's not quite equivalent but as an example i can bring up mythbusters when they blew up the cement truck.
there was NOTHING left except some pieces of the axle. fuel explosions have the same effect even if their shock wave is longer. what they lack in pressure pulse violence they surely compensate with amplitude. note that a high amplitude short pressure wave would cause more damage on brick and concrete.

so there is no question in my mind whatsoever that the pentagon was hit by a plane.

the question arises from the fact that there where no body parts. even if the passenger cabin is sandwiched between 2 mother of all explosions, there should be body pats. flesh and bone has to burn 8-14 hours to be converted into dust and the fuel did not burned to that extent so long. flesh is much more resistant to fire and physical shock then any other metal. tearing, shredding yes, but vaporising ???

you might brig up the towers, but their exoskeleton is like butter compared to the pentagon's. no bending and pealing there.

i have to point out the lack of knowledge and experience of the commission investigating this crash and the conspiracy theorists.

the problem is everyone treats this crash like a regular plane crash. it is NOT a REGULAR plane crash. this is a high speed powered impact.

you can see the smoke trail of the engines after the explosion. transparent bluish smoke. it also holds some heat. that is why the fuel burns towards it.



before looking into analyzing evidence make sure you know 1 or 2 things about what's going on. and make sure you watched discovery channel your entire life.

a theorist may focus on one thing or two, but an investigator has to know everything even the shear-strength of a tampon. so it's not a miracle that people get the pentagon crash wrong all the time.

there is much more, but i cannot continue. i have to code a flash site.




if you meet the reaper just smile, maybe he'll smile back.

Discovery channel? It's an entertainment channel.

Originally posted by Namaste1001
Discovery channel? It's an entertainment channel.

is there one that isn't on some level, now days?
at least it's quality entertainment and you still learn a thing or two. but yes, way to few compared to the discovery i came to know.

CSI for ex. seems a bit more entertaining now (provided you recognize the SF part)

reply to post by HYADEAN2025


you guys all right?
abductions?

that could explain the lack of bodies in the pentagon crash.
thx man.

btw. i honestly think that only 1-1.2% of the abducted people that they know about come to speak about the experience.

a few years from now, for ex i lost 8 minutes on a stretch of walkway that usually takes me 40 seconds.
from the seamless blending of the times before and after, all of us could be abductees without us knowing abut it.

i don't care abut that right now. nothing to care about it. at least for me.

Originally posted by Varemia
You know, sometimes having a list of engineers isn't as good as having the support of tens of thousands. Look at these links:
ae911truth.info...
ae911truth.info...

But if you HAVE to have a list of engineers who are very reputable and supported by tens of thousands of others, here's a page that lists many of them, as well as their positions in whatever organization they are in, including universities and architectural firms:
www.debunking911.com...

Do I need to have more?

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the engineers and architects from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are neither reputable nor have the support of "tens of thousands" but the people from the sites listed above are reputable and have the support of "tens of thousands"?

reply to post by gladtobehere


I'm not really sure. At that point I was honestly just a little ticked and trying to work out a better rebuttal. The truth of the matter is that I can't find any logic in the arguments that the Architects for 9/11 Truth have, whilst the "government disinfo whatever they're being called now" make a lot more sense.

I talk to people left and right throughout my university, especially the students of architecture, and I haven't found a single person who thinks that the towers were brought down by demolition. Maybe the truth movement just isn't "catching on," or perhaps their arguments are not truly effective?

reply to post by Syrus Magistus

Originally posted by Syrus Magistus
If anybody here watched the original zeitgeist, or did their own research, you might have figured out that the 19 alleged hijackers were essentially victims of identity theft. No less than six of them were still alive and well last time I checked. I don't feel like going on a big source hunt tonight, but this information isn't hard to come by. My point is that I feel 9/11 was not carried out by Islamic extremists. Not to mention the fact that none of those 19 names show up on any of the flight manifests, and the one intact passport we found in the rubble was for a guy that isn't dead, thus it's obviously planted evidence.

There is a lot of information and its difficult to find it in one place. While Loose Change and Zeitgeist have done a good job collecting a good deal of information, there is a lot more out there. I also like another documentary, "Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11". Interestingly, National Geographic has released an OS piece called "INSIDE 9/11 : ZERO HOUR". Previously, a search for "zero 9/11" led one directly to the Truth documentary. Now one is led to the National Geographic piece.

With regards to the alleged hijackers, we're all familiar with the BBC story:

“Hijack 'suspects' alive and well.”

news.bbc.co.uk...

Here is some more interesting information. While I dont know that this disproves the OS, its more information which forces us to question the official story / investigation. The link for the first source is really long but it works.

“The hijackers "left no paper trail," FBI Director Robert Mueller said in the text of a speech that the FBI released Monday. "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper-- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere--that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot."”

pqasb.pqarchiver.com...:FT&type=current&date=Apr+30%2C+2002&author=ERIC+LICHTBLAU+and+JOSH+MEYER&pu b=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.16&desc=THE+NATION%3B+Details+of+Sept.+11+Plot+Elude+U.S.+Investigators%3B+Terrorism%3A+The+hijackers+conceal ed+their+scheme+expertly%2C+which+raises+concerns+about+how+to+thwart+an+attack.

The strange thing about this next article is that it breezes over this surprising statement by the head of the FBI and instead focuses on fake IDs...

Furthermore, if the alleged Arab Muslim "terrorists" were going to use fake IDs, one has to wonder why they wouldn't frame some other group as opposed to fellow Muslim Arabs...

FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people.

archives.cnn.com...

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

I'm not really sure. At that point I was honestly just a little ticked and trying to work out a better rebuttal. The truth of the matter is that I can't find any logic in the arguments that the Architects for 9/11 Truth have, whilst the "government disinfo whatever they're being called now" make a lot more sense.

I talk to people left and right throughout my university, especially the students of architecture, and I haven't found a single person who thinks that the towers were brought down by demolition. Maybe the truth movement just isn't "catching on," or perhaps their arguments are not truly effective?

All the engineers I talk to agree with me that a building cant be totally destroyed by fire in such a synchronized way. Alle 4 corners have to give up at the same time.
If by a miracle it happened, and all 4 corners gave up at precisely the same time, why were the buildings totally destroyed, where is the intact floors that pressed the rest all the way to the basement?

On top of this the firefighters talked about explosions in the lobby

They were waiting in the lobby when the whole place blew.

On top of this we have a former CIA officier saying the comission report was a coverup from start to end, and they were covering for someone


This is only the top of the iceberg, so its up to you to research...
911truthnews.com...

I can't see how anyone can imagine anything would be intact after any complete collapse of a building. Construction workers on site did say that they found 14 floors compressed into 8 feet in one area. Is that intact enough?

In WTC 7 , the corner was compromised by falling debris. The south facade (as well as some of the support beams on the inside according to firefighters) was also damaged by the falling debris from the North Tower. The fire compromised one main support beam, which took out the eastern portion of the building's interior. After a number of seconds of inner collapse down to the base, at which point there was an "explosion" from the crap actually encountering resistance (the ground omg!). This probably broke the floor and messed with the other supports which caused the building to buckle at the base, and it fell at free fall for literally only a couple seconds before being resisted by the intact western portion of the building. It didn't fall all the way straight down, but actually tilted after it had fallen around twenty stories or so.

In WTC 7 , the corner was compromised by falling debris. The south facade (as well as some of the support beams on the inside according to firefighters) was also damaged by the falling debris from the North Tower. The fire compromised one main support beam, which took out the eastern portion of the building's interior. After a number of seconds of inner collapse down to the base, at which point there was an "explosion" from the crap actually encountering resistance (the ground omg!). This probably broke the floor and messed with the other supports which caused the building to buckle at the base, and it fell at free fall for literally only a couple seconds before being resisted by the intact western portion of the building. It didn't fall all the way straight down, but actually tilted after it had fallen around twenty stories or so.

Varemina, you work at a college and pass this above paragraph off as why WTC7 fell.
You have got to be joking though, this is not a viable explaination of WTC7, more a reflection of how deeply you think about the subject.

reply to post by slugger9787


Well, I'm not an architecture student. I study humans and humanity (Anthropology). I just like to hope that I see things a little clearer than people who just go "it's so obvious, durrrrr." (at least, that's how I've seen it). If it is so obvious, explain to me every single step that occurred in the collapse of the building, and don't just say "All the support was knocked out and the building fell symmetrically into its footprint," because literally anyone can find out that it did not do that.

reply to post by Varemia

Varemia...no amount of explanation will satisfy you....a fire, on the top third of a steel highrise will not cause the complete, simultaneous failure of all the floors beneath it....twice..for the first time in history...on the same day...

upon observation of your post history..you are married to your flawed reasoning..no matter what information is presented to you....

reply to post by jambatrumpet


No, I really want to be able to see things the logical way you guys do. Just because there isn't precedent for an event doesn't automatically make it impossible. You can't just say "fire never took down a steel structure," ignoring the damage and then expecting every single person to agree that it is impossible.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jambatrumpet

 

No, I really want to be able to see things the logical way you guys do.

Varemia,

Maybe you're just aiming too high. If you can't see it, you can't see it. That's not necessarily so terrible. Perhaps one day you will, or maybe you won't. Either way, it's OK.


Quite frankly, the knowledge that the CIA financed 9/11 and that Israeli intelligence was instrumental in setting up bombs that day certainly hasn't made me a happier person. In fact, it's probably made me an unhappier person.

Still, there is some satisfaction in knowing the truth. However, the truth is often a bitter pill, and it's not for everyone. Perhaps, it's simply best to learn to hold one's nose in the mean time.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jambatrumpet

 

No, I really want to be able to see things the logical way you guys do. Just because there isn't precedent for an event doesn't automatically make it impossible. You can't just say "fire never took down a steel structure," ignoring the damage and then expecting every single person to agree that it is impossible.

This is not true, Varemia, and you know it is not true.
Do you believe the Warren Commission Report?
This is the identical MO that was used back then, just dusted off and applied to a bigger pproject.

Lots and lots of people did not believe the Warren Report, and were finally vindicated in an investigation thirteen years later.

History repeats itself.

Originally posted by slugger9787




This is not true, Varemia, and you know it is not true.

It seems eminently true to me. Otherwise how would anything ever happen?

His point is also that truthers tend to ignore the catastrophic damage caused by the planes. And don't get me started on people who assume that "three buildings coming down" is somehow a multiplied probability. That really is dumb.

Originally posted by HYADEAN2025

Click here to learn more about this warning.

O REALLY? U guys are Full of whatever u can think of lol