# New 911 Footage



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Apologies if this has been posted already.

Some recently released home video footage of the bush government blowing up the towers on september 11th. 

http://media.revver.com/broadcast/59686/video.mov


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

this is just a home video of the towers collapsing...nothing implicating the US Government at all.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

The facts are what implicate the US government, not this video. This is just more shocking footage. It is unfortunate that the videographer missed the second plane on film. 

BTW, you can hear the witnesses describe the plane as being "military". This goes along with many other witnesses describing the plane as having no windows. 
(I am aware that it would be extremely difficult to identify an airplane moving at those speeds.)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"his is just a home video of the towers collapsing...nothing implication the US Government at all."

Yeah, I second that! Thanks for the spurious editorial comment, but it was better to simply revisit that day through another lens. I can do without the paranoid political spin.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

comprehab said:


> BTW, you can hear the witnesses describe the plane as being "military". This goes along with many other witnesses describing the plane as having no windows.
> (I am aware that it would be extremely difficult to identify an airplane moving at those speeds.)


She said she heard the sound of a plane. Also, this military plane could very well be one of the two fighter jets scrambled to manhattan after NORAD figured out what was going on


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

trump said:


> She said she heard the sound of a plane. Also, this military plane could very well be one of the two fighter jets scrambled to manhattan after NORAD figured out what was going on


Did you actually watch the video trump?

woman: "Really i think its all about the WTC"
other person: "it must be a terrorist attack"
woman: "OMG"
[inaudible]
woman: "It was A MILITARY PLANE....People are running away... OMG We just saw it happen...Where's Bob?"


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

comprehab said:


> The facts are what implicate the US government, not this video. This is just more shocking footage. It is unfortunate that the videographer missed the second plane on film.
> 
> BTW, you can hear the witnesses describe the plane as being "military". This goes along with many other witnesses describing the plane as having no windows.
> (I am aware that it would be extremely difficult to identify an airplane moving at those speeds.)


There is no doubt in my mind that the Bush administration used 9-11 as a propaganda tool for the unjust invasion of Iraq. However, I've seen the evidence that people have put forth saying that the US government was involved in making 9-11 happen or even that they knew it would happen but intentionally let it (including the intelligence briefing in August saying it might happen) and I just don't find it convincing.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

zoziw said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that the Bush administration used 9-11 as a propaganda tool for the unjust invasion of Iraq. However, I've seen the evidence that people have put forth saying that the US government was involved in making 9-11 happen or even that they knew it would happen but intentionally let it (including the intelligence briefing in August saying it might happen) and I just don't find it convincing.


I understand where you stand, and respect that. You remind me of myself a year ago.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Personally, I find the repeated shots of the www.quebecnewyork.com banner to be the most sinister. I'm surprised that wasn't used as further proof of the evilness of the French (excuse me, Freedom) people.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Comprehab, feel free to join MS's conspiracy theory group. 

A witness saying that it was a "military plane?" I'm pretty sure the 3 second glimpse she got of the plane wasn't accurate. Oh, and this is even better - a military plane with 90+ people on board? Oh, yes, that's believable.

Get a grip.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Comprehab, you really need your head examined.

As a conspiracy theorist, it is quite useless trying to convince you you are wrong. Nothing anybody says will ever convince you of that. You have already closed your mind to the facts. You attribute anything that counters your reasoning to falsified evidence, government conspiracy, or lies.

For those of you who still have an open mind, I suggest you read here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Remember:
The White House couldn't hide Bill Clintons affair.
The White House couldn't hide The Watergate scandal.

What makes you think it's even remotely possible for the White House to cover up destroying two buildings in downtown New York?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Perhaps you could postulate as to why the government would have placed civilians on the aircraft that hit the WTC? Or did they only use one military jet? A producer from the television show "Frasier" was on one of the flights that collided with one of the WTC towers (Flight 11). If what you say is true, what was he doing on a military jet? Or maybe it was a mix of civilian and military Boeing jets to make it look legit?

What you suggest would mean that American and United Airlines are directly involved as well. This would mean that they willingly sacrificed their own pilots as part of a government conspiracy. Exactly how many Boeing 765/7 does the U.S. military use in their fleet?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> What makes you think it's even remotely possible for the White House to cover up destroying two buildings in downtown New York?


Cover up? They clearly haven't done a very good job....
You don't actually believe the US government was not able to stop two civilian aircraft flown by poorly trained pilots from crashing into the WTC... do you?

Ha, your probably one of those crazy guys who thinks an airplane was responsible for that little hole in the side of the pentagon also.

I was going to go so far as to say that you might even be one of those dingos that believe WTC 7 "collapsed" because of the terrorists, too. But no one is that goofed....Right?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

comprehab said:


> Cover up? They clearly haven't done a very good job....
> You don't actually believe the US government was not able to stop two civilian aircraft flown by poorly trained pilots from crashing into the WTC... do you?
> 
> Ha, your probably one of those crazy guys who thinks an airplane was responsible for that little hole in the side of the pentagon also.
> ...


Here, take a look at the people who were on those flights and tell me they were part of the great big conspiracy:

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page93.html
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page100.html
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page88.html
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page96.html

Every one of these people died on those flights. Or are they a figment of the government's imagination?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Perhaps you could postulate as to why the government would have placed civilians on the aircraft that hit the WTC? Or did they only use one military jet? A producer from the television show "Frasier" was on one of the flights that collided with one of the WTC towers (Flight 11). If what you say is true, what was he doing on a military jet? Or maybe it was a mix of civilian and military Boeing jets to make it look legit?
> 
> What you suggest would mean that American and United Airlines are directly involved as well. This would mean that they willingly sacrificed their own pilots as part of a government conspiracy. Exactly how many Boeing 765/7 does the U.S. military use in their fleet?


MannyP, I personally believe the aircraft that hit WTC 1 and 2 were not military cargo planes, I was just pointing out what was said in the video. 

As for an airplane hitting the pentagon? That definitely did not happen.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Here, take a look at the people who were on those flights and tell me they were part of the great big conspiracy:
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page93.html
> http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page100.html
> ...


What happened to the remains of the aircraft that hit the pentagon?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

This has a good explanation as to what they believed happened: http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

_The software tool is unusual because it uses principles of physics to simulate how a plane's huge mass of fuel and cargo impacts a building. The plane's structure caused relatively little damage, and the explosion and fire that resulted from the crash also are not likely to have been dominant factors in the disaster, Sozen said.

The model indicates the most critical effects were from the mass moving at high velocity. "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact." But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.

The simulation deals specifically with steel-reinforced concrete buildings, as opposed to skyscrapers like the World Trade Center's twin towers, in which structural steel provided the required strength and stiffness. Reinforced concrete is inherently fire resistant, unlike structural steel, which is vulnerable to fire and must undergo special fireproofing.

"Because the structural skeleton of the Pentagon had a high level of toughness, it was able to absorb much of the kinetic energy from the impact," said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor in the Department of Computer Sciences and at Purdue's Computing Research Institute.

Sozen created a mathematical model of reinforced concrete columns. The model was then used as a starting point to produce the simulation.

Hoffmann turned Sozen's model into the simulation by representing the plane and its mass as a mesh of hundreds of thousands of "finite elements," or small squares containing specific physical characteristics.










"What we do is simulate the physics of phenomena and then we visualize what we have calculated from scientific principles as a plausible explanation of what really happened," Hoffmann said. "We hope that through such simulations we can learn from this tragic event how to protect better the lives of our citizens and the civil infrastructure of the nation."_​
The Doug had images that put the crash into perspective (for me at least):


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Lars said:


> Comprehab, feel free to join MS's conspiracy theory group.
> 
> A witness saying that it was a "military plane?" I'm pretty sure the 3 second glimpse she got of the plane wasn't accurate. Oh, and this is even better - a military plane with 90+ people on board? Oh, yes, that's believable.
> 
> Get a grip.


gee, i don't remember you chirping in with your questioning of a ehmac member's relative who allegedly "witnessed" the plane that hit the pentagon

somehow you must have missed that one, eh?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i would really be interested to see the various videos that captured the plane that hit the pentagon, alas they have been confiscated by the gov't


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Here, take a look at the people who were on those flights and tell me they were part of the great big conspiracy:
> ...
> Every one of these people died on those flights. Or are they a figment of the government's imagination?


Manny, as amazing at it may seem, an airplane filled with American civilian names being used as propaganda by the U.S. is not out of the question., In fact, it was proposed in 1962, to trick the U.S. public into supporting an invasion into Cuba:
From the Transcript of Barrie Zwicker's excellent and courageous show on Vision TV, in which Zwicker asks the still unanswered questions about 9/11
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZWI201A.html
TRANSCRIPT OF PART 1 

Transcript of Mon., Jan. 21 2002 (Part II Jan 28 2002 see below)

What really happened on Sept. 11th? 9/11

For four months I’ve been waiting in vain for the North American media to pursue questions about the startling events of September 11th. Here’s what I want to know:

The multiple hijackings are unprecedented. The first occurs at 7:45 in the morning. It’s a full hour before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. But it’s an hour and 20 minutes -- and after the second plane hits – that the President allegedly becomes informed. Think about that.

Then, he gives no orders. Why? He continues to listen to a student talk about her pet goat. Why?

It’s another 25 minutes until he makes a statement, even as flight 77 is making a bee-line for Washington, DC.

In the almost two hours of the total drama not a single U.S. Air Force interceptor turns a wheel until it’s too late. Why? Was it total incompetence on the part of aircrews trained and equipped to scramble in minutes?

Well, unlike the U.S. Air Force, I’ll cut to the chase. Simply to ask these few questions is to find the official narrative frankly implausible. The more questions you pursue, it becomes more plausible that there’s a different explanation: namely, that elements within the top U.S. military, intelligence and political leadership – which are closely intertwined – are complicit in what happened on September the 11th.

Why U.S. complicity, you ask?

Well, to stampede public opinion into supporting the so-called war on terrorism, to justify a war on Afghanistan for a future oil pipeline, the grab for Middle East oil, big budget increases for the military, and the general drive for global domination by the American Empire.

I know it sounds incredible.

But here’s some historical context from this book, Body of Secrets. Its author is James Bamford. Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News tonight with Peter Jennings. I learned of this book on ABC’s website.

Bamford’s information comes from interviews. With, for instance, the former dean of the U.S. intelligence community. And from government documents. It takes 80 pages to list Bamford’s more than 600 information sources.

Here’s the story. It’s 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the Cuban problem.

But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba. Writes Bamford: “As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly ‘go soft’ on Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade … quickly slipping away. …attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead…”

Continues Bamford: “Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion…”

Lemnitzer comes up with Operation Northwoods.

“We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba…casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.”

_*An elaborate variation: create “an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft…” “At a designated time the duplicate would be…loaded with…selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]”… “the destruction of (that) aircraft will be triggered by radio signal.”

The Cubans would be blamed.*_

Finally, another variation is described by Bamford: “On February 20th, 1962 (John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral…on his historic journey. Lemnitzer “proposed … that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, ‘the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that…the fault lies with (Cuba)…” “by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.”

Thus, Bamford notes, “as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn’s possible death as a pretext to launch a war.”

_*The Operation Northwoods plan shows the Pentagon was capable, according to Bamford, “of launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting a (war on Cuba).”*_
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZWI201A.html
Can we be sure, therefore, that complicity by the Pentagon in the events of Sept. 11th is entirely out of the question?
I'm not saying this is what happened on 9/11. I am saying that as a student of U.S. foreign policy and intelligence and U.S. secret service history, I have sadly found that nothing is off limits when it comes to the capabilities and willingness of U.S. intelligence and military.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> This has a good explanation as to what they believed happened: http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
> 
> _The software tool is unusual because it uses principles of physics to simulate how a plane's huge mass of fuel and cargo impacts a building. The plane's structure caused relatively little damage, and the explosion and fire that resulted from the crash also are not likely to have been dominant factors in the disaster, Sozen said.
> 
> ...


Wow, thanks. That was a whole lot of nothing. You still haven't answered where any trace of the airplane went. Oh, and considering there were no remains of the airplane's wings, why aren't there any marks on the side of the pentagon where the wings would have hit and subsequently been obliterated into thin dust like the rest of the airplane...







This would be the first time in history where an airplane crashed, and absolutely no trace was left (except for flight 93, but according to United airlines, that flight landed safely and its passengers where whisked off to an empty NASA research lab). There were no tail or wing sections, no trace of the large turbines. No part of the 757 remained at the pentagon (aside from parts belonging to different types of aircraft which were planted). 



> A CNN Reporter at the scene states that there is no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Watch this video clip:
> CNN: 'No evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon'


http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

I suggest everyone reads what that page has to say. Loads of research and discussion looking at the situation from both sides.


Also, for a simplified version of the entire situation check out Loose Change. The second addition is available for free on google video. 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change

This is just one of the MANY videos out there, asking the questions that we all should be asking...


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

*Read history books.........*



« MannyP Design » said:


> Perhaps you could postulate as to why the government would have placed civilians on the aircraft that hit the WTC? Or did they only use one military jet? A producer from the television show "Frasier" was on one of the flights that collided with one of the WTC towers (Flight 11). If what you say is true, what was he doing on a military jet? Or maybe it was a mix of civilian and military Boeing jets to make it look legit?
> 
> What you suggest would mean that American and United Airlines are directly involved as well. This would mean that they willingly sacrificed their own pilots as part of a government conspiracy. Exactly how many Boeing 765/7 does the U.S. military use in their fleet?



WHY would the government use innocent civilians to do this? Hello.... go to your local library (unless your an american, the truth has been changed to reflect the "real" truth) and read up your history on USA! They've used innocent civilians MANY many times in the past to get what they want! They dont care about dead people... dont care about companies going bankrupt. K let me rephrase that... they do care to an extent. All that matters is the end goal.... and they got a huge jackpot from this happening. Im not saying they DID it themselves... they just allowed it to happen! They got TONS of warnings from at least 3 other countries that attacks were IMMINENT (In US specificaly)! BUT US government said "All the warnings showed that the attack was going to happen overseas"BS!!! Dont play blindly into their ways, sure I really want to NOT believe that governments can be so cruel but it's happened in the past especially with USA... it's a HUGE possibility! If they honestly didnt have anything to hide... they should have answered many of the THOUSANDS of questions that they simply ignored! WTF! I despise american's for their blindness! As for corporations teaming up with the government to do these kinds of things that they only BENEFIT from BIG time... Hello... Look at how much the corporations of the US control things... They are a HUGE influence to the US government! They make BILLIONS of dollars each year and the government turns a blind eye many many times to their misconduct! Do your research people... the world isnt such a clean cut place! The world is in bed with money! I know what I know... they have gotten away with many unbelievable things and they will continue to get away with them (or ALLOW them to happen)!


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

*Breath... in... and out.... in.... and out...now count 2 ten...*

Please excuse the anger which I expressed in the last post. I cant stand all this sticking up for 911. I agree it was a bad thing, terrible thing to happen.I hope this topic dies out soon because it drives me nuts how many people are on the Governments side, the very people who screwed us over many times! Dont get in bed with Bush! You dont really KNOW him!  

-Search & Know More...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It's amazing how many otherwise moderately intelligent people believe this nonsense, and how much of a disservice it does to the people who died on those planes and in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

The U.S. hardly needed to kill thousands of its own people so horribly to justify invading anywhere. They hardly needed to fabricate Bin Laden or make him behave a certain way. There are enough hateful people in the world already. Enough dangerously stupid and stupidly dangerous people.

I suppose the World Trade Centre bombing in 1994 was such a feeble U.S. plot that they had to fly planes into the buildings and destroy them in this entirely unpredictable way? Sure. You get to join Holocaust-deniers and tin hat salespeople the world over. How is that bomb shelter coming? Have you transferred all your savings to gold bars yet?

What next? Flouridated water is still evil? Cell phones causing gas station explosions? Go on, go crazy, bring it all on.


----------



## thedave (Sep 8, 2006)

*way too long*

i agree with lars completely. only a conspiracy theory nut job could believe that the cheney administration would kill thousands of innocent people, even if it would guarantee they remain in power and be given carte-blanche to conduct whatever military operations they saw fit to undertake, and grant them the ability to denounce and suppress all opposition, especially from the press, as unpatriotic and disrespectful to those whose lives were lost. i just don't see the motive. and besides, they're good people, right?
seriously though.
i'm not saying they did do it - i certainly haven't invested the time and energy to research the matter thoroughly - but it is naive to take for granted that a government would not do something like this. for as long as there have been wealth and power to be had, there have been people, individually or as a group, who have been willing to commit ghastly crimes to achieve them. the same goes for ideological dominance, if not more so, and bush has his fingers in both pies, so to speak. him and his cabal have more financial connections to and interests in the middle-eastern oil world than i have energy to list here, but they are certainly a matter of public record. somewhat contradictoraly, he also claims to be an evangelical christian (contradictory because of the big J's views on rich folk.. rich man.. gates of heaven.. camel... eye of needle.. all that stuff), which accounts for a huge portion of his constituency. he called the war on terror a 'crusade', for goodness sake!
i guess i just take issue with people being dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists' anytime they suggest that a western government might be doing something bad. people who speak of saddam and the terrible crimes he committed against his own people (with weapons provided by the u.s., no less) certainly aren't dismissed in that same manner. we are constantly bombarded with news of non-western governments committing heinous acts against their own citizens to various ends, be they financial or political or ideological, why is it so hard to believe that a western one might do the same? 
civilization and modernity do not negate our crueller natures, only drape them in more palatable clothes (justice, equality, democracy) - and maybe that's why we (myself, at times, included) are so quick to denounce anyone who tries to lift up that cloth, or even suggest there IS a cloth and that we are, in fact, all naked beasts beneath it, capable of wicked acts to achieve our selfish goals. perhaps even more, it is the fear that if we know these things, if we allowed ourselves for even a moment to consider these possibilities, we would have no choice but to act, or live with the knowledge that we are cowards. comfortable cowards. far easier to dismiss offhand any suggestion that the richest, most powerful country on the planet might go to extreme lengths to guarantee that position, and go on about our comfortable ways, enjoying the fruits of our enviable status as big brother's little brother.
ah... enough of this. i think i'll watch a movie. or play a video game or something. god, my computer is great!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> WHY would the government use innocent civilians to do this? Hello.... go to your local library (unless your an american, the truth has been changed to reflect the "real" truth) and read up your history on USA! !


So what you're saying is that they loaded *civilians* onto at least one US military Boeing and crashed them into the WTC? Because that's the implication with respects to Comprehab's video--the woman stated that it was a military plane, not the United Airlines Flight 175 or American Airlines Flight 11 (or both).

This means United Airlines and American airlines would be also part of said Gov't conspiracy... as well as their pilots--whose families have suffered through what appeared to be a hijacking by terrorists.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> how much of a disservice it does to the people who died on those planes and in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.


the biggest disservice is the U.S. gov't sending thousands of soldiers to die any many more thousands wounded, as an alleged response to 9/11, to Iraq, which by the U.S. Congress investigation of 9/11 had NOTHING to do with 9/11, unless you believe Dick Cheney, Condolleezza Rice, George Bush and the war machine et al

dying for no good reason is the worst memorial for those that perished on 9/11

and why hasn't the U.S. gov't released the video footage from the cameras along the route to the Pentagon?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> Please excuse the anger which I expressed in the last post. I cant stand all this sticking up for 911. I agree it was a bad thing, terrible thing to happen.I hope this topic dies out soon because it drives me nuts how many people are on the Governments side, the very people who screwed us over many times! Dont get in bed with Bush! You dont really KNOW him!
> 
> -Search & Know More...


Look, understand this--it's one thing to question government, but it's a complete departure of all reality when people start implying:

 the USG used at least one Military Boeing with civilians onboard to crash into the WTC;
somehow got American Airlines and United Airlines involved as well as their pilots;
managed to rig two giant WTC skyscrapers and WTC 7 to detonate and collapse;
fired a missile at the Pentagon;
killed thousands of people from the US and other parts of the world; and
managed to keep their plans a secret...
 to create a reason for the US attack the Taliban in Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq? With a bumbling idiot like Bush, of all people, to spearhead this operation?

When above all else, after this big elaborate show, TWO YEARS LATER they used a FREAKING POWERPOINT SLIDESHOW TO SHOW REASON TO INVADE IRAQ?!?

And for what? Oil? Money? Destabilizing the Middle East? Is this what I need to believe in order to question the U.S. Gov't?

Does Occam's razor mean anything to anyone?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and why hasn't the U.S. gov't released the video footage from the cameras along the route to the Pentagon?


They did... the security camera. Unfortunately, it's not enough.
~

Comprehab: The rubble is inside the Pentagon. Did you see the images of the Flight 93 rubble? There's not a whole lot to look at--you wouldn't know a Boeing crashed there.

Check this video out. Maybe it'll explain why you don't see much aircraft rubble outside the Pentagon. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5506786479079283934&q=pentagon+attack


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Does Occam's razor mean anything to anyone?


It really doesn't. 

While it may be an interesting exercise to tilt at conspiracy nuts, this thread is a duplicate of every other thread on EhMac saying EXACTLY the same thing about the 9/11 attacks. Same info, same counter-arguments, same links. 

It makes the little fellers feel important to sit in their basements and spin these inane theories--don't interfere with their therapy.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> It really doesn't.
> 
> While it may be an interesting exercise to tilt at conspiracy nuts, this thread is a duplicate of every other thread on EhMac saying EXACTLY the same thing about the 9/11 attacks. Same info, same counter-arguments, same links.
> 
> It makes the little fellers feel important to sit in their basements and spin these inane theories--don't interfere with their therapy.


I blame Hollywood. Only an elaborate plot such as this could be spawned by bad 80's action movies.

Invasion USA anyone? Chuck Norris is in it.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

There are many plausible explanations for every theory. I _want_ to be convinced that the attack was pre planned by a corrupt government. So far, I am not convinced in the least.

There _were _eyewitness accounts of people watching the plane hit the Pentagon, unlike some of the consiracy theorists denials.
Why did the plane leave minimal wreckage? It hit a building built to withstand attacks.


All the following is quoted from: Oct/Nov 2001 Edition of: Public Works Digest,
Public Works Digest is an unofficial publication of the US Army Corps
of Engineers, Directorate of Military Programs, Installation Support Division, under AR 360-81.
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/PWDigest_OctNov2001a.pdf

Worker's comments in their own newsletter at the scene of pentagon disaster describe the building as reinforced for blast protection. The building was modified to strengthen its structure:



> Did you know that the Corps of Engineers
> built the Pentagon? Ironically, construction
> of this massive five-sided building
> began on September 11, 1941. By the
> ...


What? Delayed construction? Planned during the Clinton Administration no doubt.  Clinton implicated too?



> Like you've heard on TV, the new construction
> probably saved hundreds of lives.
> The reinforced concrete walls slowed the
> airplane. The outer, blast-proof windows
> ...


Blast proof windows and reinforced walls? Minimized damage? Wow I guess the building can take a good knocking. 

Eyewitness accounts of workers on the way to the Pentagon:


> We looked and asked, “Where is the
> plane?” “Did anyone see the plane after it
> hit?” What kind of plane was it?” We wondered
> aloud what might come next because
> ...


The aluminum plane disintegrated like the ones that hit the WTC.

More evidence refuting consiracy theories is available all over the net if you want to read it. I suppose we can ignore the evidence on both sides and agree to disagree.
I am not convinced. Yet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

After all these threads, still no evidence refuting the FSM theory, or all-powerful pencil hidden behind Alpha Centauri. Not one shred of evidence against those theories...the silence speaks volumes.

After those two theories, all the evidence suggests the obvious but lesser theory of the planes. 

After that, there are the much less credible earthly/mortal conspiracy theories probably forwarded by Alcan investors. I'm still surprised these folks have not picked up on the concrete industry as the likely backer.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Those who believe in consiracy theories will continue to believe those theories no matter how much evidence is produced. I could direct you to a sitehttp://judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml that has links to releaed Pentagon videos. They don't show much. The fact that the camera system may not have been designed to capture high speed aircraft but meant to provide more of a time lapse, longer term surveillance record of property will never enter the equation for these people. There will be those that believe, no matter how much video is release, that there is still one more unreleased video the government is hiding.

No amount of reliable eye witness accounts http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html will convince them otherwise. 
Comments like


> "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. *It knocked a couple down."*


 even though light standards are about 20 feet apart and a cruise missle's Wing Span is *8 feet, 9 inches* won't convince them. (emphasus added)

Oh, the missile comment. Seehttp://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html

From the link.


> QUESTION: As you know, a descriptive phrase you used was taken to mean an aircraft didn't strike the Pentagon. How has this affected you?
> 
> MIKE WALTER: I don’t really remember the questions that were asked that day, I don’t really even remember what my answers were. The day became a blur really. But I do remember using a metaphor to describe what happened. I indicated to Jamie that the jet had become a weapon that day. I said it was like a cruise missile with wings. I never imagined for a moment that a statement like that would come back to haunt me over and over again. A French author would come out with a book describing in detail the conspiracy theory and he would use that quote out of context to help promote his conclusions. I was very angry about all of this, and I remain angry about it today. I’m also upset that so many people lost their lives that day and while some people who have written about that tragic day have donated any and all proceeds to the victims of 9-11, he has capitalized on it to make an awful lot of money. His book went on to be a best seller in France. My suggestion, buy “Covering Catastrophe” instead. It was written by the reporters who were there in Arlington, and in New York, and in Pennsylvania. The conclusion in the French book is absurd. I saw the jet; there is no doubt in my mind it was a jet that slammed into the Pentagon. As a result of his book I’ve been interviewed by both print and television reporters from France, and England. Recently on the anniversary of that terrible day I was once again interviewed for a documentary in Japan on this same issue.


Once a mindset is there, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change no matter what the evidence. That's human nature.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> So what you're saying is that they loaded *civilians* onto at least one US military Boeing and crashed them into the WTC? Because that's the implication with respects to Comprehab's video--the woman stated that it was a military plane, not the United Airlines Flight 175 or American Airlines Flight 11 (or both).
> 
> This means United Airlines and American airlines would be also part of said Gov't conspiracy... as well as their pilots--whose families have suffered through what appeared to be a hijacking by terrorists.


I don't think anyone is saying that a military plane crashed into WTC 1 or 2, I only pointed out that the woman on the video tape implied this. AA and UA were clearly not in on this, they simply followed orders as usual. Flight 93 landed, and this was documented by united airlines officials. Have you looked at ANY of the evidence?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Look, understand this--it's one thing to question government, but it's a complete departure of all reality when people start implying:
> 
> the USG used at least one Military Boeing with civilians onboard to crash into the WTC;
> somehow got American Airlines and United Airlines involved as well as their pilots;
> ...


Managed to rig the WTC 1,2,and 7 with explosives? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that those were controlled demolitions. WTC employees report that they were exacuated from sections of the building in weeks prior to 9/11, while the government went into the building and...? And why were the bomb sniffing dogs taken from the WTC buildings a few days before 9/11?

Fired a missile at the pentagon- probably, could quite possibly have been a small military plane as well. We won't know until the government releases the video tapes.

[*]killed thousands of people from the US and other parts of the world; and
[*]managed to keep their plans a secret...[/LIST] to create a reason for the US attack the Taliban in Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq? With a bumbling idiot like Bush, of all people, to spearhead this operation?

Yes!, I think your starting to get it! No one is denying that many people died on septmeber 11th(and many many more in Iraq). Whether these people crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, or the gov shot them in the head, in an empty NASA research lab, just outside where flight 93 actually landed, Cleveland Hopkins Airport.

Don't write Bush off as a complete moron, he may be a bit sharper than who he plays on TV. (He still wasn't the mastermind, though.)


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> They did... the security camera. Unfortunately, it's not enough.
> ~


We got to see a few doctored frames of the explosion....



> Comprehab: The rubble is inside the Pentagon. Did you see the images of the Flight 93 rubble? There's not a whole lot to look at--you wouldn't know a Boeing crashed there.


That is probably because a boeing, at least a 757, didn't crash there. 
It would be too risky to have poorly trained "terrorist" pilots fly into the pentagon. This is likely why either a missile, or remotely operated military aircraft was used. Too much room for error at the pentagon....



> Check this video out. Maybe it'll explain why you don't see much aircraft rubble outside the Pentagon. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5506786479079283934&q=pentagon+attack


Excellent graphics in that video... would be great of there was actual VIDEO footage of this happening. Wait a second....there is! Why don't we watch it? Oh.....


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I blame Hollywood. Only an elaborate plot such as this could be spawned by bad 80's action movies.
> 
> Invasion USA anyone? Chuck Norris is in it.


Don't forget the many other blockbuster's, like Pearl Harbor. You know...where the US government lets an attack on its own people occur in exchange for justification for war.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

comprehab said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that a military plane crashed into WTC 1 or 2, I only pointed out that the woman on the video tape implied this. AA and UA were clearly not in on this, they simply followed orders as usual. Flight 93 landed, and this was documented by united airlines officials. Have you looked at ANY of the evidence?


Good grief man, what qualifies her to identify any aircraft...military or otherwise. Can you identify a silhouette of an aircraft on a tiny camcorder screen from that distance in a split second?

...and why on earth would the conspirators in the Bush government identify the attackers as Saudies when Saudi Arabia and the royal Saudi family are US allies and Bush family friends when they want to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

ErnstNL said:


> There are many plausible explanations for every theory. I _want_ to be convinced that the attack was pre planned by a corrupt government. So far, I am not convinced in the least.
> 
> There _were _eyewitness accounts of people watching the plane hit the Pentagon, unlike some of the consiracy theorists denials.
> Why did the plane leave minimal wreckage? It hit a building built to withstand attacks.
> ...


The WTC towers were built to withstand a hit from a 747 as well. But for some reason....


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

kps said:


> Good grief man, what qualifies her to identify any aircraft...military or otherwise. Can you identify a silhouette of an aircraft on a tiny camcorder screen from that distance in a split second?


"Good grief man"
What qualifies her? We don't know, you could e-mail her, her husband, and their friend who seems to think so as well, and ask them. 
Do I personally think it was a military cargo plane hitting WTC 1 or 2? Absolutely not.
Do I know why this particular point keeps appearing in many of the "government hugger" arguments? Well, I do....but I think you can answer that on your own.

Can I identify a silhouette of an aircraft on a tiny camcorder screen from that distance in a split second? Um, no?:yawn:


----------



## T-hill (May 18, 2005)

comprehab said:


> The WTC towers were built to withstand a hit from a 747 as well. But for some reason....


*COUGH*707*COUGH*


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

comprehab said:


> The WTC towers were built to withstand a hit from a 747 as well. But for some reason....


After root cause analysis - it was explained pretty well why the buildings fell down. It was not the impact - but the fire afterwards that did the damage.

There have been people sitting in their basements wearing tin-foil hats for years, perhaps 9/11 just made a few new followers...


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Voyager said:


> Comments like even though light standards are about 20 feet apart and a cruise missle's Wing Span is *8 feet, 9 inches* won't convince them. (emphasus added)
> 
> Oh, the missile comment. Seehttp://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html
> 
> ...


Hard to tell which side you are on. Again, you don't have to be a structural engineer to figure out what would happen to light posts stuck by airplane wings. SImply put, there would be a bend, or even a dent, somewhere along the pole at the point of impact.Also, a piece of the airplane wing would have broken off?
All of that would happen if an airplane knocked over those poles.
All evidence seems to suggest there were explosives placed at the base of each light post.
But placing explosives sounds LUDICROUS! However, it has happened before....Off the top of my head? WTC 1,2, and 7.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

comprehab said:


> "Good grief man"
> What qualifies her? We don't know, you could e-mail her, her husband, and their friend who seems to think so as well, and ask them.
> Do I personally think it was a military cargo plane hitting WTC 1 or 2? Absolutely not.
> Do I know why this particular point keeps appearing in many of the "government hugger" arguments? Well, I do....but I think you can answer that on your own.
> ...



Then what is your point with this thread? Um, let me answer that for you...*nothing.*tptptptp


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

RobTheGob said:


> After root cause analysis - it was explained pretty well why the buildings fell down. It was not the impact - but the fire afterwards that did the damage.


This video is helpful in laying out what the NYFD men saw, heard, and felt. 
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q=


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

kps said:


> Then what is your point with this thread? Um, let me answer that for you...*nothing.*tptptptp


The point of this thread was to share some recently released, 5 years after the fact, footage of september 11th. I thought it was interesting to see the footage from a different angle, and listen to what eye witnesses were saying as it was happening.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Reading threads like this one reminds me of how the internet resembles a dirty public toilet. Plenty of disease vectors amist a rich field of vibrant bacteria, a lot of flushing going on and a heckuva lot of crap.

Ideas spread with the ease of viruses - and to the net a virus is a virus - it can be a snippet of infotainment, a factoid or a rumor - it's all one and the same. Packets of stuff with no weight other than what individuals are willing to assign them. It all resembles some black comedy. A bunch of monkeys making a racket, each hoping to be top banana.

People will believe whatever's convenient for them. The net exists to serve our delusions. In certain respects, it's worse than TV. That's saying something.

I think the Martians did it.

[adjusts tinfoil cap slightly]


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

They did withstand the hit, but not the jet fuel fire that burned through the core.



comprehab said:


> The WTC towers were built to withstand a hit from a 747 as well. But for some reason....


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Max said:


> I think the Martians did it.
> 
> [adjusts tinfoil cap slightly]


If you really want to know about the martians, I will tell you some time.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No, please don't. It would doubtless amplify the headache generated by reading your posts. I think the better course of action for me would be to get out there in meatspace and enjoy the day. It is, after all, a fine day out there. I think that the cruise missiles and Grey Aliens can wait a little longer, don't you?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> They did withstand the hit, but not the jet fuel fire that burned through the core.


I am not even going to explain what is wrong with what you said. Take just a smidgin of time and watch some of the videos out there, read some of the books,do a little bit of research online. 
Don't believe everything you see, or read. Whether it is information from conspiracy theorists whacked out of their minds or the government whom we love and trust.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Max said:


> No, please don't. It would doubtless amplify the headache generated by reading your posts. I think the better course of action for me would be to get out there in meatspace and enjoy the day. It is, after all, a fine day out there. I think that the cruise missiles and Grey Aliens can wait a little longer, don't you?


Very nice day....A bit breezy around here, my hat might blow off.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

After I heard the news about the first plane hitting one WTC tower, I turned on the news.

I watched the other plane hit the other tower, live on TV, although the focus was on the first smoking building, you could see the second hit.

Although I've seen the conspiracty sites you're referring to, the government sites don't spend much time justifying anything at all.

I have, though, done a fair bit of reading about the science of what happened, and watched the kind of documentaries that make it to regular TV after being vetted by scientists.

I think you're adding new meaning to "wingnut" with this thread. But it takes all kinds, and if these kinds of questions weren't being asked, the world would certainly be less safe.

But so much of the response isn't new. If it was decades ago, you'd (or your predecessor) would have us reading about how the government was covering up UFOs. Plus ca change...




comprehab said:


> I am not even going to explain what is wrong with what you said. Take just a smidgin of time and watch some of the videos out there, read some of the books,do a little bit of research online.
> Don't believe everything you see, or read. Whether it is information from conspiracy theorists whacked out of their minds or the government whom we love and trust.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> After I heard the news about the first plane hitting one WTC tower, I turned on the news.
> 
> I watched the other plane hit the other tower, live on TV, although the focus was on the first smoking building, you could see the second hit.
> 
> ...


Name calling....very mature. 
If you can spare 59 minutes, this is a very interesting film. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Given that a Canadian military general was in charge of NORAD on 9-11 and he was the one responsible for coordinating the response, what do the people who say this was orchestrated, or at least allowed to happen, by the US .gov believe was Canada's role in the cover-up?


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

lol...
this thread is useless..

an endless amount of i'm right, your wrong..

Your not going to change the result by blaming one side or the other. Why don't you try to come up with some solutions to the problems rather then wasting your time blaming the otherside..

Stop watching V for Vendetta and stop fearmongering. How about posting some facts rather then speculation.. post data that is proven and back it up with evidence.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

HowEver said:


> But so much of the response isn't new. If it was decades ago, you'd (or your predecessor) would have us reading about how the government was covering up UFOs. Plus ca change...


Gasp!! You mean there wasn't an alien UFO crash at Roswell? What about all those dead aliens they found? (You know, the little ones like Thor on Stargate.) And the ones who are really running the government?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> Flight 93 landed, and this was documented by united airlines officials. Have you looked at ANY of the evidence?


Stop being such an arrogant moron. Flight 93 crashed into a field. It did not land safely, and none of the passnegers were wisked away into a "NASA facility." Where did you even get this information from, a dedicated conspiracy theory web site? I guess that explains that. And the crater left in the field? Oh, gee, I forgot: The U.S. government fired a missle into the ground there, then planted plane remains. Ingenious! I can't believe it took me 5 years to understand that. And what about the people on board that called from their cellphones? Oh... right. They called to make the conspiracy believable. They all volunteered, right? Or, the people that called weren't actually on the flight. Or, they were government officials who called, then had the plane landed, but made it look like a crash, but at the same time UA claims it landed fine, as you claim. Wow, why does all of that make no sense at all?

Seriously. Stop this stupidity.



> I am not even going to explain what is wrong with what you said. Take just a smidgin of time and watch some of the videos out there, read some of the books,do a little bit of research online.


I think we're going to have to find an unbiased structural engineer in Waterloo to explain to this misinformed kid that it was the fire and heat (made up of jet fuel) that collasped the two towers, and put his stupid theory to rest once and for all. Oh, wait, conspiracy theorists believe their own theory even if no one else in the world agrees with them and the evidence proving otherwise is overwhelming.

Stop arguing. No one on ehMac agrees with you, no matter what you push.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Methinks the lad doth protest too much.



comprehab said:


> Name calling....very mature.
> If you can spare 59 minutes, this is a very interesting film. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Given that a Canadian military general was in charge of NORAD on 9-11 and he was the one responsible for coordinating the response, what do the people who say this was orchestrated, or at least allowed to happen, by the US .gov believe was Canada's role in the cover-up?



Also NORAD was conceived to respond to a threat from outside North America. All their focus was looking outward, not inward. They were never equipped for a situation like this. Since the Cold War ended most of their alert aircraft had been stood down. There were only about 14 aircraft nationwide available at the time. The nearest jets to New York City were at Cape Cod's Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts. The jets couldn't get there in time.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Lars said:


> Stop being such an arrogant moron. Flight 93 crashed into a field. It did not land safely, and none of the passnegers were wisked away into a "NASA facility." Where did you even get this information from, a dedicated conspiracy theory web site? I guess that explains that. And the crater left in the field? Oh, gee, I forgot: The U.S. government fired a missle into the ground there, then planted plane remains. Ingenious! I can't believe it took me 5 years to understand that. And what about the people on board that called from their cellphones? Oh... right. They called to make the conspiracy believable. They all volunteered, right? Or, the people that called weren't actually on the flight. Or, they were government officials who called, then had the plane landed, but made it look like a crash, but at the same time UA claims it landed fine, as you claim. Wow, why does all of that make no sense at all?
> 
> Seriously. Stop this stupidity.
> 
> ...


When was the last time you successfully made a cell phone call from an airplane?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Voyager said:


> Also NORAD was conceived to respond to a threat from outside North America. All their focus was looking outward, not inward. They were never equipped for a situation like this. Since the Cold War ended most of their alert aircraft had been stood down. There were only about 14 aircraft nationwide available at the time. The nearest jets to New York City were at Cape Cod's Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts. The jets couldn't get there in time.


Beyond that, there were only 5 aircraft on standby for the entire east coast and their default instructions were to fly out over the atlantic until told where to go (ie. to intercept incoming attacks), which is what they did putting them further away than they initially were.

Vanity Fair magazine posted an interesting article with audio tapes built in from NORAD on that day. I haven't listened to that in awhile so it might have nothing to do with what I just said, however, it is interesting to hear for those around who might not have had the chance to yet.

Vanity Fair


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

They weren't cell phone calls.



 comprehab said:


> When was the last time you successfully made a cell phone call from an airplane?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> They weren't cell phone calls.


Lars is a big boy...let him try on his own.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Given that NORAD was tracking flight 93, the Canadian general would know where it actually went (ie. a NASA facility) and it would be his job and duty to report that information to the Canadian Forces and the Minister of Defence.

To what degree do your sources believe that the Canadian government was in on the cover-up?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

comprehab said:


> Lars is a big boy...let him try on his own.


Built-in airplane phones or cellphones - makes no difference. Please explain the phone call(s) made off that plane from the passenger(s).


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Lars, clearly the "family members" and "friends" who received phone calls from the doomed plane are all actors, paid to grieve for years. This year their contracts were up for renewal and some came forward, but it just was a ploy for more secret government funding. Shhhh!

"Let's Roll," indeed. You *know* they took that phrase from the Neil Young song anyways...




Lars said:


> Built-in airplane phones or cellphones - makes no difference. Please explain the phone call(s) made off that plane from the passenger(s).


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Lars, clearly the "family members" and "friends" who received phone calls from the doomed plane are all actors, paid to grieve for years. This year their contracts were up for renewal and some came forward, but it just was a ploy for more secret government funding. Shhhh!
> 
> "Let's Roll," indeed. You *know* they took that phrase from the Neil Young song anyways...


LOL. Sorry, my mistake. I should have known.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

comprehab said:


> Name calling....very mature.
> If you can spare 59 minutes, this is a very interesting film. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&q


very interesting film
thanks for the link

the idea that the WTC buildings fell at "free fall" rates is very unsettling
one of the presenters says that a billiard ball would take 8-10 seconds to fall from WTC 1/2, according to Galileo's famous experiment/law
the fall of each tower took about that long
if each floor would take 1/2 second to fall due to resistance, it would have taken 40-45 seconds per WTC 1/2 to fall


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Yes, I found the engineers from MIT et all made some very interesting points. Looking at the situation from a physics stand point, with morality of killing our own people aside, the answer as to "were explosives used?" is clear; at least among the scientific community.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

The google video is interesting, but basically the same information three times.
Does anyone know how to download the total video to the Mac?
I clicked on the appropriate links, but couldn't get it to download.

This is an interesting link as well. A complete timeline of the events,,,,,,,,,,also shows a lot of discrepancies, probably understandable considering the circumstances.
What I keep getting back to are the number of cell phone calls from planes when supposedly one cannot make a cell phone call from a plane more than a few hundred feet up.
A few times, aerphones are mentioned, but most of the time it's specifically cellphones.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1200#a903


----------



## Jestered (Aug 18, 2005)

Lars said:


> Stop being such an arrogant moron. Flight 93 crashed into a field. It did not land safely, and none of the passnegers were wisked away into a "NASA facility." Where did you even get this information from, a dedicated conspiracy theory web site? I guess that explains that. And the crater left in the field? Oh, gee, I forgot: The U.S. government fired a missle into the ground there, then planted plane remains. Ingenious! I can't believe it took me 5 years to understand that. And what about the people on board that called from their cellphones? Oh... right. They called to make the conspiracy believable. They all volunteered, right? Or, the people that called weren't actually on the flight. Or, they were government officials who called, then had the plane landed, but made it look like a crash, but at the same time UA claims it landed fine, as you claim. Wow, why does all of that make no sense at all?
> 
> Seriously. Stop this stupidity.


I know exactly where he is getting the idea that flight 93 landed. It is the typical EXTREME stretch to try to convince others of a ridiculous idea. He is talking about the air traffic controllers talking and a women says to a man something like, "Do you know where United 93 is?" and the guy says, "Yes, 93 is down". She then says, "93 is down? When did they land?".

That is where they want you to stop listening. BUT! Right after she says, "... when did they land?" the guy says, "They did not land, they are down!", then the women says, "Oh, they are down". Then there was silence.

It was a women that misunderstood what, "they are down" meant, but only for a second. 

This whole thread is pretty ridiculous and insulting. Too many innocent people lost their lives that day to have others insulting their existence like this.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> very interesting film
> thanks for the link
> 
> the idea that the WTC buildings fell at "free fall" rates is very unsettling
> ...


In a vaccuum, an object would take 8.65 seconds to fall 367 meters (1100 feet) which is roughly the height of the WTC towers. That's a straight physics equation, no argument there.
With air resistance it takes somewhat longer.
I couldn't find out how long the collapse of each building actually took to compare it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

krs said:


> In a vaccuum, an object would take 8.65 seconds to fall 367 meters (1100 feet) which is roughly the height of the WTC towers. That's a straight physics equation, no argument there.
> With air resistance it takes somewhat longer.
> I couldn't find out how long the collapse of each building actually took to compare it.



"resistance" in my premise is the resistance of each floor being destroyed by the ones above it, using the "pancake" theory of why the towers fell

air resistance is negligible in this case


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "resistance" in my premise is the resistance of each floor being destroyed by the ones above it, using the "pancake" theory of why the towers fell
> 
> air resistance is negligible in this case


I thought the "pancake' theory was discounted by the government report - that's at least what it stated.
See comment just above the floor system sketch - 
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

I'm not sure you can ignore air resistance totally - in all it may add a second or so to the number I quoted. The key thing really is to determine exactly how long it took for each building to collapse - I can't find that anywhere - and then compare this to free-fall.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

just watch the myriad of online videos and count; "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand...."


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just watch the myriad of online videos and count; "one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand...."


Hard to tell when the top floor hits the ground with all the smoke, dust and debris.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Jestered said:


> This whole thread is pretty ridiculous and insulting. Too many innocent people lost their lives that day to have others insulting their existence like this.


Don't you find it a bit odd that one report states one of the engines of the plane was seven miles from the impact site and another that no debris was more than 300 yds from the crash site?
I grant you, there are a lot of really far-fetched theories floating around, but there are also enough obvious discrepancies that are still looking for an explanation.

Seems to me, reading the detailed timeline and other reports, that there is a good chance flight 93 was shot down.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

krs said:


> Hard to tell when the top floor hits the ground with all the smoke, dust and debris.


from page #305 of the 9/11 report; 
"...South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds..."

from page #309;
"the North Tower began its pancake collapse"


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I stumbled across this web site and thought some people in this thread might want to read it. No idea about it's credibility or lack there of...

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0609182/cg182_Zwicker.shtml

Just sharing, I haven't actually read the page, but noted it's title as something pertaining to this ehMac thread.


----------



## Jestered (Aug 18, 2005)

krs said:


> Don't you find it a bit odd that one report states one of the engines of the plane was seven miles from the impact site and another that no debris was more than 300 yds from the crash site?
> I grant you, there are a lot of really far-fetched theories floating around, but there are also enough obvious discrepancies that are still looking for an explanation.
> 
> Seems to me, reading the detailed timeline and other reports, that there is a good chance flight 93 was shot down.


I don't know how to respond to this since I have no idea what "reports" and flights you are talking about. I am not going to get caught up in this ridiculous conversation. I care for, respect and will remember all who died that day, regardless of whether they were picked up by spaceships and transported to another planet.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> from page #305 of the 9/11 report;
> "...South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds..."
> 
> from page #309;
> "the North Tower began its pancake collapse"


This was subsequently refuted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster which I quoted above?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Jestered said:


> I don't know how to respond to this since I have no idea what "reports" and flights you are talking about. I am not going to get caught up in this ridiculous conversation. I care for, respect and will remember all who died that day, regardless of whether they were picked up by spaceships and transported to another planet.


Agreed. This nonsense needs to stop.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> I stumbled across this web site and thought some people in this thread might want to read it. No idea about it's credibility or lack there of...
> 
> http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0609182/cg182_Zwicker.shtml
> 
> Just sharing, I haven't actually read the page, but noted it's title as something pertaining to this ehMac thread.


Thanks for posting the link.
Barry Zwicker is the guy who narrated "The great Conspiracy" which was discussed elsewhere on ehmac.
I didn't find that video too convincing - it was based on previous US coverups to suggest that 9/11 was another one.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I watched the video, everyone watching from the apartment was in shock, and upset. Exactly how I felt that day, and I remember getting teared up, watching the buildings fall. I also got rather upset with the terrorists who must have been involved with such a insane idea. How on earth can someone get so twisted with facts that something so horrible happens?

Watching the video again, I still get a tear, and anger towards the people responsible.

Then I start reading a post about conspiracy theories, and "cover ups", and I get JUST AS UPSET at people spewing these theories. Quit twisting this into something it most obviously isn't. The world would be a much better place without it.

Good piece posted from popular mechanics to refute the theories by the way.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

jicon said:


> Good piece posted from popular mechanics to refute the theories by the way.


So, is Elvis still alive or not?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

There was a documentary produced in 2002 (I believe) called _Why the Towers Fell_. I can't vouch for the authenticy, accuracy, etc. but it came via an acquaintance who was on 3-D mailing list showing some of the work he was contracted to do for the show. It's worth a look, regardless of whether or not you agree:

http://eitechnologygroup.com/community/gallery_tv_film.html

There's no narration so it's up to you to fill in the blanks (or rent the video.)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Lars said:


> Agreed. This nonsense needs to stop.


like killing over 30,000 Iraqis (according to Bush) in the invasion of Iraq for non-existant WMD?

perpetrating lies of WMD and links to 9/11 to justify a war is an insult to the memory of those that died that day
and Usama is still free


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

gwillikers said:


> So, is Elvis still alive or not?


it all depends on what the neo cons want him to be

this current admin. in Washington reminds me of the old Soviet joke;

_
An administrative position opens up in the Kremlin.
Many people are interviewed and are asked only one question.
"What is 2 + 2?"
Most candidates answered "4." 
Only one candidate answered; "What do you want it to be?"
He got the job._


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Jestered said:


> I know exactly where he is getting the idea that flight 93 landed. It is the typical EXTREME stretch to try to convince others of a ridiculous idea. He is talking about the air traffic controllers talking and a women says to a man something like, "Do you know where United 93 is?" and the guy says, "Yes, 93 is down". She then says, "93 is down? When did they land?".
> 
> That is where they want you to stop listening. BUT! Right after she says, "... when did they land?" the guy says, "They did not land, they are down!", then the women says, "Oh, they are down". Then there was silence.
> 
> ...


No, you are confusing yourself with other facts. I had actually never heard of this woman saying "93 is down" before. I find it odd that any United employee would ask about flight 93, since it wasn't supposed to be in the air that day. 

http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Here is the popular mechanics video (airing on.....FOX, LOL)
Regardless of what you believe happened, watch the video. O Reilly should be in stand up. 

http://digg.com/videos_educational/Video_Popular_Mechanics_editor_debunks_9_11_myths


----------

