what happened on 911
 

I know it is a link, but not for nonsense

http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm


they charge for a copy rather than post on the net - would like to see to make up my on mind but not paying for it :confused:

One note. I believe this group is a Christian organization. Check out the other publications and things available and look at the list of collarboratives. There are several religious books, books with reference to the Bible, and Pastors who were involved in this group.

I'm not saying anything one way or another. Just knowing where the group is coming from and what could be the motivations behind this helps confirm or question the validity of the "evidence" shown in this video. I personally am curious about it. But like you said I'm not paying to see it.

*whistles innocently*

It has been spotted online in certain P2P networks.


*walks away whistling innocently*

Sounds interesting.

Not worth buying but maybe I'll search around on some of thoes P2P things. :D

On a similar bent, I recall when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, the first day they kept talking about there being two explosions. I seem to remember seeing a printout from an earthquake monitoring site showing two distinct explosions. A couple days later, no more words about it. Or am I just paranoid?

This sounds more like conspiracy theories than anything else...

For those who don't want to click:

Cheers Latch

Do not let the face put you off - honest aas the day is long Gov

yeh yeh consolidation of the conspiracy theory.

Okay...

Now, if these people want the truth out there so freakin' bad, why are they charging for it?

media=money....(consumer money)....every1"s a consuma rite?

Assuming what they say is true, then you have to wonder; if a government can secretly dispose of all the passengers on three commercial airliners, why would they allow a couple of two-bit film makers to go this far?

Here is the video showing the flash of light right before the second plane hits the tower. I believed and still do that the Bush administration was responsible for this from day one. I have found plenty of very interesting sites regarding the matter. If I find, I will post.

EDIT: Shit, link not working, I will try to find another.

actually i was trying to fix your link....

here's what I found in your html mess ;)

http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/index2.htm

LOL, thanks, you caught it before I deleted it. What the hell was I doing wrong, I hate this new layout, very confusing for me ;).

Just watched it, and I say it's fairly convincing and appears logical. They spend most of the 52 min part (which is all I've seen) dissecting the Pentagon crash and it shows some very interesting things about the building and shows the hole that was made before the roof collapses and it's pretty damn small.


all this aside, what always bugged me about the towers falling is was too damn precise to be from the planes alone. you even see the signature buckling that is indicative of demolition charges going off. I do believe those planes weren't the main reason those towers fell...I can't see how in hell they could fall perfectly, as in a demolition, from a sideways hit from an aircraft. That is what never added up for me.

I really wish people would be more open-minded to this video. Unfortunately the American people are blind and refuse to believe anything other than "Bin Laden and all middle-easterns should be nuked" mentality. Its really unfortunate that they fail to see anything negative about their country, no matter how apparent the truth might be. Its even more unfortunate that 9/11 has influenced the world so greatly in such a negative way, that it even causes more death and hate, rather than unity and peace.

Well, I looked at everything on that webfairy site, and I can't say I'm convinced that it was a conspiracy. But you choose to believe what you want.

That site is nothing I expect to convince anyone. There are far more extensive sites with plenty more evidence of false play. If I get a chance I will look them up and post them for you, unless of course you decided to shut it down and not believe it no matter what.

I like to wander into conspiracy-ville too, but think about it... if the plane was "switched", what happened to the passengers on the real plane? Just take them out and shoot them? Organ donors possibly? C'mon...

I did hear an interesting story recently regarding the Oklahoma City bombing that was brought about by an Oklahoma City reporter. She claims to have found a connection between McVey and an Iraqi soldier, who interestingly ended up working at Newark on 9/11, in food service. She claims the FBI wants nothing to do with her and refuses to validate her info.

I wouldn’t doubt it.

they why bother with the Exec Producer of Frasier and the Congress person who said "Let's Roll."

They could have all just been anonymous nobodys.

For the same reason that Bob Lazar was allowed to speak of his exploits in Area-51 and Area-S4.

They can't just knock off people. Somewhere, someone knows that this video was being made. If they suddenly just disappeared, then everyone would know they were on to something. Its simple logic.

http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf

picked it up on another forum, its a flash, but shows some info about the pentagon crash, makes you think if nothing else.

^ Indeed.

I find it hard to believe no parts were found, no huge fire, and no pilot could fly 2 feet above the ground at 530 mph for that long. Especially not some terrorist with very little real training.

New thread to avoid threadjacking: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...71#post1382871

heh interestin'

Check out this threads 'sister' thread, the Mystery of the Dissapearing 757. I addressed most of the questions about the pentagon there. Kinda surprised the threads haven't been combined yet.

I challenge someone to explain what happened on 9/11 in pertaining to the points below. Any information would be appreciated. I think you'll be surprised.
-Building 7 information (why it colapsed, esp in on itself [took 6.5 seconds to colapse])
-blueprints for the twin towers are not available
-the team who investigated the colapse were not allowed access to the crime scene.
-rapidly recycled steel from the largest engineering failure in world history before the investigation could look at it
-south tower building falling first, despite being hit second
-firefighters were ordered to ignore building 7, despite already having a plan to put out a relitivly small fire
-twin towers falling into dust before hitting the ground (growing at 50 ft. per second)
-melting point of steel is twice what fuel could have produced
-structural (column) failure; ALL columns had to be 800 degrees in order for the theory to even be possible

Floor colapse was impossible due to any plane crash. It's time for people to know.

@WillRavel:

You need to watch one of several History Channel / TLC / PBS documentaries to answer many of your questions.

One that I can answer for you is your question as to why the south tower fell 1st. It fell first because it was hit lower. There was more weight above the point of failure (the floors which had burned). This meant that fewer beams had to fail before it reached a critical point and the entire structure failed.

Where did you get your 50 ft/sec # on the rate of the dust ?

Where was building 7 supposed to collapse if not on itself ? I mean the twin towers are fairly close and the south tower went down straight pretty much. The north tower didn't go down because the south did.

How do you know what the temperature of the fuel fire was ? There were other burnable items in the building, furniture/carpets.

Check out this site, it goes into depth about building 7 and the other things mentioned. Just poke around a bit and you should find alot of intresting reading

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

I've been glued to the HC/TLC/PBS since they started brining forward reports and specials about the subject. These is a lot of intersting speculation on these specials, and I'd reccoment to anyone to watch them.

Oh. Okay. Ty.

Calculations done by an independant research team. I'll get into that later.

No one really seems to know about building 7. It's actually a pretty big deal, despite the fact that no major news network has covered it.

Building 7 colapsed. Let's start here. According to every source available, fire colapsed this building. Chapter 5 of FEMA's World Trade Center Performance Study is what I used as the primary source of the information on what officiall happened. This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

The evidence does not support the idea that Building 7 was damaged by fallout from the tower collapses, nor that there were diesel fuel tank explosions. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

(Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxesthe imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320 degrees F.) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in highrise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

Moving on th the rubble...Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.

That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangers. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.

Unintended structural failures are less common in steel frame highrises than in aircraft. Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7's remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis.

Building 7's rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.

There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study.

No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse.
The pile was so well confined to the building's footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.

Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metals vendors and most was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked 'save' were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA's BPAT volunteers.

This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims' family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation:
"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the the New York Times as saying:
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling."

Officials running the "cleanup operation" took pains to make sure the structural steel didn't end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.

So now we're all wondering about FEMA...The only government entity that purported to examine the collapse of Building 7 was the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) composed of volunteer engineers selected and supervised by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

In May of 2002, BPAT published their World Trade Center Building Performance Study. Chapter 5 of the report is devoted to Building 7. The report makes unsubstantiated claims and uses a variety of deceptive techniques to make the total collapse of Building 7 due to fires seem less implausible than it is. A copy of Chapter 5 marked up by an anonymous author exposes many of these deceptions. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

None of which (furnature, carpets, paper, AIRPLANE FUEL) had the ability to create the heat necessary to melt the steel frame to the extent that the building would colapse, let alone colapse straight down.

BTW, constructive critisism is appreciated. I would love to hear a plausable explaination for all of this. I love my country and would like to continue trusting it on matters this important in the future. For now, I'll be playing the part of devils advocate in this case in order to keep the conversation on track. Thanks to everyone who participates with an open mind and good ideas.
Please, no 'you're stupid' carp, this is about getting to the bottom of a question. After all, we are on the Paranoid Board.

Airplane fuel burns at about 900 degrees F. To make I-Beams become soft enough to start to lose their shape requires a minimum of 2800 degrees F. Simple physics, no airplane fuel fireball - not even augmented by carpets and wood - could've melted those I-beams and caused the collapse.

If memory serves me right (from a History channel/TLC show on the subject), the I-beams have such a high melting point because they were/are insulated. During the crash, the isulation was blown off/sheered off the beams on the levels where the plane impacted the tower. The design of the twin towers was such that all the support for the structure was/were the outside beams that went vertically along the side of the building. This allowed for the central core (stairs/elevators/piping) to be minimal since there was no need to have any real structural support there.

When the plane plowed into the building it immediately blew out the support on one side (the side it entered from). The floors were all spot welded I think to the exterior columns. It was these welds/joints that failed. And as they failed one by one they dropped to the level below (as they were still firm on the other side that was attached to the core. Anyhow, as long as the fire raged, enough beams were weakened to allow movement (thats ALOT of weight now being supported by softening metal) and when failure started it was unstoppable.

The only way to have kept the towers from falling were to have the sprinkler systems active which was impossible because the central core had been damaged and all pipes/elevators/stairways at and above the level of impact were either broken or severly damaged.

I really wish I could remember the name of the show that I saw. It was extremely thourgh in its analysis of what caused the towers to collapse.

I hope that in some way helps. If I can find anything more (name of the show and or the channel it was on) I will be back to post more.

Hehe, back again, I found the show...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

It was NOVA on PBS, and the name of the show was Why the Towers Fell

True the insulation was removed. When the insulation is intact, the melting point of the I-beams of building like the twin towers has ben tested to only be a few hundred degrees F higher. Unfortunatally, the aloly steel that the I-beams were made of, according to sources BEFORE 9/11, has a melting point of 1370 degrees C (2500 degrees F), without insulation. This far exceedes the ability of an airliner fuel fire, which even with other combustable and or burnable items in the twin towers, maxes out at about 1000 degrees F. There are no plausable variables which could have existed in the twin towers that could have more than doubled the heat of this fire.

Thank you, M_G. The more people who question this, the more possibility that I will be wrong and our trust will be restored in our government.

Well, I suppose I could throw something in here...

At the time of the attacks, I believe a Mr. Silverstein was the leaseholder on the Word Trade Center. He did an interview shortly afterward with a Public Service station - that aired only once. Basically, when he was talking about Building 7, he said that a firefighter had called him up and said that the damage was too extensive. Mr Silverstein, having no other choice, said to go ahead and "pull" it.

For those of you that don't know, "Pull" is a common term used to descibed detonating the charges in controlled building collapses.

Pretty interesting, in my opinion - so much of what happened on 9/11 is so very questionable...

Another factor that doesn't quite add up - there was a shot that was broadcast live on CNN - again, only once. Basically, what it showed was both of the trade centers still standing tall, after both had been hit. On the bottom of the screen, however, there is a giant, approximately 50 story tall plume of smoke/dust. Keep in mind, however, that the collapse had not occured yet, and as far as public knowledge goes, there never was any explosives or anything that could have caused that cloud to occur at all, much less be so enourmous.

In a very respectable magazine, "People" I believe, they interviewed some of the firefighters. I wish I could quote it, but basically it states somthing along the lines of "... as the bomb went off...."

There were many, many reports of explosions occuring in the towers. Admittedly, though, there was a lot of confusion and I am sure that many people aren't really experienced to really identify the sounds, but I would imagine that the firefighters would at least be fairly reliable in this case...

One other thing I'll delve into, but I am not really sure as to the reliability of the information, as it depends on eyewitness accounts... Basically, the first plane was descrived as a having a blue marking on it - and no windows. It was not ever really even considered to be commercial, until we were informed otherwise.

I have not been able to find this particular interview online at all, but I remember, for certain, right after the pennsylvania crash there was an interview with a lady - and she also said that the plane that she saw was not a commercial airliner. I believe that she even went as far to say that they looked like fighter jets...? If anyone could point me in the direction of this interview, I would be much appreciated.

I think the ultimate end of this conversation, after reviewing all the facts, is to find out why this was orchestrated. There was a specific reason as to why the twin towers and building 7 were demolished. This is a specific reason that something (other than the 757) crashed into the Pentagon. There is a reason we jumped on Osama Bin Ladden.
What did these things manage to do, or what were they intended to do>?
-Why the fake attacks:
1. They were meant to strike a clear and present fear in the American people, among others.
2. They were meant to give a reason for tighter control over 'security' by those who are most likely guilty for the lies and attacks.
3. They were meant to bring about sympathy from our allies, drawing them closer to us so that they would support us.
-Why the sudden blaming of Osama Bin Ladden:
1. They thought that there could be a sudden hatred of all things Middle East. With everyones hatred going that way, doing terrible things over there would seem justified.
2. He was once a good friend of America and the Bush family. He turned.
3. He would have been a likely leader of an attack on the US, as was being said by political commentators.
-Why the war on Iraq?
1. Direct control over the second largest oil source in the world. If you look at American troop deployment over the world, you will notice that we control most of the worlds natural resources. The American Empire needed Iraq's oil, and to have Iraq as a staging area for the attack on Saudi Arabia and Iran.
2. George Bush was almost assasinated because of Saddam Hussain, once a close family friend of the Bushs.

Of course this is all IMO.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...1_02_lucy.html

alot of answers to why and who benifited from 9/11 attacks.