• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Friday 28th February 2025.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

9/11: The September 11th World Trade Center Attacks

Stumbled across this today, which adds an interesting new dimension to the debate:
http://winteractionables.com/?p=25207
Apparently, a week before 9/11 happened, some Israelis occupied the 91st floor of one of the towers (WTC1).
They were apparently doing an 'art project' which involved removing windows and building an external balcony. 'Putty' was apparently placed all around the windows.
The plane that struck that building hit at the 93rd floor, just above the level of the 'art project'...

Now, I'm not personally saying there is a link or that they were responsible. I'm just presenting this as an interesting nugget.

Edit: Also, a video here:

More pics here:
http://www.markdotzler.com/Mark_Dotzler/WTC_Artists.html
 
Last edited:
Not new, so not technically on-topic, but a good documentary in the perilously silly waters of Youtube.
It tells the story of the day from a very personal level:

 
fudgetusk said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg

She was thirty feet from where the alleged plane hit the pentagon. She did not see a plane and to her it seemed like a bomb going off.
Click to expand...

Old axiom: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because she did not see what she recognised as bits of a plane does not mean that a plane was not responsible for the impact.

Secondly, it has been shown time and again, that what we normally see ofter plane crash is the result of an aircraft hitting the ground or the sea. It is very rare for a plane to hit a building.

So irrespective of her being there, how qualified is she to judge the debris field of a plane deliberately flown into a building?

To be honest, I'd not put much stead by her testimony. She may believe her account, and be truthful, but alas, it means very little.
 
Interesting footage.
They're saying it was a Cruise Missile with a small nuke.
I'd have thought a small nuclear warhead would do a LOT more damage than that.
 
Ascalon said:
Old axiom: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because she did not see what she recognised as bits of a plane does not mean that a plane was not responsible for the impact.

Secondly, it has been shown time and again, that what we normally see ofter plane crash is the result of an aircraft hitting the ground or the sea. It is very rare for a plane to hit a building.

So irrespective of her being there, how qualified is she to judge the debris field of a plane deliberately flown into a building?

To be honest, I'd not put much stead by her testimony. She may believe her account, and be truthful, but alas, it means very little.
Click to expand...

Bits of a plane not lying around as well as an entrance hole that didn't match the size of a plane are the parts I'm struggling to work out.

"So irrespective of her being there" ? .. seriously? .. does she need to be actually trained to notice if a plane (or maybe a missile) crashes 30 ft away from her ?. I think most of us would be able to tell the difference and notice these things.
 
Last edited:
The Day A Bomber Hit The Empire State Building

On July 28, 1945, residents of New York City were horrified when an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building, leaving 14 dead. Though the events of that day have largely faded from public memory, they remain etched in the minds of those who experienced them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92987873

[Edited to add content detail - Yith]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Swifty said:
Bits of a plane not lying around as well as an entrance hole that didn't match the size of a plane are the parts I'm struggling to work out.

"So irrespective of her being there" ? .. seriously? .. does she need to be actually trained to notice if a plane (or maybe a missile) crashes 30 ft away from her ?. I think most of us would be able to tell the difference and notice these things.
Click to expand...

What I was struggling to express was that in certain impact situations, there is nothing recognisable left to a professional, let alone someone who has never seen one before.

Also, what is meant by "entrance hole that didn't match the size of a plane"?

How many Pentagons have been hit by an airliner to gauge how big a hole there should be?

I worked as an aircraft maintenance technician for years (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Airbus). An inflated aluminium tube hitting a very hard structure at any flying speed is not going to leave much bar the centre wingbox (possibly) and the engine turbine cores.

If those key pieces were not in the eyeline of that witness leaving the building, how would she know it was a plane at all?

As has been comprehensively shown with the jet fuel burning temperature, the thermite hypothesis and lots of other details, there is nothing extraordinary happening bar the fact that the planes were hijacked and redirected in the first place. It is merely that so many of the circumstances were unprecedented so there was little understanding of what was being seen.
 
Those missing pages from the official report on 9/11 has been released. It doesn't seem to implicate Saudi Arabia the way some thought it would.
 
Ascalon said:
What I was struggling to express was that in certain impact situations, there is nothing recognisable left to a professional, let alone someone who has never seen one before.

Also, what is meant by "entrance hole that didn't match the size of a plane"?

How many Pentagons have been hit by an airliner to gauge how big a hole there should be?

I worked as an aircraft maintenance technician for years (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Airbus). An inflated aluminium tube hitting a very hard structure at any flying speed is not going to leave much bar the centre wingbox (possibly) and the engine turbine cores.

If those key pieces were not in the eyeline of that witness leaving the building, how would she know it was a plane at all?

As has been comprehensively shown with the jet fuel burning temperature, the thermite hypothesis and lots of other details, there is nothing extraordinary happening bar the fact that the planes were hijacked and redirected in the first place. It is merely that so many of the circumstances were unprecedented so there was little understanding of what was being seen.
Click to expand...
Also, here is video of an F4 Phantom being crashed into a thick reinforced concrete wall. Note there is zero left of the Phantom afterwards.

 
Last edited:
Xanatic* said:
Those missing pages from the official report on 9/11 has been released. It doesn't seem to implicate Saudi Arabia the way some thought it would.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the narrative of some media outlet, but the pages themselves do reference a number of Saudi nationals, including a naval officer (much of this redacted). You can read the whole thing on the Guardian website here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/15/911-report-saudi-arabia-28-pages-released
 
europhysicsnews

Page 21. 15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses S. Jones, R. Korol, A. Szamboti and T. Walter

I n August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11): the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane. NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally. Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation. ...

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
 
The argument using the burning temperature of jet fuel is bogus.

I am a retired firefighter with 32 years experience. I can state with 1000% confidence burning hydrocarbon fuel can, and has, melt steel. I have personally observed it on many occasions. Ordinary forest fires often soften steel roadside barriers, steel pipelines, and metal towers. Anyone who says it cannot is demonstrating profound ignorance of fires, regardless of the number of letters they have after their name.
The jet fuel from the plane was likely completely consumed in 30 seconds or so. After that the primary fuel source for the fire was the building itself. The carpeting, furniture, even the paint on the walls would be burning at that point. Fire resistant materials only slow down combustion under ordinary open burning conditions -- does not stop the burning, and the resistant chemicals themselves will start burning at high temperatures. In an ordinary enclosed house fire the temperature in the uppermost layer of trapped smoke and gases, within a half meter or so of the ceiling, can easily reach 3000 degrees F. It is only a partially consumed layer of fuel, with gaseous hydrocarbons mixed in with the soot and smoke, restrained from complete combustion only by the lack of oxygen, which has already been consumed. Whenever a new source of oxygen is allowed in, by a collapsing wall for example, the superheated mixture of hydrocarbons and soot will explode into a fireball. This is the flashback phenomenon you see in the movies.

The 9/11 fires are now studied at almost every fire academy in the world. Dissected minute by minute, the tactics and strategies used by FDNY, and what they did right and what they should have done different. There is no dispute among experienced firefighters a jet and jet fuel could have and did cause the fires and structural damage. Those 'architects, engineers, and scientists' should get their heads out of their asses and talk to people who really know fires.
 
If the buildings were loaded with demolition explosives to bring them down, then why didn't they all immediately detonate when the planes hit? Surely a passenger plane exploding into the side of the building would have set off an immediate chain reaction? Or did the pilots manage to hit the only floors not rigged?
 
This is more of a different angle on 911. Stuff I never heard (or saw) before.
The 9/11 Hotel
Beneath and between the Twin Towers was the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel. This is the story of the narrow escape made by 14 guests and staff who were trapped when the Twin Towers fell.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-911-hotel/on-demand/45359-001

Amazing human stories. One couple involved was British.
 
rynner2 said:
I found it interesting for a different reason - the YouTube image is flipped, L to R!
Click to expand...

That's often done in an attempt to fly under the radar of copyright scanning technology. Similarly, colours are dimmed around the borders of frames are added.
 
Yithian said:
That's often done in an attempt to fly under the radar of copyright scanning technology. Similarly, colours are dimmed around the borders of frames are added.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation, Yith. I've noticed flipped images on YouTube a number of times and wondered what was going on. It makes sense now.
 
Swifty said:
fake pics? ...
Click to expand...

If I, or anyone else, makes a serious attempt at analysing these (to establish their absolute provenance) I would like to think that by now the production values and techniques used to create them are now such as to make them indistinguishable from what we call reality.

This is the periodic raking-over of what is viewed, historically (by those who own the mainstream strand of that book) as a key moral validation for the waging of perpetual wars in order to maintain a perpetual peace.

Why on earth would the FBI wait over a decade-and-half to issue these?

If we maintain acceptance of a conventional narrative, these would've been kept from publication due to their investigative relevance, or perceived shock quotient. But the real reason these have resurfaced, now, could be seen as being twofold.

Abrade the wound. And repaint the painting.

If the world ever now tells you that some news is fake, well, that's just fine.

I, for one, have always known this, and said this (by me here, and in other settings).

And, of course, now that we've been told that certain contemporary news stories are actually false, that means that all the ones that aren't false, are real. Of course they are. All of them. Because they're not false. They must be real.

Including every single picture taken on 9/11. All real.

Even the contradictory images. Irrespective of the impossible quantities of almost-simultaneous, propitious photographs. All taken with non-digital cameras. By people that were perfectly-placed to be there, exactly on the nail, for all those perfect shots.

Remember, all these Iraqi missiles were capable of being launched within 45 minutes....and that was despite the eventually-conceded fact that they weren't there.

I am constantly amazed as to how trustingly-naïve people are, when it comes to pictures and video. Unless it is glaringly-fake, people accept it all as real. Always.

If I handed you a credit/debit card that was identical to yours in every way, is that your card? Of course not.

If I showed you a photograph of you robbing a bank, on the day you were volunteering at the shelter, is that real? Of course it is- because realistic-looking pictures of an emulated reality are indistinguishable from true reality.

Therefore I must place you under arrest....for being just an over-trusting child, in a world that works you like a cog in the machine.
 
Last edited:
There was a fire under an elevated freeway in Atlanta yesterday, no jet fuel, just plastic. The steel reinforced concrete freeway collapsed above the fire.

Since fire cant melt steel beams, the freeway collapse must have been an inside job. <eyeroll>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top