Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

911: Professional experts says it was staged


  • Please log in to reply
509 replies to this topic

#46    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:33 AM

View Postel midgetron, on 12 September 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:

I am uncertain if I agree with that assessment. The "tail section" looks to me like it is likely the result of video distortion. If you notice the spot where the "tail" appears, there is an object there before and after, probably the distant tree tine. The distortion occurs at the same instance that what I assume is a trail of smoke appears underneath. I suspect the distortion is a result of the difference between light and dark illumination, triggered by the bright "smoke" below. If you notice just to the right of the highlighted area there is another distant object which seems to display a similar distortion effect, resulting in another sharp vertical edge. The same vertical edge can been seen extending downward into the smoke trail (if you draw a straight line down the back of the tail to the ground).

Also, the tail section of AA flight 77 should have been mostly white (more the like the color of the smoke trail), yet the "tail" in question is dark and is more consistent with the background treeline.


The sharp vertical edge seen above is the result of distortion (even if it was flight 77) as the tail section of a Boeing 757 is slanted in the rear.
It is certainly low quality footage - poor show for a building backed by the world’s largest defense budget!

There are two sets of footage in the video.

If we look at the first close-up, the same plane shaped object can also be seen: -

Posted Image

There is no plane in the left frame, there is a plane in the right frame.

It helps to flick back and forward between these two frames at 0:18 - 0:19 in the video to see what appears.

The plane fuselage is visible, the same tail section can be seen (though lower in the treeline in this footage), along with the smoke which originates from the wing area.

Regarding colour of the plane - the Pentagon facade is a light colour also but appears dark in the video.

Regarding slant of the tail - remember the plane is not coming in at a right-angle to the building but at approximately 50o which would reduce the slant visible.

I have also seen analysis of this footage concerning location of the object and distance from the camera - conclusion, the plane is of correct size and dimensions to match a 757.

Then consider the downed light poles on approach, requiring a 757 equivalent wingspan to impact… the debris matching that of a 757 at the site (there’s more than appears at first glance)… the 100+ eyewitnesses, many of whom saw the final approach and even impact…  consider that those who carried out 9/11 had already shown they can use Boeing aircraft to impact buildings…

I say this as someone who knows the official 9/11 story to be incorrect and previously doubted the Pentagon impact - a missile, explosives, small aircraft or flyover does not fit the evidence in any way, shape or form.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#47    arglebargle

arglebargle

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,515 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2011 - 10:13 AM

I saw the 'evidence' put forth by these 1500 'experts' and I found it highly unconvincing. Like the white hot metal, which they just assumed was steel, without actually bothering to check. Other metals can get white hot at much lower temperatures, and the cameras white balance could have been off, so it's not a very good basis for drawing conclusions.

The 'explosions' that pop out the side of the building as it falls every now and then is explained as being cutter charges, but to me it seems infinitely more probable that they're due to air being compressed as the tower collapses and pushes vast amounts of air down under it, until the pressure becomes powerful enough to escape through the side, only to start building up again almost immediately, causing explosions with regular intervals.

It's a long presentation, but those two points were ones I made particular note of, and over all I was not impressed with their conclusions.


#48    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:03 PM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 10 September 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

I guess all it took was a few guys with box cutters to bring down three builings all in the same fashion in NY. Crash a plane in PV and slam one into the pentagon. Ya 17 guys with box cutters did this.

edit: 19

The planes helped a little bit.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#49    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,560 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:03 PM

View PostRanyhyn, on 12 September 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

I saw the 'evidence' put forth by these 1500 'experts' and I found it highly unconvincing. Like the white hot metal, which they just assumed was steel, without actually bothering to check. Other metals can get white hot at much lower temperatures, and the cameras white balance could have been off, so it's not a very good basis for drawing conclusions.
Eyewitnesses at GZ claim it was steel and there are no other eyewitness references to other molten metals such as aluminium or lead.

How do you propose they check it? And if you doubt it was steel as claimed, then what metal do you claim it is?

View PostRanyhyn, on 12 September 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

The 'explosions' that pop out the side of the building as it falls every now and then is explained as being cutter charges, but to me it seems infinitely more probable that they're due to air being compressed as the tower collapses and pushes vast amounts of air down under it, until the pressure becomes powerful enough to escape through the side, only to start building up again almost immediately, causing explosions with regular intervals.
The problem is if it was air being compressed as I see it with my layman eyes, is that one of the expulsions happens more than 40 floors below the collapse zone and some of the expulsions travel upward.

If it was a build up of air being compressed, then I can't see how see these expulsions would happen in this way.

View PostRanyhyn, on 12 September 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

It's a long presentation, but those two points were ones I made particular note of, and over all I was not impressed with their conclusions.
Well I would suggest the conclusions that it was molten steel is much more credible than it being any other metal.

And as for it being air compressed, I don't but the argument because the ones which happen many floors below the collapse zone do not continue with the expulsions as it continues to collapse. The expulsions happen in a burst, if it was air, then the expulsion would continue throwing out all kinds of office debris as it collapsed.

I think if it was compressed air, the expulsions would be more uniformed and wouldn't be in bursts.

Edited by Stundie, 12 September 2011 - 12:05 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#50    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,560 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:04 PM

View PostRafterman, on 12 September 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

The planes helped a little bit.
What? Even with WTC7?

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#51    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:06 PM

View Postpsychoticmike, on 10 September 2011 - 11:05 PM, said:

ok, thanks for the video. I just think that there would have been better footage, i mean they can slow down a bullet on video and see it quite clearly so why not this? theres just so many inconsistencies in the whole story.

You do realize those are controlled tests in laboratory conditions using highly specialized equipment.

Not really the type of video gear you'd have up to cover a parking lot.  Also remember that this was before widespread use of high definition cameras - most video surveillance cameras aren't even high definition now.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#52    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:07 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 September 2011 - 11:51 PM, said:

I disagree that chemical explosives were planted in the buildings. First of all, who in their right mind is going to carry thousands of pounds of explosives and thousands of feet of detonation cables hundreds of feet up those stairs without being noticed?

I don't know exactly how many pounds would have been required, but from what I understand, a lot less would have been needed if it was nanothermite. I even believe that atleast some of it could have been painted on as "fireproofing". Interestingly enough, there just happened to be some upgraded fireproofing on the affected floors of the Twin Towers shortly before 9/11. There was also the fact that there were renovations going on in the Twin Tower elevators. Elavator shafts would have been ideal for planting explosives as they are essentially at the core of the building. If you're really interested in learning more on how it could have been done, you may be interested in this link:
Demolition Access to the WTC Towers (four parts)

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 September 2011 - 11:51 PM, said:

Listening to the CNN newscast, the first building started to buckle seconds before the collapse. There was no chemical explosion. The second building began to buckle and shake, and secords later, it collapsed and still, no chemical explosion.

Thermite (as opposed to nanothermite) doesn't explode; it can, however, melt through steel, which would certainly collapse anything it was holding. From what I've learned, the initiation of the collapses was probably initiated by something of this nature. Afterwards, they could claim the 'pancake theory' (which even NIST no longer supports) to explain the rest.

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 September 2011 - 11:51 PM, said:

The supporting structures of both buildings were seriously damaged by both aircraft,

I've seen no hard evidence that this was actually the case. In the words of the construction manager of the Twin Towers, Frank D. Martini:

Quote

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Source:

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Source: http://community.sea...27&slug=1687698

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 September 2011 - 11:51 PM, said:

so at that point  the upper levels were being supported by weakened beams damaged by the aircraft, which were now being weakened further by the heat of the fires to it was just a matter of time before the buildings would collapse.

Skyeagle, are you an engineer or an architect? Because there are 1,500 architects and engineers who are -not- happy with the results from the official explanation of 9/11, and many of them have gone into great technical detail as to why. Have you ever seen any of AE911truth's videos? It's never too late:
http://www.ae911trut...n/evidence.html


#53    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:33 PM

View PostRafterman, on 12 September 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

You do realize those are controlled tests in laboratory conditions using highly specialized equipment.

Not really the type of video gear you'd have up to cover a parking lot.  Also remember that this was before widespread use of high definition cameras - most video surveillance cameras aren't even high definition now.

I've responded to your post in a thread dedicated to the 9/11 Pentagon Attack.


#54    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:58 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 September 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

What? Even with WTC7?

Well sort of if you want to consider that the planes helped bring down the 100+ story building that pretty much ripped the heart out of WTC7 when it fell.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#55    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:02 PM

Just FYI while we're looking at these "experts" - the American Institute of Architects boasts a membership of nearly 85,000 licensed architects.  Now also keep in mind that at least that same amount if not more are not licensed and members of AIA.

So conservative estimate here, but let's say there are 130,000 architects in the United States alone and probably 4-5 times that many engineers in the US.  Now let's also add the rest of the world to those numbers....

Why exactly would I be concerned about what 1,500 architects and engineers say about this?

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#56    portraitartist

portraitartist

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Ozarks

  • "I am in a lovers quarrell with the world" Robert Frost

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:28 PM

Well, I can't prove it wasn't a conspiracy.. But can you guys prove it was? I mean bring forth the person or persons willing to take responsibility and even a shred of objective not subjective proof and I will consider it. But really, who wants to kill 3,000 people, plunge the U.S. and world into debt/economic crisis and kill another 6,000 U.S. soldiers, hundreds of allied soldiers, countless innocent civilians..etc. for what? Really? I am from the "Show Me" state. Show me something I can touch, feel, see, hear, something real. Not just a "theory". I have a lot of theories about a lot of things, but they don't make me proof positive without tangible evidence.


#57    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 05:43 PM

View PostRafterman, on 12 September 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

Well sort of if you want to consider that the planes helped bring down the 100+ story building that pretty much ripped the heart out of WTC7 when it fell.

I think you missed this post from Q24:

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

They would  say the precise mechanism of failure does not need to be known to  determine the building was in danger of collapse.  I would say, without  knowing this "extraordinary" potential mechanism existed within the  building, there would be no reason to believe collapse could occur at  all.

There was simply nothing to observe that would have given  any great confidence WTC7 was to collapse… and yet, there was all that  confidence apparent on scene, not only of collapse, but the fact it was  going to be global along with the timing.

It's madness to  defend.  It was a blatant demolition.  If I followed the official  narrative I'd give up on WTC7, accept the demolition and attempt to  incorporate it into the story - "they did it for safety reasons" or  something.  Although that opens up a whole can of worms, so I guess they  cannot.



Take your pick: -

  • "Other  than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC  1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

  • "Even  without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires  having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11,  2001."

  • "Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7."

  • "The  third simulation was the same as the first, except that no debris  impact damage was included.  The purpose of this analysis was to  determine the contribution of debris impact to the WTC 7 global collapse  sequence and whether WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the  effects of the fire.

    The third LS-DYNA analysis demonstrated  that the fire-induced damage led to the collapse of WTC 7, even without  any structural damage from the debris impact."

  • "WTC 7  was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris  impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between  Floors 11 and 13 was removed."

  • "Even without the initial  structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1,  WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as  those experienced on September 11, 2001."

  • "The  initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was  not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7  due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1."

The debris damage to WTC7 was neither here nor there to the collapse.



Nothing is ironclad where human interpretation is involved.   :mellow:

Anyhow…

The  fact NIST admit their own collapse theory would be "the first known  instance" and "an extraordinary event", taking them seven years to come  up with and relying on the idea the building was, unlike all comparable  examples, "not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse"…  would all suggest the witnessed collapse was unpredictable.

http://www.nist.gov/...c_qa_082108.cfm





Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 05:53 PM.


#58    zenfahr

zenfahr

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Center of my universe.... which is located in a bunker in New Mexico.

  • "The Eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the Crow"
    -Nobody

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:00 PM

View PostRafterman, on 12 September 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

Just FYI while we're looking at these "experts" - the American Institute of Architects boasts a membership of nearly 85,000 licensed architects.  Now also keep in mind that at least that same amount if not more are not licensed and members of AIA.

So conservative estimate here, but let's say there are 130,000 architects in the United States alone and probably 4-5 times that many engineers in the US.  Now let's also add the rest of the world to those numbers....

Why exactly would I be concerned about what 1,500 architects and engineers say about this?
is it a numbers game?  I like the statement made before.... where are the 1500+ experts who actually aggree with the findings.

.....Im NOT here.....


My Art Gallery


#59    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:03 PM

There can be no question whatsoever that we are not given the TRUTH about the details and who orchestrated the 9-11 attack. I think there were many Americans involved with it's planning and it's implementation. I suspect some of them were working in official capacity in the US government.

Look at actions of our government, the results of over-=reaction to 9-11.

We have Check-point Charlies (If you don't know what that is, google it!) in every major US airport, with those untested xray machines poised to kill those people that man them.

Our government lies to us every single day, without compunction. Nothing they say can be considered truth these days.

And look at this, this desecration of the US BILL OF RIGHTS!!:

FBI broke law for years in phone record searches
By John Solomon and Carrie Johnson
Special to The Washington Post and Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 19, 2010; A01
http://www.washingto...1803982_pf.html

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.

A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#60    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 12 September 2011 - 07:06 PM

Where were the US Armed Forces on 9-11? They let us down! They didn't protect this country that day. They didn't protect the US Bill of Rights or the US Constitution, when it got pooped upon via the Patriot Act (which was signed by our Congressmen before it was even written!!!).

Question Authority at all turns until this country gets back it's freedoms and it's Constitution, all of which have been stolen by our own government.

Edited by regeneratia, 12 September 2011 - 07:18 PM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users