Unanswered Questions Surrounding Terrorist Attacks - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dilbert1234567 · 05-03-2006, 03:07 PM

i see the pics now, some one has mad mspaint skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'll link the pics for those who are seeing rexes:
North Tower:
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmc...htowerpath.jpg
South Tower:
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmc...htowerpath.jpg

One thing to keep in mind is the structure is not homogeneous, it is heterogeneous. The structure was based on 2 rings of supports, an inner and an outer. With the north tower, the plane went right inside, smashing through 1 or 2 of the walls of the inner structure, but with the south tower, the plane hit the corner of the inner supports, creating more structural instability than just the 2 holes. Corners give strength to the building, and by weakening this one, it brought the building down faster.

Willravel · 05-03-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

i see the pics now, some one has mad mspaint skills.

One thing to keep in mind is the structure is not homogeneous, it is heterogeneous. The structure was based on 2 rings of supports, an inner and an outer. With the north tower, the plane went right inside, smashing through 1 or 2 of the walls of the inner structure, but with the south tower, the plane hit the corner of the inner supports, creating more structural instability than just the 2 holes. Corners give strength to the building, and by weakening this one, it brought the building down faster.

So you're saying the buildings weren't homos, they were heteros. Yea, you'll have to forgive the quality. Van Gough he is not, but I think the gist gets across.

My point is that the building that would have theoritically less fuel and less centralized heat is the building that fell in only 47 minutes (South Tower), as opposed to the building that got more fuel in a more centralized location which took over 100 minutes (North Tower).

Dilbert1234567 · 05-03-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So you're saying the buildings weren't homos, they were heteros. Yea, you'll have to forgive the quality. Van Gough he is not, but I think the gist gets across.

My point is that the building that would have theoritically less fuel and less centralized heat is the building that fell in only 47 minutes (South Tower), as opposed to the building that got more fuel in a more centralized location which took over 100 minutes (North Tower).

i was just kidding about the poor quality. but what i am saying is that the plane did more damage to the main structure in the south tower then in the north tower, all the fuel did was start the fire, the fire continued to feed off the rest of the building, the fuel would not have lasted the entire time.

Code:

_________
|        |
|  ____  |
|  |   | |
|  |   | |
|  |___| |
|        |
|________|

the plane in the north tower went through one or 2 sides of the center support, but the south tower hat one of the corners hit, the corner gives more support to the building then the sides do. this is why it fell first.

Willravel · 05-03-2006, 03:49 PM

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/siteplat2.jpg

This image shows the buildings, the flight path, and the size of the core.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-03-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/siteplat2.jpg

This image shows the buildings, the flight path, and the size of the core.

403 forbidden

dksuddeth · 05-03-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Okay so you're saying it's possible for the fire to have burned at 1100 degrees F, or 533 C, and thus would have caused the steel to lose it's rigidity to the point where it was no longer able to stand. This caused a chain reaction which brought floor on top of floor and levelled the building. The problem, at least in my mind, is that when you heat a stel sturcture the heat moves out, and thus dissapates, acros the entire structure. Imagine pouring applesauce onto a plate. The applesauce doesn't just stack up, it spreads across the flat surface.

I think what you're missing here is that as that heat spreads out, it's hot enough to ignite things around it, which will then burn adding to the intensity of both the fire and the heat. The center of this rapidly spreading fire is going to burn more intensely than the outside portions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What surprises me is the fact that a fire in the North Tower, spread through 200,000 (est) tons of steel enough in 104 minutes to cause a structural collapse. In addition to this, a great deal of the fuel from each plane was instantly burned upon impact (thus the explosions in the pictures and video).

are you saying that ALL of this jet fuel flashburned and then dissipated because there was nothing left?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Leaving the North Tower alone for a bit, South Tower went down in only 47 minutes! Just so you know, the South Tower did not recieve a duirect impact, as the North Tower did. The plane that hit the South Tower hit it at an angle, and most of the fuel burst outside of the building. How did the building with the least fuel fall twice as fast?

again, wind conditions. now, i'm not versed on the details of what the weather and wind direction was that day, but I can tell you that if the wind was in the right direction, it could account for the time differences.

Poppinjay · 05-03-2006, 06:34 PM

Additionally, the south tower was right next to the north tower and suffered tangental damage from the first plane.

Willravel · 05-03-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I think what you're missing here is that as that heat spreads out, it's hot enough to ignite things around it, which will then burn adding to the intensity of both the fire and the heat. The center of this rapidly spreading fire is going to burn more intensely than the outside portions.

I am well aware that the jet fuel was not the only thing burning. I fully expect everything from carpet to desks to paper burned in the fire. What I don't expect is that structural problems in the middle of the building + heat = top floor of the building collapses first, as it did in the North Tower. I can understand the structural integrity loss argument more in the South Tower, but the North Tower, judging by the videos of it calling, obviously didn't fall because of a gaping hole. How is it possible that despite the fact that the hottest part of the building was at the level impact point, the first floor that gave was way up on top? I know that heat rises and heat travels through a steel structure, but is it really possible that the steel on the top floor gave before the steel that was on the same floor as the fire?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

are you saying that ALL of this jet fuel flashburned and then dissipated because there was nothing left?

If you read the quote from my post that you quoted, I specifically said "...a great deal of the fuel from each plane was instantly burned upon impact..." A great deal is not the same as all. A great deal is the esult of the fuel tanks being breeched, shooting tons of fuel into the air and even out the other side of the building. Much of the fuel, though no one can say how much, burned up instantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

again, wind conditions. now, i'm not versed on the details of what the weather and wind direction was that day, but I can tell you that if the wind was in the right direction, it could account for the time differences.

I'll look into wind conditions asap. I apologize for not having the information ahndy (the burden of proof is obviously on me in this thread, and I have no problem with that).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Additionally, the south tower was right next to the north tower and suffered tangental damage from the first plane.

Oh? I'm not familiar with the extent or effect of any damage that the South Tower took from the North Tower strike.

Here are the images I tried to link above:

South Tower

North Tower

Bird's Eye View of WTC, including crash directions and location and sizes of the cores.

Edit: Another huge thanks to everyone both for keeping an open mind and also for remaining not just civil but even pleasant.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-03-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

top floor of the building collapses first, as it did in the North Tower.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, I just watched the footage of the north towers collapse. The top does not collapse first, the part above the impact falls down and that resulting impact blows some of the sides out and then the rest falls down breaking the tower floor by floor. watch the footage again and take a look.

Willravel · 05-03-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, I just watched the footage of the north towers collapse. The top does not collapse first, the part above the impact falls down and that resulting impact blows some of the sides out and then the rest falls down breaking the tower floor by floor. watch the footage again and take a look.

It's the South Tower that broke in the middle. Here, I'll show you.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...tion_wave.mpeg
South Tower

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...pse%2001_a.avi
North Tower

Notice that the largest 'puff line' is coming from the top floor, not farther down. That strongly suggests it collapsed from the top floor down. This, of course, is confusing considering that the (theoritically) hottest spot in the building would be nearest to the fire, which is at the crash point. The picture suggests that the structure lost it's integrity from top to bottom, but that's just my interpretation.

docbungle · 05-03-2006, 10:45 PM

So what - exactly - Will, is the point of all these hypothesis as to what temperature jet fuel burns at and what temperature steel melts at? I wouldn't want to assume, but it seems to me as if you are implying that the video footage of airplanes flying into the world trade center are somehow not related to the actual collapse of the world trade center.

That the TWO airplanes that crashed into the building were somehow unrelated to the building's collapse.

Or are you speculating as to whether the video footage might be fabricated?

Or are you speculating as to whether all the eye-witness acounts, the missing planes and the missing people from those jets are all fabricated?

Ustwo · 05-03-2006, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's the South Tower that broke in the middle. Here, I'll show you.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...tion_wave.mpeg
South Tower

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...pse%2001_a.avi
North Tower

Notice that the largest 'puff line' is coming from the top floor, not farther down. That strongly suggests it collapsed from the top floor down. This, of course, is confusing considering that the (theoritically) hottest spot in the building would be nearest to the fire, which is at the crash point. The picture suggests that the structure lost it's integrity from top to bottom, but that's just my interpretation.

Your north tower link does not work for me, on the other hand....

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._streamers.mov (note where the magic 'puff line' is on that shot)

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._afterglow.mpg (see how the top falls as a unit to the impact floor and then the pancaking starts?)

....all do. They very clearly show the building collasping to the floor at the point of impact and then continuing from there.

(sigh)

Willravel · 05-03-2006, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

/snip

This is not a thread for speculation. If I see there is a general concensus eventually, I will make a thread for making conclusions based on the evidence. This thread is about examining the evidence. If I were to speculate to a group of people who don't believe the facts unpon which I made my speculation, then I would be wasting my time, wouldn't I?

No implications, no conclusions, no speculation. Pure examination. I don't know how I can make this more clear. This is a thread that is intended to belong in Politics, not Paranoia.

Willravel · 05-03-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Your north tower link does not work for me, on the other hand....

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._streamers.mov (note where the magic 'puff line' is on that shot)

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._afterglow.mpg (see how the top falls as a unit to the impact floor and then the pancaking starts?)

....all do. They very clearly show the building collasping to the floor at the point of impact and then continuing from there.

(sigh)

Does the picture I posted work for you? Do you see in the picture that the largest puff line, and thus the first collapse, occoured at the top floor? The videos are wonderful, but they are both too fast and also covered by debris to see for sure. The pictuer I posted is a frame from your first video. The second video you posted doesn't show the top of the building. The third video is probably the best overall of the North Tower crash, but doesn't show the detail of the first.

Sigh?

Dilbert1234567 · 05-03-2006, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's the South Tower that broke in the middle. Here, I'll show you.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...tion_wave.mpeg
South Tower

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...pse%2001_a.avi
North Tower

Notice that the largest 'puff line' is coming from the top floor, not farther down. That strongly suggests it collapsed from the top floor down. This, of course, is confusing considering that the (theoritically) hottest spot in the building would be nearest to the fire, which is at the crash point. The picture suggests that the structure lost it's integrity from top to bottom, but that's just my interpretation.

Watch the clips again, none of them show the start of the collapse. Each one is already in progress. Second, because the tower has an inner and outer part, the inner could have started the collapse a few second before the outer making the roof cave in like you said, and subsequently bring the entire building down, although I can find no graphical evidence that the roof went first.

host · 05-04-2006, 04:17 AM

Photo of both 737 CFM56 and 767 JTD9 available here:
http://bracebrace.skynetblogs.be/?da...=1&unit=months

In the following essay excerpt, respected 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman validates the "Murray St." flight 175 jet engine core photos. Ironically, his essay is intent on countering Morgan Reynolds earlier supposition that the jet engine core and other aircraft debris erode the government version of the 9/11 events and the specific airliner models that flew into WTC, Shanksville, PA, and the Pentagon. I've studied the photos, (a better resolution wrecked engine photo is available
<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html">here</a> ) done the research, and it seems that the wrecked jet engine core is a CFM56-3...the engine that
almost all post 737-200 models use....and no 767 use. See if you don't agree!

Quote:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/r...ml#f175_debris
A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds'
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman">Jim Hoffman</a>
Version 1.1, June 26, 2005

Flight 175 Crash Debris

In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower.

Reynolds does not tell us why he thinks the trajectory of Flight 175 would have caused its right engine to miss the tower. In fact, several videos show the plane completely entering the southwest face of the South Tower, from wing-tip to wing-tip.
Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html">unconvincing</a>, to put it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can testify to the contrary.

Why are these unconvincing as engine parts? One doesn't need to be a jet engine expert to see that they are the correct size to be either high-pressure turbines or compressor rotors from a 767, which have diameters of between 2.5 and 3 feet.

The photograph on the left shows a portion of Flight 175's engine at the corner of Church and Murray Streets. The idea that this assembly, which is about three feet in diameter, is too small to be from a 767 is unfounded. Boeing 767s use high-bypass turbofan engines such as General Electric CF6-80, the Pratt & Whitney PW4062, or the Rolls-Royce RB211. Such engines have a fan measuring nearly 10 feet in diameter, but their core, containing the high-pressure turbines, compressor, and combustion chamber, is about a third of that diameter.

Further contradicting the official account, the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was completely intact upon initial impact.

How does this contradict the official account of the crash of Flight 175?

I've studied the "piping" on the upper right in both photos. If you want to take a closer look, use the links below to download the highest resolution photos. Most likely, the wrecked jet engine photographed on the corner or Murray and Church St., lower Manhattan, on 9/11/2001 is a CFM56-3, commonly used in nearly all post 737-200 Boeing models. There is no chance, IMO, that this engine wreckage came from, as the official story tells us, Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222 with JTD9 P&W jet engines.
<img src="http://scandal.atspace.com/verteng.JPG"><img src="http://scandal.atspace.com/cfm56nyc.jpg" length=60 width=360>
<img src="http://scandal.atspace.com/fullvert.JPG"><img src="http://scandal.atspace.com/lptshaft.jpg">

The photos of the undamaged CFM56-3 Jet Engine came from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...-turbofan.jpeg

The Photo of the engine shaft came from:
http://www.aeromat.fr/images/photos/...3_lptshaft.jpg

From: http://www.aeromat.fr/frameset_global.htm Click on 'Products', look for photo CFM56-3 LPT Shaft

More on this jet engine:
http://www.cfm56.com/engines/cfm56-3/index.html

Here's a wrecked 767 engine, with front fan assembly still attached:
<img src="http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ca129/5.jpg">
That photo is from this page:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ca129/5.shtml

Flight 175 Boeing 767-222 Engine Specs:
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...ited+Airlines+
JT9D jet engine photo:
http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images/...9/890_JT9D.jpg

The_Jazz · 05-04-2006, 04:37 AM

Will, speaking to the question of heat disipation throughout the steel skeleton of the building, I think that you are misinformed about the speed at which heat will spread through a dense metal. Heat is going to travel along a steel beam the same way that sound travels through air or water. It's not an exact analogy, but it works for our purposes. Because of the density of the steel, the heat will take a while to travel. Yes, heating one part of a steel beam is going to cause the entire thing to heat, but if I am using an arc torch to cut one end of a beam, you should be able to stand on the other end of that beam 40' away in bare feet and not feel any appreciable change in temperature for several minutes.

I don't really like your applesauce analogy unless we contain it, like it would be in a building. As we dump applesauce into a container, it's going to spread out but we're pouring a continuous stream of applesauce into the container, so not only is the entire level of applesauce going to rise, but the entry point for the additional applesauce is going to be higher than the edges. If we're pouring applesauce onto a boundless plain, then I agree with what you're trying to say, but the real world dictates otherwise.

Ustwo · 05-04-2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Does the picture I posted work for you? Do you see in the picture that the largest puff line, and thus the first collapse, occoured at the top floor? The videos are wonderful, but they are both too fast and also covered by debris to see for sure. The pictuer I posted is a frame from your first video. The second video you posted doesn't show the top of the building. The third video is probably the best overall of the North Tower crash, but doesn't show the detail of the first.

Sigh?

Will you only see what you want to see, this I think is a type of insanity. This isn't about opinion or politics.

Rekna · 05-04-2006, 05:37 AM

I usually stay away from these types of threads because they boarder on speculation and manytimes stray into the land of tin foil hats. With that said i'm going to break my tradition and give my opinnion on this.

The government has not been completly truthfull about 9/11 but I do not believe they in any way orchistrated it. Planes did hit the buildings and cause them to colapse. What else is being proposed here? Our government somehow managed to load the building up with explosives on the supports without anyone noticing? What the government has not been truthful about is it's knowledge before, during, and after. It had enough info to probably stop the attack but ignored the warning signs because they had a "we are America and it can never happen mentality" So in some sense there was a coverup but the coverup was not of some mass conspiracy but instead of a mass blundering done at all levels of the government. In addition the administration saw 9/11 as an opportunity to push it's agenda and acted accordingly, i would not be surprised if their was a meeting within days of 9/11 that discussed how they can use 9/11 and the emotions of people to push their agenda. Anyway thats my 2 cents because it is the explaination that is the simplest and fits the evidence as I see it.

Cynthetiq · 05-04-2006, 05:59 AM

Quote:

The roof is still intact and has virtually no fire damage. Notice the computer monitor and stool that the 8600 gallons of fuel were unable to even burn. This picture was published by Time, Newsweek, and People.

I am asking you (the reader) to please refute these.

One of the survivors of the OK bombing was standing at the edge of the blast zone. From the story I recall she was standing in a conference room and the rest of the conference room vaporized in front of her leaving her and EVERYTHING else behind her untouched.

The_Jazz · 05-04-2006, 06:17 AM

All those pictures prove is the efficiency of the Pentagon's fire suppression system and the competence of the fire fighters that contained the blaze. You can see the scorch marks on the structure below. This is a picture of the shear point of the collapse, not of the entry point of the plane.

Seaver · 05-04-2006, 07:14 AM

Host that has to be THE most baseless link you've ever shown.

So lets get this straight. It can't be a 767 plane because "Such engines have a fan measuring nearly 10 feet in diameter, but their core, containing the high-pressure turbines, compressor, and combustion chamber, is about a third of that diameter."

You dont think that being thrown out of it's engine compartement, tumbling through the WTC, crashing out the other side, then falling 100 floors onto concrete would somehow damage the engine enough that non-experts could not tell exactly what engine it is?

Quote:

I've studied the "piping" on the upper right in both photos. If you want to take a closer look, use the links below to download the highest resolution photos. Most likely, the wrecked jet engine photographed on the corner or Murray and Church St., lower Manhattan, on 9/11/2001 is a CFM56-3, commonly used in nearly all post 737-200 Boeing models. There is no chance, IMO, that this engine wreckage came from, as the official story tells us, Flight 175, a Boeing 767-222 with JTD9 P&W jet engines.

You haven't studied anything. You've looked at photos. I'm sure there are tons of crash experts out there who have studied these things. I'm sorry but you claiming to study these things does not give you any legitimacy.

Willravel · 05-04-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Will you only see what you want to see, this I think is a type of insanity. This isn't about opinion or politics.

I could very well say I think the same of you, but the reason I don't is I respect you and the community enough to act civil. I won't be repsponding to your posts in this thread anymore.

Edit: Just to be clear, I have no problem with people who think I'm wrong. Most of the people in this thread think I'm wrong, and it doesn't bother me a bit. I'm glad to invesitgate and debate with people. My problem is with being labeled insane. TFP isn't here for name calling.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-04-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

respected 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman

He’s a crock researcher.

The format is a bit screwy, so read the article’s first few paragraphs at least.
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/si...n_rebuttal.htm

Quote:

Below, we present a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal of Hoffman's thesis.
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman
November 15, 2004

(Hoffman)
The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

(Rebuttal)
Mr Hoffman is correct in asserting that the idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is the most divisive issue among 9/11 researchers. The divisiveness is a deliberate ploy by CoIntelPro agents to attempt to rob genuine 9/11 truth seekers of the singularly strongest piece of evidence pointing to US government complicity in the attacks. Mr Hoffman is however incorrect in his assertion that the "no plane at the pentagon" theory is incompatible with eyewitness accounts of the event. Indeed, the fact that many of the eyewitness reports in question suggest that something akin to a missile struck the Pentagon on 9/11, and that Mr Hoffman studiously ignores them, suggests that he should be counted among the conscious agents of CoIntelPro. Hoffman continues:

(Hoffman)
Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757.

(Rebuttal)
Some researchers may indeed have ignored or dismissed the eyewitness evidence. The problem is that the reports are so conflicting that their usefulness as evidence is largely negated. That said, if we all agree that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and attempted to cover up that complicity, then those "eyewitnesses" whose testimony tends to back the official version of events become much more suspect than the testimony of eyewitnesses whose claims of having seen a "missile" or "small jet" are unlikely to be part of any disinformation campaign - unless of course one wants to suggest that some shadowy group of conspiracy theorists had foreknowledge that Arab terrorists were going to attack the Pentagon with a 757 and decided to place their operatives at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 and have them falsely testify that they saw a missile in order to unjustly implicate the US government.
Kind of far fetched...

Jim Hoffman cherry picks evidence ignores other evidence, and just makes shit up. He is not a respected researcher; he is only respected by people who believe all this conspiracy junk.

Ustwo · 05-04-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

He’s a crock researcher.

The format is a bit screwy, so read the article’s first few paragraphs at least.
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/si...n_rebuttal.htm

Jim Hoffman cherry picks evidence ignores other evidence, and just makes shit up. He is not a respected researcher; he is only respected by people who believe all this conspiracy junk.

Ummmmmm

Reading your link it seems as loony as any other. Its one wackjob group attacking another wackjob claiming that wackjob was really a government plant to hide the 'evidence' that their wackjob group has pulled out of their ass. They are saying that he is a straw man.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-04-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummmmmm

Reading your link it seems as loony as any other. Its one wackjob group attacking another wackjob claiming that wackjob was really a government plant to hide the 'evidence' that their wackjob group has pulled out of their ass. They are saying that he is a straw man.

bingo! There are loonies everywhere. All I am saying is that he is not well respected and not a credible source.

host · 05-04-2006, 10:41 AM

Jim Hoffman's argument is in opposition to the idea that there is any reason to suspect that the official descritption of the four hijacked 9/11 airliners were two 767's that crashed into the WTC towers, and two 757's, flights 77 and 93....

I posted his argument and the wrecked jet engine on Murray St., NYC photo links of the man who Jim Hoffman is challenging, Morgan Reynolds.

If I was Jim Hoffman, the most convincing way to rebut Morgan Reynold's contentions would be to dispute the authenticity of the Murray St. wrecked jet engine core photos. Jim Hoffman does not do that!

Hint: disputing the authenticity of the Murray St. photo would be the best way to weaken my argument. I don't see either Dilbert or Ustwo doing that. Before I spent time using the Murray St. photo as a starting point, I needed to increase my confidence that the photos are not fakes. So much of the 9/11 coverage that existed on the internet is now "gone". Most of the NY Times coverage is hidden behind "Times Select" premium access, for example.
FWIW there is this:

Quote:

From Google; search term: "jet engines was found at the corner of Murray"
[PDF] FEMA403 -- Chapter 2File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church. Streets. The extent to which debris scattered ...
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

The only reason that the Jim Hoffman linked quote box is in my post is to make the point that the photos are authentic. The photos are vital to my argument. I anticipated that they might be challenged as a hoax. I hope this post will prompt you to reevaluate my argument and the photo evidence and contrasts.

Seaver posted

Quote:

..........You haven't studied anything. You've looked at photos. I'm sure there are tons of crash experts out there who have studied these things. I'm sorry but you claiming to study these things does not give you any legitimacy.

Seaver, why are you angry?
To the extent that it took much time to find the photo links that I wanted to display, and hours of cropping and zooming to magnify and sharpen the images of the wrecked CFM56-3 vs. the photos of the intact one, until my eyes were bloodshot. I can defend the use of the word "studied" as an honest description.

Before "studying" the photo evidence, I only had an unfounded suspicion that the Murray St. photo showed that the wrecked jet engine core was too small to have powered a 767 airliner. Now....I am confident that what I see in the Murray St. photo, when it is rotated to an "upside down" position is nearly the entire core, compressed to about half it's pre-crash length, but approximately near to it's pre-crash width dimension. If you expand the size of the higher res photo avialble at the link that I provided, rotate it 180 degrees, and compare it to the wikipedia CFM56-3 photo, IMO, there are similar features, in the upper right areas of both photos.

Does this "prove" that the Murray St. photo shows a CFM56-3 engine core?
No.....but the study impresses me that there is almost no chance that the
Murray St. photo shows a P&W JTD9 engine core, which is what Flight 175 was known to be equipped with.

If there are "tons of experts" who support your opinion, IMO, it's reasonable to ask you to post the opinion, and some of his or her photo evidence, to counter my presentation and conclusion. You felt the need to come at me and my presentation in a strong manner....now back up what you say!

Dilbert1234567 · 05-04-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Jim Hoffman's argument is in opposition to the idea that there is any reason to suspect that the official descritption of the four hijacked 9/11 airliners were two 767's that crashed into the WTC towers, and two 757's' flights 77 and 93....

I posted his argument and the wrecked jet engine on Murray St., NYC photo links of the man who Jim Hoffman is challenging, Morgan Reynolds.

If I was Jim Hoffman, the most convincing way to rebut Morgan Reynold's contentions would be to dispute the authenticity of the Murray St. wrecked jet engine core photos. Jim Hoffman does not do that!

The only reason that the Jim Hoffman linked quote box is in my post is to make the point that the photos are authentic. The photos are vital to my argument. I anticipated that they might be challenged as a hoax. I hope this post will prompt you to reevaluate my argument and the photo evidence and contrasts.

ok then. if they are or are not a hoax is truely irelevent, there is video footage of the first and second planes, and they are both clearly 767's, either the picture is a hoax and was placed (unlikely) or it is the engin from teh 767 bashed up. the size argument holds no water, the plane was a 767, there is no question of that.

here is a great debunking of the no plane or smaller plane theory:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

Poppinjay · 05-04-2006, 12:12 PM

I think it would be a thousand fold more difficult to fake the flight manifest and info than to mistake a jet engine that has been through a large building, on fire. One would expect it to appear much different.

Now, if the engine that was found on Murray street was LARGER than it was supposed to be, you might have an argument. Otherwise, this argument is basically the same as those who claim JFK was shot by his driver due to shadows on the Zapruder film (and the apparent 40 year complacency of Jackie O, John Connelly, and the hundred watching the motorcade).

stevo · 05-04-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

here is a great debunking of the no plane or smaller plane theory:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

Thats great. Its like internet-glove, meet internet-face: SLAP!

Seaver · 05-04-2006, 01:05 PM

Ok host, lets just say you're right on the issue of it not being a 767. Not that I believe it for a second... but lets run with it.

All records show the 767 flight turning off it's IFF device. We have video evidence of a 767 striking the tower. We have the list of dead onboard the 767 (mysteriously, they're not alive anymore). We have the missing 767 plane (if it's not in the tower, where could it be?).

No other planes are reported missing. No other passengers/crew are reported missing. No other flights mysteriously disappeared (other than the 3). No other flights were logged in the beginning and not landed later on (other than the 3).

So, for your little picto-investigation to hold water...

The government planted bombs at all the important steel structures within the building.
Managed to aquire a large plane (no written records)
Taken off said plane (no written records)
Flew without being picked up on any radar system
Flown into building (with no deceased federal employee)
Flown within 10ft of the bombs being placed (and not destroying them in anyway)
Stolen a 767 (with everyone onboard)
Flown said 767 to God knows where (with no records or radar sightings)
Killed everyone onboard and get rid of the plane

All for apparently little or no reason at all.

Oh yeah... and somehow along the way make sure no one objects or goes public with the information.

What sounds more likely?

Willravel · 05-04-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Seaver, why are you angry?

I'm starting to wonder the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Host that has to be THE most baseless link you've ever shown.
...
You haven't studied anything. You've looked at photos. I'm sure there are tons of crash experts out there who have studied these things. I'm sorry but you claiming to study these things does not give you any legitimacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

This should come with a "WARNING: FAULTY MATH AT WORK"

No one here is trying to make you mad, we're just here to discuss a topic.

Ustwo · 05-04-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Ok host, lets just say you're right on the issue of it not being a 767. Not that I believe it for a second... but lets run with it.

All records show the 767 flight turning off it's IFF device. We have video evidence of a 767 striking the tower. We have the list of dead onboard the 767 (mysteriously, they're not alive anymore). We have the missing 767 plane (if it's not in the tower, where could it be?).

No other planes are reported missing. No other passengers/crew are reported missing. No other flights mysteriously disappeared (other than the 3). No other flights were logged in the beginning and not landed later on (other than the 3).

So, for your little picto-investigation to hold water...

The government planted bombs at all the important steel structures within the building.
Managed to aquire a large plane (no written records)
Taken off said plane (no written records)
Flew without being picked up on any radar system
Flown into building (with no deceased federal employee)
Flown within 10ft of the bombs being placed (and not destroying them in anyway)
Stolen a 767 (with everyone onboard)
Flown said 767 to God knows where (with no records or radar sightings)
Killed everyone onboard and get rid of the plane

All for apparently little or no reason at all.

Oh yeah... and somehow along the way make sure no one objects or goes public with the information.

What sounds more likely?

Those answers will not be apparent until you accept the rest of the argument as valid.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-04-2006, 03:54 PM

here are some more pictures of the plane debris

http://wtcdebris.0catch.com/

and here are some more good reads about debunking this nonesence

http://www.questionsquestions.net/infowar.html

docbungle · 05-04-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This is not a thread for speculation. If I see there is a general concensus eventually, I will make a thread for making conclusions based on the evidence. This thread is about examining the evidence. If I were to speculate to a group of people who don't believe the facts unpon which I made my speculation, then I would be wasting my time, wouldn't I?

No implications, no conclusions, no speculation. Pure examination. I don't know how I can make this more clear. This is a thread that is intended to belong in Politics, not Paranoia.

How is the video of the airplanes crashing into the building speculation? The video was not speculated; it was recorded. How can you simply ignore the issue of airplanes crashing into the building? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence that is actual video of the airplanes crashing into the building?

Willravel · 05-04-2006, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

How is the video of the airplanes crashing into the building speculation? The video was not speculated; it was recorded. How can you simply ignore the issue of airplanes crashing into the building? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence that is actual video of the airplanes crashing into the building?

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who said planes didn't hit the building. If I would have said "no planes hit the building" that would not just be speculation, but it would hinder the whole thread. I do not refuse to believe the video evidence, in fact I use it often in discussions not unlike this one.

Doc, the reason I wrote the post you quoted is to make clear the intent I had creating this thread: invesigation of evidence. I don't want to speculate, as there really would be no point. Why speculate based on evidence that not everyone agrees on? It would be a waste of time. I don't want to waste anyone's time.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-04-2006, 11:52 PM

I'm going to chime in here; as such all I say is my own perspective, but is deeply felt, granted my own perspective, but I expect to change no ones mind here.

I don't know where anyone found themselves on the morning of 9/11. I however know EXACTLY where I found myself. I was driving to school with my dad. I remember it as clear as yesterday.I lived in a suburb of the local metro, on this particular day we decided to take a detour. For some reason on this day, the fates decided that I was to be late for school. Class started at 8am, yet at 745(+/-) I was stuck in heavy traffic with my father; this is central time and when the first plane hit. I don't know how many people can say this but I know I can, I know exactly where I was when the first plane hit the first tower.

My first thought as the radio interrupted my "half assed morning show", this was no accident. A plane had apperantly crashed into one of the buildings of the world trade center, in fucking broad daylight in a clear morning sky. Again I vividly remember My first words to my father; This was no accident. Working within all the information provided it was the run of the mill day in Ny, a Clear Sky; this is backed up by the video footage of the initial crash. Working with the first press reports of the morning it was a brief piece; somehow a plane had hit one of the Twin Towers. Amazing.

Again I know this means dick to absolutely anyone here, but I found myself amazed. I was going to school from a far sothern subarb of my Twin Cities. After the initial moment of impact I remember my father asking me if I wanted to go to school, I said absolutely not. As such I found myself not going to school, but rather getting dropped off at my mothers house in Saint Paul. For some reason on this day my mother was running behind, a women who was a completely competent employee, never late. As I went upstairs in my mothers house I heard her calling to me, "Did you hear what happened", obviously I acknowledged her as I turned on the set in my room.

It was amazing to watch what happened over the next few hours unfold. I explicitly remember her talking to me, in the midst of brushing her teeth. This a woman who is devout catholic; accepting that I wasn't going to school, she told me to consider going to my local church to offer a few prayers. Brushing her off, I remember no sooner then her suggestion, I remember the first tower falling. This unfolded infront of me. I remember the plume of smoke that expanded upon the sky, not much later I remember yelling to her as the second tower collasped. Wow.

I can't give anyone any prove here as to what exactly happened, I just remember what happenend. I remember the initial radio feed. I remember the initial footage of Bush being told what happened. I intently watched the entire story unfold before my eyes that day.

As such this day was one of the most pivotal days in my life. It is the reason that I am currently pursuing my degree at school in Political Science. Had I not been the age of 16 I would've pursued a career directly in the military. However fate choose this was not my path.

One can throw out any theory regarding what happenened they want. The reality is that Two Planes hit two buildings of the world trade center, one hit the pentagon, and one crashed before it could do no harm.

I don't know how you want to twist it. But to me, when people such as OBL rep it, it seems most plausible to work within historical fact and context, rather then brew up some conspiracy theory. (sarcasm) Granted all jews suck and are evil, I don't know if the Moussad was able to pull this off, there is too much evidence supporting the notion of OBL, Al Qeada, and their goal to attack America.

I hope this rant makes sense. one.

ubertuber · 05-05-2006, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

How is the video of the airplanes crashing into the building speculation? The video was not speculated; it was recorded. How can you simply ignore the issue of airplanes crashing into the building? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence that is actual video of the airplanes crashing into the building?

Docbungle, I think will is trying to show us that, while planes crashed into the building, that impact and the resulting fire were not enough to account for the collapse of the buildings that followed. I'm not trying to steal his thunder, but if will can convince people that the force of impact and heat of the burning jet fuel shouldn't have caused a collapse like the one we saw, we'll have to start thinking about what other factors could have been present.

At that point, we'd be in conspiracy theory territory, but we'd have a reason to be there. I don't quite think we've gotten there - in part because we got derailed by questions over what type of plane hit the WTC. I thought the video editor that dilbert posted was pretty convincing... Personally, I'm still thinking that those planes were 767s.

Ustwo · 05-05-2006, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

At that point, we'd be in conspiracy theory territory, but we'd have a reason to be there. I don't quite think we've gotten there - in part because we got derailed by questions over what type of plane hit the WTC. I thought the video editor that dilbert posted was pretty convincing... Personally, I'm still thinking that those planes were 767s.

We've been there the whole time, if you start to think those planes were anything beyond what they most obviously were its time to seek help. 2+2 = 5 and all that.

The_Jazz · 05-05-2006, 05:54 AM

I feel like I need a shower since I actually agree with Ustwo on something.

05-03-2006, 06:34 PM	#47 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Additionally, the south tower was right next to the north tower and suffered tangental damage from the first plane. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

05-03-2006, 10:45 PM	#51 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	So what - exactly - Will, is the point of all these hypothesis as to what temperature jet fuel burns at and what temperature steel melts at? I wouldn't want to assume, but it seems to me as if you are implying that the video footage of airplanes flying into the world trade center are somehow not related to the actual collapse of the world trade center. That the TWO airplanes that crashed into the building were somehow unrelated to the building's collapse. Or are you speculating as to whether the video footage might be fabricated? Or are you speculating as to whether all the eye-witness acounts, the missing planes and the missing people from those jets are all fabricated? __________________ Bad Luck City

05-04-2006, 04:37 AM	#57 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Will, speaking to the question of heat disipation throughout the steel skeleton of the building, I think that you are misinformed about the speed at which heat will spread through a dense metal. Heat is going to travel along a steel beam the same way that sound travels through air or water. It's not an exact analogy, but it works for our purposes. Because of the density of the steel, the heat will take a while to travel. Yes, heating one part of a steel beam is going to cause the entire thing to heat, but if I am using an arc torch to cut one end of a beam, you should be able to stand on the other end of that beam 40' away in bare feet and not feel any appreciable change in temperature for several minutes. I don't really like your applesauce analogy unless we contain it, like it would be in a building. As we dump applesauce into a container, it's going to spread out but we're pouring a continuous stream of applesauce into the container, so not only is the entire level of applesauce going to rise, but the entry point for the additional applesauce is going to be higher than the edges. If we're pouring applesauce onto a boundless plain, then I agree with what you're trying to say, but the real world dictates otherwise. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-04-2006, 06:17 AM	#61 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	All those pictures prove is the efficiency of the Pentagon's fire suppression system and the competence of the fire fighters that contained the blaze. You can see the scorch marks on the structure below. This is a picture of the shear point of the collapse, not of the entry point of the plane. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-04-2006, 12:12 PM	#69 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I think it would be a thousand fold more difficult to fake the flight manifest and info than to mistake a jet engine that has been through a large building, on fire. One would expect it to appear much different. Now, if the engine that was found on Murray street was LARGER than it was supposed to be, you might have an argument. Otherwise, this argument is basically the same as those who claim JFK was shot by his driver due to shadows on the Zapruder film (and the apparent 40 year complacency of Jackie O, John Connelly, and the hundred watching the motorcade). __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet Last edited by Poppinjay; 05-04-2006 at 12:14 PM..

05-03-2006, 03:49 PM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/siteplat2.jpg This image shows the buildings, the flight path, and the size of the core.

05-04-2006, 05:37 AM	#59 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I usually stay away from these types of threads because they boarder on speculation and manytimes stray into the land of tin foil hats. With that said i'm going to break my tradition and give my opinnion on this. The government has not been completly truthfull about 9/11 but I do not believe they in any way orchistrated it. Planes did hit the buildings and cause them to colapse. What else is being proposed here? Our government somehow managed to load the building up with explosives on the supports without anyone noticing? What the government has not been truthful about is it's knowledge before, during, and after. It had enough info to probably stop the attack but ignored the warning signs because they had a "we are America and it can never happen mentality" So in some sense there was a coverup but the coverup was not of some mass conspiracy but instead of a mass blundering done at all levels of the government. In addition the administration saw 9/11 as an opportunity to push it's agenda and acted accordingly, i would not be surprised if their was a meeting within days of 9/11 that discussed how they can use 9/11 and the emotions of people to push their agenda. Anyway thats my 2 cents because it is the explaination that is the simplest and fits the evidence as I see it.

05-04-2006, 01:05 PM	#71 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Ok host, lets just say you're right on the issue of it not being a 767. Not that I believe it for a second... but lets run with it. All records show the 767 flight turning off it's IFF device. We have video evidence of a 767 striking the tower. We have the list of dead onboard the 767 (mysteriously, they're not alive anymore). We have the missing 767 plane (if it's not in the tower, where could it be?). No other planes are reported missing. No other passengers/crew are reported missing. No other flights mysteriously disappeared (other than the 3). No other flights were logged in the beginning and not landed later on (other than the 3). So, for your little picto-investigation to hold water... The government planted bombs at all the important steel structures within the building. Managed to aquire a large plane (no written records) Taken off said plane (no written records) Flew without being picked up on any radar system Flown into building (with no deceased federal employee) Flown within 10ft of the bombs being placed (and not destroying them in anyway) Stolen a 767 (with everyone onboard) Flown said 767 to God knows where (with no records or radar sightings) Killed everyone onboard and get rid of the plane All for apparently little or no reason at all. Oh yeah... and somehow along the way make sure no one objects or goes public with the information. What sounds more likely?

05-04-2006, 03:54 PM	#74 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	here are some more pictures of the plane debris http://wtcdebris.0catch.com/ and here are some more good reads about debunking this nonesence http://www.questionsquestions.net/infowar.html __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

05-04-2006, 11:52 PM	#77 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm going to chime in here; as such all I say is my own perspective, but is deeply felt, granted my own perspective, but I expect to change no ones mind here. I don't know where anyone found themselves on the morning of 9/11. I however know EXACTLY where I found myself. I was driving to school with my dad. I remember it as clear as yesterday.I lived in a suburb of the local metro, on this particular day we decided to take a detour. For some reason on this day, the fates decided that I was to be late for school. Class started at 8am, yet at 745(+/-) I was stuck in heavy traffic with my father; this is central time and when the first plane hit. I don't know how many people can say this but I know I can, I know exactly where I was when the first plane hit the first tower. My first thought as the radio interrupted my "half assed morning show", this was no accident. A plane had apperantly crashed into one of the buildings of the world trade center, in fucking broad daylight in a clear morning sky. Again I vividly remember My first words to my father; This was no accident. Working within all the information provided it was the run of the mill day in Ny, a Clear Sky; this is backed up by the video footage of the initial crash. Working with the first press reports of the morning it was a brief piece; somehow a plane had hit one of the Twin Towers. Amazing. Again I know this means dick to absolutely anyone here, but I found myself amazed. I was going to school from a far sothern subarb of my Twin Cities. After the initial moment of impact I remember my father asking me if I wanted to go to school, I said absolutely not. As such I found myself not going to school, but rather getting dropped off at my mothers house in Saint Paul. For some reason on this day my mother was running behind, a women who was a completely competent employee, never late. As I went upstairs in my mothers house I heard her calling to me, "Did you hear what happened", obviously I acknowledged her as I turned on the set in my room. It was amazing to watch what happened over the next few hours unfold. I explicitly remember her talking to me, in the midst of brushing her teeth. This a woman who is devout catholic; accepting that I wasn't going to school, she told me to consider going to my local church to offer a few prayers. Brushing her off, I remember no sooner then her suggestion, I remember the first tower falling. This unfolded infront of me. I remember the plume of smoke that expanded upon the sky, not much later I remember yelling to her as the second tower collasped. Wow. I can't give anyone any prove here as to what exactly happened, I just remember what happenend. I remember the initial radio feed. I remember the initial footage of Bush being told what happened. I intently watched the entire story unfold before my eyes that day. As such this day was one of the most pivotal days in my life. It is the reason that I am currently pursuing my degree at school in Political Science. Had I not been the age of 16 I would've pursued a career directly in the military. However fate choose this was not my path. One can throw out any theory regarding what happenened they want. The reality is that Two Planes hit two buildings of the world trade center, one hit the pentagon, and one crashed before it could do no harm. I don't know how you want to twist it. But to me, when people such as OBL rep it, it seems most plausible to work within historical fact and context, rather then brew up some conspiracy theory. (sarcasm) Granted all jews suck and are evil, I don't know if the Moussad was able to pull this off, there is too much evidence supporting the notion of OBL, Al Qeada, and their goal to attack America. I hope this rant makes sense. one. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-05-2006, 05:54 AM	#80 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I feel like I need a shower since I actually agree with Ustwo on something. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo